Directed by Robert Rodriguez and written by James Cameron, “Alita: Battle Angel” is decent. It is a two-hour movie with tons of breathtaking CG animation, and the 3-D component is one that Cameron developed as a stereo imaging system which he used in his documentary films. I found “Alita: Battle Angel” to be a movie that tells its story through the eyes of a robot that had a past life. I went in with low expectations, but I was impressed to an extent. I was able to tell that Cameron had to do with the technical and visual elements, because the graphics and special effects are faded as they were in “Ghosts of the Abyss” (2003) and “Aliens of the Deep” (2005). I saw both of those movies in IMAX way back in the day. I remember that 3-D was not a huge ordeal yet in multiplex cinemas. For me, watching those two movies in IMAX felt like I was in movie heaven back in the day. However, this film is not fully in Cameron’s hands, it is in the hands of Rodriguez.

The film’s main character is Alita (played by Rossa Salazar), she is a deactivated cyborg that is brought back to life, however she does not recall any elements of her past life. This leads her to go on a journey to come to terms with who she really is. The man who revives her is Dr Dyson Ido (played by Christoph Waltz). He tries to help Alita understand what the world is made of, but she is so set on figuring out where she came from and what it is like to be a human. She has one element that is extraordinary to Ido and the people around her. She is dangerous and destructive. She wants to find answers to the truth of where she came from, but she will have to go through many obstacles to get to that route in her life.

The futuristic setting is enthralling in this movie. There is a crazy sport with multiple people and one ball that requires going around in multiple circles. I like how the film has a creative side to it. I mean given this is directed by Rodriguez, it compared to the terrible “Spy Kids: Game Over” but much better than that. That is because this movie was not cheesy, it cared about its story and its graphics and not much on getting audience responses based on 3-D effects.

Waltz is a brilliant actor. Regardless of what movie he is, he always plays the role that fits him. In most of his films, viewers are generally use to him play the charming, yet evil antagonist with a very laid-back sense of humor. In this movie, he has the laid-back humor, but is not the bad guy, he is the good guy who is protective. I also thought that he fit the role of play a doc. He has the intelligence, the acting style, and the professionalism deep down inside him to play someone that is intelligent.

Overall, “Alita: Battle Angel” was pretty good. I had a fun time with this movie. I will probably watch it again in another premium format depending. I will say three stars. This film does make me hope for the day to come soon for the next “Avatar” film. That is because it was Cameron’s technology, but not his directing. If he directed this movie, I am sure it would have been much more brilliant.

Most films that have somebody stranded tend to grab my attention because of the main-focus being harsh environments based on weather. “Arctic” is one of those movies that has very little dialogue and grasps your attention because of its scenery, its survival skills components, and its actor Mads Mikkelsen. The film is vast with nature, that it leaves viewers to wonder if our main character is going to survive. I found the film to very similar J.C. Chandor’s “All is Lost” (2013) but in the “Arctic” not the sea. However, “All is Lost” consists of one person, “Arctic” consists of two.

The film is set in the “Arctic” and we have Overgard (Mikkelsen), a man that has crash landed in an airplane at unexplained time. He has created a camp, made a ritual of when to go out and explore and look for food and resources for his survival, and has set times for sleeping and such. He hopes that someone will come to find him. His wishes of someone coming for him somewhat comes true but ends up failing. A helicopter crashes and only one person survives. That person is a young woman (played by Maria Thelma Smaradottir). When the plane crashes she is very injured, and she becomes Overgard’s other priority in terms of survival. This leads Overgard to go on a journey carrying the woman with him on a sled in hopes that both their lives will be saved.

“Arctic” (to me) is like the book by William Golding, Lord of the Flies. That is because these two people are stranded in the middle of the “Arctic” and are using items and resources for survival. Lord of the Flies is similar towards “Arctic” but has tons of moments in the book with conversations, literary devices, and personification moments. One element of “Arctic” that reminds me of Lord of the Flies is the alarms that Overgard sets for himself because of its meaning of getting motivated. That is similar towards the item the conch in Lord of the Flies. The conch would mean whoever has that item has the floor to speak. Both “Arctic” and Lord of the Flies set rituals to prevent its characters from driving themselves insane.

This is definitely a top-notch performance by Mikkelsen. I thought I saw his true dark side in Thomas Vinterberg’s “The Hunt” (2012) where one lie makes people turn against him and view him as the enemy where he is not. In “Arctic” he is not a quitter. He pushes himself emotionally and physically to get him and this lady to safety no matter the weather conditions. I wonder now what other Oscar performances he will do in the near future.

Overall, “Arctic” is a must-see movie. There are many epic moments of suspense and attempts at survival that it will leave viewers in full attention. It does lack in some moments, but the element of being very less dialogue creates “Arctic” to be more visually moving. I will probably watch it one more time. I will say three solid stars.

A few days ago, I came across a classic film screening because not many of the January titles were appealing to me. However, when I came across a cinema that was playing “The Godfather” (1972) it was an opportunity that I could not turn down. “The Godfather” is a movie I look up to and not because it is a mafia film that has led to many other great ideas years later on, but because of its dark cinematic elements throughout the film. The director Francis Ford Coppola uses vivid cinematography to set the tone for the negative elements associated with “The Godfather.” Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), and Sonny Corleone (James Caan) are the most ruthless and powerful mafia gang in New York. The patriarch is Vito, and nothing stands in his way of getting what he wants.

Even though many may assume Vito is the king in the beginning of the film, the main lead is Michael. He is Vito’s younger son and a World War II Marine and is not very enthusiastic about becoming like Vito. The conflict that comes around is in the hands of Vito. Vito refuses to help a rivalry group that wants to sell drugs. Due to Vito denying a request from rivals, tragic circumstances start to happen throughout the film, and now it is in the hands of Michael and he starts to go the route to go to war with other mafia families. The problem is that these problems could cause the Corleone family to fall apart.

With there being three “Godfather” films, the violence is fairly heavy in the first one, but I find more of the intensity is through the character’s emotions and dialogue. Coppola uses a generous amount of key elements to show that Michael is still new to having the crime matters in his own hands. The problem is that he defends his father despite all the crime, hatred, and negativity that his father and clan had built up over the years. As Michael says, “My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator,” the cinematography use is set to be quite faded with not so bright lights to enhance the inner emotions and stress that Michael has inherited thanks to his father and his family’s legacy. However, the lighting and cinematography is ten times darker in the moment where Vito is in conversation with Michael about a Hollywood big shot and says, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse,” the lighting on Vito’s eyes is fairly faded to dark where we do not see much of his eyes. That is a brilliant and cinematic element, which heightens the suspense and stress that Michael has coming towards him. “The Godfather” leaves many questions and pieces for its viewers to piece together to understand. Certain problems are a bound and viewers are left to try and put the puzzles and scenarios together.

I find “The Godfather” to be a thrill ride full of politics, crime, and family. The element to all of these aspects however, is respect. Michael earns respect from his father’s legacy, and so have others. Michael, however, is the center of what is to come towards to him in the two other films (however this review is solely on the first one in the series). In terms of Michael’s position, viewers will notice that his reputation starts to grow in the first film and the other films.

Overall, “The Godfather” is a film that I believe every film fanatic needs to experience more than once. Not just for how good of a movie it is, but for its ambiance and breathtaking screenplay. Every character talks of serious matters, but the most serious ones are Michael and Vito. These two kings remind us of what destines a film to be a classic as is “The Godfather.” I will definitely be writing another review when I have the chance to view the second one in the theaters in a few months.