By Nadia Ranaputri

It's almost the end of the year, but there are still more movies to look forward to. Here are the movies that I am planning to watch and review, so keep an eye on them.

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: screenrant.com

Director: Antoine Fuqua
Cast: Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, Lee Byung-hun, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Martin Sensmeier, Haley Bennett, Peter Sarsgaard.

I actually watched this movie about two weeks ago, so this review is overdue. Nonetheless, it is here.

Even if I love movies, I'm still quite new to the Western genre. I haven't seen much from the Western genre except for the Coen Brother's True Grit, which I thought was a fantastic movie by the way. But other than that, I am still new to the genre.

Thus, I deliberated for a while on whether or not The Magnificent Seven was worth watching. I haven't seen the original Magnificent Seven and it's highly unusual for me to suddenly dive into the Western genre, but I do have a friend who's a sucker for Western movies.

The Magnificent Seven is a remake of the 1960 film of the same name, and tells the story of a town named Rose Creek, which has been taken over by a greedy industrialist. As he takes control of the town, the citizens seek help from seven outlaws to protect their town from further danger and ensure freedom from the industrialist's control.

I did not really expect anything going in, if I had to be honest. But I was quite surprised with the fact that it's actually pretty good. Like I said before, I'm no expert in the Western genre, but this movie was a hell of a good time; packed with surprisingly fun elements that made the experience for me. It won't work for everyone, though. But for me, this movie isn't one to take very seriously. It's really just a solid fun action movie.

Source: latinoweeklyreview.com

The characters in terms of the Magnificent Seven themselves are fleshed-out well, elevated by impressive performances from their actors. Everyone gets their time to shine, and they have interesting motivations as to why they did what they did. Other than being fleshed out, they're also charming and have sense of humor, though it could be off-putting at times.

The storyline is solid, but sometimes lacks coherence and substance that would have made it standout. What I do have to say though, is that the action sequences were well choreographed, and were very enjoyable, especially the stand-off in the third act. So like I said before, it's more of a solid fun action movie.

Overall, I can't really discuss anything more, but I really enjoyed this movie. The storyline is pretty solid, but sometimes lacks coherence and substance. The action was great, the characters were fleshed-out (quite well, and enough to make them interesting), and every actor of the Magnificent Seven brought charm and depth to their characters. It's not a complete no-brainer, but if you're looking for a more serious type of Western film, you'd probably pass on this remake of The Magnificent Seven. If you're looking for a fun action movie though,  it probably wouldn't hurt to give this movie a go.

Stars: 3.5/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: foxmovies.com

Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Eva Green, Ella Purnell, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris O'Dowd, Allison Janey.

What comes in your mind when you hear the word "peculiar" or "peculiarity"? Does it sound like a fancy term for "weirdness" or "unusual"? Does it seem like a nice little word that you like to say the moment it rolls of your tongue?

But what if this peculiarity is used to describe one's unusual ability?

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is an adaptation from the novel of the same name by Ransom Riggs, about a boy named Jake (though it's Jacob in the book) who often listens to his grandfather's stories regarding a children's home filled with kids of special abilities. As he grew up, he realizes that his grandfather's stories of this particular home isn't fiction after all. He sets out on a journey to find this particular home, and finds more than what he sought to seek.

As far as characters go, I found Jake quite bland as a character. Don't get me wrong, I like Asa Butterfield. He's a great actor, but his character seems uninteresting and doesn't have any depth that makes us care for him as the main character. Miss Peregrine (played by Eva Green) herself is a delightful character, but she doesn't really have much to do in most parts of the movie except for explaining to Jake (and us as the audience) about the necessary plot expositions to get the story going. As for the peculiar children, they're good, too. However, my friend pointed out that most of the peculiar children, as well as Jake himself; are practically stock characters, and I agree, when I thought about it. Because they don't have much depth and significant development, they're pretty much stock characters that are just there to show us that they are indeed peculiar. Emma (played by Ella Purnell) is really the most fleshed out character for me (again, another friend of mine pointed this out and he's quite right, the longer you think about it).

Source: foxmovies.com

However, I can say that the acting was charming, and all were great at playing their characters. The problem was, the characters just aren't all that great in terms of character depth and development.

And the problem wasn't just at the characters. The movie itself seemed too rushed at times. Most of the scenes in the first half of the movie had very abrupt transitions, which really bugged me, because it felt like there was more to those scenes, and it all became rushed for the sake of the runtime and for the sake of getting to the point. Because of the abrupt transitions, the scenes were short and gave no depth to the characters. I would also like to point out that this movie had some cliches and tropes that I thought could have been better if they weren't there at all.

What I can really compliment from this movie, other than the acting; is the score. The music in the movie was beautiful to hear, and it does elevate some scenes. Those two things are the highest compliments I can give for this movie.

Overall, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children was not bad, but I thought that it could have been a lot more better than how it turned out to be. The acting was good, and the music is wonderful, but those are the highest compliments I can give. The characters lack depth and development, and the movie just felt very rushed on the first half, as many scenes were cut at transitioned abruptly. It definitely has so much potential, but it just wasn't utilized much.

Stars: 3/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: World of Superheroes

Director: Bryan Singer
Cast: James Mcavoy, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp, Lucas Till, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy.

Here’s the thing: I love the X-Men. I love the feel of the franchise, I love the messages it conveys, and I love the fact that the X-Men franchise is what introduced me to superhero movies. If it weren’t for them, I probably wouldn’t have been diving into the superhero genre.

The original X-Men trilogy was a spectacle (with the exception of X-Men: The Last Stand) and the new set of trilogy brought fresh new take to everyone’s favorite mutants.

X-Men: Apocalypse ends the new trilogy and is a follow up from X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past. X-Men: Apocalypse takes place in the 1980s, where after the events of Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier has reopened his school for gifted youngsters. In the midst of what seems to be peace among mutants and humans, an awakening what is supposedly the world’s first mutant, En Sabah Nur, alias Apocalypse; has commenced. Seeing chaos in the world he has awoken in, Apocalypse assembles (no Avengers pun here, okay?) four powerful mutants as his Four Horsemen. As they attempt to rid the world of its supposed chaos, the X-Men regroup again to fight for mankind.

Like Captain America: Civil War before it, X-Men: Apocalypse boasts a lot of characters under its belt. If you’ve seen my Civil War review, I mentioned that the problem with having many characters is that not everyone will get a chance to shine or be rooted for. Civil War had no problem shining the spotlight on almost every character (every Avenger, to be exact) and they did it effortlessly.

X-Men: Apocalypse has this problem. The film boasts a lot of mutants, including new ones that we’ve never seen on the big screen before. The thing is, only a few new mutants are given the spotlight and reasons for them being there. One of my main gripes is that Archangel and Psylocke aren’t given much story. We are never explained why they follow Apocalypse and why they keep continuing to do so.
I apologize for any inconvenience, but I can’t help but compare this to Captain America: Civil War. Skip this part if you must.

Most of us have seen Civil War, so it’s not a problem if I delve in to spoilers (and that is if I do end up doing it) for the movie. In Civil War, we are introduced to two new characters: Black Panther and Spider-Man, both having their own solo movies coming in the following years. In the span of their limited screen time, they are given moments to shine (especially Black Panther, whose arc is pivotal in this movie). Civil War showed us why they’re here as well as giving us a glimpse of their personalities as a person and abilities as a hero.

As for Psylocke and Archangel? They’re just there. Archangel was given a few things, but maybe that’ll do for now. But Psylocke, my God, only has a total of about two lines in this movie. Less talking, more fighting for her. Don’t get me wrong, if a character fights more than she talks, then I’m fine with it. But if we are not given her reason of being there, it’s going to be hard to root for her. The problem with Psylocke is that we’re not given much from her.

Source: Lovelyti

Another problem that I had with this movie were the motivations of Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen. First of all, I love Oscar Isaac. He’s one of my most favorite actors. He has great range and he can play literally anyone. I can say that he’s menacing enough as Apocalypse. But why is Apocalypse so hell-bent on destroying the world? We’re not given a logical reason (if not ANY reason) as to why he wants to ‘cleanse the earth’. He just wants to destroy the world. He took one look at the world and BAM, he decided to rid it. You know what this reminds me of? Ultron from Avengers: Age of Ultron. That’s right, I went there. Ultron took one look at the world and he decides that it deserves to be destroyed. What’s worse is that this “wanting to destroy the world for some reason” type of villain is basically a thing nowadays in big budget films. I actually prefer an underwritten villain with a clear motivation (*cough* Darren Cross *cough*) rather than a big-scale villain with no actual reason as to why he wants to destroy stuff. 

This problem eventually spreads to the storyline itself. I thought the storyline was quite solid, but it's not as compelling and cohesive as the first two films in the prequel series. The first two films knew where they were going with the story and they had good buildups that leads to a great third act.

Speaking of third acts, the one in Apocalyse was entertaining, but I felt that they were just trying too hard. What the first two films did so well was create a compellling third act without bloating it in attempt to make it epic. So without spoiling anything, X-Men: Apocalypse's third act was a little all over the place.

So let’s move on to the positives. The action sequences are great, and they’re well handled, up until the third act. The CGI was nicely incorporated, and the cinematography was quite spectacular.

Source: 20th Century Fox

Another positive are the new additions to the X-Men. Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, and Alexandra Shipp all gave impressive first impressions as they portray the younger versions of Jean Grey, Scott Summers, and Ororo Munroe respectively.

But the highest compliment I can give to this film is Erik Lensherr/Magneto's arc. His arc is done beautifully and without giving anything away, I felt that Bryan Singer really took his time with Erik; and Bryan succeeded in creating so many new layers to the character. Michael Fassbender brings it his all as Erik, and his striking performance just seeps straight through the screen.

Other than that, X-Men: Apocalypse was quite the disappointment. It’s way better than Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, but it’s too low to be better than Captain America: Civil War. Few new mutants are given the spotlight they deserve, including Erik Lensherr; while some are a little forgettable to say the least. Though the action scenes are spectacular, and Magneto's arc was beautifully done, X-Men: Apocalypse lacks character motivations and materials to make us care for them.

Stars: 3.2/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: heymikeyatl.com

Source: Collider

Source: Collider