A review for Happy Death Day can be summed up in two words: glorious trash. But since movie reviews are typically much more substantial than that, I'll try to go more in depth in dissecting a film that has none. The premise here is simple: a stuck up sorority girl named Tree (Jessica Rothe, or a poor man's Blake Lively) is trapped in a Ground Hog Day type loop, except the particular day she is doomed to repeat happens to be both her birthday AND her death day. Each time she relives this birthday, no matter what she does, she winds up murdered by the end of the day by a masked killer. After a new friend suggests that the only way to escape the day and move onto the next is to discover the identity of the killer and defeat him, Tree makes it her mission to do just that. But with so many people out to get her, it might take her much longer to discover the killer than she might think. Your enjoyment level of Happy Death Day will vary upon how much you take the film seriously. It's the type of movie that's kitschy trash, and knows it is. If you can accept it at that level, you can enjoy it, which I most certainly did. It's not trying to be a particularly good film, nor does it even attempt to explain its plot gimmick. Happy Death Day is perfectly content to be what it is and nothing more. However, it's understandable to see the film somewhat of a missed opportunity because if it had more bite in its humor as well as its violence, this film could have reached true cult status. As it is, it's a mindless wannabe horror comedy that ends up being pretty forgettable. Even still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it on a guilty pleasure level. As I already established that the film is mostly trash, I did mention earlier that it's pretty glorious trash at that, and that's a very important distinction to make. That's because of how often it manages to cross the "so bad it's good" line, which makes the whole thing pretty enjoyable to watch. The ending is the most prime example of this, but there are certainly other moments that made me feel incredulous that what I was watching on the screen was really taking place. Because this film was so stupid, yet so enjoyable at the same time to watch I have a difficult time grading it. My head says one thing, and my heart says another. Therefore I shall have to give it two scores. ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 6.5, FILM RATING: 5/10

For pretty much my entire cinematic life, Blade Runner was one of those defining 80's classics that I always really wanted to see, but never found the time to get around to watching. In fact, it wasn't until the impending release of Blade Runner 2049 that I finally made it a priority to sit down and watch it. I wish I'd watched it years ago in college, and really had the chance to dissect it. Perhaps then I'd have a greater attachment towards it, and a lot more patience. But, when I watched it now, I found a lot to admire to be sure, but a pace that kept me at arms length when trying to embrace it and get lost in it. I liked it, and appreciated its place in film history, but I couldn't love it. Maybe it's a film that would benefit and grow in my fondness with repeat viewings, but unfortunately I didn't have time for that before my viewing of Blade Runner 2049. So the question is, how did this sequel to the original film fare to such a newbie of the franchise? Blade Runner 2049 takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner, thirty years after the events of the original film. But this time, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is no longer our blade runner protagonist (blade runners being cops who are tasked with hunting down replicants aka artificial intelligent robots.) In fact, he's been on the run and in hiding ever since we last saw him. So this time, the story focuses on another Blade Runner, a replicant simply known as K (Ryan Gosling.) On one of his many hit jobs hunting down other replicants, he discovers some incredibly shocking evidence that puts him on the path to find Deckard. But this newly discovered evidence isn't only of interest to K and his police department, but the head of a replicant creating corporation obsessed with creating life (Jared Leto) and his devoted assistant, who are determined to watch K's every move. This time around I had a much easier time connecting with the story and found that this was a good continuation of the world we were introduced to in the first film. There's a definite sense of world building going on in this film with all of the different types of characters you have, and it's definitely half of the fun. It's fascinating to see replicant K's relationship with an even more AI than himself, his Siri like girlfriend Joi (played fantastically by relative newcomer Ana de Armas.) But the other thing 2049 does apart from expanding the universe, is also setting the stage for more. Here you see the seeds being planted for a real uprising as replicants are starting to believe they're more human than humans. But aside from all the interesting questions that Blade Runner 2049 has to pose, it has a lot more to offer as well, starting with how beautiful it is to look at! The cinematography by Roger Deakins is absolutely breathtaking. The original had many sweeping and beautiful shots, and Deakins definitely plays tribute to them. One of the main reasons I was really excited to see this film was because it was being helmed by Denis Villeneuve whose past work (most recently being Arrival,) I really admire. He didn't let me down as he accomplished something truly difficult in making a film that still felt like it was his, while completely honoring the original. Villeneuve also assembled a really fine cast. Gosling is solid as always and carries a lot more of the film than I thought he would. But he gets some great support from his costars, particularly from the female cast. I already mentioned really enjoying Ana de Armas' performance as K's longtime artificial girlfriend, but Robin Wright makes the most of her screen time too as the Lieutenant that K reports to. The other female performance that really impressed me was by another newcomer, Sylvia Hoeks, who plays Jared Leto's replicant assistant. Perhaps for me, the weak link here is Ford, who seems that with every classic character he slips into nowadays, he simply plays them as a grumpier old version of himself, rather than connecting to who these characters were. I didn't see much of a resemblance to his original character, but then again after 30 years of being on the run, maybe everyone would start acting crotchety? All in all, Blade Runner 2049 is a really well made film that I liked a lot. However, as much as I enjoyed it, I still found that since I didn't have a strong connection with the first film, I couldn't really say I loved this one either. Again, perhaps repeated viewings could really warm me to it, but for now I will appreciate it from a distance. RATING: 8.5/10

Out now, audiences have the choice to take part in another adventure in the Lego Movie universe or see the followup to one of the most fun surprise hits of 2015. Those films, respectively are The Lego Ninjago Movie and Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Both films provide an enjoyable enough time, though they're unable to match the heights of the films whose footsteps they follow. The Lego Ninjago movie is the tale of a group of ninjas trying to save their city, as told by a wise old man (a welcome return performance by Jackie Chan) to a young boy who visits his store one day. The boy wants to know all about the young warrior (Dave Franco) whose absentee villainous father (Justin Theroux) has made his life a living nightmare. Can this warrior repeatedly save the city his father is trying to destroy AND have a relationship with said father at the same time? Only if he, along with his ninja buddies, can become one and heed what they've learned from their wise old teacher (also Jackie Chan.) It's pretty obvious that The Lego Ninjago Movie is definitely the least inspired of the Lego Movie franchise. It's hard not to feel like many of its concepts were taken from scraps off the cutting room floor, or rejected writers room ideas from the previous entries. That's not to say the film isn't fun, it just doesn't really feel fresh....or completely necessary. And compared to the other two Lego Movies, it definitely is the most forgettable. That said, being a girl who loves cat humor...there was definitely a large part of this movie that got many chuckles from me. You can certainly do worse with kids movies, but if I'm looking for something to watch with my nieces and nephews, I'll likely reach for the original Lego Movie and The Lego Batman Movie before this one. RATING: 6.5/10 Kingsman: The Golden Circle picks up not too long where Kingsman: The Secret Service left off. The film opens with Eggsy (Taron Egerton) on the run from one of his former schoolmates and it's a completely fun and amazingly done sequence. Unbeknownst to him, this encounter sets off a chain of events that changes the Kingsman and rocks them to their core. With nowhere to turn, Eggsy and Merlin have to travel to America to seek help from the Kingsman's American counterpart: the Statesmen. There, they discover an old ally, as well as another nefarious plot that's in motion across the globe to once again bring the world to its knees. I definitely had higher hopes and expectations for the Kingsman sequel than I did for Ninjago, and while it certainly wasn't a *bad* sequel, it just didn't thrill and excite me the same way the original did. To be fair, it couldn't exactly surprise me, since this time around I did have expectations because of loving the first one. Golden Circle doesn't try to top the craziness of the first movie which is good, but it does perhaps try to add too many new characters that aren't really needed. I definitely had fun with the movie...particularly with the one celebrity cameo that they milk to death. But, whether it's not enough sequences like the opening one or something else...something just felt lacking or missing about this sequel. That said, I am optimistic about where this franchise could go if it continues. RATING: 7/10

The last two weekends It has completely dominated the box office, so non-surprisingly, the buzz for the promised Chapter 2 is just getting started. For anyone who has read the book or seen the 90's miniseries, they know that the young Losers Club and their encounters with It are only half of the story. The other half happens 27 years later when the kids are all grown up and receive word that their childhood fear has followed them into adulthood. I was a little surprised when I heard that It would not include the adult storyline because I always loved the idea of seeing adult counterparts to the young heroes. Even if their storyline was weaker than the childhood ones, I still loved the idea of having what you feared in childhood come back to haunt you. In fact, the whole time during my first viewing of the film I couldn't help but begin to imagine who in Hollywood could portray the older versions of them. Apparently, I wasn't the only one as fan casting posts similar to this one have been popping up left and right since the movie came out (including suggestions from the young casts themselves.) BEVERLY Amy Adams is one of the most talented actresses working in Hollywood today and happens to look exactly like what one might expect the younger Beverly (Sophia Lillis) to grow up to become. It’s probably a long shot that Adams might be interested in taking part in a horror sequel, but we can always dream of the perfection she would add to Stephen King’s tale in the role of Beverly Marsh. RUNNERS-UP: Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig. BILL For young Bill’s (Jaeden Lieberher) adult counterpart, once again I chose to match who in Hollywood best physically represents the younger actor, so I had to go with Tobey Maguire. Jaeden totally reminds me of a young Tobey in mannerism and look. While Maguire is not always the most charming or charismatic leading man around, Bill’s character doesn’t really require that...in fact, the character needs a little bit more awkwardness to make it believable that he used to be a kid who overcame a stutter. Tobey can nail this and doesn’t seem to be too busy these days. BEN Chris Pratt has been wearing out his charm for me as of late, so I was a little unsure of this choice, but physically I think he’s a great match for this role. Ben is supposed to be completely transformed by adulthood, and Pratt himself has gone through a transformation during his time in the spotlight. I’m sure he can portray those inner insecurities of a man who isn’t used to being the apple of everyone’s eye, even though now everyone sees him as a looker. Pratt is in high demand these days so this choice might not be the most likely to happen, but I think it would be a solid choice. RUNNER-UP: David Denman. RICHIE Richie was the hardest role for me to cast because Finn Wolfhard does such a great job and was such a scene stealer in the younger role, it was difficult to imagine who could do the same in the sequel, while at the same time matching the look. Adam Brody fit the bill for me of someone who often provides comic relief...just usually in more of a sarcastic way. He looks similar enough, and he’s dry enough that it just might work (provided that Richie’s humor changes a bit as he becomes an adult. MIKE Mike was one of the kids in It that we probably saw the least of, and was harder to get a grip on who would match him as an adult as far as personality goes. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a solid actor who could give this character a bit more depth than he was given in the first chapter. Of course, I’ve never really seen him in a horror movie, so who knows if it’s his cup of tea! EDDIE Eddie was a tough character to cast because he has a certain look and a distinct neurotic personality. My pick is Milo Ventimiglia who matches the look, though I'm not positive how he'd do with the personality. Since people change much through adulthood though, I think this could still work RUNNER-UP: Oscar Isaac was actually my first pick, but his ethnicity doesn't completelllly line up with the younger Eddie. STANLEY Is it just me or is Wyatt Olef who plays the young Stan in It, a dead ringer for Tom Hiddleston? For those who have read the book or seen the 1990 version, you’ll know that [SPOILERS HIGHLIGHT TO READ] Adult Stan’s role in the sequel will be very brief since he commits suicide as soon as he hears Pennywise is back. [/end SPOILERS.] Here’s hoping Hiddleston would be up for a cameo because he’d be perfect! And that's a wrap! Let me know what you thought of my choices, and if you have some other ideas of your own feel free to share!

Darren Aronofsky can be somewhat of a polarizing filmmaker. The director behind Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler, Black Swan and Noah is incredibly ambitious and truly loves to make ART films that require much interpretation on the audience's part. Often because of this, critics, for the most, part enjoy his films while audiences find them pretentious and tedious. In mother! Aronofsky teams with Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem to create a very allegorical and bizarre tale that will likely only appeal to the most patient of viewers. It's a frustrating film if you're expecting it to conform to a genre, but a very fascinating one if you're open to its experience and attempting to dissect it afterward. Mother! is all about Jennifer Lawrence's unnamed character, a woman who lives in complete solitude with her much older writer husband (Javier Bardem). She's content to live out her days restoring his home which was once burnt to ashes. However, her peaceful life is soon turned upside down with the arrival of a stranger (Ed Harris) and later his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), who are desperate for a place to stay. More and more her sanctuary and privacy are threatened, along with her sanity. Mother! is quite honestly, a nightmare put to film....and not necessarily in the way a typical horror movie is. This movie exploits a far different type of horror, and that's the horror of your hospitality being taken advantage of, and your privacy being encroached upon beyond belief. It's filled to the brim with feelings of claustrophobia, hopelessness and being completely and utterly trapped. It made me so completely uncomfortable in a way that not many films have the power to do. Honestly, I was legitimately stressed out. The filmmaking is all very deliberate. Right from the beginning the style here is clear. The camera stays so close to Jennifer Lawrence's face and follows her wherever she goes. There might be more close-ups here than there were in Les Miserables, adding to the claustrophobia. As for the performances here, everyone involved truly turns in some incredible work. This might honestly be Jennifer Lawrence's career-best performance, and Javier Bardem is as solid as ever...just in a more subtle way than he usually is. But it's Michelle Pfeiffer who steals the show with every scene she's in, you can hardly take your eyes off her because you have no idea what she'll say or do next. Really though there wasn't a false note in the cast, even with a surprise cameo near the end of an actress who doesn't seem to fit the genre. Mother! was a completely effective experience, but it certainly won't be a satisfying one for all....especially for people waiting for a big reveal or expecting it to conform to typical horror movie standards. It's in the final third of the film where things go a little crazy that might turn off some audiences. This is because it becomes far less relatable and moves into full allegory territory of something so crazy it would never happen....just like the turns all nightmares and dreams can take. I certainly have my own interpretation of the film, but after reading some others' takes it's clear that this is a film that can take on many meanings to many different people. And that's honestly the best about mother! RATING: 9/10

When I was young, I remember the 1990's tv movie miniseries It, being one of the first scary movies I ever saw. My dad had a VHS copy at his house, and whenever my siblings and I, or my friends and I wanted to freak ourselves out...It was always the movie of choice. As I grew older, the fear of it definitely wore off as I saw Pennywise to be a character who would mostly spout off dad jokes to scare the children. Case in point: "Is your refrigerator running?? Well, you better go catch it!" Not very scary...Plus the scenes when they were adults was pretty much the stuff of soap operas. A lot of people of my generation hold to the nostalgia of It, and see it as an untouchable film not worth remaking. "Why even bother trying to top Tim Curry's unforgettable performance" they'd say. I, on the other hand eagerly awaited and welcomed this remake with open arms, while at the same time keeping my expectations low that this film could go either way in terms of quality. After all, the remake was being helmed by Andy Muschietti, the director who gave the world Mama, an insanely creepy horror film during its first half with tons of potential that missed the mark badly in its finale. So how did I enjoy It? Very much....but maybe not for the usual reasons I love horror movies. Itactually might be stronger in the comedic and childhood bonding aspects than it is in the horror...but that's not to say that it's not effective there too. But the strongest thing the film has going for it is the cast and their natural camaraderie with one another. While a couple of the kids could maybe have used a little more development, (Mike and Stanley respectively), over all these actors totally owned their roles and were clearly having a blast playing off one another. Their language is a bit crass (they're like the kids from The Sandlot if all of them were dropping F bombs all the time.) so this definitely isn't for younger viewers like the original miniseries was. Plus, it's far scarier too. As for Bill Skarsgard's performance stepping into this iconic role, I thought he did a solid job that varied enough from Tim Curry's take to feel fresh. After the chilling opening sequence which was shown frequently in every bit of advertising for the film, each of the children is slowly introduced to Pennywise one by one. Not all of these encounters are created equal, with some of the spooks being far more effective than others. But the longer the film goes along, the scarier things get. By the time the kids enter the creepy abandoned house, the film goes into full carnival fun house mode and the jump scares are constant. It is an incredibly fun film that's definitely tense all throughout, but the main benefit here is that you care about the characters and their journey. While the film could have been edited a bit more tightly (it's about 15-20 minutes too long,) I can't deny that I had a really good time getting scared by a creepy clown. RATING: 8/10

Apparently I'm one of the few people who enjoyed the 2014 Conjuring spin off Annabelle. It wasn't a perfect or particularly memorable horror film by any means, but I enjoyed its Rosemary's Baby homages and some of the creepy sequences it had toward the end of the film. I was pretty forgiving of its flaws and looked a lot more kindly on it than many fellow film bloggers and film critics. However, none of their disapproval stopped the movie from making enough money for the studio to give the green light to another film about the demon doll. Annabelle Creation takes place several years before the original Annabelle film. This time, we delve even further into the story of where Annabelle came from and once again I really enjoyed myself, but this time maybe a little less guiltily so. The film opens with a doll maker putting his finishing touches on his new first edition of a hideous doll that he plans to give his only daughter named (you guessed it) Annabelle. Tragedy befalls her, but her spirit (or something far more sinister) seemingly is somehow linked with the doll. Years later, her parents decide they want laughter in their lives again and allow their home to be used as an orphanage to a small group of girls without homes. Initially overjoyed at having a place to stay, the girls soon discover their new home may have a very haunted presence there, and no one is safe. Annabelle Creation definitely upped the tension and creepiness of its predecessor and as far as scares go, it even felt about on par with The Conjuring 2. The backstory definitely could have been more fleshed out than the brief explanatory scene we got near the end, but all in all, I really enjoyed seeing this group of orphan girls in the very familiar "move into a new creepy haunted house" trope. Somehow, even as familiar of a horror film it should be, it still manages to feel fresh. Plus it really helps that the two youngest actresses that carry much of the film were definitely up to the task. RATING: 7.5/10

So I didn't really have any expectations about this movie one way or another....until the Rotten Tomatoes score came out and totally trashed this film. My expectations plummeted, and I was pretty sure this was going to be absolutely awful. I went to see the film anyway and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as bad as I'd heard, at least the first 20 minutes anyway. But........then I fell asleep and woke up at the very end. So I'm going to allow my husband to take over this review and give his opinion. So from here on out, these are my husband Brody's words. The Dark Tower has many flaws that drag down what could have been a great film. The filmmakers (perhaps on studio orders) shoved way too much into the story which resulted in an incredibly rushed pace that did little to serve the film. Idris Elba's performance as the wounded Gunslinger was the one good thing this movie had going for it, its only saving grace. McConaughey's performance was ultimately forgettable and his intentions for trying to take down the tower were essentially nothing more than because "he's evil!" I was hoping McConaughey would deliver something more nuanced as he has really blossomed as in actor in recent years. But alas, he did not. Having said all that -- I walked into the movie with expectations of seeing the worst film ever, But I can say that I had a good time with it. If for no other reason than all of the Easter eggs to King's other works were a nice treat. BRODY RATING: 6/10

Look. Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors working today (if not my favorite and most trusted.) I've loved pretty much everything he's done (though I did feel a tinge of disappointment with The Dark Knight Rises that I did feel better after a second viewing.) When I heard he was doing a World War II film I was really excited to see what he brought to the table. So excited that I even went to a preview screening of this film the day before my wedding. Perhaps this viewing circumstance was a mistake as the film had to compete with a million other things going on in my head, as well as with incredibly high expectations. With that in mind, I couldn't help but leave Dunkirk feeling pretty disappointed and having expected more from my favorite filmmaker. Dunkirk is an amazing visual experience and a film that puts you in the place of these men. It's a tale of survival first and foremost, and in that avenue it's told well. I just wanted a little more heart and some characters I could love and cling to. That's not what Christopher Nolan was envisioning in the way he told his story and I get that, but I still felt like something was missing. RATING: 8/10 Unlike Dunkirk, I didn't have any expectations as to the quality of Valerian other than that the film probably contained impressive visuals. The film got incredibly mixed reviews, and so I went into it pretty open minded. I discovered that the film it's easiest to compare to is Avatar, a film I passionately hate (before it was cool to hate I might add.) So it might be a surprise to reveal that I actually quite enjoyed watching Valerian (though admittedly I fell asleep a couple times, but that was due to a late night showing coupled with comfy recliner seats.) This film really shows me that expectations and hype really are everything. Unlike Avatar, I didn't have a bunch of people hyping up this film and selling it as the next end all be all, though I did see a select few praise it. Like Avatar, it does a fantastic job of world building: the movie presents us with a galaxy that is incredibly creative and the kind you delight in visiting. Also similar to Avatar, the detail in world building comes at the cost of the story, characters, and plot structure. In this case I was bothered much less, mostly because no one was acting like this film was perfect. RATING: 7/10

The prequel trilogy of the Planet of the Apes has been one of the most surprising and solid franchises of the century. I loved the first two films and had incredibly high expectations for this one. While this is the bleakest entry of the series, and not quite as thrilling as its predecessors, I can't really say that this movie disappoints. It tells its story just the way it should and enriches the mythology of the rest of the series. Once again, I'll never cease to be amazed that they can craft this trilogy around the amazing digital performance by Andy Serkis. He brings his Ceasar to life in a way that not many actors in the flesh even do with characters they themselves portray. His story continues to be worth telling, and I love that though we know where this story ultimately heads, it is still told in a way that lends for surprises. RATING: 8.5/10