Monkey Man is messy but ambitious. It fortifies the generic revenge action plot with themes of classism and abuse of power. However, the causes and solutions of these issues are left unpacked. The protagonist's motivation becomes repetitive because he's defined by one turning point in his past. Consequently, the acting lacks layers or range. Patel injects outbursts, vulnerability, and physicality, but it's all tethered to one note. There's dutiful setup, patient payoff, fable parallels, and representation. Some characters are unnecessary, dialogue is middling, and humor is overshadowed. Overall, Monkey Man provides the necessary ingredients yet struggles to make them cohesive.

Technically, Monkey Man is scrappy but stylish. The imagery uses framing, motion, lighting, focus, angles, and excessive shaky cam. Its editing has inserts, slo-mo, action, montages, flashbacks, dream sequences, and uneven momentum. The dense sound adds split cuts, risers, match cuts, combat, distortions, smash cuts, and intimacy. Its music is modern, regional, atmospheric, juxtaposing, restrained, timed, and eclectic. The production design conveys classism, symbolic colors, and culture. Its cast has regional fame yet only Patel is globally known. The effects offer violence, makeup, plentiful stunts, and touches of CGI. Ultimately, Monkey Man is a flawed but positive effort.

• Writing: 6/10
• Direction: 8/10
• Cinematography: 8/10
• Acting: 7/10
• Editing: 7/10
• Sound: 9/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
• Production Design: 7/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.4/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

I watched Dr. Strangelove recently, the 4k restored version. This is my third time watching the film and this time I was able to appreciate the nuances of Sellers' performance. 3 wildly different characters in highly unusual situations. I don't remember another comedic performance displaying this much range and intelligence. I vote this to be the greatest. What do you think?

Check out my movie review here- https://fortheluvofmovies.net/dr-strangelove-1964-movie-review/

The Omen's fundamental approach further solidified the subgenre. The mystery has steady investigation, setup/payoff, and clues. Its intentional ambiguity enhances themes of faith, deception, and repentance. There's tension, earned exposition, turning points, and a stinger ending. However, because attention is on the plot, the drama feels secondary. The characters react, deal with internal conflicts, and grow, but there's little personalizing of motivations, flaws, or emotions. In turn, the acting is a bit one-note despite the solid intensity, despair, aggression, and layers. The pieces are there but the binding intimacy is thin. Still, The Omen is an intriguing thriller.

The Omen is ominous and grounded. The imagery uses depth, focus, reflections, framing, lighting, composition, and angles. Its editing offers dissolves, inserts, montages, pacing, action, intercuts, and slo-mo. The sound adds voiceovers, smash cuts, quiet, split cuts, diegetics, and emphasis. Its definitive music is choral, suspenseful, discordant, and relentless. The production design establishes memorable settings and religious undertones. Its cast has a capable child, excellent fit, and legends in key roles. The effects supply stunts, dummies, animal training, pyrotechnics, rotoscoping, makeup, and projections. Overall, The Omen is a capable blend of filmmaking, stress, and meaning.

• Writing: 6/10
• Direction: 8/10
• Cinematography: 9/10
• Acting: 8/10
• Editing: 8/10
• Sound: 9/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 10/10
• Production Design: 8/10
• Casting: 9/10
• Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 8.3/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

"Just saw David Fincher's new film, 'The Killer' a second time and let me tell you, it's a much better experience after the disappointment I felt the first time. It's neither an action movie nor a straight-up thriller. It's a character study with great visuals. What did you think?

Checkout my full review here- https://fortheluvofmovies.net/the-killer-2023-movie-review/

I was so furious and hoped the COO to be killed first. I was rooting for that newbie but got disappointed how she died. I can't imagine if this will happen in real life. Why did I not watch this movie before? Any other movies you recommend similar to this?

Saint Maud is a psychological character study, propelled by emotions and beliefs. There are themes of spirituality, death, masochism, fanaticism, sanity, repression, alienation, trauma, and delusion. These existential ideas stem from a tragic internal conflict. There's dark humor, driven dialogue, unreliable narration, interpretability, unpredictability, satire, contrasting characters, earned arcs, and a gut-punch ending. This is all solidified by the palpable acting, which brings intensity, chemistry, motivation, ambiguity, physicality, growth, layers, and passionate commitment. Thus, Saint Maud is very personal, grounding viewers in an extreme yet oddly relatable downfall.

Saint Maud is subjective. Its direction blends subtly, surrealism, suspense, ambiance, and tones. The imagery uses framing, focus, sickly lighting, angles, composition, and lenses. Its editing offers dissolves, inserts, pacing, intercuts, rhythm, hard cuts, and brevity. The sound adds perspective, quiet, split cuts, symbolic motifs, risers, timing, and smash cuts. Its music is atmospheric, droning, restrained, swelling, and discordant. The production design is grungy, muted, and coastal. Its cast has limited fame, perfect fit, and breakout talent. The effects merge CGI with blood, makeup, wires, and gore. Overall, Saint Maud optimizes filmmaking to create a state of mind.

• Writing: 9/10
• Direction: 10/10
• Cinematography: 9/10
• Acting: 10/10
• Editing: 8/10
• Sound: 9/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
• Production Design: 8/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 8.6/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Madame Web is boring plot with superficial character drama. The story is woefully convoluted yet surprisingly empty, making viewers work hard for little reward. There's a punishing level of exposition, delivered as bluntly as possible. Every line of dialogue is forced, clunky, or cringey. Protagonists are one-note and stagnant, with any growth feeling completely unearned. It has mediocre humor, silly devices, excessive threads, inconsistent motivation, weak stakes, uneven structure, redundant reveals, thin logic, cliches, and contrivances. The acting is mild, stilted, monotone, and disengaged. Ultimately, Madame Web is derivative and insincere, with no emotions or ideas to convey.

Technically, Madame Web lacks energy, heart, clarity, immersion, or style. The imagery has angles, focus, chaotic movement, drab colors, and no geography. Its editing offers trippy smash inserts and repetition with erratic pacing, dragging momentum, and overcut action. The sound uses smash cuts, combat, stings, risers, distortions, and awkward ADR. Its music adds one decent needle drop, but is otherwise generic and arbitrary. The cast is famous but underutilized. Its production design sways between nondescript and incongruent (with obvious product placement). The CGI effects are distracting. Overall, Madame Web is an unenthused patchwork of tired tropes and dull filmmaking.

• Writing: 2/10
• Direction: 3/10
• Cinematography: 3/10
• Acting: 4/10
• Editing: 5/10
• Sound: 7/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 4/10
• Production Design: 4/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 5/10

Overall Score: 4.4/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Late Night with the Devil utilizes a high concept for surprising depth. It sticks tightly to its framing device, delivering the story through a fictional TV episode. Yet, despite that rigid structure, there are fitting and earned themes. Ideas of success, selling out, truth, belief, and perception are seamlessly woven in. There's setup/payoff, driven dialogue, personal conflicts, motivated characters, exposition dumps, twists, mounting stakes, and an interpretable ending. The acting provides layers, physicality, intensity, intentions, personality, vulnerability, distress, and showmanship. Thus, Late Night with the Devil elevates its gimmick with concise drama, philosophy, and plot.

Late Night with the Devil offers purposeful tension, tones, and subjectivity. The imagery uses aspect ratios, framing, angles, lighting, and film gauges. Its editing adds montages, split screens, inserts, pacing, structure, and brevity. The sound has voiceovers, emphasis, genre elements, quiet, and smash cuts. Its music employs diegetic jazz and a fitting final song. The production design undermines its 70s talk show aesthetic with AI. It's nice when character actors like Dastmalchian get lead roles, but the cast is mostly replaceable. The effects supplement CGI with wires, makeup, prosthetics, and stunts. Overall, Late Night with the Devil maximizes its confined premise.

• Writing: 9/10
• Direction: 9/10
• Cinematography: 8/10
• Acting: 8/10
• Editing: 8/10
• Sound: 8/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 8/10
• Production Design: 7/10
• Casting: 6/10
• Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.8/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/03/godzilla-x-kong-new-empire.html

8/10

In this sequel to Godzilla vs. Kong, King Kong, now living in Hollow Earth, comes across a new threat to the surface world. Meanwhile, something seems to have Godzilla on the move, but what?

This transitions really nicely from the last film by focusing on the Hollow Earth that King Kong has found himself home in. The last couple KK films have focused on the loneliness of finding a place for himself and searching for any remaining members of his kind. His journey is interesting affair as he finally gets to encounter other giant gorillas. He's actually strangely the most appealing character, saying so much without dialogue. He never starts anything in this and just wants to live his life, and you kind of feel for him as has to put up with everyone else just looking for trouble.

Understand that this is the Kong movie featuring Godzilla. The big G really doesn't do much till the grand finale. Though, it's understandable. I've read that Toho has several rules on what cannot be done with Godzilla (which, given how off-brand the 90's American attempt was, it's understandable). They want him to remain a force of nature, which means ixnay on the human-like facial expressions.

I won't speak much about the main villain here (the first original creation since the Mutos in the first Godzilla film) since their appearance is an Oogie Boogie-style slow burn, but they may be one of the best antagonists in the series, having a fun design and having more personality and being cleverer than other giant monsters.

I've heard complaints about the human subplot (a small group traveling to Hollow Earth in order to find out what's bothering Godzilla), but I'm not seeing it. I felt it was interesting enough. This movie builds a lot more upon the relationship of scientist Ilene Andrews (played by Rebecca Hall) and her adopted daughter Jia (Kaylee Hottle), the last of her tribe, and the now older Jia dealing with her identity. Whereas the last film had the novel decision to have two completely separated groups of heroes for each monster's subplot, this one consolidates the group, dropping several characters. Out of team G, they retained one of the more standout members, podcaster and conspiracy theorist Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry), whose comical elements seem to have increased a little in this. (I will miss the his other members and am surprised that the guy who leads the monster observing organization Monarch doesn't even have a cameo, but I understand that director Adam Wingard (who also the last film, the most recent Blair Witch, and Your're Next) probably didn't want to oversaturate the story now that it was simpler and more time was needed for Kong's story. On the Kong team's side, they're mostly back, but the scientist guy is replaced with another guy, Trapper (Downton Abbey/the live-action Beauty and the Beast's Dan Stevens). I don't see the reason for the change (the last guy wasn't irreplaceable per se, but he did well and had a good rapport with Ilene and Jia). Trapper serves as the "speaks for the natural order" guy, and he does well enough. Thing is the script has both him and Bernie be the odd, funny guys, and it feels like the movie only needed one. Though, there a few moments where the "weird guys but in different ways"interaction energy pays off.

Course, most people are here for the action, and like the last film, this one delivers. Wingard exercises a little more creativity with the fight choreography and the effects look great. Although, I think that the last film was slightly superior when it came to intensity. However, it also feels like Wingard and the writers really didn't care about putting the monsters out of harms way (even less than last time). If you have issue with rooting for the big G and KK when they are also trampling a lot of people, this might not be for you.

The special effects are even better than last time. The entire look of Hollow Earth might be one of the most impressive science fiction/fantasy landscapes of this decade (real 70's/80's fantasies vibes).

Last thing to say is that like the last movie the epilogue wraps up too quickly. Would've liked a little more explanation.

Highly recommended. Very entertaining and the overall story feels tighter and more interesting than last time.

I have seen every single one of the Ghostbusters movies. Only one I don’t really remember is Ghostbusters 2. I Was looking forward to seeing Ghostbusters frozen empire ever since I saw the trailer. They delivered what I wanted to which was an entertaining action comedy

On the positive side, you had some good performances, especially from McKenna Grace. You also got a good amount of action and comedy. Also, it was a compelling story.

The only negative I would have mainly is that in the middle of the movie, it got a little slow. I understand you were building to the ending, but it kind of halted the momentum. Also, some of the acting was just OK.

Overall, this was a very good movie, and was enjoyable, but there were some things that didn’t make it great. All in all, though, another solid entry in the franchise, and I actually think this movie was better than the latest movie.

Rating-3.5/5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/03/rewind-2023-movie-review.html

Just right. This is the feeling we had for "Rewind" after the credits rolled. It doesn't really shake things up with a story that's relatable but too dramatic for our taste. At its core, though, it's a film that has a deeper message beyond its pre-destined emotions. A lesson that hopefully makes viewers reflect on their life choices and what really matters in our lives - that we spend and invest time for the people who matter to us most.

Mary (Marian Rivera) has always had deep affection for John (Dingdong Dantes) ever since she met him as classmates. However, as years pass within their marriage, John's focus has shifted further away from her and their son Austin (Jordan Lim), which strains their relationship to its breaking point. Tragically, this rift culminates in an accident that claims Mary's life. Yet, amidst the depths of despair, an extraordinary opportunity presents itself to John: the chance to turn back the hands of time and alter the course of events, thereby saving the life of the woman he holds most dear.

As anticipated, "Rewind" caters to the local demographic to a tee. It's no surprise that this was a hit as it's the typical romance-drama affair that local audiences have always loved. Do not expect different twists from "Rewind" even though it has a science fiction twist - this is the quintessential Filipino film for better or worse. But the film, even with its predictability, was entertaining. For us, Dingdong Dantes and Marian Rivera delivered outstandingly in this film. We loathed Dingdong's character for his stubbornness, and we found Marian's character infectious to the various emotions she needed to perform on-screen. Pepe Herrera also delivered a memorable performance as the character of Lods. "Rewind" has a lot to say more than its love story. It's a film about finding time for those who matter to us most. It's a rigid message that focuses on family and even religion but it's an important message regardless that can be interpreted beyond its structure. Overall, "Rewind" is predictable but will be an emotional experience for its target audience.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/03/godzilla-x-kong-new-empire-movie-review.html

"Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" presents a cinematic experience that demands a conscious choice from its audience: surrender to its outrageous spectacle or risk disappointment. The film plunges headfirst into a realm where logic takes a backseat to sheer bombast and entertainment. While the breathtaking battles between Titans are undeniably thrilling, the film sacrifices human relatability, diminishing the weight of its narrative ramifications.

Set in a world where Kong's victory over MechaGodzilla has established a fragile equilibrium between these two Titans, the emergence of mysterious strong signals within Hollow Earth disrupts this peace. As Godzilla and Kong respond to the signals, a new threat looms, once again imperiling Earth and its inhabitants.

For those seeking more than mere action, "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" will disappoint. The film neglects the human element, with thousands perishing without consequence amidst the chaos. While witnessing Titans clash in iconic locations like Rome and Brazil is exhilarating, the lack of impact on human lives feels disconcerting and mind-numbing. Instead of fully fleshed-out characters, humans serve primarily as narrators, delivering exposition to explain the unfolding events shown on the big screen. Unfortunately, the narrative itself is a convoluted exercise in fantasy, challenging the audience's suspension of disbelief, even for a film featuring Titans and a Hollow Earth scenario. To truly appreciate the film, one must relinquish all expectations and inhibitions and immerse oneself in the moment. Despite its flaws, "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" excels at delivering pure, unadulterated fun. By suspending disbelief and embracing the absurdity, viewers can revel in the epic battles and larger-than-life spectacle. In conclusion, "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" offers a rollercoaster ride of thrills and excitement, albeit at the expense of narrative depth and human connection. It's a film best enjoyed with an open mind and a willingness to embrace the chaos.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Scott Pilgrim is imaginative. Its comedic tone lacks vulnerability, but that's outweighed by surreal substance. The protagonist is an indecisive antihero who eventually grows. There are themes about toxicity, respect, codependence, and commitment. The amplified conflict is a metaphor for the relationship struggles of unresolved baggage. There's potent symbolism, intricate setup/payoff, meaningful characters, layered dialogue, earned plot points, and sharp humor. The acting offers precise timing, physicality, relatability, and fitting exaggeration. Overall, Scott Pilgrim transforms the universal journey of romance into a supernatural tale, hiding grounded heart in refreshing entertainment.

Technically, Scott Pilgrim is purposeful. Its flashy visuals use motion, focus, framing, lighting, composition, angles, and depth. The dense sound employs split cuts, stings, diegetics, echoes, emphasis, muffling, risers, voiceovers, smash cuts, and visual timing. Its rhythmic editing adds jump cuts, intercuts, split screens, passing cuts, match cuts, dissolves, montages, slo-mo, inserts, layers, hidden cuts, and momentum. It has stylized production designs, a deep cast, and immersive effects. The synchronized music has gamer influences, original songs, trans-diegetics, motifs, and story relevance. Fully utilizing the medium, Scott Pilgrim is a dynamic, unique, and detailed triumph.

• Writing: 8/10
• Direction: 10/10
• Cinematography: 10/10
• Acting: 8/10
• Editing: 10/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 10/10
• Production Design: 10/10
• Casting: 9/10
• Effects: 10/10

Overall Score: 9.5/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Let me start by saying what a great film and performance by Meryl Streep. If you haven't seen it I highly encourage you to.

I had heard what the film was about in the past and naturally made my assumptions off of that. I guess I had thought the entirety of the film was going to be about Sophie's life pre/post/and during her time in Auschwitz, and less about 3 friends. When I was watching the dynamic between Nathan, Sophie, and Stingo it made me think of The Great Gatsby where Stingo appeared as more of an outsider to the group of 3.

In all honesty, the first hour of the movie where we got to know the friends and their dynamic was (for lack of a better term) boring imo. As the pieces started getting put together, though, and things were making more sense I was really intrigued by Sophie's story. I won't say too much about the ending, but one of the later scenes that was the basis for the film title was the most gut wrenching thing I have ever watched. To watch her, in a sense, be forced to play God and decide someone's fate..it made more sense why she hid behind so many lies.

Barbie is lightning in a bottle. It's ideally self-aware and experimental, subverting conventions while remaining playful. It examines gender roles, feminism, patriarchy, objectification, beauty, social pressures, and self-love from a knowledgeable perspective. The humor masterfully blends whip-smart wit with silly accessibility. Its acting brings precise and unique mixtures of physicality, vulnerability, layers, absurdism, chemistry, and comedic timing. There's setup/payoff, dynamic characters, fun dialogue, and a surprisingly deep arc. Overall, Barbie is fearlessly sincere and almost paradoxically important, highlighting the divinity of flawed humanity over perfection constructs.

Technically, Barbie is dazzling. The production design is surreal, theatrical, immersive, elaborate, vibrant, and immaculate. Its cast is star-studded, inclusive, and meta. The effects create a distinct and fitting aesthetic. Its music offers reimagined needle drops and catchy original songs. The editing adds slo-mo, match cuts, montages, smash cuts, inserts, pacing, cross cuts, and dissolves. Its cinematography depicts dual worlds through lighting, motion, depth, and filters. The sound uses split cuts, narration, emphasis, stings, layering, quiet, echoes, and muffling. Ultimately, Barbie's combination of style, coordination, energy, intelligence, and honesty makes it a true extravaganza.

• Writing: 10/10
• Direction: 10/10
• Cinematography: 7/10
• Acting: 10/10
• Editing: 9/10
• Sound: 8/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 9/10
• Production Design: 10/10
• Casting: 10/10
• Effects: 10/10

Overall Score: 9.3/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

This was my second time ever watching 2003’s Big Fish and it is just as good as the first time. Thing I love about this movie the most is everything outside of the attic. I’m not saying the acting is bad in anyway. I’m also not saying that the acting is amazing. What I mean is the aspects of storytelling, cinematography, and costumes. Each of those aspects bring so much to the movie and they make the movie that much greater.

Talking about performances, though, everybody does an amazing job in this movie. There are some actors in this movie that I feel it is the best performance that I’ve seen. That goes for Ewan McGregor and Helena Bonham Carter. They bring so much life to their characters. One other thing I really liked about McGregor’s performance is the chemistry with the other characters he meets. The chemistry never feels forced. It feels so natural in the movie.

I will also say this about the movie: To me, this is my favorite Tim Burton directed movie. It has his signature uniqueness, while also being a down to earth sentimental story.

Rating-5/5

Godzilla x Kong is simultaneously superficial and convoluted. Its sole purpose is monster fights, amounting to drawn-out buildup to a desensitizing climax. The dialogue is an endless parade of forced exposition dumps. There's no character development, consequences, personal stakes, originality, surprises, logic, or motivation. Significant time is spent on superfluous plot devices. Thus, the script is an emotionless flatline. In fact, its disregard, inconsistencies, contrivances, and aimless bloat become quite frustrating. Plus, the acting can't help but be flat, stilted, and tensionless. Ultimately, Godzilla x Kong is transparently hollow, offering nothing but a headache.

Technically, Godzilla x Kong is a mess. Its direction is muddled, farcical, sanitized, cliche, bland, exhausting, and soulless. The imagery uses movement, brief lighting, no scale, no geography, no composition, and basic framing. Its editing has excessive action, rushed pacing, clumsy structure, and no momentum. The sound adds genre elements, muffling, smash cuts, emphasis, and a noisy finale. Its music is generic. The production design is forgettable, overdesigned, unrelatable, and corporate. Its cast possesses slim fame, arbitrary fit, and no purpose. The CGI is overdone, glossy, and uncanny, devolving into disengaging weightlessness. Overall, Godzilla x Kong is incompetent.

• Writing: 1/10
• Direction: 1/10
• Cinematography: 4/10
• Acting: 3/10
• Editing: 3/10
• Sound: 7/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 4/10
• Production Design: 4/10
• Casting: 3/10
• Effects: 4/10

Overall Score: 3.4/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Kong: Skull Island embraces its silly premise, adds decent Vietnam allegories, and gets bogged down by superficial characters. There are weak motivations, shallow relationships, contrived villains, blunt backstories, strained dialogue, no arcs, and slim resolution. Emotions are cliche and the adventure is muddled by unnecessary threads. The plot is formulaic, leading to a generic climax. Its acting gives competently indifferent performances (except Reilly, who's having fun). Still, the script is adequately self-aware. Around all the hollow tropes are moments of playfulness. The story keeps moving and doesn't take itself seriously. Thus, Skull Island is a digestible guilty pleasure.

Skull Island has gonzo flourishes, scale, and uneven tones. The garish imagery uses lighting, depth, motion, framing, color, and angles. Its editing adds match cuts, inserts, cross cuts, choppy momentum, slo-mo, action, and energetic pacing. The sound offers split cuts, stings, emphasis, symbolism, silence, smash cuts, and genre elements. Its music provides mood and fit through obvious needle drops. The production design has era, setting, and monsters, yet nothing is particularly unique. Its cast is deep but underutilized. The inconsistent CGI sometimes feels weighty and detailed, and sometimes feels glossy and confining. Overall, Skull Island switches between audacious and reckless.

• Writing: 3/10
• Direction: 6/10
• Cinematography: 8/10
• Acting: 5/10
• Editing: 7/10
• Sound: 9/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 7/10
• Production Design: 7/10
• Casting: 8/10
• Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 6.6/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Nickelback is a band that I grew up listening to as a kid. I’m not a hard-core fan but I like a lot of their songs. The big thing with the band is that in school and the generation that I am in, which is millennials, the fun thing to do was hate on the band. When I found out that they were coming out with a documentary that was only Going to be in theaters for two nights, I decided I wanted to go see it to get to learn more about the band

This documentary, directed by Leigh Brooks, Tells the history of the Canadian band Nickelback. Starting with Chad and Mike Kroeger Growing up in Hanna, Alberta to the introduction of more band members and switches in members. This documentary also talks about the period of time where they were the band that people love to hate, especially with the introduction of social media all because of how popular and big they got. It Culminates in them questioning what the future of the band is currently

I really enjoyed this documentary. I got to learn more about their history and the back stories of all the main members. You got some dramatic moments in there and it was funny at multiple times during the movie. It was interesting to see how the members dealt with some of the big moments in their career

If I had any small negative, it would be that there were a couple dramatic moments that I wish were expanded upon, but if the members wanted to leave some details out, that is understandable.

I actually saw Nickelback live in concert around the year 2008 with the release of their album Dark Horse. All in all, this was a unique experience getting to see a movie that chronicles the band that is only in theaters for two days. I am glad I was able to see this movie because I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.

4.5/5

Godzilla (2014) has weak development. It attempts to stay grounded and restrained, but lacks the heart and themes to support that approach. The family drama quickly becomes predictable and stagnant. Its characters are flat, bland, sidelined, and pointless. The narrative is heavy on formulaic plot. Its dialogue is almost exclusively exposition. There's inconsistent science, contrivances, blunt allegories, and detached stakes. It broaches ideas of nature, balance, and control, but these discussions are undercooked. The acting is mild, aimless, and one-note (besides Cranston's motivated intensity). Thus, Godzilla's missing relatability makes its story generic and downright boring.

Technically, Godzilla is clunky. Its direction is somber, dry, and removed. The imagery offers flashy money shots among desaturated colors and dark lighting. Its editing adds action, cross cuts, iffy momentum, and sluggish pacing. The sound uses split cuts, genre elements, smash cuts, echoes, muffling, and perspective. Its music is suspenseful, ominous, fitting, and fairly forgettable. The production design supplies creatures, scale, globe-trotting, military elements, and drab personality. Its cast provides underutilized talent and misplaced fame. The effects are primarily CGI and mo-cap, with textured details. Overall, Godzilla builds competent craft around dull emotions.

• Writing: 3/10
• Direction: 5/10
• Cinematography: 6/10
• Acting: 6/10
• Editing: 5/10
• Sound: 8/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 6/10
• Production Design: 6/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 6.0/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

I was looking for something mindless to watch and saw that Boondock Saints was on Amazon Prime and decided "why the hell not." Now I don't really regret my decision to watch but I am disappointed. Is it a bad movie? Yeah. Is the the worst movie ever? No. Is it nearly two hours of wasted potential? Definitely.

That is what makes me so confused and disappointed in this movie. There are slivers of good ideas and interesting story. Willem Dafoe seems to be having the time of his life acting in it. The chemistry between Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery is pretty believable. The general idea could've been something it just isn't. A modern crusade against gangs, mobs, mafias, ect. Could be an interesting story to tell. The ball was just dropped then popped. I think if a better writer and director got ahold of the same basic idea and had most of the same cast something good could've been made. I'm not looking for Godfather or Goodfellas level storytelling but give me something so I'm not so confused and disappointed. I went in with no expectations and left with what-ifs.

My main gripes with this movie are not as many as a lot of people who critique it but I have a few. Like a lot of people I find Rocco pretty annoying but he's not more than plot item. Funny Man. Because everyone is laughing at you not with you. Why the fuck is Ron Jeremy here? How is the big bad such an incompetent group of Italian stereotypes? Not once did I really believe any of the gang shit going. Did the director see any mafia based stuff. Papa Joe felt like someone saw 30 seconds of Tony from the Sopranos and ran with it. Also he barely says a damn thing the entire movie. I do not believe this guy is the head of a major crime family at all. The pointless and tasteless racism and sexism is very just mind-numbing and painful to sit through. Racism could've been used as a plot device if they went with the Irish-American and Italian-American fighting that was very prominent in the mafia settings. Instead of slurs there could've been something compelling made out of it. I just see so many half ideas that could've been something.

Now the humor. Rocco isn't funny. The rule of thumb joke, I don't see why it's been praised by people. It's pretty dumb. To me all the humor in the movie came from Willem Dafoe. The walking oxymoron. The homophobic gay man. This insane, eccentric, eclectic. mad genius, who is just killing every scene he's in. I found myself doing 10 second skips a lot during the movie but when Dafoe was on screen I was dialed in. That investigation towards the end where he's tearing his clothes off, crawling in the dirt, screaming like a child was so hilarious to me. He delivers his lines perfectly in every scene. After watching it I feel like I understand his Green Goblin portrayal even more. I honestly think if the brothers took a back seat and this was a detective drama with Dafoe as the lead actor and all the Saint stuff being in flashbacks as Dafoe describes the crime scene similar to how it already is in the movie it would've been so much better. I don't need to follow Rocco fuck Rocco. I wanna watch Dafoe tear down detectives, describe a crime scene with almost prophetic power, and then decide that the Saints are in the right and help them towards the end. We can keep the idea that the Saints are "good guys" but now I just want Paul Smecker movie.

At the end of the day I think is a mid and a bit heavy handed. I'm all for over the top action but this felt like a Seagal movie that hired better actors.

Holy fuck.

First off, that was a great movie, but fuck that ending was something I completely did not expect.

Definitely didn't think it was going keep ramping up after each stunt, and I sort of expected the split personality reveal but it was fantastic regardless. I usually hate split personality tropes, but this one was executed very well.

Also, the literal metaphors in the movie were amazing. The shot of them walking down the street with one on the sidewalk and the other in the gutter was literally a high road and low road to symbolize their paths.

I really sympathized with the initial feelings of the movie about being unwanted, not alive, discarded and more, but it definitely turned into a different beast after they started their vigilantism and rapidly descended into blatant anarchist terrorism.

Tyler got lost in the sauce, and I felt like the movie would have had a strong message at the end about being your own self and being content with our expiration date but it showed a lot of the dangers of acceleratism and extremisms.

Did anyone else expect it to end differently?

Review on Why We Watch, with my co-writer Mallika

Primary Disclaimer: Eddie works for the company making the premium theater concession products.

Secondary Disclaimer: Eddie and I are both huge Paul Rudd fans.

As the latest installment in the Ghostbusters franchise, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire mostly delivers. There are several callbacks to the original film, more appearances from the O.G. cast and way more screen time for the always wonderful Paul Rudd.

This time, director Gil Kenan (Monster House) has the daunting task of maintaining one of the most iconic franchises of all time. He takes over for O.G. director, the late Ivan Reitman's son Jason, who helmed the previous film, Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Kenan's horror and comedy backgrounds lend itself to the series quite nicely.

While pacing is problematic throughout, making an under two-hour feature feel closer to two-and-a-half, Kenan makes sure to stay as true to the original film as possible, unlike Afterlife, which went the traditional reboot route of making a beloved film incredibly dark.

This film follows the Spengler family as they leave Oklahoma behind and decide to resurrect the Ghostbusters proper in NYC, making the iconic Tribeca firehouse their own. Joining them is Rudd's Gary Grooberson, who this time has top billing after spending too few scenes in Afterlife, and is now official with Spengler matriarch Cassie (Carrie Coon).

Together, they uncover many more supernatural beings, with kids Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and Egon doppelganger Phoebe (McKenna Grace) having particularly memorable encounters with ghostly creatures. A robust supporting cast including Kumail Nanjiani and Patton Oswalt add a sense of freshness to the series, and this is on top of some very welcome lore building developed by Kenan and Reitman.

The supernatural elements expand past ghosts into things that are borrowed from other creative works, like Avatar: The Last Airbender, but still feel like welcome additions to this world. And some of them spark a well-earned, yet so-so arc for Phoebe.

Her character just feels really jerked around this movie. It gives Grace a lot to work with, and leads to some fine acting from Rudd opposite her, but it's a bit like how Ghostbusters 2 was a bit of a "back to square one" after the classic. That is what makes the runtime feel more padded than it actually ends up being. Speaking of the first two movies...

There, of course, is the return of Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray, Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson, who this time around get way more screen time. Hudson and Ackroyd especially have memorable arcs, with Hudson's Winston Zeddemore going from a trusty driver to a renowned philanthropist and Ackroyd's Ray Stantz as a podcast host of (what else?) a supernatural show! Potts, meanwhile, gets to step out of her comfort zone from zany secretary to kick-butt Ghostbuster Janine Melnitz.

The butt-kicking and action is pretty strong as well, as improvements to the Ecto-1 take traversing the New York City streets to new heights. It's brief, but seeing the car whip around with a Proton Pack tearing up the town shows how much promise was in this movie, and how much promise is still left in the franchise. They just need to keep experimenting and testing things out...you know, like scientists.

3/5

The Favourite is wonderfully unorthodox. It deconstructs the period piece genre with dark humor, risqué dialogue, social commentary, absurd satire, and historical fiction. This is all anchored by tragic heart. Characters are thoroughly dynamic, layered, and motivated. Because each protagonist is so complex, the arcs feel earned yet surprising. The magnetic acting reinforces everything with physicality, intensity, vulnerability, timing, evolution, chemistry, and purpose. Consequently, its themes of classism, control, sexuality, love, excess, captivity, honesty, morality, and politics are intensified. The Favourite is a refreshing whirlwind of creative wit and profound emotions.

The Favourite has daring style, tension, tones, and juxtaposition. The isolating imagery uses motion, lenses, natural lighting, angles, framing, and composition. Its editing adds chapters, inserts, slo-mo, intercuts, match cuts, montages, and dissolves. The stark sound utilizes emphasis, smash cuts, action, silence, offscreens, and split cuts. Its classical music is atmospheric, ominous, fitting, operatic, and recurring. The opulent production design offers an era, tangibility, character cues, and symbolic colors. Its career-defining cast is led by perfectly placed stars. The effects supply stunts, makeup, blood, and animal training. Overall, The Favourite is maximized storytelling.

• Writing: 10/10
• Direction: 10/10
• Cinematography: 10/10
• Acting: 10/10
• Editing: 9/10
• Sound: 8/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 9/10
• Production Design: 10/10
• Casting: 10/10
• Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 9.3/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

I was born not long after this movie was made, & I'm always looking to catch up on older films I missed out on, especially the horror genre, given that we watched so much of that growing up. However, I do like what someone else wrote about Possession; that it's a drama with a tiny bit of horror sprinkled in. I think that's an accurate assessment. I'm not a fan of most contemporary horror; The Witch, Hereditary & Midsommar were all passes for me, but I DID think Hereditary's dramatic elements were undeniably riveting, & I think Possession excels there too.

I've read a lot of reviews & it's comical how often people mention 'overacting', but...have these people never been in a traumatizing relationship before? Because frankly, that is exactly how my crazy ass was, when I was young, in love, & was betrayed. I wasn't drowning people in toilets, but...the emotions being on tilt, & the constant arguing, fighting looked like it could've been taken from any number of my own failed relationships, minus some of the extreme stuff. I thought it was all very true to life, in that regard.

Having a hard time getting Isabelle's face out of my mind. She was very beautiful, and imo it made everything all the more believable. There were scenes where he essentially was like "just tell me what to do", or some kind of "I don't care what you've done just come back" stuff...which is sad & cringe to watch, but also relateable. When I was young, I had a relationship end & because of certain factors, her & I continued to live together, despite her seeing someone else, so...a lot of Sam's spiraling felt introspective for me. The watching the clock, & all that madness.

I typically have a strong distaste for movies that leave you without critical answers. And I've read enough about possession now that I get that certain parts were allegorical. Me personally, I wouldn't have minded a scene where Sam goes to a gypsy or something that tells him the origins of the creature, but...that's not the direction the film went, &...I don't mind it as much as I sometimes do, being in the dark about it's 'where' & 'how' & all that. It DID give me Hellraiser vibes though, having seen Hellraiser first. A woman having this monstrous secret thing hidden in some room somewhere. And that was cool because honestly, I thought that was the best, scariest part OF Hellraiser. That there was a house, & it was just like any other house anywhere else, all it's rooms just like all other rooms, except for one particular room, & the secret behind that door.

Overall, I thought it was definitely worth my while, but as different as it was I can also see how it'd be an acquired taste.

I just watched Sydney Pollack's Bobby Deerfield (1977) and I'm obsessed. This movie is incredible. I'm so confused why it got panned back in the day, because I find it sublime. Does anyone else feel this way?

Problemista combines imagination and heart. Its fantastical absurdism establishes a playful exterior, slyly juxtaposing an emotional interior. There are themes of exploitation, privilege, bureaucracy, art, empathy, and courage. This is focused around complex characters, dynamic relationships, meaningful conflicts, and an underrepresented plight. All its drama, stakes, and motivations are relatable. The acting finds flavorful balances of exaggeration, intensity, physicality, layers, sincerity, vulnerability, melodrama, growth, assertiveness, and affection. There's witty dialogue, setup/payoff, social satire, and a driven plot. Overall, Problemista's experimentation is fitting and rewarding.

Problemista provides bold tones, symbols, tension, and surrealism. Its imagery uses color, motion, framing, lighting, and focus. The editing has inserts, dissolves, pacing, wipes, momentum, intercuts, and uneven structure. Its metaphorical sound adds split cuts, voiceovers, genres, smash cuts, emphasis, distortions, and stings. The cohesive music is chanting, dreamy, Latin, offbeat, and timed. Its gonzo production design offers personality, theatrics, shapes, immersion, and creativity. The cast possesses marginal fame, excellent talent, fit, and a breakout lead. Its effects supply aesthetic CGI, makeup, and animation. Ultimately, Problemista is maximalist and earnest.

• Writing: 9/10
• Direction: 10/10
• Cinematography: 8/10
• Acting: 8/10
• Editing: 8/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 9/10
• Production Design: 10/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 8.6/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

I didn’t know what to expect going into 2006’s Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny. I will say that I was very pleasantly surprised though. On the positive side, this movie is so creative and unique, and it goes in so many different realms. I also enjoyed the cameos, and the music for the most part was entertaining

If I had to have a negative, It would just be that it started out slow. It wasn’t until you really got to the adventure that it’s starting to pick up.

To be honest, I had to watch this movie in two parts, because I started to watch it, and I fell asleep. So I ended up watching the last hour tonight. This movie was better than I thought it was gonna be.

Rating-4/5

Black Cat Mansion (1958)

You can pretty much predict where the story's going less than half-way through. It boils down to the atmosphere, the acting, the non-plot parts to express something new with the film. I already like the narrative structure, which is that of a story within a story. Always had a soft spot for that kind of story-telling.

The acting in this varies from the naturalistic to the extremely emotional to the point of theatricality. Where this movie really excels is in the use of setting to depict mood. I liked the part where they explore the old house for the first time. We see that it's a big place, ancient, decaying, overgrown with weeds and trees. Then we're brought to the flashback parts, about the history of the house in the olden times when it was the residence of a sadistic Lord, and everything suddenly becomes vibrant with color. This movie was in the late 50s, so if you're not familiar with the film technology at that time you'd expect the film to be black and white throughout. I like this convention - old ancient flashback parts in color, while current day parts in black and white. I think this is the first time I've ever encountered that kind of thing.

This is a creature feature as well as a ghost revenge story. The creation of the creature is interesting. It has some creepy abilities, but mostly it's kind of silly-looking and not scary at all if you've consumed a lot of horror through the years, especially recent ones.

Overall this film has a lot of cliches in it story-wise, but it's good in depicting mood via use of setting.

This was my first time watching 1995’s heavyweights for the first time since I was a kid. I only watched it because it was a Ben Stiller movie that I haven’t watched in a long time.

On the positive side, the acting is fine. The biggest positive though is Ben Stiller. I think he played a great dislikable villain.

On the negative side, though, it was your average movie. What I mean by that is that it was your typical Disney live action movie for the most part. Saying the acting is fine is also a negative. Also, the story was good but not great.

To sum it up, this was not a bad movie, but it also wasn’t a good movie. This was just your typical 90s Disney movie. To reflect that, It is right in the middle in terms of my rating

Rating-2.5/5