To be completely honest with you, it's rare I fire up my Netflix account these days because of both lack of time and lack of interest in most movies the service offers, especially stuff I've never seen before. But for the first time almost all week, I had some free time on Sunday night and I spent it watching the Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond documentary on Netflix thanks to a strong recommendation from wrestling podcaster Jason Solomon.

Let the record show I've actually never seen Man on the Moon, and perhaps it would've helped if I did to get a better understanding of the movie. That said, I've seen several clips from it and have heard about what went on behind the scenes.... but no one was able to see for themselves what went on behind the scenes until this movie was released. And let me tell you, it needs to be seen to be believed. As said in the documentary itself, the real movie was happening while Man on the Moon was being filmed.

For those unfamiliar with Man on the Moon, it basically follows the life and death of iconic comedian Andy Kaufman, who is played by Jim Carrey. Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond details the making of the movie and specifically how Carrey took to the role of Kaufman and his alter-ego Tony Clifton. But the transformation is unlike anything you've ever seen before.

It's well-documented that Carrey is a brilliant actor, which is obvious based off his work from throughout the 1990s (The Mask, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, etc). One of the main reasons why those movies were so successful was because Carrey essentially became another person to play those parts, and Man on the Moon was no different, but to a much larger extent. After going through make-up and whatnot, he looked a lot like Andy and Clifton, but his mannerisms were even more spot-on, so much so that it was almost scary.

For example, while working with WWE Hall of Famer Jerry Lawler (who Kaufman had a historic relationship with for a long time), Carrey was completely in character and did things that Kaufman would have done while he was in character as well. Needless to say, Kaufman and Lawler were friends off screen, and although the director tried to tell Carrey that, he refused to believe it and instead made filming that movie a living hell for Lawler by antagonizing him. In fact, he pushed him so far that Lawler hurt him on set, an incident that was covered by a ton of news outlets at the time.

Carrey did not see himself as being Jim Carrey on set. He was either Andy Kaufman or Tony Clifton, no one else. It took him a long time to get out of the minds of those characters when the movie was finished filming, and he declined shooting a music video while in character afterward because he didn't want to return to that place in his head. Again, it's an incredible transformation that only an elite few artists/actors can master, and Carrey is one of them.

Another cool thing about this documentary is that isn't only about the making of Man on the Moon; it also covers quite a bit of Carrey's life and upbringing. There were a lot of things I didn't know about him before, such as how his dad was also very funny and that he dealt with depression for a long time in his life. Seeing other projects he's worked on as well around that time and getting to know what went into that extreme mindset helps you connect with him on an all-new emotional level.

I haven't seen Carey in much in recent years whatsoever, and the only mention I had seen of him before this was a brief appearance he made at some "meaningless red carpet" event as he called it in a bizarre albeit eye-opening interview. He has this real interesting outlook on life that he touches upon briefly at the end of this documentary. That alone is fascinating to hear about and how he struggled to find his true self.

Carrey openly admits that the reason none of this surreal footage was never previously released for over 20 years was because Universal Studios thought he would come across like an "asshole" and no one would ever pay to see him again. I don't know if the second part would have been necessarily true, but the first part absolutely is. He definitely looks like an asshole while on set portraying Kaufman and Clifton, but it didn't make me dislike Carrey. Rather, it made me appreciate him and his ability to create compelling characters that much more.

I had no idea I would be watching Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond until I heard The Solomonster offer his two cents on it on his podcast on Sunday night, and an hour and a half later, I can wholeheartedly agree with what he had to say about this being a great piece of work that is well worth watching. The time flies by, and regardless of whether you've seen Man on the Moon or not (though it would help), you'll be glad you checked it out.

Should you see this movie? Yes.

Truth be told, I wasn't officially invested in the reboot of the Planet of the Apes saga until I saw the second one, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, in theaters in the summer of 2014. I loved that installment, so to fill in the blanks, I went back and watched the first film, appreciating it more than if I just watched them in order. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was slightly slow, but it was necessary to tell the story, and I personally thought that the sequel was superior. After seeing Dawn, I was extremely excited for War for the Planet of the Apes, and I think it's safe to say that it was worth the wait.

Simply because the word "war" is in the title of the movie doesn't necessarily mean the entire film is all-action. If that's what you're looking for, I'd advice going to see Dunkirk or Baby Driver (both were quite good, by the way). That is the biggest criticism I have heard about War for the Planet of the Apes: that it was "too slow" for them, and I can totally understand that. Outside of the battle in the opening scene, there is a ton of talking before the war actually begins, but please do note that all of the talking is completely justified and needed in setting up the second half of the movie.

Before I go further into the stellar story that War for the Planet of the Apes tells, I must mention how incredible the graphics (is that the right word?) look throughout. The first film was released a mere six years ago, yet the monkeys have looked more and more real with each installment. Of course, Andy Serkis isn't in human form, but the similarities between him and Caesar are simply uncanny appearance-wise. Serkis does such a wonderful job with Caesar, and although he doesn't say a ton, his facial expressions alone do all the talking for him.

Speaking of Caesar, he is far and away the star of these movies, not any of the humans (except for Woody Harrelson's character in this film, but more on that later). His character arc is amazingly well-crafted, and he isn't the evil ape many probably thought he would be when the saga started. His motives are pretty simple: saving his kind, and more importantly, his family. He wishes no harm on the humans, but if they do anything to target his fellow apes or his family, that's when he gets even.

That's the general theme of War for the Planet of the Apes (warning: spoilers ahead). His son and wife are killed (it took me a while to realize that's who was slaughtered at the beginning of the film because it was so dark in that scene, but it isn't long before Caeser outright says his son and wife were murdered by one of the humans), so he's out for revenge and advises the rest of the monkeys to move on without him. He brings a small group of other apes along with him, and is joined by another escapee ape later on named "Bad Ape," who is voiced by Steve Zahn. He brings some much-needed comic relief to this otherwise intense movie.

In wanting to force the humans (and specifically the one who killed his son and wife) to pay for their sins and suffer the consequences of their actions, Caesar admits he is following in the footsteps of Koba, the ape who started the war between the monkeys and the humans to begin with in Dawn. In case you didn't already know, Koba was killed at the end of that movie, though he does appear in flashback sequences and in nightmares Caesar has in War. He was a real interesting villain, so I'm glad he wasn't completely forgotten about.

There were a few confusing moments for me during the movie, but as it progresses, everything starts to make sense. For example, I didn't understand why the girl (later named Nova, a nod to the original movies) the apes picked up en route to finding The Colonel couldn't speak. It wasn't explained until halfway through when The Colonel said the disease that the remaining humans were apparently immune to caused them to lose the ability to speak eventually. That's actually a clever way of tying it in to the old movies that are supposed to take place after this, though there is no official connection.

Additionally, there isn't much to say about the humans because there's only three who are really spotlighted: The Colonel, Nova and The Preacher (one of the soldiers working with The Colonel). The latter two hardly say anything, so The Colonel does the heavy lifting for the humans and does a spectacular job at that. He's really made out to look sadistic as possible, especially when he explains that he killed his own son to ensure the disease didn't spread. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about him and you badly want to see Caesar give him his comeuppance.

His ultimate demise is executed almost masterfully in a way as well. When Caesar finally escapes the humans' prison for the apes and is about to kill The Colonel, he comes to discover that The Colonel has been "infected" and can no longer speak. He's virtually helpless by this point and invites the idea of Caesar shooting him in the head. After a long internal struggle, Caesar choose not to do what Koba would have and instead leaves The Colonel to commit suicide. Thus, Caesar remained true to himself in the process.

I can't say I expected the ending, either, which is a good thing. I figured all the humans would be wiped out by the epic battle (and the apparent avalanche) in order for the apes to rule the planet and reach their "promise land," but I was shocked when Caesar rolled over and died in the final few minutes of the movie. I don't mean that as a criticism, but rather as praise. He died a hero after all he did to save his fellow apes, and now the apes that are left can create a better world without him.

Now, where does this leave the future of the franchise? Obviously, if the movie makes money (and it already has), there will be more movies, but nothing (as of this writing) has been set in stone for what other installments might entail. Would a fourth film take place immediately after this, or possibly years into the future to start right where the original movies were set (maybe not in the 3900s but slightly earlier than that)? Personally, I would end it here, because this trilogy was so well done from start to finish that I would hate for it be tarnished with a fourth film (sans Caesar, mind you).

I suppose only time will tell in regards to if more movies will be made, but nevertheless, check out these three tremendous films back-to-back-to-back in the meantime. I would advise you to watch the first two movies first to refresh your memory going into War for the Planet of the Apes, but beyond that, see this as soon as you can. It's an awesome sci-fi thriller that is paced just right and the battle that is built up from the beginning is well-worth the price of admission alone. It's very rare a reboot series is every bit as exciting than the original, but these movies might be better.

Should you see this movie? Yes.

I'm going to be completely honest with you: I can't say I was thrilled when it was announced a year or so ago that yet another Spider-Man movie was in the works, so soon after the other five movies. I watched the first three from 2001 to 2007 and enjoyed them for what they were, but I realize that they were pretty poor in terms of being true to the Spider-Man comics. I actually didn't see The Amazing Spider-Man or The Amazing Spider-Man 2 because I thought they were way too similar to the first three films, even though they received far better reviews and apparently offered a better depiction of Spider-Man and its characters.

It wasn't until Captain America: Civil War when we got our first look as Tom Holland as Spider-Man that I took an interest in the soon-to-be-relaunched franchise, because he played the part to perfection and had a natural wit about him. Combine that with the fact that I've watched almost every Marvel movie that has been released since the first Avengers film in 2012 and I pretty much had to see Spider-Man: Homecoming, especially after all the early reviews indicated it was worth seeing. Sure enough, I was not disappointed.

First and foremost, I really appreciated the movie not retelling the story of Peter Parker getting bitten by the spider, Uncle Ben getting killed, and pretty much the whole background story we've heard a million times before. I know there were those who were upset by how elements essential to the Spider-Man story were left out, but why bother wasting time repeating things everyone already knows? I haven't watched Civil War since I first saw it in the theaters, but I'm almost positive Spider-Man's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe in that movie explained his powers already. Thankfully, Spider-Man Homecoming went right into the heart of the matter.

Another thing that was anticipated to be a problem (but turned out not to be) was The Avengers having a huge presence in the film, overshadowing Spider-Man in the process. That was kind of the case in Civil War, but not in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Tony Stark/Iron Man does play a pivotal role in Spider-Man's development and almost serves as a mentor to the up-and-coming hero, but he only appears sparingly throughout the film, saving his butt on a few occasions but letting him do most of the work. That's essentially it when it comes to The Avengers. Captain America shows up a handful of times, but not in real time; he is merely a part of PSA videos that are shown to students at Parker's high school in gym class and in detention, which is funny. The real lack of Avengers is also a good thing especially if future Spider-Man films won't be a part of the MCU at all.

I'm sure Spider-Man fans who are familiar with his history in the comics viewed the movie differently than someone such as me, likely taking exception with characters such as Liz and Ned in Homecoming that aren't present in the comics (and if they are, they don't share the same qualities of the characters from the movie). I haven't seen many people bothered by Liz and Ned, as both characters were nice additions to the story, especially Ned (and I liked how modernized he was). That said, I know Michelle being revealed as "MJ" at the end of film (and not being the same redhead Mary Jane from the comics and from other films) received criticism, and rightfully so to an extent. It didn't annoy me as much as many others, and I liked that swerve, leaving me to wonder how she'll win over Parker in future films.

Granted, Aunt May isn't an old woman in Homecoming like she was in the original trilogy, but no one is complaining about that, nor should they be. Instead, Aunt May is portrayed by a much younger (and more attractive) Marisa Tomei. I remember liking her a lot in The Wrestler (which I also reviewed here), and it makes a lot more sense to cast her as Aunt May over someone a lot older considering she's his aunt, not his grandmother. She's new to parenting and taking care of the awkward teenager, and although we don't see a lot of her, she shines in each of her appearances. Teasing that she now knows Peter is Spider-Man is also a cool cliffhanger for the next installment in the series.

Perhaps this is because I'm a big fan of what Marvel has created over the last five years or so, but I was thoroughly entertained by the spin Marvel put on the Spider-Man story. As noted, I liked the original trilogy for what it was, but I don't remember it being all that funny. Not that it needed be because it wasn't intended to be a comedy, but there were a lot of laughs in Homecoming, delivering the type of humor that has been present in the last few Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy movies. It will be interesting to see if the series retains that humor once it eventually becomes a Sony-only production down the road, but I assume that it won't because Tom Holland as a teenager full of angst is just excellent and works on many levels.

I mentioned earlier how I appreciated the little swerves that were sprinkled throughout the film to keep audience members on their toes while watching, but my favorite of them all was when it was revealed in the third act that Adrian Toomes a.k.a. Vulture was the father of the senior girl Peter had a crush on and planned on taking to homecoming, Liz. When Peter opened the door to Liz's house to pick her up for homecoming and saw Toomes, I almost expected that, thinking Toomes would take the girl he liked hostage (the standard formula for most movies pitting good against evil). What I didn't expect, however, was Toomes revealing himself as Liz's dad. Of course, he found out Peter was Spider-Man while driving the two of them to the dance, but that was an awesome development that allowed you to see the humane side of Toomes as well as the evil side.

Speaking of Toomes, Michael Keaton did an absolutely exceptional job as the main villain for the film. That should come as no surprise if you're familiar with any of his past roles in other movies he's done, but he was the highlight of Homecoming for me. Not only was his acting outstanding, his character motives were super well done. He wasn't your typical bad guy that simply wanted to reek havoc and force society to suffer. Rather, he became a criminal so he could provide for his family, and you nearly feel for him once you find out his family consists of Liz. His intentions were good, but his way of providing for his family was bad, so he's a unique kind of villain in that respect and I'm glad he didn't die and was instead put in prison. Spider-Man saved his daughter's life as well as his life, so that's why he didn't reveal Spider-Man's true identity at the end to his fellow inmates. The attention to detail was appreciated, to say the least.

As for the two post-credit scenes (there's one mid-credits and one a while later), the first one does show Toomes in prison talking to someone who we can only assume is Scorpion based off his tattoo. Could he be the main villain for the next movie? It also indicates we haven't seen the last of Toomes/Vulture in the Spider-Man saga. Meanwhile, the second post-credits scene shows Captain America doing another PSA on patience and how some things aren't always worth the wait. It's basically Marvel's way of poking fun at people waiting until after the credits are over to see something that doesn't meet their lofty expectations. Sure, it's annoying, but I got a kick out of it, and it didn't legitimately frustrate me; it was more like, "Dammit! They got me!" while also drawing back to a running gag from the movie.

So, what does the future of the franchise hold? I'm still not entirely sure what's up with Sony and Marvel and whether we'll see any more interaction between Spider-Man and other MCU characters. At this point, I'm going to say that we won't, but is there even a timetable for when Spider-Man will become Sony-exclusive again? Was Spider-Man turning down a spot in the The Avengers at the end Marvel's way of explaining his absence from the MCU going forward? Will the franchise meet a similar fate to the last two? Nothing is for certain right now other than the sequel being slated for a 2018 release. What's cool is that there's so much more that can be done with the series and Homecoming solely scratched the surface. I think it's for the better that there's more questions than answers at the moment because it forces us to look forward to what's next.

I'm not even sure Spider-Man: Homecoming was high up on my list of most anticipated movies of 2017, but I liked it a lot more than I thought I would and it's undoubtedly been one of my favorite films I've seen so far this year. If you're a hardcore comic book fan, you're bound to find flaws with some storytelling elements and minor details, but you'll be satisfied, nevertheless. If you aren't a huge follower of the comics and are just looking for a fun movie, then Spider-Man: Homecoming is for you, too. There hasn't been a single Marvel movie I've seen that I didn't at least enjoy (I've largely stayed away from the Thor films but that's about it), and this installment was no exception. Despite there being so many additions to the ever-expanding MCU (and how many movies Marvel is pumping out each year nowadays), they've managed to maintain their luster and kill it every time. I have faith that the franchise, unlike its predecessors, will be a massive success for years to come.

​​Should you see this movie? Yes.

You would be surprised by how many of my male friends asked me in recent months, "Hey, is it weird if I want to go see Beauty and the Beast?" And every time I'd reply with, "No, because I want to see it, too." Granted, it wasn't the most anticipated movie release of 2017 for me. Hell, I wouldn't have even made a conscious effort to go see it unless I had a reason to. Well, I ended up going to see it the day of its release with my family (more specifically for my younger sister) and actually thoroughly enjoyed it.

Don't get me wrong, though, don't feel you absolutely need to see this movie with a family member or even your significant other. It's just a good movie in general. Now, does it measure up to original? Of course not, but that was never the intent. I usually don't have faith that animated movies will be done right when they become live action, but Beauty in the Beast proved me wrong in that respect. Then again, I initially assumed it would be worth seeing and it met my expectations.

I was actually surprised the movie was over two hours in length simply because I didn't think it would translate as well to live action, but then again, I probably should have figured that. If they told the story just how it was in the original, it would have ran way short, but similar to just about every other animated movie turned into live action, the base of the story is slightly changed. The key word there is "slightly" because the basic plot of Beauty and the Beast is essentially the same, as is the magic of it. That would have been a major criticism of mine had it been changed considerably.

Part of what made the original so exceptional and critically-acclaimed was its amazing soundtrack, and the live action version doesn't disappoint in that respect, either. All of the original tunes are included and are performed wonderfully, so the soundtrack alone is worth seeing this movie for. This movie is virtually a musical, and while that may not sound appealing to some, this film should be the exception for how it is executed.

Even as a 21-year-old, I never felt the musical performances or the movie itself were catering to a young audience, and that was what was key. This is not a "kids movie" by any stretch, despite the Disney label, but it is appropriate for all ages because there's very little violence and everything is enjoyable but not to the point where I felt it was being dumbed down or insulting the intelligence of older audience members.

I also must mention how perfectly cast Emma Watson was in the role of Belle. She not only did she look the part but she has that innocent, wholesome aura about her that makes her likable. I wasn't familiar with anyone else in the film, but everyone played their roles well, and I especially enjoyed Luke Evans as Gaston. Speaking of whom, Gaston is such a classic character in the annals of Disney's villainous history that he needed to be done properly, and I thought they did right by Gaston in this movie by how he came across and the small touches he added to it as well.

Finally, Josh Gad did a hell of a job as LeFou, and of all the minor changes made to the plot of Beauty and the Beast, I really liked how he was made out to be likable throughout the film, showing remorse for his evil actions alongside Gaston. My only complaint was that it was only after Gaston showed he didn't care for him during one of the final scenes that he turned to the "good side," and he never sought vengeance after that. He just helps out the inanimate objects fight back against the villagers and that's about it.

Nevertheless, 2017's adaption of Beauty in the Beast gets a big thumbs up from me. The original I don't think will ever be topped, but this was an excellent effort. Besides, as a standalone movie, it was a real treat and a lighthearted film everyone can enjoy. Why bother comparing it to the original, anyway? There's a ton of quality movies out at the moment, but I have the feeling Beauty in the Beast will be in theaters for a while, so seek it out when you can.

Should you see this movie? Yes.

I'm a little late to the party on this one as Daddy's Home was released Christmas 2015, but after recently rewatching it for a third time, I figured I would give my two cents on it. And don't assume that simply because I have seen it three times in the span of a little over one year means it's by any means great, because it isn't. Rather, it was a movie I enjoyed and got a few laughs out of, and definitely a recommended viewing if you're in a mood for something throwaway. Other than that, though, this movie didn't live up to the lofty expectations some might have set for it (myself included) considering the cast it had.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Will Ferrerll and loved Elf, Anchorman, Semi-Pro, and Step Brothers. But it seems as if he hasn't had that same level of success since those films from a decade ago. For example, I liked Anchorman 2 (which I also wrote a review of here), but it was far from being as good as the original. I thought Daddy's Home fell in the same category as Get Hard in that it was nice for what it was, but it won't be remembered as one of Ferrell's better movies.

Mark Wahlberg is an excellent actor as well in my opinion and can thrive in a variety of roles, whether it be comedic or serious, and he and Ferrell had the potential to be a phenomenal pairing. To their credit, they did play well off of each other and provided quite a few chuckles, but there wasn't enough of an entertainment value to justify me giving it a rave review.

Now, you're likely asking yourself why I would watch it three times if I didn't at least like it. The first time, I saw it in theaters, I watched it with friends the second time because they hadn't seen it, and the third time I felt like refreshing my memory as to how good (or not so good) it might have been. Again, I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed Hot Tub Time Machine 2 as well and I don't think I would suggest anyone go out of their way to watch that. Liking a movie and calling it great are two very different things.

Essentially, the premise of the film is that Ferrell's character is a step-dad, and the original dad (Wahlberg) comes back to attempt to win his family back by doing all these crazy things. It eventually becomes an all-out war between the two as they battle for the family's love and affection, trying to oust the other from the house. The plot is simple enough and easy to follow, so that isn't the issue. It's just that the comedy itself wasn't humorous as I thought it would be, and aside from a few moments here and there, it never once clicked for me where I was dying of laughter.

I will say that for as much as I liked Ferrell and Wahlberg together, the real star of the film for me was Thomas Haden Church, who played Ferrell's boss at the radio station. If you watched him on Wings and other shows from earlier in his career, then you probably already know how hilarious he can be when portraying an idiot. He wasn't in a ton of scenes throughout Daddy's Home, but whenever he pops up and tells Ferrell a story that is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, he knocks it out of the park.

Last but not least, and spoilers are ahead so stop reading here if you don't want to find anything out about the ending, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention a cool cameo during the last scene of the movie. Wahlberg's character gets remarried and he ultimately becomes a step-dad to his wife's daughter. The real dad? John Cena. I thought that was great because not only was he the perfect, jacked-up dude for Wahlberg to be intimidated by, how often over the years have those two been compared to each other due to their similar looks? That was pretty sweet.

All in all, Daddy's Home is an all right family-friendly film that's worthy of a watch on Apple TV or wherever else you can stream it, yet not good enough for a DVD or Blu-ray purchase. I'm still waiting on Ferrell to be a part of another Elf or Anchorman, and while I badly hoped this would be it, it wasn't. It isn't a blemish on his career or anything, but for what it could have been, Daddy's Home fell flat for me.

Should you see this movie? No.