Before I commence my review for the heavily anticipated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, let me first apologize profusely for slacking so much on posting lately. Life has been so busy and I know I owe a plethora of reviews (and even an Oscar recap....I'm the worst,) but I knew this was one review I could not be negligent on! One of the biggest movies of the year absolutely deserves a timely review, so though I'm out of the habit I shall do my best to deliver. Every now and then a movie comes along that the general public was looking forward to that once screened by critics, gets absolutely torn to shreds. Expectations become dashed and some audiences decide not to waste their time and money on a movie that's no longer a sure bet. But is the harshness of these reviews deserved? As it currently stands at Rotten Tomatoes, Batman v Superman sits at 31%. Having seen the film, I can absolutely say without a doubt that this film does NOT deserve that low of a score. Is it a perfect superhero film? No. It has its flaws to be sure, but is it a colossal disaster like Fantastic Four? Is it forgettable like the Iron-Man or Thor sequels? The answer is NO. I do feel that some of the first half could be significantly trimmed to be a movie that gets right down to the point. There are a couple dream sequences that don't feel necessary, and in general, you can tell that the movie just really takes its time to set up the chess pieces for the rest of the film. But I really enjoyed myself nonetheless because I happen to love these characters, and seeing them inhabit the same world was a treat. The titular fight is fantastic, I even wish it could have been a little longer. The transition of the characters teaming up for the last battle was a little more rushed than I would like...but honestly, none of these issues I had is enough to destroy my view on the film as a whole. By the way, for some context, this is coming from a girl who loves the first two Nolan Batman films, was initially disappointed by Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel on first viewing, but warmed to them on a second viewing. My initial reaction to this film wasn't disappointment but simply rather the feeling that some things could be improved... Ultimately though, it's just so fun to see a big screen Batman and Superman share the stage together. And with that addressed, now I'd like to break down my impressions of each of the major players of Batman v Superman to give you a good idea of my feelings about all aspects of the film. BATMAN One of the biggest questions everyone wants an answer to is "How does Ben Affleck fare in the iconic Batman role?" It's a very hard role to step into, particularly because Christian Bale only 4 years ago finished a great portrayal in the Nolan series (that I myself am very particularly attached to.) But Affleck is almost a seamless fit in the role. To the film's credit, it doesn't attempt an origin story (his backstory tastefully is told through a series of images during the opening credits,) and instead shows an established Batman who has been doing the job for 20 years. He's believable in the role. My only problem with him was more character based, and arose from the fact that I just have a preference for Superman... I just couldn't help but be frustrated that Batman could be so stupid at times not to know Superman is a good guy. Other than that, I really thought he was great. SUPERMAN Oh man. Henry Cavill is just so beautiful. What can I say? I haven't seen Man of Steel in awhile (which will be rectified soon with my great Superman & Batman filmography rewatch...) so it's hard for me to compare the performances. As a film, I definitely preferred this one. I like how he was resolute in not fighting and really [SPOILERS highlight to read] only was blackmailed into it [/SPOILERS] I was worried this film would be more Batman than Superman, but thankfully both heroes got to share the limelight and Cavill was wonderful. WONDER WOMAN Gal Gadot brings Wonder Woman (and her counterpart Diana Prince) into the 21st Century. Her Diana shows up at parties looking fabulous and intriguing Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne like CRAZY. I loved their banter. I loved her character. I just wish I was a little more familiar with her powers so that when the big battle began I wasn't scratching my head whenever she was onscreen wondering what she was up to. Her part is small, but I'll be excited to see what she brings to the table in her solo film. LEX LUTHOR Another one of the biggest question marks was the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. He certainly does NOT seem like any Lex Luthor I've ever encountered in any rendition of the classic Superman story, and by the trailers I was very skeptical. Once I saw the film though, I have to say I kind of love how different of a take he went for in portraying the villain. He's unlike any Lex we've seen, and though he's certainly not what we've traditionally come to expect, I thought his completely original take was kinda refreshing! Also, to my surprise, I discovered he was far more integral to the plot than I had supposed. [SPOILERS highlight to read] I really like how it's Lex that is responsible for really pitting the two heroes against each other, and his own form of maniacal genius he displays in creating Doomsday. Stealing the fingerprints from Zod to access Kryptonian technology is just absolutely brilliant.[/SPOILERS] LOIS LANE Amy Adams was one of my biggest complaints about Man of Steel, and though a fine actress, seemed to undoubtedly be the weak link. I'm happy to report that she fares better in the sequel. Though I still wish she'd dye her hair, she had some great "Loisy" moments in this one, and her relationship with Clark Kent was absolutely perfect. The first film botched the beginning of their romance, but this one, set two years later, shows the iconic couple exactly the way they need to be portrayed. They have a couple moments that really made my Clark/Lois shipping heart flutter. Sometimes I still think of her as Amy Adams as opposed to her character, but I still think it was an improvement. I was also happy that she wasn't relegated to a Pepper Potts Avengers role. I expected her to maybe have a cameo, but she was integral to the story as well. All in all, as I've covered, this film was not perfect. But it was absolutely enjoyable, and so yes I believe you should go out there and support it. This movie needs to be a success for the sake of DC's future (and because frankly I don't think Marvel Studios should have a monopoly on an entire genre.) These are great characters and their world is one I definitely want to keep visiting in the future, so please... ignore the critics and get out there and make your own opinion. As for mine? I'm giving this movie. RATING: 8/10.

Happy love day readers! My apologies for not being on the ball in giving you some Valentine-themed posts, but if you so desire, I can make up for it in the time between now and the Academy Awards. You see, I have a series of posts in my brain just itching to come out all about AUSTEN. Jane Austen that is. What better way to celebrate Valentines than by celebrating the woman who has set an impossible standard for modern romance to live up to. With seeing Love & Friendship at Sundance and the subsequent release of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, my passion for these stories and their adaptations has come alive again. So for all you Austen lovers out there, this COULD be the beginning of a series of posts (akin to my Cinderella Awards from last year...) where I rank all the portrayals of Austen's greatest characters, but for now let me just share my favorite adaptations/inspirations of Austen's works. If you have no way of celebrating the holiday, putting on any one of these is a good way to start. Caution for Jane-ites: I like all the movies you hate. Sorry bout that. 10. TIE: LOST IN AUSTEN Lost in Austen is a fangirl's dream come true. The story centers around a modern Brit named Amanda Price who finds a door in her house that leads to the fictional world Jane Austen created in Pride & Prejudice. She and Elizabeth switch places, and with an Elizabeth-less Pride & Prejudice, it's up to Amanda to make sure the story doesn't get completely screwed up. I have some issues with the ending of this series which elevates the whole thing to glorified fan fiction, but the beginning is really funny to see how different the story could be if certain events didn't transpire the way they're supposed to. Amanda is funny, but frustrates many Austen fans for how bad she is at trying to blend in with her surroundings. Just take this movie as a silly escape and it will be a lot more enjoyable. For years there was talk about an American remake, and I really hope one day it happens. This series isn't perfect, but the idea of it is a lot of fun. Lost in Austen can be found in its entirety on Hulu. 10. TIE: PRIDE & PREJUDICE & ZOMBIES The only way to improve upon Jane Austen's classic novel? Add in zombies of course. Just kidding, it doesn't really improve things... but this version of the tale is really ridiculously entertaining and fun. If anything, it could have had more zombies as far as I'm concerned. But besides the zombie mayhem, it also benefits from a great Elizabeth in Lily James. She's incredibly beautiful and has the perfect amount of spunk and spirit for an Elizabeth to possess. It would rank higher on the list if they had been as lucky in their casting of Darcy and...if ya know, it had more zombies. Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is in theaters now. 9. PERSUASION Persuasion is actually my favorite Jane Austen novel, but unfortunately (as far as I'm concerned,) it hasn't quite been given the justice it deserves in film form. The 2007 version came incredibly close with its fantastic cast...but falls short at the most important moment in the story (Wentworth's letter.) Still, Sally Hawkins plays Anne Elliot exactly as I pictured her and Rupert Penry-Jones makes for a delicious Captain Wentworth indeed. Austen purists hate the last scene, but I'm okay with suspending disbelief in favor of swoons. 8. EMMA APPROVED Pemberley Digital specializes in modern literary adaptations in vlog form. They bring Jane Austen's Emma into the twenty-first century with varying results. Not all the storylines are created equal (I'm looking at you Izzie Knightley's fiasco and Annie Taylor's wedding jitters,) but when they get it right, they get it right. Perhaps their greatest call is in casting. I don't love Frank or Jane, but Emma, Knightley and Harriet are all great. Sometimes Emma can be a frustrating heroine, but so was Austen's Emma. Emma Approved can be found in its entirety on Youtube HERE. 7. NORTHANGER ABBEY Austen's gothic romance tribute gets a delightful adaptation with pre-fame Felicity Jones, Carey Mulligan and JJ Field. Felicity Jones makes a sweet young heroine, but JJ Field steals the show with his adorableness as he did in Austenland. Seeing Catherine's vivid fantasies come to life is so much fun, and sets it apart from the rest of the period dramas. Northanger Abbey can be found on Hulu. 6. THE LIZZIE BENNET DIARIES Pemberley Digital does a perfect job of modernizing Pride & Prejudice via YouTube of all things. Telling the story via 3-5 minute video diaries where Lizzie complains about her life is incredibly clever. You have to wait until each character is close enough to Lizzie for them to start making appearances in her videos... so while you hear about a snobby guy name William Darcy early on, you have to wait quite a long time to see him, and honestly the suspense is the funnest part. Plus, with so many episodes, the filmmakers are able to flesh out pretty much everyone. Charlotte Lucas, Jane and Lydia in particular all are incredibly well rounded here, where in other versions they run the risk of being caricatures. The only con is that with so much of the plot being set around Lizzie complaining all the time, she's not always the most likable version of the character. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries can be found in its entirety on YouTube HERE. 5. AUSTENLAND Austenland is a silly movie that if you don't take too seriously, is tons of fun. It's got that silly Jared Hess humor to it (combined with Jennifer Coolidge one-liners that you've got to be in the mood for,) so it's certainly an acquired taste, but if you're willing to go along for the ride, it's charming and...has some nice romantic moments as well. I prefer this to Lost in Austen because the heroine does actually attempt to learn something here (and does), but still gets to have her cake and eat it too (whereas LiA just gets the cake.) Plus it has that JJ Field power. 4. CLUELESS Clueless isn't just a fun Austen movie, it's a fun movie period. In fact, most people don't really know it is an adaptation of Emma. It's a faithful enough adaptation, even if it doesn't get all the characters exactly like their novel counterparts. Honestly this movie would make my top five for its quotability and wardrobe picks alone. Clueless can be found on Netflix 3. EMMA Again, not the "Janeites" first choice of Emma adaptation, but definitely my favorite. I didn't much care for the Romala Garai adaptation, because its proposal scene couldn't hold a candle in the utterly romantic department. I get wanting to stay true to Austen, but in the film adapting department, I'm definitely okay with punching up the film's romantic climax while staying true to the spirit. In my opinion, the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma does that perfectly. Mr. Knightley's speech might be the most romantic speech in film history. Seriously. 2. SENSE & SENSIBILITY Unfortunately for the 2008 adaptation, this version of Sense & Sensibility was far too ingrained in my brain to let go of when considering opening my heart to more versions of the story. I know Emma Thompson isn't the right age to portray the character, but she absolutely nails Elinor Dashwood's feelings and demeanor. Kate Winslet is a wonderful Marianne and makes me feel every pain she feels. This film is probably the best Austen movie to date, but isn't always the easiest for me to watch since I relate so closely with its heroine and the pain she goes through. Therefore... the #1 choice must go to: 1. PRIDE & PREJUDICE It was a hard choice, believe me....and once again I know it's not the popular choice, let alone choosing it to top my list. So many people seem to hate this adaptation for one reason or another. Maybe they're too attached to the '95 version (which yes, I left off my list much to the chagrin of Austen lovers, because I never cared for it,) maybe they hate Keira Knightley's Elizabeth, maybe they feel like it took too many liberties with the story, but for me, it's exactly the Pride & Prejudice I wanted to see when I read the book. Firstly, this movie is absolutely BEAUTIFUL to watch. Both cinematography and score are absolutely perfect and beyond beautiful. Not every character is 100% how I picture them, but the most important ones are. Keira's Elizabeth is not smug, but rather playful and vibrant. She's well informed, but she's not...well you know the word that's not used in polite society outside of a kennel. She's exactly the Elizabeth I picture when I read the book, and as for Darcy...I almost had the exact reaction to Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy as I did to the novel version. In the beginning, I didn't see what the fuss was, but toward the end, he was just what he needed to be. And as we covered, I'm okay with sacrificing the novel for some swoon, so that's not an issue for me either. Isn't that what ADAPTING is all about? After all, if I want to read the book, I'll read the book. Movies serve a different purpose than literature...and I don't need a 6-hour version to experience the story in a different way. Pride & Prejudice can currently be found on Netflix. So that's all friends, Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you enjoyed my Austen Top Ten, I know I left many off the list, so be sure to share your favorites below. And maybe, if you guys want them/I have the strength to write them, this will be just the beginning of my Austen recap posts...until the Oscars that is.

Here I am again. Typing out another review to a long-awaited comedy sequel to a cult classic I love. Everything seems to be a cash grab these days, and the idea of lightning striking twice seems pretty much impossible. So did Zoolander 2 ever really have a chance? Certainly of all the potential comedy sequels out there, a sequel to Zoolander had the most potential. With characters so silly and plots so outrageous, the possibilities are endless. So does Zoolander 2 manage to soar above the other wasted opportunity comedy sequels of the last few years? I'll just tell you the answer straight up. No. No, it does not. It takes a leap and falls on its stupid face. I take no delight in being the bearer of bad news to declare that Zoolander 2 is absolutely terrible. Zoolander 2 is set in the present day but fills us in on the events that took place after the first film. Derek and Hansel are now estranged and pop stars are being killed all around the globe. It's up to Fashion Interpol Agent Valentina (Penelope Cruz) to find the now hermit Derek Zoolander to help solve the mystery and save the world or something (at least the world of fashion anyway.) So what exactly are Zoolander 2's offenses you ask? Well firstly, it fits that phrase that EVERY critic loves to throw around: "painfully unfunny." It was at least 20 minutes before I let out a single laugh... or smirk. In fact, all in all, I think I can count on one hand how many times I laughed throughout the film. Secondly, I'm getting really sick of sequels that undo all the hard-fought victories of the first film within a couple of minutes. What they decided to do with these characters is just atrocious, whether it's in the exposition or the convoluted mess that follows. It's incredibly stupid from the get-go, but you'd be amazed at how much worse it gets. For a free screening, I definitely contemplated leaving quite a few times. Most puzzling of all though that the film gets wrong is the character of Mugatu. Easily one of my favorite parts of the first film, Will Ferrell almost seems to have forgotten the character completely. He's got some of the facial ticks down, but his voice is all wrong (though to his credit, the real Mugatu occasionally seeps through his performance, but far too seldom.) The LEAST you could have done to prepare for your role is re-watching the performance you gave in the first film. Zoolander 2's problem is that it's living in the shadow of a far greater predecessor. Every gag or sequence that was great in the original tries to be duplicated here and only ever pales in comparison. Often because there's no straight man the audience can identify with to laugh at the shenanigans of our two foolish leads. In absence of these grounded characters? They threw in shameless celebrity cameos (illustrating just one more thing that the original was able to do naturally, that felt forced in the sequel.) If I HAD to say something positive? Uh, I enjoyed the kid who plays Derek Junior? Also, half of the audience will enjoy the eye candy of Penelope Cruz, but I am not among that audience. Zoolander 2 makes me want to watch its FAR superior predecessor and forget this mess ever happened. RATING: 2/10

Out today is the Coen Brothers' tribute to old Hollywood in Hail, Caesar! How do I even begin to describe this hot mess of a movie? There are moments of sheer brilliance and hilarity that I love with all my heart. The film is all about a day in the life of Josh Brolin's character Eddie, a studio exec trying to keep everyone's pictures afloat and scandal-free. He has to deal with finishing a giant biblical epic (that is essentially Ben-Hur, just with a different name...) whose star has gone missing, a pregnancy from an unwed studio starlet, and a cowboy star who can't make the leap to dramatic actor. Unfortunately, not all storylines are created equal in this picture. Alden Ehrenreich, who was the only reason to see Beautiful Creatures, similarly is fantastic here. His character and his scenes with Ralph Fiennes are hilarious as the miscast actor and frustrated director respectively. Conversely, Scarlett Johansson's storyline feels like an afterthought, while George Clooney's scenes usually tend to be the best time to make your trip to the lobby or bathroom (or if you need a little shut-eye.) Unfortunately, Clooney's storyline is the most central to the plot, and it is by far the worst. I should also mention Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum, and Jonah Hill all make appearances as well (of varying importance, all are great...especially Tatum.) As a tribute to films of this era, Caesar features two amazing musical numbers, and they are undoubtedly the highlight of the film. I only wish there were more of them because it was fun to hearken back to a time when instead of explosions, it was this type of artistry that got people in their seats. It's hard not to wish that the film could have been more focused as to what it wanted to be. It can't decide whether to be an homage or a satire; whether to focus on fame or politics. Instead, it tries to do everything and it only succeeds at half of what it attempts. There are moments that truly are great, only to be dragged down by the most random dialogue-driven scenes that go on and on. For every great moment, there was one that left me scratching my head. It's definitely an unsatisfying film experience to watch a movie that is half great, and half completely out there. RATING: 5.5/10

Happy Friday good readers! Today I shall give you two reviews for the price of one. Two movies of note came out today: (three if you want to include the latest Nicholas Sparks movie which I have not yet subjected myself to,) the long-time in the works adaptation of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies, as well as the Coen Brother's latest film Hail, Caesar! February isn't usually the kindest month to the world of cinema, but do either of these two films manage to be a light in the darkness? Or are they the usual doomed fare? We'll start with the zombies ladies first. When I first heard this movie was in the works I was really excited. I hoped that the filmmakers would have fun with the material and not try to take it too seriously. And then I saw the trailers and I was worried. Really worried. As such, I didn't have too high of expectations as to the quality of the film...the only thing was I expected it to be much more zombies, and much less Pride & Prejudice. I was very surprised to discover it was the other way around! This film is almost a direct copy of the Keira Knightley Pride & Prejudice, just with zombies thrown in (so there's really no use in describing the plot...just think of it as an alternate universe of Austen's world, this time that took place in a zombie-infested England.) Is that a bad thing? For this girl, the answer is absolutely not. I had so much fun with this movie, I just wish there could have been some more action! Sometimes the filmmakers were too faithful in adapting the Pride & Prejudice part of the story, and you just wish that the characters' lives were a little more endangered. The action mixed with the period piece romance is the best part and when it gets it right, it really gets it right. It's a hard balance to strike throughout, but often I felt the filmmakers erred a little on being too safe. Lily James makes a fantastic zombie-hunting Elizabeth Bennet. She's gorgeous and feisty. Sadly her Darcy is not quite her equal, and is a little more emo in this version...but I suppose he's perfectly tolerable, just not handsome enough to tempt me... (sorry for the P&P joke it was just too appropriate.) Luckily they work well together, and everyone is cast well enough. Matt Smith and Lena Headey in particular, are scene stealers. For a movie such as this, the pacing is everything. In the beginning, it was absolutely perfect the way they intertwined the zombie attacks with the well-known romance. The middle portion of the movie doesn't have the same tact in getting things right. It drags as it focuses more on the story we know when it should take more liberties. Still, I can't deny I had a lot of fun seeing one of my favorite stories zombified. I just hope an extended/directors/unrated cut makes its way to Blu-ray sometime. Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is flawed but incredibly enjoyable for Austen lovers that don't take themselves too seriously, as well as action fans alike. It just might be the perfect date movie. RATING: 7/10

Sundance is finally over, and the last review I have to give to you is the big winner of the festival, and likely future Oscar contender: The Birth of a Nation. Though the title may strike a familiar chord with film history buffs, the 2016 film is not in fact a remake of one of the first full-length feature films ever made. What Nation is, is a story about the Nat Turner slave rebellion. More specifically, his life story as a young slave who learned how to read, became a preacher, and believed it was his duty to exact vengeance on his white slave owners. The film is an incredibly ambitious and assured debut for a first time writer-director Nate Parker, as well as an obvious passion project. His name appears all over the credits, and yet with his earnest performance it feels nothing like a vanity project. Unfortunately for Nation, inevitable comparisons to 12 Years a Slave are bound to happen, not just due to the subject matter being portrayed so similarly in look and tone, but also being released only a few years apart. As I watched, I couldn't help but feel that the movies are incredibly similar...but let's talk about some of the things that sets it apart from being a clone of the Oscar winner. There's a lot of talk about God in this film and study of the scriptures. Nat Turner believes himself to be a mouthpiece from God, and when he finally starts his rebellion...it's not out of revenge, but out of a belief that this is what God wants him to do. Religion and faith in God play a big part of this film and I really enjoyed it (that is, until the end where it did make my stomach feel a little queasy.) Another thing the film features is a really lovely story about how Nat and his wife fell in love. Their scenes together are very tender and adorable, and in my opinion are among some of the highlights of the film. The other difference between Nation and 12 Years a Slave, if you know anything about the historical significance of this film, is that there's no "Brad Pritt frees the slaves" happy ending to be found for Nat Turner and his followers. Instead, the film culminates in quite the bloody finale. As someone who has a hard time with gore, I ducked under my coat a few times to avoid the brutality. I found the ending to be heartbreaking for both races. This is a period in history where the behavior by the majority was abhorrent, and it's hard to watch. The usual shocking moments of utter disregard of well being is on display, and it's hard to imagine how humanity was ever okay with that. But watching the retaliation when there are some arguably innocent people involved too....well it wasn't an easy thing to watch either. The whole thing, as intended, left me feeling incredibly sad about this period of time in the world's history. The Birth of a Nation gets the period feel just right. There are the usual sweeping establishing shots of the plantation, and in general, the cinematography is very good. But there's also the little details like hiding Armie Hammer's perfect teeth that I really enjoyed. I have no doubts that come awards time, this movie will get a lot of attention, if nothing else to make up for this year's cries of a lack of diversity. On the cons side, there aren't just the similarities to Slave, but also Braveheart, and it's hard to feel like the movie is completely doing its own thing. It basically takes the best of both worlds to tell its tale...not that that's a bad thing...it's just the type of film that makes you feel like you may have already seen it before. Also to its detriment is the pacing. You wish that the rebellion could occur a little sooner, because where it's placed feels somewhat too little, too late. All in all, it's a solid film...even if it feels like something we've seen before. EMILY RATING: 8/10

There are many reasons one might be drawn to the works of Jane Austen. Maybe it's the regency period love stories that strike an Austen lover's fancy. Or maybe "Janeites" just love the strong, yet flawed heroines who were ahead of their time...the heroines who come of age on the pages and learn valuable lessons. Perhaps you love her novels because you find her writing deliciously witty and you enjoy her social satire commentary. Such comedy of errors usually present themselves as a result of the inclusion of token Austen characters, such as: the meddling mothers, scheming villainesses, pompous oblivious fools, etc. Maybe you delight in those characters because there's always that strong heroine observing them and how ridiculous their actions are. Or perhaps there isn't just one thing you like about Austen, but rather the way she takes all these elements together and blends them into the perfect concoction. If you took away any single ingredient, the recipe would feel like it's off. Such is the case in my reaction to Whit Stillman's Love & Friendship, anadaptation of the unpublished (during her lifetime) Jane Austen novella Lady Susan. Before I get into my criticisms of the film, I will admit that the context in which I'm seeing this film most definitely has a strong influence on my reaction here. In the last week, I've seen some truly amazing films and after awhile, it's hard not to pit them against each other and constantly compare the strengths and weaknesses. So understand here that I know I think I might being too harsh...(had I seen this in a barren wasteland of a movie month, I might have eaten it up with pleasure,) but as it was I couldn't help but be frustrated with how close Stillman was to getting what I wanted out of the movie, but falling short. When I watched the film, I couldn't help but think to myself "now I know why Jane never published this." Though it certainly has wit and charm to spare, it does not have the lessons or depths that her published novels do. Essentially, it feels like Austen fluff. The problem with Love & Friendship is, it centers around a deliciously scheming villainess but doesn't give you anyone to root for as a foil. Stillman and all the characters try to convince the audience to root for Lady Susan's daughter Frederica...but the problem is she's totally bland and boring as a heroine (I would say largely due to casting.) I understand if you can't have the character be fiery and passionate to take away from Beckinsale's Lady Susan, but characters with a quiet strength and reserve can be someone the audience can still root for (a non Austen-example is Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn, and an Austen example being Emma Thompson in Sense & Sensibility.) Had the role gone to an actress with a more striking presence, the issues of a lack of heroine and love story wouldn't exist because we'd be rooting for her growth (as well as to be the one to snag the hunk in the end.) Instead, Beckinsale steals the show....and while it's fun to see her schemes play out and to have an Austen film centered around a character like her, it just never seems like it's leading to anything more worthwhile. For what it's worth, Love & Friendship certainly is enjoyable. The film makes use of a visual flair and unique storytelling methods to tell its simple story. For each character, we receive a title card informing us who they are and why they're important to the whole scheme of things. Everything is so breezy, you get the exact sense of what Love & Friendship wants to be and the depth (or lack of,) it's willing to settle for. If it were an original piece without any ties to anyone, it would be unquestioningly delightful; the problem is, in comparison to other works of Austen it simply feels unbalanced. Had Stillman worked a little harder to cast the supporting roles, everything might have been more easily forgiven, but as it is, I can't help but feel that the film just ever so slightly missed the mark. EMILY RATING: 7/10

The last two of years or so, Sundance has managed to get their hands on some pretty solid horror films. In 2014, they premiered The Babadook and in 2015 came The Witch. So does 2016 have a breakout horror film to make it a solid three years in a row? From all accounts I had heard, it seemed to be the case in the form of an Iranian film called Under the Shadow. As an avid lover of the genre, naturally I had to obtain tickets and see for myself how this film stacked up against its spiritual predecessors. I'm delighted to report that Under the Shadow is indeed, as critics have called it "the first great horror film of the year." Set in the 1980's during the middle of the Iraq/Iran war, there is a real dread and uneasiness that invades the picture right from the start. The story is basic, and I won't get into it at length. It revolves all around a woman watching her daughter in their apartment during the war...when creepy stuff starts happening. First-time director Babak Anvari takes his time and opts for a slow burn horror story. As I sat in my seat, I began to feel a little frustrated and wanted the movie to pick up its pace (mostly because I attended such a late screening,) but when the first real scare occurred....I have to admit, it got me good. And I certainly wasn't alone in that either. I heard more than half the audience scream along with me, and breathe a sigh of relief as soon as they could. But little did we know, that was just the beginning and the tension wouldn't truly let up until the credits. Under the Shadow is an impeccably made film no matter who made it, but it's almost mind-blowing when you discover that this was the director's first feature film. His direction and staging are so self-assured, and the performances he got out of his players somehow manages to be pitch perfect. I have to say, I really hope he continues to make films in this genre. Under the Shadow is a beyond effectively made horror film. Other than my impatience at the slow burn (which again, was more due to the hour than the filmmaking,) my only qualm is that I would have loved a stronger finale. [Vague spoilers highlight to read:] I wanted the film to pack a punch at the end, but the filmmakers took the more subtle route.[ /End Spoiler.] Really when it comes down to it, once the film gets going it's hard not to want more of the goods! EMILY RATING: 8.5/10

There's nothing new about The Hollars. The going back home and visiting your family movie has certainly been done before...so the question is if actor and director John Krasinki is able to elevate the overly familiar material. I believe he is, for the most part, successful in his endeavors as he's created a warm and funny movie...yet somehow he winds up with a good film instead of a great one. The reason for this, I 100% believe, is due to the script. The Hollars tells the story of John Hollar (John Krasinski) a man living in New York City who is about to become a father, but struggles with the commitment of marriage to his girlfriend Rebecca (Anna Kendrick.) Suddenly he's summoned back home (wherever that is...) when his mother is diagnosed with a brain tumor and must undergo a life-risking surgery. While home, he realizes the lives of everyone in his past is basically in shambles. His father is constantly a crying mess on the verge of bankruptcy. His brother was laid off and now with is free time exhibits stalkerish tendencies. His former flame might be unhappily married. And his mother now questions all of her life choices. Witnessing everyone else's troubles, John must decide if he wants to stay on the path where his life is going. Krasinski has assembled himself quite a fine cast, with veteran supporting players. Anna Kendrick, Richard Jenkins, Margo Martindale, Sharlto Copley, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Charlie Day, Josh Groban and Mary Kay Place all do their best with the roles they're given. The problem is, a couple of these roles are painfully underwritten at the expense of the story. In particular, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is reduced to one scene essentially using her as a punchline, when her character could have been far more integral and key to John's character arc. In a large ensemble piece this happens all the time, but in this case, there was definitely material that could have been cut to incorporate a more meaningful arc between Winstead and Krasinski (I'm looking at you Sharlto Copley and all your cringe-worthy stalking scenes.) Truly, this movie was a couple rewrites away from being great. Still, it's difficult to be too hard on the film when it is a pretty enjoyable watch. John Krasinski, as always is so likable and warm, so as a result the movie feels that way too. As Krasinski himself mentioned in the Q&A afterward, the film often takes sharp hairpin turns between comedy and drama, and I must say it is pretty successful at its attempts. For having heavy material, the film definitely has more than enough humor to lighten everything up. It's basically movie comfort food. And with its easy listening indie music soundtrack, everything goes down smoothly. So when it comes down to it, there are two things really you need to know about The Hollars. Is it original? No. Is it enjoyable? Definitely! EMILY RATING: 7.5/10

When watching so many dramas in such a short period of time, coming across something as purely fun and entertaining as Sing Street is a breath of fresh air. The film comes from John Carney whose previous credits include the highly acclaimed musicals Once and Begin Again. It was the latter that really drove me to wanting to see Sing Street, and as lovely as Begin Again was...Sing Street is going to be the film that really wins over audiences. At least, I hope so. After all, everyone in our theater seemed to be overcome with joy at the 80's pop music tribute. Sing Street is all about a 15-year old boy whose life changes when he falls in love with music...as well as the cool aspiring model (Lucy Boynton, aka a dead ringer for Felicity Jones) who becomes his muse. Our young hero, later nicknamed Cosmo, in an attempt to get closer to his crush, decides to form a band so they can use her modeling services in their music videos. Under the constant advice of his 80's pop music aficionado brother, Cosmo learns how to craft the perfect songs and videos, as well as woo the girl of his dreams. Sing Street is utterly delightful. It's the type of movie that you want to see again the very next day and tell all your friends about. The soundtrack features odes to all your favorite 80's tunes, but it's the new songs on the soundtrack that you'll be craving to listen to after the film ends. If I have a single complaint about the film, it would be that our protagonist's singing voice changes from awful to amazing a little too abruptly, and in general, the band gets pretty good relatively fast. You have to wonder when he found the time to take singing lessons! Minor nitpicks aside, Sing Street is wonderful in so many ways. It's the type of movie that pays reverence to relationships like your first love, but also the familial ties that bind. To me, the core of the story really is the relationship between the two brothers. And in that regard, the ending couldn't be more perfect. Honestly, I left the theater with a big grin on my face, and I can't wait for the rest of the world to see it too. EMILY RATING: 9/10