Movie Review: Dr. Seuss's The Grinch

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome back to my movie review.

Well, Christmas is upon us already, since we're like in mid-late November, and i guess im might as well doing a Christmas movie review. But this time, we're taking a look of one the most famous kid's story in our childhood called "How The Grinch stole Christmas". Published in 1957 and written by Dr. Seuss, this story is like our favorite story telling only on Christmas in our childhood memory. Its about a mean green creature named "The Grinch" who lives all alone, far away from The Whoville, due to his hatred of Christmas from his heart is two sized too small, his goal is to steal all the Christmas decorations to ruining the holiday.

When the book became popular, its no secret that has to be an adaptation. There's the TV animated short by Chuck Jones and narrated by Boris Karloff in 1966, which despite it had a divided reaction, but it became a classic when it was re-aired. Fast forward to 2000, Ron Howard directed an live action adaptation with Jim Carrey as The Grinch, with despite the box-office success, but it got even more mixed reaction, some say its rather a pretty good story for the origin, but others felt Jim Carrey's depiction of The Grinch comes off as questionable, which im one of those people that im not a huge fan of this live action cash in.

Several years later, Illumination decided to making their own adaptation of The Grinch which i was anticipated to see it, even though many people was questioning since we already got Ron Howard's version.

"Dr. Seuss's The Grinch" is a 2018 animated Illumination film directed by Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney, produced by Chris Meledandri and Janet Heal and written by Michael LeSieur and Tommy Swerdlow.

Though i may not considered myself to grew up with Dr. Seuss stories, because i was more of comics and Disney films. But when i grew to learn about Dr. Seuss, i find all them are fascinated, from The Grinch to "The cat in a hat". But of course, this is not the first time Illumination done the adaptation of Dr. Seuss's story, the first time they've done is "The Lorax", which is easily the most weakest film ever made by the same company with Minions, so they made their second try with the most familiar character in the Christmas story.

So, with all that said, will this movie holds up for changing heart, or is it really make too much noise?

Well, lets find out.

The Story.

you expected that this movie could have original story like Ron Howard's version, right?  Well, it doesn't have anything special for this movie.

The plot begins where The Grinch travels to Whoville to gets his breakfast and humiliating the Whos and not before he's getting to much from Christmas that he's going to setting up his goal by stealing Christmas stuff and thats it. It feels like an extended version from the book, but with some unnecessary filler. But they did have a subplot, where little Cindy Lou Who and her friends working together to set up the trap to catching Santa Claus, mainly because she really wants to see him, like any kids believing. Plus, it also has a plot development to know why The Grinch hated Christmas, which happens when he was young in orphanage that he has no Christmas for him, but execution is vague that we asked so many question for why he's left abandoned or where are his parents, are they did or left to another world? Despite the major flaws, the most common meaning about this movie, was the heart for holiday, which it make sense that if we hated back then, maybe it could change our feeling, especially some moments are touching.

As for the jokes, although some of them did made us chuckle, but others aren't as funny that we have never expected, especially the one that they obviously took the joke of goat scream. Come on, Black Panther did a better meme joke than what we have here!

The story itself is unfortunately nothing special, just add some filler and some small subplot and vague backstory to making an extended version of the book. Even though it has an interesting meaning, but nothing new.

The Animation

Though im not considered myself as a fan of Illumination, but i have to give a credit like "Sing", the animation itself is actually pretty good.

The backgrounds are nice work with the mountains surrounding with snows or even decorative and colorful place of Whoville that it looks like it was done in gingerbread house, since its obviously made in Christmas, especially the color pallets, textures and the quality looks impressive.

As for the character designs, despite some criticized they looks like a typical concept of Illumination, but i don't think its that bad, i find the designs are above average, sure Max's design looks like something straight out of "The Secret Life of Pets", but i digress. The Grinch design looks pretty cool that he might looks similar from the book version, but im not sure if i called it better than Chuck Jones's version. And there's the Whos, although i find some of them are rather mixed, the designs themselves are nice, but i don't like they give them a random hairstyles, its good at first, but other times some of them are running out of ideas.

But probably the best part of the animation, it has to be the climatic stealing Christmas decorations, this one is easily the memorable part, but far more creative, thanks to The Grinch's gadgets to stealing all the stuff, and some of the choreograph is also pretty good. I guess its no wonder why we like to see the climatic scene in movie.

While Illuminations's animation of The Grinch looks outstanding, but sometimes they have some lower ideas.

The Characters.

Im sure you guys are familiar with characters in the book like The Grinch, Cindy Lou Who, Max the dog and... Thats all there is. But with this movie, you expected to have a new casts for new development? Sadly no.

Lets started with The Grinch himself (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, aka Dr. Strange in MCU), he's basically a neutral in the story, he started as a grumpy and mean at the Who's for the humiliations, but he may also has a sympathetic figure due to his tragic origins, but then again, i was questioning why he's left all alone. I have to admitted, its a nice extra character development in this version, but at least its better thanks to the nicely fitting voice from Benedict and even better than being an over-the-top depiction from the live action version.

As for his pet Max, he's just... Well, a dog, but more of a loyal dog. But they also including Fred the fat reindeer, who's just a generic fatty character for a small appearance. Yeah, i think Max is more likable than Fred...

Then we have Cindy Lou Who (voiced by the young Cameron Seely), unlike in the book or the TV short who's just a curious girl. Here, she's basically kind-heart little Who girl that she cares about her mom, since she's overly busy. I find her to be rather cute when she shows up, despite of her goal of capture Santa in the night. Though i understand that they wanted to make more of her, because of her pointless filler and her generic kid who likes to see Santa, she's rather an ok little girl. But of course, Cameron did a nice work of her role.

As the other Whos? Well, they're rather limited than Cindy, like Donna (voiced by Rashida Jones) who's an overworked mother, but at least she's not as dumb as "Lou Lou Who", and Bricklebaum (voiced by Kenan Thompson), who's like a next door neighbor with big decorations. But sometimes some characters has a questionable names, including some of Cindy's friends such as Axl (like Axl Rose?), Ozzy (like Ozzy Osbourne?) or even Izzy (like Izzy Bizu??).

And you're probably wondering who's the narrator of the movie? Well, surprisingly it was Pharrell Williams, the same music artist with "Get Lucky" with Daft Punk, his single "Happy" and as a judge in "The Voice", not bad.

The characters in this movie are obviously limited, though they have some new developments, but would've give us some new casts to extending the movie.

And now for my final opinion of this film.

Overall, Dr. Seuss's The Grinch is rather an ok film. The story feels like an extension film from book, the animation looks pretty nice and the characters, despite some are good, but they're probably limited, since it mainly focus out titular character. This is the film that its ok to show it for kids and im pretty sure they'll easily like this movie. For my recommendation, its a mixed bag, i mean you can see it if you're openly curious that you haven't heard of Dr. Seuss or a fan of his work, if not, well, i'd say stick to the book or even Chuck Jones's version.

And do i think its better than "The Lorax"? I'd say yes, where "The Lorax" although it had a nice animation, but the story is waste of space, a song with nice beat but with bad lyrics and the characters are either obnoxious or forgettable. While The Grinch is an alright film to adapting from the book. Its not bad, but nothing special.

I give this movie a 5.5/10.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

Thanks for reading, and im Anthony, signing out.

Movie Review: Bohemian Rhapsody

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome back to my movie review.

As a kid to a teenagers, i enjoyed listening some old school rocks from late 60's through early 90's, the most notable that i remembered is ACDC, its like my childhood favorite band that i though they're from USA, but in reality, they're from Australia. But there's another group that i also remembered is Queen.

Queen is one of the most famous British band we've ever heard from the 70's to the 80's for their ground breaking song that we heard a lot in the radio, especially for the lovable signer named Freddie Mercury for his wonderful vocal voice and even wrote his famous songs like "We are the champions", "Don't stop me now", "Somebody to love" and the most recognizable one "Bohemian Rhapsody". He's been his group since 1970 and he sometimes doing his own solo career with his own songs right before his tragic death from AIDS in 1991, which he was tested positive or negative to reveal he was diagnosed with AIDS, but he kept in secret, but his long reveal til he died too late. It is no wonder how anyone from the past will always remember about Freddie and even creating a charity to fighting against AIDS/HIV.

And so, it is no wonder il talking about a movie based on the true story of the origin of the band Queen and Freddie Mercury's life.

"Bohemian Rhapsody" is a 2018 Biographical film directed by Bryan Singer (but replaced by Dexter Fletcher), produced by Graham King and Jim Beach and written by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan (for story).

At first, when i noticed that they're gonna make a movie based on real life about Queen caught a lot of surprise for me and Queen fans as well that we like to see how it goes. But during the development, it had a difficult time where Bryan Singer wasn't so nice at fellow members and casts with arguments and absence, as a result, he got fired for the problem and got replaced by Dexter Fletcher in order to finish the project before the deadline. Which it might be concerned how the movie goes after Singer's controversy.

So, with all that said, will this movie live up of real life, or its just fantasy?

Well, lets find out (Just to give a warning, they're might be a spoiler, so Spoiler Alert)

The Story

For the story if you like to how it looks like in the origin and life Freddie, i find it to be not bad, but it has a probably for the history.

It begins where Freddie was born as Farrokh Bulsara (since he's a Indian-British), he was working in the airport baggage from the college, when he went to a nightclub with a short-lived group called "Smile". After a former member Tim Staffell left the group for decline, Farrokh meets fellow members Brian May and Roger Taylor that he wants to join group with an extra member name John Deacon to forming their group called "Queen" and he legally changed his name to "Freddie Mercury" that we all know and love. Freddie meets a girl name Mary Austin that they're dating together, and Queen's first album was the first success. As time goes, Freddie wrote a song in six minutes known as "Bohemian Rhapsody", which despite it had a divided reception from the lyric, but it was a smash hit. Unfortunately, the relationship of Freddie and Mary won't last very long with a break up, due to the fact that he's gay when he had affair with his man name Paul Prenter. So Freddie while in solo career, he's gonna make his decision whether he's going back to his group or probably fallen from the grace of his business.

I find the story itself it quiet interesting to show us the origin of our favorite British band and the life of our favorite late singer for newcomers of old school rocks. The downside i kinda have is that the movie mainly not focus about the group, it mainly focuses about Freddie's life of his writing songs and a love triangle between Mary Austin and his manager Paul Prenter, which i find the subplot of love triangle is easily reasonable for why Freddie is gay.

However, since they're trying to follow the history, but it ended up with a tripping down by shoe laces from an inaccuracies.  For example, the formation of the group was not simple, but as presented, which is pretty vague, but in reality, he created regal and gay connotations in order to make a strong name for British audiences. Then there's after Freddie doing his own solo in the 80's, he wanted to have a reunion with his bandmates and his friends Mary Austin and Jim Hutton in Live Aid, when in reality, the reunion has nothing to do in Live Aid, they joined in for the audiences to fighting against AIDS in Wembley Stadium. And last but definitely not the least, was Freddie's diagnose of AIDS. In the movie, he learns that he was diagnosed with AIDS in 1985 (before Live Aid), but it really never happen until 1986 when he was reported for a blood test until Jim reported about it one year later, but Freddie denied by saying it was tested negatively and kept secret from rumors.

Despite the problem of inaccurate moments, but the story is not bad that for introducing us for the formation of Queen and Freddie Mercury.

The Production

Though we expected to see some beautiful work of the movie, and they did a pretty good job.

For starter, the filming location  is actually accurate to see where we're follow, especially where Queen started in the old house then bought the mansion, thanks to their hits, which is a nice evolving of their popularity. Plus, i like their recording studio in their old house, during the recording of "Bohemian Rhapsody", especially it had some funny moments like the tone from a signing to be high pitch.

But what it makes it beautiful work is the cinematography, it looks so good for a shots in many places from the conversation of the studio or in the party to the concert. The concert scenes are amazing and colorful in the same time, and the filming of Live Aid is so good and it feels like a highlight of this movie, just like in real life "Live Aid" that the Queen's concert is the best part in 1985.

And of course, lets not forget about the songs, its no surprise that it was like a remake songs in order to be like the original ones, and i think they did a good job, since Brian May and Roger Taylor are working as creative and musical consultants. But the issue is that Rami Malek (who played Freddie Mercury) is an actor, not a singer, the only to solving it is the inserted vocal stems from Queen and brought a Canadian version of Freddie name Marc Martel. Though i never heard of Marc Martel, but he's easily surprised us for his beautiful voice of singing and i think he did a good job for his covers.

But like i said before, the movie had a difficulty development from Bryan Singer that he was absent many times from after Thanksgiving or "personal health matter", and it got a lot worse that he was clashing at Malek for his horrible attitude while filming and it is no wonder he got fired and replaced by Dexter Fletcher in order to finish the project positively. I guess it explained the reason why Bryan Singer was hated for not just his mistreatment in filming, but also the sexual abuse as well.

Despite the controversy, they did a good job for the presentation of filming and musicals as well. Especially the Live Aid scene really touches me that i was close about to cry emotionally.

The Characters

Im sure some of you fans of Queen are familiar of the members themselves, but it also add more characters for the true story. But i find the casts are quiet interesting.

First up as we all know is Freddie Mercury (played by Rami Malek), i find his role and his look is a nice casting for him, he's depicted as flamboyant lead member in the stage for how cool and handsome he is for his style, when in reality, he's a very shy and retiring that he didn't like to know at anyone, especially for the interview that he was considered a "different person", which we all know that his secret that he's gay. Despite his shy personality that we might understand, but we can all agree Rami did a great job of his leading role.

Then we have Freddie's former girlfriend and a true friend name Mary Austin (played by Lucy Boynton), as we all know, she's a love interest of Freddie in the story that they're developing together for their relationship. And like we all know, the relationship between her and Mercury wasn't that easy, due to his sexuality that resulting a break up. Despite the drama, she also have a sympathetic figure that she wants to see him again when she's pregnant, which it sadly understandable for Freddie, that he wants her as a friend. But to be fair, i can say Lucy did a nice work of her role.

As for the members, though i may not familiar with some of them, they're pretty cool look and a nice cast for Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor and Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon. But one i think who's also likable is Brian May (played by Gwilym Lee), not only he has a unique look, but also pretty good personality that he's calm, somewhat charming and well-respective guitarist of the band, which i think Gwilym is also did a good job of his role.

As for the rest, they're used for the story for Freddie's relationship like Paul Prenter (played by Allen Leech), who's not only a manger, but also Freddie's gay friend for affair, Ray Foster (played by a fallen comedic actor Mike Myers) who's an EMI executive, but loosely based on the real life EMI chief name Roy Featherstone and Jim Hutton (played by Aaron McCusker), who's Freddie's next love interest, but the downside is that he was hairdresser who met him in the nightclub in reality.

Despite some characters are also have inaccuracies, but the characters are quiet good for not just the look or the depiction, but its the casting whether they fitting nicely. Especially with Rami, he kicks ass of his main role.

And now for my final opinion of this film.

Overall, since "Rush" is my favorite film based on true story, but Bohemian Rhapsody is a pretty good film with an ok story, a wonderful presentation and the characters are pretty nice to see on the big screen. Even though the movie was suffered of incorrect history for Queen fans, especially the AIDS scene, which is an easily point out of criticism.

Despite the botched writing and a nightmare development with Bryan Singer, it had a mixed reaction when it came out. For me, i don't think its not that bad, inaccurate aside, but its really nice to see the movie about Queen in the big screen, especially my father and i watched the movie together and we had a great time. This is the film that i recommend to watch it if you're a fan of Queen or even your curiosity. If not, well, just stick to the documentary about the group and Freddie himself.

So for that, i give this movie a 7/10. Go watch it if you want.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

Thanks for reading, and im Anthony, signing out.

Movie Review: Halloween 2018

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome to the final part of my movie review of Halloween special.

Well, i've done talking about a ventriloquist gone mad for haunting Halloween and a former reporter became a host from the Symbiote, we're reaching one genre that i haven't covered, Slasher movie.

Over decades, we're familiar of horror films with classic monsters, as time goes, many people in Hollywood or in indie films are making horror films in violence level, like Psycho in 1960, Night of the living dead in 1968 and few more in the old days. But then we have Halloween in 1978, this is the film that it gave birth of slasher genre and it is no wonder why it became a horror classic. But like we all know, its rather debatable that there's Black Christmas in 1974 that it may considered as the first slasher, but i digress.

For Halloween, not only it became the most successful horror film (since it was done in low-budget about $300,00 or $325,000), but also made an inspirational slasher films like "Friday the 13th", "Nightmare on Elm Street" or sometimes make fun of cliches like "Scream". Though if you ask me about the Halloween sequels, well, it went alright to S***. But don't worry, im not talking about those crappy sequels, there had been a reboot sequels like H20 in 1998 and the one that il talking about today.

"Halloween 2018" is... Well, a 2018 slasher film that was written/directed by David Gordon Green, produced by Malek Akkad, Jason Blum and Bill Block, and written by Jeff Fradley and Danny McBride.

Like i said before, when it comes to sequels, its a different story that most of them are alright to god awful that we don't wanna talking about. Unless you counted "Halloween 3: Season of the witch", it had nothing to do with the series, since it was poor attempt of anthology series. After Halloween 6 that it killed off the franchise, it was rebooted with sequels like the mentioned H20, but ended up badly which it also killed off after "Halloween Resurrection" (aka "Halloween: Busta Rhymes vs Michael Myers"). Except for Rob Zombie's Halloween, because they're also a different story.

So now we have a second sequel reboot, will this movie holds up to bringing slasher back, or is this film really deserve to be watched in sanitarium?

Well, lets find out.

The Story

After 40 years when Laurie Strode was saved by Sam Loomis from Michael Myers, Michael was taken to a new facility and Sam Loomis had passed away. The podcasters Aaron Korey and Dana Haines entered the facility for the interview of Dr. Ranbir Sartain for what happened and then they attempt to talking at Michael about the past, but refuses to talk. Later on, they also going to interviewing with Laurie Strode, but failed for bribing that she kicked out, since she's suffering PTSD after 40 years that she wants revenge over Michael. Meanwhile after the bus was sabotaged, Michael is escaped and murdered podcasters and some clerks in gas station, he wears back his classic outfit and going back to Haddonfielf, Illinois for killing spree and even targeting the Strode family, its up to Laurie has to save her family before the shape kills them.

Though its rather an interesting way to make a sequel of the first Halloween, ignoring all previous installments (especially without the mention of Michael Myers's survive from the fire, which is ridiculous that its more deader than gun shots.), i find the story feels more of a typical vengeful from the past, its like have we heard it before? Not only that, the movie also goes to a subplot to introducing Karen and Allyson, it may sounds interesting for them, if they could've give more development. Accept for Karen, but we'll got the characters later. And you're probably wondering about the plot element of babysit? Well, it has that, but it was only use for second act and thats about it, which it kinda feels like a filler. But the most unnecessary part is the party scene for a Allyson and her boyfriend, i know it supposed to give a character development, but does this have to do witht he plot? Nothing, its probably an obvious filler.

The story itself is nice for sequel of the first Halloween, but it would've been better for good development for maybe more backstory and possibly avoiding cliches. 

The Production

Since this is a horror slasher film with between 10 or 15 million dollars of budget, i find the presentation of this film is actually pretty nice.

At first, when i watched it, i was expected that it was filmed in California, but in reality, it was filmed in Charleston, South California. Kinda disappointed, but not a bad filming location of small town, gas station, woods and even Laurie's guard house. Speaking of Laurie's home, i find it to be pretty cool, like it has a secret room underground with guns and other stuff, the other room has a module of Myers's house and even trap doors. Its almost like she's putting traps, but not an actual traps, but more of trap doors.

Since this is a horror slasher film, you're probably wondering about the body counts? Well, the body counts are kinda similar from before, but probably brutal. Especially some body counts shown whats happening, such as the scene where the shape smashes a victim to the wall, stabbing a victim through the throat or even where he opens his hands that he drops several teeth, which my only guess he brutally killed one victim by tearing off teeth, right?  And for the mask, its pretty obvious his mask remains the same as we all know and love. The mask was done in life cast to make it looks aged and weathered, i find the mask itself is nice way for continuation after 40 years to make it looks dirtier and maybe more disturbing.

However, since the presentation of cinematography looks pretty nice and slightly disturbing, but sometimes it gets too dark. I know it was supposed to have more suspenseful in the dark, but its just that sometimes we may barely see anything for whats happening, especially through the night. I know it maybe unnecessary for nitpicking about dark cinematography, but thats just my own problem since i watched Godzilla 2014. But probably the most annoying part of the movie (for obvious cliche) is the use of fake jumpscares, i mean we're building up to see what's going on next like the attack or even the reveal body count, but sometimes it used out of nowhere like some characters randomly appears in front of main characters or even cheap pranks.

The production of this movie is pretty good and kinda nostalgia, even if some parts of presentation might have some flaws.

The Characters

After 40 years, we expected to see how our old characters have a new development and the new casts?

For starter, we have our famous protagonist Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis), from before she's student and being called for babysitting Tommy that we all know, she's somewhat independent and nervous. In this year's sequel, she's suffering PTSD over Michael Myers after decades, which it droves her very mad that she wants to kill him. I find her changing persona actually works that we're rooting for her that we like see her beating up at the shape, its like H20, but at least she didn't change her name.

As for Michael Myers (played by Nick Castle for minimal of acting and James Jude Courtney for stunts), there's not much else to say, he's a silent murderer who's targeting at Strode family his reason of pure evil. Unlike in final act what we see the villain's face, you can see his face a bit from the first act. when we saw his face (don't miss it if you blink), he looks terribly aged since he's been in sanitarium. Though there's some subplot that he said one word, but that didn't happen, which totally unfair that we like to hear it, but then again, he's a silent killer.

And you're probably wondering about Sam Loomis that most characters mentioned? Sadly, he didn't make appearance, which we all know he's famously played by Donald Pleasence. However, he was written off as a mentioned character, because Donald was passed away in 1995 (the year of my birth).

As for the new casts? Well, they're rather bellow average to describe them.

For starter, we have a new psychiatrist named Ranbir Sartain (played by Haluk Bilginer), he's a replacement from Sam Loomis, though i find him to be not bad, but he's not as great than Loomis for interesting lines and his appearance slightly small. Though Haluk did a nice job, but again, Ranbir wasn't feel believable as Loomis.

Then we have Karen Nelson (played by Judy Greer) though she's rather a typical mother, but she did gave her character development from the past that she was dealing with bullies and trained herself, its a nice development, but why can't she joined her mother Laurie for a fist fight against Michael, i guess she's been aged that she doesn't want to break her wrists. But to be fair, i might say Judy did a nice work of her role.

As for Karen's daughter, Allyson (played by Andi Matichak), though im assuming that she's supposed to be the next Laurie Strode in the movie, but she's rather a lame character. She's just a generic girl who sees a boy to fell in love, before walked away from early cheat. Talk about the most cliche development ever. Though Andi did alright, but her development is forgettable.

As for the rest, there's aren't anything to say, which if you've seen most of slasher film, most of characters has a typical personalities and do like any teenagers do, smoking pot, drinking and sexing. But those are like golden rules that if anyone does that, they'll be killed off.

Unless there's one kid that i think he's smart is Julian Morrisey (played by young Jibrail Nantambu), despite a typical kid, but he's probably knew the babysitter Vicky (played by Virginia Gardner, and not to be confused with the one with a same name from "The Fairly Odd Parents" show.) does like any teenagers do. Which Spoiler Alert, Vick is obviously a body count from the shape.

The characters are rather bellow average with some characters is nice to see them again (like Laurie and Michael), while the new casts had some nice development (like Karen), but others are forgettable or even ditsy as the first Halloween, but at least some characters didn't overusing the word "Totally" for drinking game, otherwise il be dead from alcohol poiso-- Oh wait, im not into a alcohol drinker.

And now for my final opinion of this film
Overall, "Halloween 2018" is a welcome return to celebrating 40th anniversary, but i don't think i would call it a best sequel, with the story is interesting, but done before, the presentation is pretty nice, despite of darkness cinematography and an annoying jumpscares and the characters are fifty-fifty with reprising role and some new characters aren't as interesting.

Though some say is a pretty good film for bringing back the old slasher since 1978, but others believe its a chasing in of the franchise. For me, again, its a nice return, but would've been better what we like to see. If you're a fan of slasher or Halloween series, i'd say give this one a watch, if not, just stick to the original one. But to be fair, the box-office was success that it was already announced to make a sequel and there's a rumor about the return of "Friday the 13th", thanks to the success.

I give this movie 6.5/10.

So this concludes of my Halloween special of movie review,  if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

Thanks for reading, and im Anthony, signing out and Happy Halloween everyone.

Movie Review: Goosebumps 2 Haunted Halloween

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome back to my movie review in Halloween Special.

From three years ago, i talked about Goosebumps the movie, which the horror children stories is considered famous for some scary story and some bizarre one. When they adapted to the movie, it was pretty original and i liked it.

Looking back, i find it rather not bad, its rather above average that despite originality concept, but would've been better for some characters and a quality effects. Ever since it was successful, its no surprising that they're gonna make a sequel Mr. Stine has to dealing cursed books again.

"Goosebumps 2 Haunted Halloween" is a 2018 horror comedy film directed by Ari Sandel, produced by Deborah Forte and Neal H. Moritz, and written by Rob Lieber and Darren Lemke (for story).

Like i said, i wasn't grew up with these books as a kid, but i remembered saw these from my old school that i picked a random books of Goosebumps for my curiosity read. And after three years, Columbia came in to taking over for a sequel after Village Roadshow Pictures made a first one.

So, with all that said, will this movie will make a fun spooky sequel, or is it deserves to be banished to the book?

Well, lets find out.

The Story

It started with a girl named Sarah who's on attempting to going into Columbia University for her short story, while her young brother Sonny was doing a science project about Nicolas Tesla's tower. But one day, Sonny and his best friend Sam going on for a treasure hunting from the abandoned house after their phone call, once they're picking up trash in their box, Sam founds a chest that it only has a book, once he and Sonny opened the book, they unexpectedly notice a dummy name "Slappy" is out of the book secretly comes alive and his goal is to bring Halloween to alive for rampaging the village, its up to Sonny, Sam and Sarah to stop Slappy with a book once and for all.

Although its a not bad story for Halloween, but the biggest problem is that the story is recycled from the first movie for the same story, but slightly different. In the first film, its about the creatures from the book comes alive, here its Halloween theme. From before, we expected that the sequel should be even more original like maybe about a another new story for the book, but nope, they ended up being unoriginal by suing the same story element from before. But it may home some subplots, like where our heroes has to save Sarah and Sonny's mother from Slappy or even calling R.L. Stine for help.

Though the subplot are slightly good, but it just that the story is just unoriginal, it feels like the first film, but with Halloween theme.

The Production
For the presentation itself of the movie, its like you borrowed the same work from the first film with of course, Halloween.

Obvious aside, at least its rather nice looking. The location is like before with village, small town and forest briefly. Not only them, but also an abandoned tower from Nicolas Tesla, not bad, even though its like a typical mad scientist castle, but more modern. And like before, it takes place in a very long night, even though its a one in a half hour film.

As for the monsters, though Slappy was done in traditional puppet, which is pretty cool and the design looks always great like the previous film or even the book. While the rest was all done in CGI by Sony Pictures Animation. some of monster designs looks pretty cool like living jack-o-lantern, a witch or Walter which im pretty he was done in motion capture. And some are over the top, like a giant spider made out of balloons. And the quality that some times are nice looking, but others feels rather video game-ish. But hey, at least their CG effect is a lot better than Hotel Transylvanian 3.

The production of this film is like before, but with some are creative design, but other wasn't as good looking.

The Characters
However, this movie didn't brought back some previous cast, it goes with new casts, but they're probably cliche.

First is Sonny (played by Jeremy Ray Taylor) is even though a main hero, but he's more like a nerd for a science project based on Tesla's story. But to be fair, i find that he's rather interesting than the previous main hero who's rather lame.

Next there's Sam (played by Caleel Harris), he's simply Sonny's best friend, but i felt that he's an under-developed sidekick. Though Caleel seems to be older to playing as a kid, but i did a not a bad job of his acting.

Then we have Sarah, Sonny's older sister (played by Madison Iseman), i find her to be rather ok, she started a typical sister who didn't care much, before she gets better, since she's getting started for her own story. Even though i find that despite nice development, but also a flawed character.

And finally, we have a main antagonist, Slappy the dummy (voiced by Mick Wingert). I find him a pretty cool character, he's like Goosebumps version of Chucky with supernatural power and plan to taking over with monsters. Sadly, Jack Black didn't reprise his voice of Slappy, instead it was Mick Wingert, which i find his role isn't that great than Jack.

Speaking of Jack, fictional R.L. Stine (played by Jack Black) returns in the movie, but sadly, he's a throw away character who appeared from second to third act, i mean he's rather a pretty cool fictional character based on real life R.L. Stine, but instead, he barely show up until he comes for a help, damn shame.

And the rest aren't much else to say, because most of them are pretty cliche, like Sarah and Sonny's mother Kathy (played by Wendi McLendon-Covey) who's a mother that she didn't know or care anything whats going on (typical mothers in various films...), Tommy (played by Peyton Wich) who's a generic bully that he has no purpose of the plot (sorta), Mr. Chu (played by Ken Jeong) is not only a typical neighbor, but he's also decorative (to be honest, i think he's rather a cool character, despite of lame name) and Walter (played by Chris Parnell) who's a love interest of Kathy, but being victimized to become an enemy.

The characters are slightly better than before, but they could've make a better development to avoiding cliche.

And now for my final opinion of this film.
Overall, "Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween" is a bellow average film, with recycled story, a nice presentation and rather a bellow average characters. This movie feels like they running out of ideas by using the same story then adding Halloween theme as an extra ingredient in order to make money. Though some of monsters and some characters are nice to see or rooting for, but i have like no other ways to say for positive note. I don't really recommend to watch this movie, but i'd say stick to the first movie or maybe stick to the book series. But if you're a fan of Goosebumps or even a fun Halloween film, i'd say its for you with pre teens.

I give this movie a 4.5/10. I don't recommend it, but at least this isn't a film that it made me wanna pull my hairs out.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

But tune it next time, we're reaching at the final part of my Halloween Special, involving a man in sanitarium who seeks revenge over a former babysitter who happens to be a lost sister...

Til next time.

Movie Review: First man

Warning: The following Review contains Spoiler. Readers discretion is advised.

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome back to my movie review. But this is not part of Halloween Special, but il promise that il going back at next Monday.

Anyway, when you're a kid, are you fascinated about science going to space, a planets or even a station? Well, im one of those since my childhood. Because ever since you like some cultures like Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers and more. But in a very old days, there was real thing that they we can go to space for the first time since 1961 with the late Soviet name Yuri Gagarin. Though it made a big deal to going in space, but none can compare one of the most famous and the most talk about true story we've ever heard.

"First Man" is a 2018 biographical film directed/produced by Damien Chazelle, produced by Wyck Godfrey, Marty Bowen and Isaac Klausne, and written by Josh Singer.

Even though it said to be based on the book of "First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong"

by James R. Hansen, but we're always believe this film was based on the true story about our late astronaut named Neil Armstrong who's the very first man for going to the moon. Although this is not the only film about a plan to the moon, such as "Apollo 13", nut in opposite direction where they wanted going to the moon, but didn't make it due to the broken oxygen supply and electric power as they struggling to going back to Earth.

So now we got this film that we ask our question, where did it began about the first man on the moon, is accurate or perhaps a poorly written film for cash-in?

Well, lets find out.

The Story

It started in 1961 where Neil Armstrong worked as a test pilot of  X-15 flights, but failed several times, causing him to be temporarily grounded, and his daughter Karen is sadly died shortly from brain tumor. However, Neil decided to joining NASA Astronaut Group 2 with his pal Elliot See, but four years later (1965), it went down again where not only the Soviet  Alexey Leonov done the first EVA Voskhod 2, but Neil lost his friend Elliot from T-38 crash. After the devastation, Neil and his pilot David Scott working together with Gemini 8 and it was successful, even though it had a divided reception, including his wife Janet. And finally the mission to the moon where Apollo 1 was supposed to be the first time, but failed from the electrical wire causes to light on fire and explosion in the cockpit, resulting a plan B for Apollo 11 with Neil and Buzz Aldrin and the rest is history.

Though il apologize for the spoiler, but come on, its simply predictable for the story to follow from real event. Anyway, i find the story itself is rather interesting to see where did Neil began before to the moon. The movie mainly focus on Neil's mission in NASA with Gemini 8 to Apollo 11. The direction of the movie is pretty nice for how it goes. Even though its a 2 hours film. But my nitpick of the film is a subplot of the Neil's family about his drama from the past and semi separation from his wife, which i know they want to see the reception of Neil's wife and the kids about the mission, but i felt that its kinda unnecessary and probably dragged on.

The story is how it goes that we like to know Neil's pre-mission of the moon, its simply good, but sometimes the subplot could be a bit too much.

The Production
Before we get the presentation, but we're going to take a little bit of origin. The development was started back in 2003 that it was originally to be directed by the legendary badass actor/director Clint Eastwood with Warner Bros, though this is not the first time he made a space mission called "Space Cowboys" in 2000. Unfortunately, that idea won't happened with Eastwood, that is until it was taken over by Universal and DreamWorks, especially with Josh Singer came in to rewrite the script of the story.

For the presentation, it looks pretty cool for how it takes place in 1960's, i mean it looks really nice with the 60's stuff around, especially with a recreation of Armstrong's home, even though the house is feels a bit modern-ish. The space scene like Gemini 8 is pretty intense which it might be obvious for the use of CGI, which it looks pretty cool for represent, even if its not a fan with some scene with Armstrong's training or even the spinning Gemini 8 scene for a motion sickness, like when i saw them, i was a bit dizzy from a lot of shaky stuff. Speaking of it, another nitpick of the film for me is the shacking camera, which is a pretty cliche development, which makes it even more annoying to watch. As for the moon landing, it was filmed on local rock quarry at night, which it is pretty hard to filming to pretend the characters are in space, but its a nice filming for a tricky effect. One last thing to say, the music of this movie is very nice.

Though the production is nice and beautiful looking, sometimes some of stuff feels like a rollercoaster of intensity in space.

The Characters
Though i like to give the info and my thought of the characters in various movies, but its rather a difficult story for this one.

First is Neil Armstrong (played by Ryan Gosling), he's likely the main focus of the movie that we're routing for his mission, especially he's famously know as the first man in the moon in history with NASA. For Ryan's role, i find he did a nice job and probably nice fit for his look. But hey, at least he deserves better than Blade Runner 2049.

Then we have Neil's wife named Janet Shearon (played by Claire Foy), though Claire might have a nice look and a not bad acting, but i felt that they use her a bit much for her reaction about the mission and the argument for what's happening, especially where she didn't realized about Armstrong's traumatic loss of his best friend and his dead daughter.

As for the rest, there aren't much else to say, they're a lot of characters, which like i said before, the movie mainly focus on Neil Armstrong, though it may have some characters for a team work, like Buzz Aldrin (played by Corey Stoll) for Apollo 11 and David Scott (played by Christopher Abbott) for Gemini 8.

To be fair, the acting is pretty good, despite for some moment with pause before the line, which i know its a dramatic biographical film, which they could've be a little bit realistic than slowing down, even for 2 hours long movie.

The characters aren't as much important for more info. But like i said, the movie is mainly focus on Neil himself that we can't wait to see.

And now for my final opinion of this film.
Overall, "First Man" is good movie that i can say and its nice to see how it goes before the famous Apollo 11. The story is nice, the presentation is beautifully done, the direction is interesting and the casts are not bad. Even though the movie takes a lot of time before the moon mission, like Gemini 8 which it is pretty intense to see. Even if the subplot is a bit too much for the family and the shaky camera is probably annoying for intensity from plane incident to space mission. don't give me wrong, its pretty cool how it looks, but i don't want it too much for anyone with motion sickness.

If you're pretty curious where did Neil Armstrong began before Apollo 11, maybe this one is for you.

Il give this movie a 7/10. It may not be my favorite film based on true story, but its really nice to see how it depicts.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

Thanks for reading, and im Anthony, signing out.

Movie Review: Venom

*starts in the alleyway*

Corporate Driver: *being tossed to the wall and tries to running away* Oh no...!! Get away from me!!

Anthony: *seriously walks at CD*

Corporate Driver: *crawls back* Go away...!! *grabs a empty bottle and throws on his knee*

Anthony: *gets hit but a bottle and tripped on the ground in pain on his knee*

Corporate Driver: *gets up and approaching him* Now, how'd you like that apple, kid?

Anthony: *grabs his throat, mysteriously healed and grows bigger to transforming into Venom*

Corporate Driver: No... No!!!

Venom (Anthony): Eyes... Lungs... Pancreas... So many snacks... So little time...

Secretary Driver: Hey you freak!! *grabs her gun to shoot him, but didn't effect from symbiote's body* Huh?!

Venom (Anthony): *looks at her then throws CD at SD like a rag doll and runs away by climbing on the wall to go back home*

Corporate Driver: Argh...! What the hell was that...?!

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome my new movie review with Halloween special. For this special, i decided to do three parts of my movie in this month of October, minus one called "First Man", which it has nothing to do with my Halloween special, because i will talk about next week.

Anyway, from many years ago, i always a huge fan of Spider-man to see various villains that we all know, like Vulture, Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Electrode, The Lizard or even Symbiote. When the 80's kicked in, comics are started to focus with dark with violence, disturbance and possibly fan-service, since in the late 70's where Gwen Stacy tragically died from Spider-man's (supposed) saving her from Green Goblin, causing the end of Silver age.

Since i like some Marvel characters like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain Marvel, Black Widow, Deadpool or The Punisher, but the one is like my number one favorite Anti-hero is Venom. Created by David Michelinie and Todd McFarlane (Yup, the same guy who created Spawn), Eddie Brock was started lone, stressed and depressed person where after he got fired from Daily Globe for making fake news about the wrong identity, not only he got fired, but also lost his apartment and his wife, that is until he was unexpectedly bonded by Symbiote in the church to seeking revenge at Spider-man and the rest is history.

Since we love Venom, we really want to see Eddie/Venom on the big screen. Such as Spider-Man 3 and it was...  Yeah, its not a very good casting choice with Topher Grace, an absolute embarrassment of our favorite character...  But after several years, we heard a report that Sony is gonna make a standalone movie with Venom and having Tom Hardy as a main role.

"Venom" is a 2018 superhero film directed by Ruben Fleischer, produced by Avi Arad, Matt Tolmach

 and Amy Pascal, and written by Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel (only for screenplay).

When i first heard about it, i was anticipating to see it and hope it will be better than Spider-man 3. From the development, the film was supposed to be a spin-off from Sam Raimi's Spider-man, but it got scrapped due to the decline from the third installment. But since Disney is already own Marvel, it will be pretty difficult to have Venom in MCU, since Sony own the rights. so, they decided to making their own Marvel Universe aside from MCU. And we're expected that the film was supposed to be R-Rated, since was known to be a anti-hero for murdering any bad guys like Deadpool did, but it was tone down to PG-13, which the potential is about to be concerned before the release, but hoped for the better.

So, with all that said, will this standalone holds up for Sony's first Marvel Universe film, or is it really deserves to crawling away from a high pitch frequency?

Well, lets find out.

The Story

It begins where a ship from "Life Foundation" was crash landing in the forest of Malaysia, they originally has four alien beings called "Symbiotes", but one of them broke out to bonding one pilot to breaking out of ambulance. Meanwhile, we introduce our main hero names Eddie Brock, who works as an investigation reporter of the news. However, while reporting of Life Foundation, he was on interview with the founder name Carlton Drake about their experiment, but also about the lawsuit that Drake doesn't want to hear about, which ended up where Brock confronting that he wants the truth, but the damage was done that he got fired and a break up from his love interest name Anne Weying. Six months later, he was on his own and wishes to be better than Life Foundation, but meets one scientist name Dora Skirth, but Dora wanted to talk to him for the secret truth about the foundation, which they're making experiment with Symbiote, which she asks him to check in, he accepted (despite the blame from the first meet) that she let him break in to see the evidence, but not before one subject was begging to break free, he did, but gone wrong when the Symbiote transferring at Brock. After that, he's starting to losing his control where he proceeds to eating his foods or even driving insane that he wanted to call for help. Despite that, he was also being targeted by Life, which they want the one Symbiote that Brock was bonded, its up to Eddie for not only survive himself, but also keeping Symbiote for its reason.

I find that the story itself is rather interesting, even though it would've give more interesting development, especially about the Symbiotes aside from Venom and Riot, say bonding at someone for the hosts, but no, they let one of them died from the lack of oxygen without the important host. But as far that i know, it rather focuses Eddie Brock and his Symbiote Venom for the development, but other times the writing could be questionable, especially some dialogues like "Going down to the street, like a turd in wind", like what the heck is this meaning?? And some moment are ended up with a filler, like the scene where Eddie sent a message to the news station for some reason, but does this have to do with the plot? Nothing. But of course, they even add some sense of humor lines, which i did chuckle from either a dialogue or even some moment, like where Eddie doesn't want to jump down, but using an elevator, which Venom is not very please for his "Pussy" decision, i mean i have to admit, it made me laugh.

The story and writing is not bad, but i wish if they could give more development to make it more interesting like the army of Symbiotes.

The Production

Since this is the first Sony's Marvel Universe film, how's the presentation holds up?

First of all, the filming location is actually nice, since it takes place in San Francisco, California. Which i guess they're following the setting from the comic that instead of New York (for only Spider-Man), it goes to SF for Venom like in his own comic "Venom: lethal protector". Then they also film the other location to pretend that its Malaysia, even though it was filming not only Francisco, but also Atlanta and New York. I don't know, maybe its the limit of their budget without going in Malaysia.

The action scenes are pretty cool from chasing in the forest, attacking the SWAT and the bike chase scene. Though the bike scene is probably cliche, but i find it to be pretty creative with Symbiote. As for the Symbiotes, i find the effects of these are pretty cool and kinda creepy, way better than the one from Spider-Man 3 they it moves like a crawling hands, even though it looks ok, but the effects in this movie is probably more better for the quality and their creepy moves. Sometimes, the movie gives us a jumpscare, such as when Eddie went in pain from high pitch frequency or where Riot was transformed and probably acting like Christian Bale's Batman. However, i heard that they're originally doing a motion capture to playing as Venom and Riot, but due to the difficulty for the physical and the facial, they decided to changed it in CG, the CG effect of Venom and Riot are not bad that i can say, but at least their designs are better than Spider-Man 3.

But of course, the main criticism of this movie is that it was supposed to be R rated movie that we like to see since the previous Marvel films of X-Men universe like Logan and Deadpool. But because they wanted to make a future crossover with MCU Spider-Man, they decided to tone the violent down with PG-13 rated, which again, causing a concerning potential that it'll fail. But the violent is kinda there, i mean there's some body count where Venom eating a victim's head off and some of dialogues with swearing, especially some moment with an F-bomb. I mean, are you sure you could, i don't know, change your mind to going back to R or something...?

The production of this movie is pretty cool kinda like MCU, but as i may agree with the fans, i still wish if this movie should've been an R-rated movie, even if they could've ask Disney for a violent content for Venom.

The Characters

We expected that this movie would have some likable characters? Well, its rather a mixed bag.

First is Eddie Brock, aka Venom (played by Tom Hardy, aka Bane from "The Dark Knight Rises"), we definitely agree that he's probably a likable character in the movie. As i said, he started a lone and a blamer for what he deserves better than Life Foundation. But when he got bonded by the Symbiote, everything went different to him, he's more like a puppet that he was forced to do so, including where he was forced to eat something or other times driving insane from his mind. Not to mention, Tom also providing the voice of Venom, and i think his voice is pretty cool for creepiness or even his dark sense of humor. Though i haven't seen either Mad Max Fury Road or even The Dark Knight Rises, but like i said, he's easily a better role in this movie.

Then we have our main antagonist named Carlton Drake (played by Riz Ahmed), i find him to be rather an average villain, he's just a typical big boss of his foundation to change the world with Symbiotes. Though Riz did a nice work, but his character would've been more interesting for maybe more development. and for a fourth Symbiote "Riot", im pretty sure you know who belongs to...

Speaking of "need more development", there are few others that i have no others to say. Anne Weying (played by Michelle Williams) who's not only Eddie's ex-fiancee, but also an district attorney, though Michelle did a not bad role, Dr. Dan Lewis (played by Reid Scott) who's a generic new love interest of Anne, but at least he's not a douchebag persona, but more a helper at Eddie's danger, Dora Skirth (played by Jenny Slate) who's a scientist who turned against the foundation secretly and yes, Stan Lee is always making his cameo in this movie, don't miss him if you blink.

The characters have a nice casts, but some of their developments would've been have a chance of likability like Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock.

And now for my final opinion of this film.

Overall, when it first came out, the critics gave a bellow average reception with poor tone and questionable writing. But i disagree with them, because... Its not the worst superhero film, its more like a big fat guilty pleasure like Suicide Squad. The writing is not bad, the story is interesting for the main focus of Brock, the presentation looks pretty cool (at least its not as overdose of darkness like Godzilla 2014 for cinematography.) and  characters are a mixed bag that some are great like Eddie Brock, but others are rather boring and would've been a well-written characters.

Like i said, i am disagree at the critics for how "bad" it is, i mean its not the worst superhero film ever made, i mean i had seen worse in this year which i won't compare, otherwise it'll make suffer PTSD. Does this film is recommend to watch?  Well, i'd say yes, its more likely a biggest request for Spider-Man fans, Venom fans and even Marvel fans as well. But i don't think il consider a perfect film like Infinity War or Incredibles 2. Its a good film, but with flaws that it should've been. But, i guess we have to wait that we like to see a rivalry between Tom Holland's Spider-man and Tom Hardy's Venom.

I gave this movie a 7.5/10. Go watch it if you want, which again, i recommend this one for first Marvel film outside of MCU by Sony.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

So tune it next two weeks later of Halloween Special, we're going back to land of horror kids story that they'll coming back for haunted Halloween...

Movie Review: Godzilla 2014

Hey everyone, my name is Anthony and welcome back to my movie review.

Let me start off by saying that, i love Godzilla. He's easily considered the "King of Kaiju", or better known as "King of giant monsters". Godzilla was like a grandfather of giant monster from the decade ago, though the first one was King Kong. He was introduced in 1954, which is less than a decade after the atomic bomb blast in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2 and was born from nuclear radiation, appearing a dinosaur like T-Rex, a crocodile for the skin (kinda) and Stegosaurus for the spiky spine. And of course, in Japan, it was known as "Gojira", while in western, we like to translating him as "Godzilla". From many years, Godzilla was appeared either a bad guy of destruction, or a good guy for saving out world from evil Kaijus. Though some films are great, but others are flat out embarrassment... *cough "Godzilla's Revenge" cough*

Since Godzilla was popular, in western like US, they wanted to cashing in with Godzilla like comic, video games and even a cartoon, most of then are either good or other times, desperate for the fans of King of Kaiju. Especially with the 1998 one by the same director of "Independence Day", which is the worst adaptation i've ever watched, but im not gonna talk about it in the future. Im talking about one that its actually a good one from four years ago.

"Godzilla 2014" is...  Well, a 2014 Kaiju film directed by Gareth Edwards (Who later directing Star Wars Rogue One), produced by Thomas Tull, Jon Jashni, Mary Parent and Brian Rogers, and written by Max Borenstein (for screenplay) and David Callaham (for story).

When i first heard that they made a second remake of our beloved giant monster from Japan, i was anticipating to see it, since they made it look much better than the 1998 version, although with some different than before, is having their own original enemy monster not made by Toho and it was the first installment of "MonsterVerse", which is the franchise of Kaiju content, which i be curious what they're going to making. However, i wanted to see it in 2014, but i haven't seeing it, until 4 years later that i managed to watching this movie with my DVD.

So, with all that said, will this movie will be a better reboot, or is this movie makes the 1998 version watchable?

Well, lets find out.

The Story
Im sure if you're probably familiar about Godzilla's birth, right? Well, not only that, but they also want to include their own enemy monsters rather than focusing only Godzilla like the original.

It started in 1954, where after WWII, there has been a witness report about an ancient predator Godzilla was lurking in the ocean they the military was attempting to throw their nuke to kill big G. Then at 1999, a Monarch scientists Ishiro Serizawa and Vivienne Graham went to the mining station about a giant skeleton on underground, but noticed a hole, which some say there's another giant monster. Meanwhile in Nuclear Power Plant, lead engineer Joe Brody brought his wife Sandra for checking the reactor, but little that they unnoticed, there's a massive earthquake that Joe wanted to save his wife, but the damage was sadly already done that his wife is gonna die from the plant collapsing. Then fast forward to modern time (2014), we introduced our main hero and the son of Joe, named Ford Brody, who works as an officer of U.S. Navy. But he was asked by his father to looking for his father's lost discs from the past about the earthquake. But once they founded, they got arrested for trespassing quarantine zone of Janjira. Once our heroes was taken to interrogation (well, only Joe for interrogation), it goes to an earthquake from nuclear-life egg goes hatching to a radioactive monster that it causes to breaking out (and one part where Joe was killed off), but then witness report from the military that there's a similar one look from the one got hatched, they named them as "MUTOs" (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism), they goal is to capturing the radioactive stuff to get more energy to the female MUTO. But then, the Navy and the Japanese scientists witnessed that Godzilla is returned from decade that he's confronting against MUTOs, its up the military and our hero Ford to stop MUTOs once and for all, even though that Godzilla is more of a anti-hero for rampaging a bit.

The story is actually interesting to say, like i said, instead of just Godzilla going rampage, it goes to a typical Kaiju fight, but having a nuclear monster vs nuclear devouring monsters. But the downside is that they focused a bit too much of humans than giant monsters, but its more likely a plot convenient to explain about these giant monsters, which it make sense, but the execution could be above average. Another one that i have a problem is having a father and son relation from the first act, i know its because Joe need a help with his son Ford for the truth, but ended up into a cliche subplot that Joe is a typical father who's killed off shortly after, like did we heard it before? Another subplot is the military, which they thought it will be a good idea by bringing a nuclear warheads, which it sounds good on paper, but it is said that it might wiping out in half of the lands since WWII, however, it probably ended up unnecessary that it nearly failed, due to the female MUTO is devouring the warheads in half. I mean, it would've been better if the Navy using a warheads as a bait at the female one to going somewhere until Godzilla is gonna beat the S*** out of her.

Though the story is just a typical Kaiju throw down, but the execution is pretty good for a plot development, but other times, it was suffered with unnecessary subplot or even cliche.

The Production
From before, when i heard they're doing a production to be based on the Real Godzilla rather than different, i was hoping for a good presentation, but it actually done pretty good, most of it.

First up, the locations looks pretty cool, since it was obviously takes place from Japan, Hawaii then USA. It may have a good look that it takes place, but its pretty obvious that since this is a Kaiju film, it has to be a typical rampaged city. But some places that we've seen on the trailer are unfortunately cut, like the statue of Liberty, which i guess its because they don't want to disgrace the American's favorite statue, which sometimes she was already being abused before. *hint hint*

Aside that, but one that i think its the best part with humans, is the scene of "HALO jump", when we see our main hero and soldiers jumps down, we feel like a rollercoaster, but more like skydiving. But the downside is that it was used for the third act, but at least the trailer didn't spoiled the movie, i guess they just like to show off the jump scene.

What about the Kaijus?
Well, about Godzilla himself, he looks much accurate as the original than the 1998 version it looks bad fictional dinosaur. But this one is pretty good looking, even though his body seems to be large, but again, its not the worst looking Godzilla i've ever seen. Plus, seeing him using his signature atomic breath is well deserve of surprise, i mean im pretty the people in the theater are cheering when he does his fire breath scene, but of course, he does it two times. However, his famous roar didn't borrowed from Toho that we all know, instead it was revamped with musical key and the cadence of roar, not bad i might say.

As for our main villain MUTOs?
They looks pretty cool, even it was confusing at first when we first see these two similar design villains, but different. The female one should be the main focus, but she looks like what if Gigan and Cloverfield, but with extra legs and nuclear for devouring. As for the male one, aside of same design, but he's less bigger than the female one and he has wings. Even though they don't have any threatening powers, their main power is EMP, not bad, but would've better for extra more powers.

But the productions has some problems.
First, we expected that we like to see a Godzilla and MUTOs fight together. Well, the first one happens on Hawaii where Godzilla fighting against the female one, but it was cut that we can briefly see on the TV news, which is flat out unfair for Kaiju fans like myself included. Though the real fight scene didn't happen until the third act, which is pretty cool, even though its kinda shame that its a one vs two, but hey, at least Godzilla might be stronger for his power.
And lastly, the cinematography is although it looks pretty cool, but it got worse that it went dark, like train scene in the night and Kaiju fight is too dark of blackness, like we can't see what's going on. It makes the cinematography so bad that its nearly nothing but black, it would've been they could finalizing to adjust the lighting, but they just keeping to darker that we have no idea what's going on.

The presentation of this film is pretty good for the actions and the monsters, but most of monster fight takes a while that we like to see until the third act and the cinematography is just disappointed that they tone down the lighting we can barely see the action a bit.

The Characters
So what about the humans that the Kaiju fans didn't care? Well, its more like a double edge sword.

First up is our main hero Ford Brody (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, aka KickAss and Quicksilver from Avengers: Age of Ultron), he's rather the most forgettable hero. He's just typical hero of US Navy for the goal. He doesn't have any special personality that we can barely root for him. Don't give me wrong, Aaron had been some good films he's done that i mentioned before, but its just that his role is dull and boring.

As for Ford's father, Joe (played by Bryan Cranston, aka Walter White/Heisenberg from Breaking Bad), in my opinion, he's rather a likable father he would've been give more chance to shine in the movie, but sadly, like i mentioned before, he was short-lived. He's basically a typical father who died early with our main hero (who's a son) lost it, i mean have we heard it before?  But like stated of Aaron, i have nothing against Bryan Cranston, he's a great actor since he's been on Breaking Bad, but it could've been worse.

Then we have Ishiro Serizawa (played by Ken Watanabe), he's a scientist that i think he's also likable, but he's also more believable about the history of Godzilla since the bomb blast in WWII, despite kept in secret until in modern time. Even though he got some half appearances in the movie, but like i said, he's more believable about the Kaiju since decade ago before the birth of MUTO. Though i never heard of Ken, but he's rather a descent Japanese English spoken actor.

While  the rest aren't as anything special, like Elle Brody (played by Elizabeth Olsen) is a typical  wife who aren't give any special and Rear Admiral William Stenz (played by David Strathairn) is an admiral who didn't care about the truth but to destroy MUTO or something.

The characters in ths movie aren't as any special that we expected for, even though the casts is not bad that i might say.

Spoiler Alert if you haven't seen the movie or if you don't care.

The final act goes where the US NAVY go to the nest to destroying it before the nest will cause to spread more MUTOs, which they did. And we see a final battle between Godzilla and MUTOs which it was easily the best part in the movie, even though its hard to figure out, because it was too dark. As Ford was on last remain, despite the succeed, we see Ford looks at Godzilla that he loses it and probably get killed by the female MUTO after the male one got killed. But then Godzilla came back and finish her off with his Atomic breath shoving down her throat like Mortal Kombat Fatality, thats a one violent head torn off then where Godzilla beat the first MechaGodzilla. As for the ending, there's not much else to say, family reunion after the disaster, Godzilla wakes up that he's still alive, going back to the water then roll the credits It was kinda quick to finish the movie, eh?

And now for my final opinion of this film.
Overall, Godzilla 2014 is easily the better reboot than before, the story is pretty good, the presentation is nice, the casts are not bad. Although that some of the characters are pretty much forgettable due to their lack of development or even execution of personalities, with the exception of Ishiro Serizawa, cause i find him more interesting. The monsters themselves are pretty cool looking along with the fight scenes, but the cinematography is my main criticism that it was too dark that i can barely see anything with the soldiers scene or even the Kaiju fight scene.

If you're a fan of Kaiju films, i recommend this one for you, it may not be the best remake ever, but i considering watchable if you love Godzilla.

Il give this rating a 7/10. Its more considered to be above average, but still, its a good remake that i watched.

So this ends of my movie review, if you guys have your opinion or any suggestions, let me know at comment bellow and support me on KO-FI.com/blackevil.

Thanks for reading and im Anthony sign--

*ding dong*

Anthony (me): Ok...? I wonder who rang my door bell. *get up to the entrance door, open it up, but it was nothing* Hm, it was nothing for-- *looks down that there's a DVD of Godzilla 1998, causing him in panic* Oh no...  Oh god no... Not...   Not this!!!

To be continued...