Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Since the Thor franchise kicked off in 2011, its films have been a huge let down for fans of the “God of Thunder” and Marvel films in general. Audiences now have a third film to see Chris Hemsworth in action as the eponymous character the film is based on. I was never a huge fan of this film franchise, but I’m glad that the series has redeemed itself with this installment.

Throughout the series, the films have been more serious and overly dramatic while offering little comedic efforts. This film manages to pull off all elements in spectacular fashion. Not only did the action draw me into this film, but it’s improvised humor and dialogue was absolutely astonishing. I was laughing during the entire film. It’s that hilarious.

Director Taika Waititi does an awesome job crafting the film while showcasing all its genuine glory.  You can see it play out on screen. The comedic elements in this film made it not only more memorable than other Marvel films,  but this film is the funniest of all prior Marvel films up to this point.

Not only does the film succeed on hilarity, but its action creates memorable parts to the film as well. The action is everywhere and colorful; it’s a job well done. This film’s cast brings action and comedy to new heights. I won’t give anything away, but Hulk stands out as the major comedic relief here. And it’s utterly fantastic.

An 80’s video game, Esq Score by Mark Mothersbaugh, is also an important part of the success of the film. It electrifies every scene that shines on the screen. This score is a wonderful combination of the scenes in the film, hilarious or not. This film also features a popular Led Zeppelin song that acts in place of the score for some action sequences. 

Bravo Marvel! The studio and the film’s director made a film that has everything a fan of superhero movies could ever want. It’s so satisfying because of everything this film has. Making it my favorite film unearthed from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Photo courtesy of Marvel Studios 

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

It was basically the "Terminator", but focuses more so on the sci-fi parts rather than the characters. Don't get me wrong, it was a good film, just not spectacular in anyway. This film sequel to the 1982 predecessor, may entertain fans of the prior film, and those who have a hankering for sci-fi films. "Blade Runner" is based on Philip K. Dicks groundbreaking novel. It's not extraordinary,  it's just meh.

In 2049, I'll be 49. And I have no doubt the world I live in today will be completely different when that year comes. Like the Arnold Schwarzenegger hit, this film has robots disguised as humans. They are known as "replicants". But unlike the famed Schwarzenegger films, this film lacks heavily on depth, character evolvement and story development.

Arrival director  Denis Villeneuve helms the long awaited sequel to the 1982 film. He achieves the ultimate goal of entertaining audiences, but something's missing. Other sci-fi films, like "Arrival", succeed in the areas this film failed to.

Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford walk into a bar... You better expect some saloon type showdown. I feel sorry for the person wanting to pick a fight with either of two. Oh wait! No, I'm not. Ye who casts the first stone gets what is coming for em.

The two pair up and it's not as exciting as advertised. Shame! Ford's character is old and senile. Gosling on the other hand, is just as miserable as Ford's guy. So, minus ten more points for Gryffindor! Wait, this isn't Harry Potter.  It's still doesn't provide quality acting even for small moments like: laughs and emotion. Ugh! NEXT!

Quite possibly the best part of this movie-(aside from action goes) is the yet again brilliant Hans Zimmer crafting (at the last minute. Original composer Johann Johannsson left the project) an eerie, futuristic kind of sound. It's one of Zimmer's more achievable scores than we've heard recently.

For a runtime of two and a half hours, you'd think I'd be in for a treat. But, since my expectations were too much to handle for this film, I'd say this is like a few other 2017 film flops. There are better films in this genre anyway.

Rate: C- 

Director: Denis Villeneuve 

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Robin Wright, Jared Leto

MPAA Rating: R-(for violence, some sexuality, nudity and language)

Photo Courtesy of Warner Bros 

Synopsis: 
Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

Runtime: 2 Hours and 44 Minutes

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

British charm meets the American psycho. It is no doubt that the predecessor of the “Golden Circle” was wacky and chaotic beyond belief. But, the sequel to 2014’s “ Kingsman: The Secret Service” may be more wild than before. What this sequel has the opportunity to do is provide even more demented action and crass language and humor than in the first film. And man does it succeed.

In this film, we see the reprise of the characters you liked in the original film: Colin Firth’s (Harry), Taron Egerton (Eggsy) and Mark Strong’s (Merlin). Audiences will be marveled at not only the butt-kicking team work and skills of the Kingsman, but will enjoy the unlikely team-up with the Statesman, an american counterpart.

From Egerton to Statesman’s (Whiskey), actor Pedro Pascal, the insanity and the magnitude of everything you’d expect from a spy movie, it is incredible.

Helming the second installment  is Matthew Vaughn. Vaughn directed the 2014 hit film. As they say: First is worst- (Not this case) and second is best. It depends on how good a film like this or any film, actually, is so that studios can make continuations to one film.

Vaughn amps up the creativity and mind blowing special effects, fast-paced, edgy action sequences and CGI. in my opinion, 2017’s best spy film. Merely, because of those reasons.

Well, not just those reasons. The humor throughout the film may not be as racist and questionable as the first film, but offers genuine hilarity. The fictitious spy agency which the film is greatly named, has their agents named after royalty figures. While in the American agency, every agent is named after an alcoholic beverage.

Thank god that we as an audience didn’t have to suffer by hearing a villain with a lisp - paging Richmond Valentine, aka Samuel L. Jackson. Instead, this time, the villain is a ridiculously charming yet psychotic woman. Julianne Moore plays the devilishly demented woman in a quest to dominate the world.

One of the many other aspects of hilarity in the movie, is the inclusion of Fox News. Which is used for the coverage of the events surrounding our villain and her mischievous plans.

2017 hasn’t be great in terms of films like this, but it’s absolutely refreshing to have seen this as an improvement from the first film. Audiences worldwide will be begging for more of these films because of their uniqueness.

Rate: A-

Photo: 20th Century Fox and Marv Films

Starring: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Mark Strong

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Runtime: 2 Hours & 21 Minutes

MPAA Rating: R-(for Language throughout, Drug content, sequences of strong violence and some sexual material

Synopsis:  With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage, members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite secret agents from both sides of the pond band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that's becoming a bit of a habit for Eggsy.

Malawski’s Movie Rating System

A+ = Exceptional, One of a Kind, Masterpiece. Definite award season contender

A= Pure enjoyment, happy feeling. Satisfaction

A- = One to remember. Unforgettable

B+ = Can get a little over the top. But, it makes out as a good film.

B= This film has the potential to be better. Lacks in consistency

B- = Watches occasionally

C+ = Guilty pleasure territory

C= Causes viewer frustration due to lack of depth in the story

D+ = I hated this movie. Some parts were good. Overall, the film was garbage

D= Very few to no good parts about this movie

D- = Minimal qualities of excellence

F= Don’t even bother watching it. It’s that bad.  

IT (2017)

Pennywise the Dancing clown preys on youth every 27 years. It's no coincidence that the miniseries based on this horrifying being get a motion picture 27 years following that miniseries. As Dash’s teacher from The Incredibles said: “Coincidence, I THINK NOT!” IT is a horror induced film and it is perhaps one of the decade's best.

Now, step right up to witness the amazing and psychotic portrayal of the title character. Played by Bill Skarsgard, son, and brother of actors Stellan and Alexander Skarsgard. Bill does an absolutely terrifying performance and it's without a doubt one of the more memorable villain roles.

Not only does Skarsgard shine, but the stars of the “Losers Club” are also among the highlights of the film. Stranger Things star Finn Wolfhard luminates as the comedic relief, while the other members are the emotional efforts of the film.

Andy Muschietti director of the film, gets genuine and flat out scary moments in this stomach churning horror masterpiece.

On top of his stellar efforts making this film as scary as possible, the score, make-up, costumes and special effects are stunning to the core. Hair raising, and spin tingling.

“You’ll float too!” This film is an absolute rush from start to finish. Even if you have to hold on to something for two hours. I have no doubt this adaptation of the “master of horrors” novel will become an example for future horror movies to come.

Rate: A

Photo: Warner Bros.

Director: Andy Muschietti

Starring: Bill Skarsgard, Finn Wolfhard, Jaeden Lieberher

MPAA Rating: R -( for violence/horror, bloody images, and for language)

Synopsis: "IT," directed by Andy Muschietti ("Mama"), is based on the hugely popular Stephen King novel of the same name, which has been terrifying readers for decades. When children begin to disappear in the town of Derry, Maine, a group of young kids are faced with their biggest fears when they square off against an evil clown named Pennywise, whose history of murder and violence dates back for centuries.

Logan Lucky (2017)

For a film that has its roots in director Steven Soderbergh's acclaimed "Oceans" heist film franchise, this film has a look that is sorta, without a doubt redneck, hillbilly type. It's the complete opposite of that saga. This film takes on the status quo in hopes of regaining fame. What happens when you get the unlikely talents of: Daniel Craig, Channing Tatum and Adam Driver, it's as if beavis and butthead had a huge family curse and needed--(wanted) to pull off a cash and grab heist.

Typically, as stereotypes assume that those who inhabit the southern region of America you are: A. a slob, B. redneck, C. hillbilly or D. all of them. But as it turns out, in this film, there are some pretty intelligent folks down south. Well, in this film, yes, minus two. So as the old saying goes: Don't judge a book by the cover. Even so, for a film, it pulls off a hilarious and even if a little rough, take on southern folk--- if the people down there were just itching to pull off a huge money infested heist. 

Director of this here rodeo, is Steven Soderbergh. Curator of the previously mentioned "Oceans" films. He successfully if not just a little tediously produced comedic-action film. What makes this film quirky yet entertaining is its wit. The cast of "Logan Lucky" makes up what this film was made to do-- produce laughs out loud and strangely entertaining action sequences. 

But, as far as negatives go, the accents heard here, are probably, if  not, the worst parts about this film. It's as if i'm listening to chalk on a chalkboard, or hearing- (at least in my head,)Samuel L. Jackson's lisp from Kingsman: The Secret Service. 

As far as acting goes and memorable moments: Daniel Craig is the man. He is so entertaining and full of energy and charisma that is highly noted. 

Other than that, minus a few unfixed kinks in the pace in the film, it's an entertaining film. Even though the acting may not be superb, but at least one things for certain: it's comical. So, this film may not have it all like: wonderful acting, but at least this film is entertaining for most of its entirety. 

Rate: B 

Director: Steven Soderbergh 

Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver,  Katie Holmes, Daniel Craig, Katherine Waterston,with Sebastian Stan and Hilary Swank 

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for language and some crude comments) 

Runtime: 2 Hours 

Synopsis: Trying to reverse a family curse, brothers Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and Clyde Logan (Adam Driver) set out to execute an elaborate robbery during the legendary Coca-Cola 600 race at the Charlotte Motor Speedway. 

Photo: Bleeker Street Studios

Malawski’s Movie Rating System

A+ = Exceptional, One of a Kind, Masterpiece. Definite award season contender

A= Pure enjoyment, happy feeling. Satisfaction

A- = One to remember. Unforgettable

B+ = Can get a little over the top. But, it makes out as a good film.

B= This film has the potential to be better. Lacks in consistency

B- = Watches occasionally

C+ = Guilty pleasure territory

C= Causes viewer frustration due to lack of depth in the story

D+ = I hated this movie. Some parts were good. Overall, the film was garbage

D= Very few to no good parts about this movie

D- = Minimal qualities of excellence

F= Don’t even bother watching it. It’s that bad.  

Atomic Blonde (2017)

No one better pick a fight with Charlize Theron. In her latest, she essentially is Double 07 and Ethan Hunt rolled into one. This film is unique in every sense of the word. It has all you want in an action-packed, butt kicking film. This film is kind of like that one lady in a store on black friday in line for something, but someone else wants it too. So she fights that other person.

What makes this film quite one of the year's best action films is essentially-its star. The action as well. But, Theron is an utter boss when it comes to taking down the bad guys. She makes this film not only entertaining to the max, but sexy. She flourishes with beauty and style in this movie.

David Leitch directs an action-packed, kick butt, and overall exciting film. He makes the film look so fresh and original, that you can clearly see on screen. It's refreshing to see original action films- because it's all prior work based films these days.

Aside from the great action in this film, music is also very entertaining in this film as well. Including a score that amps up the film on a new level. Plus, a plethora of songs from the 1980's- the time period of this film.

Other than Theron giving an entertaining performance here, we've got James McAvoy and none than the films bad guys. Seeing McAvoy and the bad guys alongside Theron adds just as much spice to the film.

Viewers for decades have seen action sagas in film. Film sagas like: James Bond and Mission Impossible, have become a milestone for films of this nature. But, it's also nice to see original films of this kind too, that aren't solely based on a prior work.

Rate: B+ 

Director: David Leitch 

Starring: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones, Sofia Boutella 

MPAA Rating: R (for sequences of strong violence, language throughout, and some sexuality/nudity) 

Runtime: 1 Hour and 55 Minutes 

Synopsis: Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent who's willing to use all of her lethal skills to stay alive during an impossible mission. With the Berlin Wall about to fall, she travels into the heart of the city to retrieve a priceless dossier and take down a ruthless espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies. 

Photo: Focus Features 

Malawski’s Movie Rating System

A+ = Exceptional, One of a Kind, Masterpiece. Definite award season contender
A= Pure enjoyment, happy feeling. Satisfaction
A- = One to remember. Unforgettable
B+ = Can get a little over the top. But, it makes out as a good film.
B= This film has the potential to be better. Lacks in consistency
B- = Watches occasionally
C+ = Guilty pleasure territory
C= Causes viewer frustration due to lack of depth in the story
D+ = I hated this movie. Some parts were good. Overall, the film was garbage
D= Very few to no good parts about this movie
D- = Minimal qualities of excellence
F= Don’t even bother watching it. It’s that bad. 

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

Let me just say it plain and simple: this movie was an atrocity to the horror film genre. There were virtually nothing good about this film. Some of the scary moments were good. But overall, nothing spectacular about this film. I'd say that even though I am not a diehard horror film fan, those who are will be very disappointed in this film. Due to its lack of scariness and well, overall boringness.

Need I say more? This film is just so dumb. It plagues with fake scares from its characters and it has pretty much no story development. And to make matters worse, it was predictable. Like you knew what to expect what was coming. And sure enough, these things come true in the end. 

Director David Sandberg (Lights Out) conjures an utterly waste of potential. There's practically nothing original about this film. Considering this film is part of a series of films that have continued to earn mega dollars, this film has fallen prey to awful storytelling as a sequel to a film. 

Under no circumstances is the acting in here worth praise. It's fake and scripted, nothing special. It does however fit right into the garbage that is this film. 

Though the film is utter garbage, some parts of this film aren't bad. Some of the film does offer genuine frights. I'd say every time the self titled doll: Annabelle appeared on screen or something as freaky as a door opening-automatically, when she wouldn't be there are some of the film best moments. Also, would say that parts where the doll goes full on satanic--- such as when she kills residents of this house. 

One of the films few other good qualities was the haunting and chilling score. It resembles a Stephen King esque score and is very effective. But it's not enough to save the film from falling into the depths of hell. 

For a runtime of just under two hours, everything feels as if it's muddled together with a pinch of- no, a heaping pile of sloppiness. Horror film fans will be truly disappointed in this film. There's definitely other films out there worth your time. 

Rate: D- 

Director: David Sandberg 

Starring: Stephanie Sigman, Lulu Wilson, Talitha Bateman 

MPAA Rating: R (for horror violence and terror) 

Synopsis: A couple still grieving the death of their daughter take in children from a local orphanage, but the family are soon terrorized by a demented doll known as Annabelle. 

Runtime: 1 Hour and 50 Minutes 

Photo: New Line Cinema

Malawski’s Movie Rating System

A+ = Exceptional, One of a Kind, Masterpiece. Definite award season contender

A= Pure enjoyment, happy feeling. Satisfaction

A- = One to remember. Unforgettable

B+ = Can get a little over the top. But, it makes out as a good film.

B= This film has the potential to be better. Lacks in consistency

B- = Watches occasionally

C+ = Guilty pleasure territory

C= Causes viewer frustration due to lack of depth in the story

D+ = I hated this movie. Some parts were good. Overall, the film was garbage

D= Very few to no good parts about this movie

D- = Minimal qualities of excellence

F= Don’t even bother watching it. It’s that bad.