SCORE: A Film Music Documentary (2017)

It is one of the most essential pieces of a film. The film score. It's like the buns on a burger. You need something to hold it together for stability. That's what film scores do. The hold the movie in perfect balance-(Or at least try to). No film that I have seen would ever be as successful without the music. It just wouldn't be the same. The effect of the film would be minimal. I personally think that a film cannot work with out a score. This film documents the blood, sweat and tears that composers have to endure with making the perfect score.

Some of cinemas most well known music makers such as: Hans Zimmer, Tom Holkenborg(Junkie XL), John Williams and Danny Elfman reveal their experiences as renowned film composers and what challenges they face on their films. Director Matt Schrader, erects a film unlike any other. For those who are curious enough to know about the process of composing film music, this film has all the informative aspects you will need.

Every time you watch a movie, you can't help but feel some emotional connection to the score. That is what they intended to do with audiences right? I know I do. Especially when I watch films with Zimmer and Williams scores. They draw you in like you wouldn't believe. They make the films more exciting as if the film is alive.

You can't go inside a cinema thinking you don't feel some kind of reaction from the scores. Because if you say no, you're lying to yourself. This is a unique genre of music that stretches beyond the cinema scope and to the lands off screen.

Film scores are what make up the background of the film. They are essential in ways that make their films all the more meaningful. That's what makes this genre of music, element of film, and the curators so special, is that they all have the power to make a film spectacular. We have to owe it to these incredible maestros. Otherwise, our cinematic experiences would be completely different.

Rate: A+

Photo courtesy of Gravitas Ventures 

Spielberg (2017)

When you think  of a Steven Spielberg movie, what first comes to mind? "Jurassic Park. ET? Jaws?" Whatever it is, he has made an impact on your cinema experience.  He is considered the greatest director who's ever lived. Rightfully so. Famed director Steven Spielberg, has spanned some 40 years in the film industry. with some critically acclaimed and controversial films. He is no doubt mine and millions of others favorite directors.

In this tell all, Spielberg unloads the secrets and drawbacks to his illustrious career as one of the most celebrated film directors of our time. It is unreal to see with all its fascination. This film is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen and possibly the best movie of 2017 for me. (Sorry Baby Driver).

What makes this film so unique, is the beauty and joy that he brings to his stories and how he came to be. Director Susan Lacy, crafts a special film that those who've followed him from his earlier days, will find sentimental value. From close friends, family and fellow Directors, their insight to this cinematic artistic genius is truly inspiring. Especially with the commentary of Spielberg himself.

All the while, this film acts as a motivation for future directors and anyone who wants to be in the film industry-(like myself). It does so well in the emotional impact it has on viewers. This film is truly remarkable and touching in ways that I wanted to learn more about him and crave his advice so deeply.

Photo courtesy of HBO

Rate: A 

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.

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.