Welcome to /r/moviereviews

4.6 Stars would be 5 but some of the nice characters I liked died and the bullets and music were like 50% louder than the rest of the movie otherwise it was great

Hi everyone. Just wanted to post my TikTok where I’ll be reviewing films as I watch them. Would love a follow so I can grow the account as much as possible! Thanks.

https://www.tiktok.com/@screen2screen1?_t=8lrViyZqDtB&_r=1

Well that was fun. I loved the references to the original PotA, I thought they were done tastefully and added plenty of flavor to the story without needing to be there to understand what was happening.

The story contains the origin story to the original PotA, taken from the lore created by the sequels of the original; Scientists try an experimental drug meant to help humans on chimps which makes the chimps smarter, a baby is born with the drug already in its system, it gets sent off to a sanctuary, learns how to escape, and leads a rebellion against the humans.

The CGI is beautiful and done exceptionally well, while the mocap was a great choice to be able to capture intricate emotions and put them onto an animal’s body. The rest of the acting was mediocre, relying heavily on shots of frustration and confusion instead of giving the actors much more to do. Or if they had more to do, they didn’t capitalize on it.

The plot and writing was basic and uninteresting, at times cheesy and boring (looking at the entire character of the executive of Genysis, whose only care in the world seemed to be related to money). The action ramps up at the end, but there’s not enough of it to sustain the remainder of the slog that is the rest of the movie. There’s very little character development outside of Caesar, and most characters are relegated to extremely small roles. Honestly, most of them didn’t need to be there at all. We don’t ever even learn the names of the characters, or if we did I certainly didn’t catch them a single time. Was that intentional? If not it was neglectful, as the only name that was said multiple times was Caesar’s.

The sound design was incredible, creating the sounds of the different apes as well as the different foley used as they explored the world around them. The score was also fun and held my attention, never detracting from any scene. The production design was solid and made everything feel very realistic and modern without being too gimmicky or cheesy.

This was definitely an entertaining movie, but it left me wanting more, and not in a good way; more in a “that was all I got?” way. I felt like the build up could have been done quicker, leaning more heavily on action and adventure, that it didn’t need to be stretched out as long as it was. I’m definitely excited to see where this goes from here.

6.75/10

Finally got around to watching part 2 of Zac Snyder's new Sci-Fi movie. Have you seen it? What are your thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAK8_XW_BBM

https://youtu.be/WZnr5OgdD2s?si=iQ1rwOcweewzntPv

Finally watched this movie! To be honest, way better than Jayam Ravi’s last few solo ventures. But, still a predictable and cliched story. It was entertaining to a certain extent and Ravi did a good job here!

Just watched it. Amazing and fun action movie. My favourite were the action/stunt scenes. The film has a good plot, but the music is a bit lacking in some parts. I loved the 'making of' sequence by the credits. My only complaints are the Bad Guy's plan - it was convoluted and impractical, and the romantic dramedy they snuck in. Overall, I recommend watching it.

But... I suppose antagonists can't be too smart, or the heroes can't beat them, right? I agree with the movie: There should be Oscars for stunt performers! 8/10

100 Years of… The Thief of Bagdad Douglas Fairbanks was the Tom Cruise of a century ago and in 1924’s The Thief of Bagdad, Fairbanks’s favourite of his own films, you get to see him at his very best, in the peak of physical condition, in a film that’s one remarkable action set piece after another.

As you’ve probably guessed, it’... https://tinyurl.com/28k95phk

The First Omen accomplishes something I never thought possible with this franchise.  Instead of being an exercise in campy spectacle, it's a credible horror movie that is filled with dread and actual suspense.  Like the movies that preceded it, The First Omen is a contrivance, a story jerry-rigged to take us from point A to point B and deliver a series of shocks along the way.  However, this movie differs from others because it was made to be a horror movie first and an Omen movie second.  Whereas previous entries emphasized shocks at the expense of character development, we get to know Margaret intimately throughout her ordeal.  This means that when the shocks do arrive, they are genuinely horrific because we like Margaret and care about her.  Even though the story is routinely outlandish, I never chuckled at any of it because everything was grounded by writer-director Arkasha Stevenson’s character-driven approach.

In order for this re-imagining of Omen mythology to succeed, The First Omen had to have an incredible performance at its heart.  As Margaret, Nell Tiger Free never lets us believe that her character is doomed, even though we know she is.  Free’s Margaret is a fully-formed character who runs through an impressive gamut of emotions until she finally realizes what she was put on earth to do.  And when that moment arrives, it's a white-knuckle affair because Free imbues   Margaret with a sadness and vulnerability that’s palpable.  A movie like this could easily have become ridiculous, but it never does because of Free’s emotionally raw performance.  In her first feature film, Arkasha Stevenson has delivered an ominous and impeccably paced horror movie.  (The beautifully atmospheric cinematography is by Aaron Morton.)  I didn’t care for the ending, which sets up a sequel I don’t believe will ever get made.  Regardless, The First Omen is a surprisingly effective horror movie that is far better than this franchise deserves.  Recommended.

https://detroitcineaste.net/2024/04/23/the-first-omen/

Have any of you watched this and is it worth it? Is there any explicit content? Watching with my family I’m not trying to be in a awkward spot lol

a review by Evan Landon

**I suppose, since we are discussing a classic film that should not be remade, repurposed, reimagined** ***(yet is)*****, we should start here. Why the fuck do we keep doing this? I honestly haven't seen any of the actors in this movie speak to it because we, as they do, know it will fail. Put** ***Post Malone*** **tattoos all over Bill Skarsgard's face and it's still the dumbest way to beat up a dead body** ***(no pun intended)*** **that we have been watching for the past few decades. Yknow what was cool? The first movie. But Hollyweird is so bereft and bankrupt for ideas, that we are getting a new one that absolutely nobody asked for. So, you ask...?**

**Let's talk about the good parts of my pick for one of the movies that defined my generation, shall we?**

**Before anything else, let's examine one of the Greatest parts of this movie: this movie broke the mold as far as graphic novels go, especially when it comes to translating to the silver screen. Written, painted, and drawn by James O'Barr back in the early nineties to bring peace to his mind after paintings and illustrations of his time in the U.S. Marines. He made certain illustrations to accompany the music for the band through comic books that was soon bought up by Caliber Press, then packaged by the band** ***“Trust Obey”*** **signed to Trent Reznor's label. After being passed through many hands, the treatment for a screenplay went to splatterpunk writer, David J. Schow, and John Shirley (of Blue Oyster Cult fame), and Miramax Studios.**  

**The premise, as simple as I can make it, is that a crow will be sent to ferry those wayward souls into the afterlife. Sometimes, the crimes against them are so far gone that they have to atone for all of the wrongdoings that besmirched them in order to make it to the other side. Basically, like a revenant. What ensues is not hard to figure out, but I don't think it needs anymore of an explanation than that.**

**I think when the hats at Miramax had this cross their desks, it was not something they were looking for. You could say, at the time, that Paramount Studios were not too keen on such an unsecured property. There was no guaranteed money. That was part of the Miramax appeal though: small endeavors through major distribution never gets anything accept for awards and large ticket sales. Not too bad of an idea, if you ask me.**

**If'n we all want to get blurry-eyed, we can discuss the mishap onset that left us with only questions as to how great Bruce Lee's son could have become, but I will not do that. It has been talked about at nauseum for the past quarter of a century and I had a close friend of mine that used to dress just like him and repeat his lines, word-for-word. Even pro-wrestler Sting took up the persona as a gimmick that seemed to work in WCW, until it didn't, just because it was so popular. Shit, he even dawned the** ***Joker*** **vibe when that wore off.**	

**Director Alex Proyas did an amazing job with what he had here. He went on to make a lot of other movies, most notably “*****Dark City”*****, but I should save that review for another time. Of course, the acting is also way better than expected; we get, not only, Brandon Lee** ***(in his final performance)*****, but Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the dude from** ***The Warriors*** **pulling off some magnetic dissonance. The soundtrack was definitely some of the greatest songs ever, at the time. It really did revolutionize music.**

**The truth is that we will never have a movie such as this. The way we go about trying to make something out of something out of something that happened before... it does not matter when shit is this good. Instead of bottom-feeding off of intellectual property that came from an amazing space, why steal from nostalgia, aside from destroying it? Isn't that the real gamble? Trading memories for monetary gain?**  

**I have no answers for that.**

The Crow cleaned up $94 million on a $23 million tab worldwide and is considered to be one of the greatest films of a generation. It has gone on to do more than anyone involved in its creation could have ever thought possible. This is the definition of what anybody who creates could possibly comprehend being around to see it come to fruition.

**R.I.P. Brandon Lee (1965-1993)**

4.5 out of 5

https://youtu.be/NbTvfLNaVfM?si=Y5tugTpKiDMPkZfn

Not as bad as everyone is saying, but, a severely average rehash of Seven Samurai. Again, with the budget and resources given, Snyder could’ve made something better. An okay watch at best!

Roxanne (1987)

MLZ MAP (Score): 82.01 / Zedd MAP (Score): 75.90 / Score Gap: 6.11

Our Collection

IMDb Summary: The large-nosed C.D. Bales is in love with the beautiful Roxanne; she falls for his personality but another man's looks.

Starring Steve Martin, Daryl Hannah, Shelley Duval, and Rick Rossovich.

C.D. is just one of those really nice guys. Everyone in town knows him. He’s friendly, congenial, and always there to help out a townsperson.

He’s also incredibly lonely. His physical persona does not match who he is inside. I mean, heck, he should be the most handsome man in town with that amazing personality. Unfortunately, his physical stature is just too much to get over for the women he meets.

Around the same time Chris and Roxanne move into town, not together you understand, it’s just a coincidence. Roxanne is a beautiful and intelligent woman who is in town to study what she believes is an undiscovered comet she has found.

Chris is in town to work as a firefighter for C.D., who is the town’s fire Chief. He is dumb as a bag of hammers, but pretty handsome, by the standards of the day, and I guess, to Roxanne.

Roxanne thinks Chris is very much someone he is not. In fact, Roxanne falls for Chris’ body, and C.D.’s mind. We are just the lucky watchers in this comedy of errors, which is based upon Cyrano de Bergerac.

Steve Martin is of course amazing. Daryl Hannah was somewhat of an “it girl” of the time, and fits the part well enough (she’s just never been a favorite of mine, not sure why.) Rick Rossovich plays Chris so well I am not sure he is smart enough to dress himself.

We are blessed with a small part for Shelley Duvall, who plays C.D.’s friend and the local bar owner. Fred Willard has a small part as well, and Zedd mentioned he probably supplied his own wardrobe for the part.

Of course we want it all to work out. We want Roxanne to love C.D., not Chris. I won’t spoil it for you, but I will say that attractiveness and love is not always what the “nose knows”, sometimes it is way more than skin deep.

Movie On!

There's nothing civil about war. In Alex Garland's latest film, we're taken across the battle-scarred East Coast of the US in a hyper-realistic and not-so-distant dystopian future that sees the lines between right and wrong blur as nearly everyone has turned on each other.

For those who don't know, What We Watched is a movie review podcast that goes over a different movie every week, discussing either a new release or something older.

War: A) is Hell; B) never changes; C) ____

Do you think the US can avoid another bloody succession? Is this Garland's last film?

Listen wherever you get your podcasts

Episodes will soon be on our YouTube page!

Also follow us on X/Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

Email us at WatchedMoviesPod@gmail.com

https://youtu.be/916d9xRrGJk?si=zVxGUAD2KiaQwWz3

Not as good as the directors’ other films. But, Abigail is still a fun, entertaining, and bloody good film!

Hey guys! I have decided to post a review of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho”. Pros: Amazing dialogue Good acting Good suspense Smart characters Cons: NONE

I saw abigail today heres my review: a
Pros:

1. Alisha Weir as Abigail - she was amazing a \
2. Cool interesting premise a \
3. The gore , some funny lines and moments a \

Cons:

1. Melissa Barrera wooden performance a \
2. Excessive exposition from start to finish, lazy writing..esp on the character development. a \

Overall enjoyable movie, I do feel like this could have been a real modern classic up there with cabin in the woods .. with a better cast , smarter script I think she had huge potential.

https://youtu.be/3Ol7IpkeKGw?si=2DavGKnB_MyrrjTl Technically a documentary, but, here’s a review of this excellent travelogue with Conan. His excellent comedic timing and humour helps make this 4 episode watch a blast! Great fun for fans of the legend!

Just got done watching this movie and man, it was awful. I mean in terms of recent movies that have come out I think it’s almost, but not quite as terribly executed as Napoleon.

I’ll give credit where credit is due - and some of the action scenes are pretty enjoyable, but as I was watching the final scene in D.C. I just got the impression that Alex Garland played BF4 once and decided that in lieu of making any effort to simulate what an actual battle would look like he’d just throw some armored trucks and tanks in there and have troops moving with them. Not to forget how little justice they did to the Beast which is a technical marvel and not fragile like just any limo, it was a shame they threw that opportunity in the trash.

But I digress. The film simply was just terrible writing. Within the introduction of every main character in the movie I knew which of them would die by the end and in exactly which fashion… to the dot. But on the topic of characters, there really was no emotional connection to any of them! The character arcs were nonexistent and by the end of the movie the most emotion I felt was a dislike of Jesse due to her role in getting everyone killed. The best scene in the movie was by far the mass grave scene - the “what kind of American” quote really got me. But instead of explaining how the situation arose, it’s left up to the audience to decipher, or just disregarded in its entirety.

Which leads me here: The word building is in all honesty not that bad - because it just isn’t even there to start! All we know is that there are breakaway regions in the country, at the beginning we hear the President saying victory is neigh, and then towards the end of the movie it apparently isn’t and he’s shot dead in a what is seemingly aiming to mimic Pablo Escobar. We don’t know why anything is happening and are just told how the plot evolves without any deeper understanding.

I’ve seen some people mention that it has or doesn’t have a political stance and I can see where everyone’s coming from - but honestly in my opinion any stance the movie hopes to make is take is so ambiguous out of a fear of alienating parts of the audience that it’s rather pointless. Maybe someone can draw conclusions deeper than the obvious war is hell, and when the world goes belly up many people become monsters, but it simply does not go far enough.

In the end we find ourselves left with a movie that is truly lacking in setup, plot, complexity, character arc, creativity, and a grasp on the reality of how the mechanisms of the world which are being played with by the creators actually work. Truly a disappointment.

​

https://preview.redd.it/8l9l9zzbekvc1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cfbbe0e350355df0057cf7a0d22ca272753198e9

Here's my review for "The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare," now in theaters. Read, comment, enjoy!

https://midwestfilmjournal.com/2024/04/16/the-ministry-of-ungentlemanly-warfare/

Wicked Little Letters presents itself as a fun, bawdy comedy with mystery at its center, but it's more than that.  It’s about a group of women who struggle with–and eventually triumph over–a familiar foe, the patriarchy.  The men in this male-dominated society fully expect the women to be religious, docile or preferable both.  Rose Gooding (Jessie Buckley), however, insists on living her life as she sees fit, thank you very much.  Unfortunately, the men in town are determined to quash Rose’s wild behavior before it lights a spark within the other women.  Heaven forbid they would ask the men in their lives to clean out the loo once in a while!

Accordingly, the movie uses Rose’s struggle to symbolize the choice between conformity and individual liberty. To its credit, the movie doesn’t make Rose’s choice a simple one. Rose faces no end of trouble for her adversarial behavior and carefree lifestyle, including the very real threat of prison time and the loss of her daughter. However, she knows that a life spent in willful acquiesce to all societal norms, as is the case with her neighbor Edith (Olivia Colman), is not a life she wants. Even though Rose would be “free” if she were pious and respectful, she would be in constant fear of recriminations if she ever stepped out of line. The most viable path forward is represented by Officer Gladys, who carefully works within the system to bring about positive change.

Wicked Little Letters also reminds us that the best choice we can make with our lives is the most obvious one, namely to allow ourselves to enjoy it.  Similar to Chocolat, the movie’s underlying theme is that a life dedicated to repressing the soul is not a life well-lived.  Instead, as Rose exemplifies through her effusive cursing, we should allow ourselves to have fun (within reason, of course.)  Whether it's chocolate, cursing or something else, when we treat ourselves we get to experience joy, one of the best things life has to offer.  Recommended.

https://detroitcineaste.net/2024/04/18/wicked-little-letters/

MLZ MAP (Score): 91.73 / Zedd MAP (Score): 86.52 / Score Gap: 5.21

The Pelican Brief (1993)

Our Collection

IMDb Summary: A law student uncovers a conspiracy, putting herself and others in danger.

Starring Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Sam Shepard, John Heard, Tony Goldwyn, James B. Sikking, and Stanley Tucci.

Legal dramas are a favorite around the Zedd household. While I have been in the legal field for 27 years, it’s never this exciting. I have no idea, frankly, how we missed watching this one all this time. But there we were at the thrift store and it was only a dollar and, well, hell, here we are.

We walked into this one entirely blind, and it was a pretty complicated story. Julia Roberts plays Darby, a law student who is <oops> sleeping with her law professor when a couple of Supreme Court Justices meet a sticky end. While these things seem unrelated, it turns out that idle hands (like the ones of a law student) are in fact the devil’s plaything, when Darby writes her idea of what could have caused the murders.

This starts a domino effect of death and it just seems like nothing will stop it before everyone remotely involved is dead. Luckily Darby is pretty smart and gets a newspaper writer (Denzel Washington) involved who is pretty damn smart and helps her stay alive.

This was based on a John Grisham novel. Filming locations included a bunch of New Orleans and DC. The NOLA scenery was amazing and made me want to take another trip there, just nowhere around the time of Mardi Gras.

As is not unusual in a film based on a complicated novel, it was long. So long, in fact, that our early run dvd had to be flipped over mid-film. How delightfully goche. It was sorta freaky as it just stopped. I think they could have trimmed about half an hour, honestly, but the film still managed to keep us on the edge of our seats.

Zedd noted that he really does not like Julia Roberts much but that she did very well in this role. Denzel Washington was excellent as a chameleon and caregiver for young Darby.

Stanley Tucci was pretty scary in this film as a very bad man. I love Stanley Tucci and am very used to him as this awesome, cute, sweet guy who is showing me around Italy and eating all kinds of good food. See Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy for details.

All in all, super glad we picked this one up and won’t hesitate to pop it in the next time we are looking for a legal drama and have two hours and twenty-one minutes to spare. How funny, that is the “standard” length for films these days. Most of those should be shorter too, imho. Sometimes, a little shorter is better (like me, at 5’2” short.)

Movie On!

This was a terrible movie. I don't even want to expend the energy to flesh out my point, so let's just focus on WHY the reviews are so good !

WHHHHYYYYY???

Since Tenet I've rewatched some of Nolans movies and they are like eggs with no filling.

Hollow, empty and with terrible terrible sound.

Why on earth is this movie, and Nolan so highly rated ?

https://youtu.be/LbmkXtIuaQc?si=gdEQNE6KEfM4YYYX

Finally found time to watch the new Ghostbusters film. And, honestly, its just fine. Afterlife was so much better, and the emotional and personal connect that was in Reitman’s previous film is devoid here. Too much characters as well. But, the movie is still entertaining to a certain extent!

Second-rate Hirokazu Kore-eda is still first-rate moviemaking. Here’s Monster, the first film he hasn’t written himself for nearly 30 years, a mix of familiar Kore-eda themes and explorations of new fields.

Yûji Sakamoto is the TV writer Kore-eda contacted to write his first Japanese-language film in several years, having gone to France for The Truth (2019) and South Korea for Broker (2022). He’d always wanted to work with Sakamoto, Kore-eda said. For his part, Sakamoto pounced at the chance, having once described Kore-eda as “the world’s best screenwriter”. No pressure then.
https://moviesteve.com/review-monster-2023/

a review by Evan Landon

**In 2003, my mom and I went to go see this movie in the theater not knowing a thing about it, except that it was a mystery crime thriller.**  

**What was a big deal to me was that the trailer gave you very little information and gave nothing away except for the premise: ten strangers find themselves in a rundown motel in the Nevada desert at night and in the middle of a storm: an ex-cop turned limo driver; his passenger, a Hollywood actress; a cop transporting a convicted murderer; a Vegas sex worker; a newlywed couple; a family consisting of a mother (who was hit by the limo driver and is dying), the father, and son; and the man running the motel. One-by-one, all of the characters are killed off, just like in Agatha Christie's** ***And Then There Were None*** **to which served as an inspiration for this film and has had its own issues with the title. Twice, in fact. If you want, go ahead and look that one up, but don't say I didn't warn you!**

**What I find wonderful about this movie, is that it all takes place in one location, for the most part, which is always a difficult thing to pull off. The set of the motel itself was created and filmed on Studio 27 for Sony Pictures, the very same that** ***Wizard of Oz*** **was filmed on. Producer Cathy Konrad had first let her husband, James Mangold, read the screenplay by Michael Cooney, who immediately wanted to direct it. As for underscoring, they tapped Angelo Badalamenti, but was replaced by Academy Award-winning composer, Alan Silvestri, giving it a very ominous tone that works on many different levels.**

**The casting is top notch too: John Cusack is amazing as the limo driver/ex-cop who brings a certain gravitas to the film, also serving as the main protagonist. Ray Liotta (R.I.P) gives the film a volatile element, as the cop transporting Jake Busey's character to another prison. Amanda Peet pulls most of it together, portraying the sex worker, who is quite possibly the most wholesome character. John Hawkes plays the motel manager, who has had a very good career this past decades with a lot of great indie films. John C. McGinley, Clea DuVall, Alfred Molina, and Rebecca DeMornay round out the cast that makes it easy to identify with every character. They are all fantastic.**

**As far as the writing goes, I think the strength of the characters is a bit weak, in the beginning. However, once the third act unfolds, it makes a lot more sense why they lacked a certain depth. I won't ruin that for you because you should definitely check this gem out.**

**Raking in $90 million worldwide against a $28 million budget, this flick was definitely a well-deserved success. I could watch this one over and over again and still pick up easter eggs that fly under the radar. This is how you make a taught thriller.**

4 out of 5

I just watched Joy with Jennifer Lawrence yesterday and it showed me that Hollywood isn’t incapable of writing a good story of powerful woman in triumph. They just don’t care to put the effort in.

In joy, you see Joy as a young girl with talents, hopes, and dreams. She then grows up to see those dreams be shattered by life choices and ultimately the circumstances that life has put her under.

We then see her rise to the occasion and overcome those same circumstances by not taking no as an answer no matter the pit she falls into. No matter how underestimated she would be, she insisted pushing through even while managing an overbearing family, children and business partners.

They created a character that isn’t a cliche that can only be relatable to a delusional radical feminist, but one who could be relatable to even a man who may experience the same struggles of navigating the business world.

The greatest thing about her character is the fact that instead of the “well my greatest flaw is actually my greatest asset” her greatest flaws are what bring her down in most occasions while she uses her assets to rise above.

Solid 8/10 for this genre of a loosely inspired biopic.