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

Wow. What a beautiful movie. The cinematography was so captivating…something about the colors. The “futuristic” but classic and elegant clothing style. The setting of a futuristic downtown LA. It all just blended perfectly.

It was a simple movie but the story was so beautifully told. Phoenix’s performance was spectacular…but Amy Adams was also perfect in it as a supporting role.

The music by Arcade Fire was perfect.

9.5/10…it was nearly a PERFECT movie.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2024/03/the-autopsy-of-jane-doe-movie-review.html

​

"The Autopsy of Jane Doe" initiates with promising momentum, yet stumbles in its attempt to sustain the initial intrigue with more compelling thrills and ideas. Set primarily within a basement morgue and featuring only two main characters, the film's unique setting proves to be both its defining strength and its Achilles' heel.

For generations, the Tilden family has meticulously operated the town morgue, priding themselves on their uncompromising work ethic. When father-son duo (played by Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch), are presented with the enigmatic corpse of "Jane Doe," devoid of any discernible cause of death, they embark on a race against time to unravel her mysteries. As they delve deeper into the autopsy, they unearth perplexing clues that detailing the terrifying nature of the corpse within their midst.

Ironically, the film's most captivating moments lie not in its attempts at horror but rather in the meticulous autopsy scenes. Here, the seamless fusion of scientific inquiry with unearthly phenomena gripped our attention. However, the film loses its footing halfway through, succumbing to generic thriller tropes. Jump scares feel contrived and overused, while the predicaments faced by the protagonists appear forced and lacking in coherence. It's as though the filmmakers are throwing ideas at the wall, hoping something will stick, only to leave viewers disappointed. Regrettably, the potential build up by the film's premise, setting, tone, and performances is squandered in its descent into mediocrity. While "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" excels in its initial setup, it ultimately fails to deliver a satisfying payoff, leaving audiences with a sense of missed opportunity.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Immaculate infuses a basic plot with substance, finding relevant social commentary within the Catholic horror subgenre. Themes of cult mentality, playing god, manipulation, sanity, and martyrdom support the main thesis of women's autonomy. There's motivation, clues, intrigue, symbols, and payoff. Character development is thin but a satisfying arc is still managed. In fact, its ending finishes so strongly that it almost single-handedly makes up for any issues that preceded it. Similarly, the acting may come across as mechanical or confined in smaller moments, but the sheer intensity in bigger scenes is undeniable. Consequently, Immaculate leans more elevated than broad.

Immaculate teeters between stylish and slight. Its direction is moody, tense, and psychological. The imagery uses angles, lighting, depth, and spacing. Its editing adds inserts, patient pacing, dissolves, intercuts, a tight runtime, and spotty momentum. The sound has smash cuts, violence, emphasis, stings, risers, and muffling. Its music is fittingly choral, discordant, ominous, and juxtaposing. The production design offers desaturated colors, vintage locations, and religious iconography. Its cast is mostly replaceable, but Sweeney is key and oddly meta. The effects provide moderate makeup, gore, prosthetics, stunts, and CGI. Overall, Immaculate is proficient and briefly excellent.

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

Overall Score: 7.5/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/03/roadhouse-2024.html

7/10

In this Amazon Prime remake of the classic late 80's Patrick Swayze action flick, former UFC fighter haunted by his past Dalton (played by Jake Gylenhall) is hired to be head bouncer for a Florida road house called the Road House. He soon finds himself at odds with a gang that's trying to get the place to sell.

This is a movie who's creators understood what made the first one popular: being kinda nuts and campy. There is a lot of entertaining well-choreographed brawling with some pretty unexpected moments.

Another thing they learned from the original was to keep the villains colorful and over-the-top. A highlight is seeing the villains' sheer frustration and occasional fear as Dalton shrugs off their attacks.

Credit should also be given to the movie for not trying too hard to copy and paste from the original (but, alas, no throat ripping).

However, the movie is bogged down a bit by the plot (this didn't need to be a full two hours). We're all here for the action, and I think many will want the Dalton's personal journey scenes to wrap up quicker. Both this and the original film had a dark backstory for the hero and scenes of him getting to know the townsfolk. However, the original knew to keep things more economic with snappier writing. The townsfolk are just okay and the love interest could've been cut (plus the original meetup between her and Dalton is if the writers said "Let's replicate the meetup from the first film but shoddier"). They should've done more with bar owner Frankie (Shrinking's Jessica Williams), who was a solid character but kinda fades out near the end.

Originally the film's strong suit is the various ways the baddies come up with taking out Dalton, but admittedly one of them, which involves a plot element that is added too late in the film, is one too many.

Gylenhall is well cast as the guy who tries to handle things the nice way but woe to anyone who declines. Broad City's Arturo Castro is funny as a surprisingly naive, good-natured member of the gang.

I liked the change of location from Missouri to the photogenic Florida coast. I also like the look of the Road Shack, it's one of those easy-access-to-the-outside affairs you find in perpetually warm climates.

Recommended. The original is still the superior product (due to that 80's magic that can't be replicated, tighter script, and, of course, the throat ripping), but this is still a pretty entertaining affair.

A film noir in CineScope and DeLuxe Color?! Sure, why not!

This was one of the most warm and lively noir films I've seen and I think a lot of that is owed to the fact that the cigarette smoke doesn't play a main character.

Its a product of its time (shrug/sigh) when it comes to Japanese-American relations...but the fact it was shot in Japan, at that time, is very interesting to me especially because this was just 1 year after Seven Samurai.

Stack seems kinda rigid and flat except in his scenes with Yamaguchi. She is lovely throughout. Can AI make a 007 film with her as the Bond girl?

Fuller is a cool cucumber and this is the first time I can remember seeing him on screen. Great villain.

Cameron Mitchell's performance is my favorite. His ability to play the cool gangster, the jealous "ichiban", and the drunk bully was pretty awesome.

Overall, its soft-boiled fiction made for its time, and that's okay. I genuinely liked the story, setting, and characters. I would rewatch this film.

My favorite parts were the ones with Mt. Fuji in the background - even the matte background scenes and the Hitchcock homage.

My least favorite part was the celebration party. The transition from traditional Japanese performance to jazz/swing dance was cheap.

Main takeaway: I still want to climb Mt. Fuji and am growing my hair out to get a WWII haircut. You can't stop me.

Towanda!

I watched this many times growing up & now just watched it again as an adult. Stands the test of time with the story tones & culture. Overall great message & great characters. I cried multiple times watching this now as an adult. Laughed a lot, I highly recommend a rewatch or a first time watch. The animations are slightly dated but would make a great modern live action remake in my opinion.

Road House is an endless string of cliches. Characters are blatant and contrived tropes, so their motivations and consequences are hollow. The generic and convoluted plot isn't worth following. Its dialogue is obvious and bland. Consequently, the writing begs to be ignored. Intentional cheese requires personality or wit to entertain, and those missing ingredients swiftly expose this transparent skeleton of a script. Meanwhile, its silly acting can be mildly amusing, stilted, aloof, or self-conscious. The physicality works yet that narrow competence can't support a film on its own. Essentially, Road House bluntly forces a flimsy story in service of repetitive combat.

Technically, Road House is clumsy. Its direction is stale, confused, choreographed, cartoonish, and purposeless. The cinematography becomes proactive during fight scenes but is otherwise basic. Its editing is meandering, choppy, bloated, and momentum-less. The sound adds smash cuts, action, and subjectivity. Its music uses bluesy bar songs, which is fitting yet rarely elevating. The production design has a sense of location (the Florida Keys) and brief UFC staging. Its casting surrounds Gyllenhaal with non-actors and weak fame. The effects undermine solid stunts with cheap and excessive CGI. Ultimately, Road House has its moments, but those are few and far between.

• Writing: 2/10
• Direction: 4/10
• Cinematography: 6/10
• Acting: 4/10
• Editing: 3/10
• Sound: 7/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 6/10
• Production Design: 6/10
• Casting: 7/10
• Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 5.1/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Before seeing 2001’s The Royal Tenenbaums, I had only ever seen one Wes Anderson movie and that was Isle of dogs. This is a movie I had wanted to see for years because I saw the trailer and it looked unique. I also heard good word of mouth.

All in all, this was a Pleasant surprise of a movie. On the positive side, I thought Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum was the best character because I thought he brought the most liveliness to this movie. I also thought that all of the main cast were really good in their roles. Finally, I liked The interactions and the chemistry between each group.

As far as negatives go, The First hour of the movie was very monotone in terms of nobody really showing any emotion. Also, the story was good, but it didn’t do anything to make it great.

I wasn’t sure how I was going to respond to this movie for two reasons. I liked Isle of dogs but I didn’t love it and Wes Anderson is known as kind of a quirky guy. Also, there’s been times in the past where I really wanted to see a movie for years and when I finally saw it, it didn’t live up to expectations. Happy to say that this met my expectations

Rating-3.5/5

https://jwwreviews.blogspot.com/2024/03/late-night-with-devil.html

8.5/10

In Late Night with the Devil, Jack Delroy (played by David Dastmalchian), the host of the late night show Night Owls, tries to restore his show's dwindling ratings by having a special Halloween show that includes Lilly D'Abo (Ingrid Torelli), a girl allegedly possessed by a demon.

I think it's been a while since I've seen such a well constructed story. All plot points flow naturally and we are fed information bit by bit. The interesting thing about this film is that it isn't your typical demon possession tale. There is a lot more going on and one is left interested as to what exactly is at play here.

One is kept engaged as to where everything is going and what'll happen next. True scares can be a slow burn often, but that really isn't an issue due to the film's general sense of unease in that Delroy is messing with stuff he shouldn't as well as solid characterization (Delroy's got several guests/show staff with differing agendas and views on the supernatural).

Only reason I'm not rating this higher is the ending. It runs a little longer than needed, and it lacks the cohesion and satisfaction of the rest of the film. To the ending's credit, it does show, not tell, however, I would've prefer the info. to be more explained and spoon fed. Part of the fun of this is putting all the clues together, but the movie ends with you asking a lot of "wait, what about?" questions. That having been said, the ending's not an absolute stinker, I've seen vaguer endings, and what occurs is definitely a choice.

Strong cast in this. Dastmalchian is like Alan Tudyk in that he's one of those character actors who popped up more and more until they just suddenly hit that point where they became a known name that's in demand. (Among other things Dastmalchian was the main villain the MacGyver reboot, the Russian guy in the Ant-Man movies, and Polka-Dot Man in Suicide Squad.) He especially seems to have gotten his foot in movies lately. However, this is the first time he's gotten the main lead, and he kills it as an charming but ratings hungry TV host who also has to carefully navigate strange occurrences and various opinionated members of the show.

Other highlights of this are Torelli whose Lilly is more uncomfortable when the demon isn't speaking through her, Rhys Auteri as Delroy's affable co-host Gus McConnell, and Fayssal Bazzi as showman psychic Christou.

The movie really encapsulates the feel and look of the 1970's and talk shows. It doesn't feel anachronistic or forced. Budget was clearly small, but the Night Owls' set is pulled off nicely.

Highly recommended. Yes, the finale's not perfect, but the film as a whole is definitely worth a watch. Unfortunately, this is only in limited theaters, the ones that are usually close to or in cities. If you're not near one of these, this'll be on Shudder in a month, I believe, and if you're not subscribing to that, most films from the streamer appear on DVD/Blu-ray a few months later.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire chooses quantity over quality. It's overstuffed with excessive protagonists, exposition dumps, a convoluted plot, and unclear rules. Almost nothing is developed and the single completed arc feels thinly earned. The makings of proper themes, relationships, and internal conflicts are all drowned out by stagnant side characters, needless nostalgia bait, and muddled threads. There's spotty humor, unnatural dialogue, generic threats, and minimal drama. Its mixed acting glimpses genuine sparks among a sea of cramped one-notes. Ultimately, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire buries adequate ideas in a script that can't make up its mind about what it's doing.

Technically, Frozen Empire is disjointed. Its direction clashes too many tones, devolving into a bland product. The inconsistent imagery provides motion, framing, drab colors, and basic composition. Its editing has clumsy momentum, clunky pacing, and uneven structure. The sound adds silence, emphasis, and extensive genre elements. Both its music and production design are either tired iconography or forgettable new additions. The cast offers plenty of fame, talent, fit, and cameos, but everyone is underutilized. Its effects are mostly in tasteful moderation before succumbing to an overdone climax. Overall, Frozen Empire undermines a passable core narrative with franchise clutter.

• Writing: 3/10
• Direction: 3/10
• Cinematography: 5/10
• Acting: 5/10
• Editing: 4/10
• Sound: 7/10
• Score/Soundtrack: 6/10
• Production Design: 6/10
• Casting: 8/10
• Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 5.4/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

What. The. Fuck. Lmao. That was wild. No like i wasn't prepared for that much s*x LOL, i'll be 26 in July so it's not like i can't handle it, but that lowkey was the craziest, most vulgar, trippy, interesting, weirdest, disgusting, cool, movie Imfao.

I'm not a big movie watcher at all, the most craziest things ive seen are horror movies, Midsommar, the light house and yeah, like i said i'm not a big movie person, my husband introduced me to a bunch of the movies ive seen besides disney movies lol

I will admit, the only digging i dig into this movie was the trailer and last time i saw it was last year LOL, today i wanted to have some alone time so saw it in a whim, i was intrigued by the trailer i remembered, the music, how her character moved and stuff and just like, the style of the movie seemed really cool, and it is.

Just didn't realize there'd be so much gre and sx, and that wasn't even my biggest “issue" i had with the film, there were just some parts i found kinda inappropriate or foul, but i love love love the colors and soundtrack and camera angles of this movie, the actors and actresses are amazing.

Oppenheimer is dense with procedural drama, scientific accuracy, and political intrigue. The core conflict is humanity's power surpassing our control. Distinct characters have tangled motivations. There are themes of hubris, mental health, authority, truth, and wisdom. It has efficient dialogue, open-endedness, flawed protagonists, tragedy, and social commentary. The measured acting provides layers, mannerisms, urgency, range, chemistry, outbursts, weight, and facial expressions. Still, because it tackles so much, the film comes off dry, overstuffed, repetitive, and expository at times. Ultimately, Oppenheimer's relatability is fallible, but it shoots for the stars and usually succeeds.

Technically, Oppenheimer is a force of perspective and tone. Its dynamic sound adds split cuts, smash cuts, motifs, eruptions, contrast, and surrealism. The music is ominous, atmospheric, dramatic, tense, pulsing, and unifying. Its imagery uses framing, color, focus, texture, lighting, and composition. The production design creates eras, locations, details, and symbols. Its cast isn't led by a household name but is extremely deep. The editing offers assertive inserts, montages, cross cuts, pacing, momentum, and jump cuts. Its distinctly tangible effects utilize prosthetics and jaw-dropping explosions. Overall, Oppenheimer's immense aspiration is far more often a strength than a weakness.

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

Overall Score: 9.4/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

The film starts with pleasant scenery before cutting to a battle where main protagonist Paul Baummer is fighting to survive the last 15 minutes of the first world war, being sent into the trenches for a final assault by the regiment’s commanding officer. This scene ends with Paul bludgeoning a French soldier to death with a shovel.

We are then shown how uniforms are removed from soldiers who are buried in mass graves before being sent to be cleaned, nametags still present. It is a bloody, and extremely depressing scene.

The next scene of the film depicts Paul and his school friends in early 1917 being encouraged by their headmaster to go off to war, being told they are the ‘iron youth of the fatherland’. Paul forges his signature and, along with his friends, he joins the war effort.

We are next shown Paul getting his uniform when he sees the nametag from earlier. When reporting this to the recruiter, he is told that ‘it must have been too small for the chap – happens all the time.’ The recruiter then removes the nametag and adds it to a pile of other nametags beneath his desk.

Paul and his friends then get sent off to war, with them being immensely cheerful and excited, flowers pinned to their clothes. However, they are passed by stoney-faced veterans driving past in a truck.

Image result for All Quiet On the Western Front 2022They arrive near the frontline yet are made to walk the rest of the distance after a medic commandeers their trucks for the wounded. As they approach the frontline, French artillery hammers their position, the threat of gas forcing them to don their gas masks. Paul helps his friend with his gas mask, though is last to put his own on.After finding out from their commander that these ‘Fat Pig’ shells don’t carry gas, everyone else is allowed to remove their masks, except for Paul who is told to keep his on as punishment for being the last to put his gas mask on.

They arrive at the western front and are told to help clear out the trench of water. They use their helmets for this, and one of Paul’s friends starts to complain about the conditions. We are then introduced to veteran Kat, who tells them to put their hands down their underwear if they are cold.

Paul and another soldier are on look-out duty at night when they believe they see movement, firing a single round into a dead body. The muzzle-flash alerts the French, who fire back, catching Paul’s helmet but leaving him unharmed. He and the soldier are then both told to fire a round and then move 10m to reposition. Moments later, French artillery rains down on their positions, forcing them into a nearby bunker. They attempt to wait out the artillery, yet as one of Paul’s friends starts having a panic attack, the bunker collapses.

Paul regains consciousness and starts marking the dead, removing part of a metal plate with the name and date of birth of the solider upon it. Paul finds the friend who panicked laying dead, one of his legs half blown off, and buttons up his shirt, visibly upset.

We are then shown events in November 1918, where German negotiators are attempting, albeit failing, to negotiate a peace with the French. There are plates upon plates of extravagant foods everywhere. The delegation is told by French general Foch to sign the treaty of Versailles with a 72-hour time limit, with the fighting remaining ongoing.

Paul and Kat raid a small farmer’s house, with Kat stealing a goose. They bring this back to camp, and Paul, Kat and a few other soldiers devour it, being in immensely good spirits with the high-quality food. They make merry and sing songs. Next, they are seen peeling potatoes, when one of the group sees a trio of attractive French ladies. He goes over and is seen flirting with them, going off with them, presumably to have sex.

Kat, who is unable to read nor write, receives a letter from his wife, and Paul reads it to him, discovering that Kat has a dead son. Later that night, the solider who went to have sex with the French women returns, and the rest of the group make fun of him.

They are then sent to find a company of 60 recruits who had become lost. They eventually find them and are mortified to see they are all dead, presumably from gas shells. Next, they are once again sent to the front lines, with an attack on the French positions occurring, the German forces capturing them. French St Chamond tanks, armed with forward mounted 75mm cannons, bombard the captured French position, driving into the trenches and peppering the invaders with rifle-calibre machine-gun fire. As the Germans retreat, the French tanks are assaulted by infantry, Kat notably disabling one with a grenade to the tracks. Flame troopers from the French lines, supported by more St Chamonds, begin a counter attack with infantry, aerial and artillery support as the Germans continue a messy retreat.One of Paul’s other friends attempts to surrender to the French before being torched alive by a flame trooper.

Paul finds himself in a shell crater before fighting a French infantryman to death. Paul is deeply shaken by this and promises the dying Frenchman to write to his wife.

The delegation meets once again, and this time Hindenburg has also urged that the armistice be signed. The delegation attempts for one final time for an amendment for the suffering of their people to be averted, however Foch will not allow this. The treaty of Versailles is signed.

Image result for All Quiet On the Western Front 2022Later that night, Paul and Kat visit another of their friends who is in hospital, one of his legs amputated. He distains over being unable to re-join the police force when he returns and how he ‘doesn’t want to live life as a cripple’. He shows Paul a cloth that the friend who had sex was given by the French woman, and Paul understands that another of his friends has fallen. Paul and Kat then give their crippled friend some stew, however he takes the fork and stabs himself to death. Paul and Kat wonder what is to come after the war ends. Unbeknownst to them, however, the commanding officer plans for one final assault, being unable to comprehend civilian life and fearing about bolshevism.

Paul and Kat arrive at the farmers house once again and Paul steels some eggs before being spotted by the farmers son and then chased out by the farmer, who fires several shots at Paul, all of which, aside from one hitting the eggs, miss. Paul and Kat then eat the eggs raw, finding humour in their situation. Kat goes to use the bathroom and is confronted by the farmers son, who shoots him in the abdomen. Paul attempts to get him back alive, yet when he arrives, the medic tells him that the wound had caused Kat’s organs to become poisoned. Paul and the rest of the soldiers are then called for one final assault, one who refused being shot. The assault begins at 10:45am, a mere 15 minutes before the ceasefire commences, and mayhem occurs. We are then back at the first scene, with Paul fighting for his life, killing several French soldiers in the process, before being mortally wounded mere moments before the war ends.A young German soldier then starts collecting the plates before recognising Paul and adding his own, the scene coming to an end with pleasant scenery and a summary of the first world war, and the 17 million lives it claimed.

The theme of the film, with the contrast of living conditions between generals and infantry, shows that the high command cares not for the lives lost during the conflict. This is shown when the nametag of a fallen soldier is unceremoniously ripped from its uniform after Paul points out to the recruiter that it already belongs to somebody.

We are also shown several scenes where poor-quality breads, most often dirty and mouldy, are being consumed by the troops, whereas the delegation has mixes of juices, teas, coffees, eggs, fruits and pastries.

Furthermore, whenever attacks occur, the survivors are told to simply gather the nameplates of the dead, nothing more, nothing less. This level of cruelty and indifference extends to the highest echelons of command on both sides, when French general Foch shows no sympathy to the thousands who will die in the 72 hours of negotiation time, where no ceasefire was permitted. This same disregard is shown by the German officer in charge of Paul’s unit, who with 15 minutes of the war to go, orders a full-on assault of the enemy front, executing a soldier who refuses to fight.

A second theme of this film is the sheer violence and cruelty of war. In several scenes, we witness men being blown apart by artillery and, in one scene, crushed beneath a St Chamond tank. This presents a bloody, brutal and realistic approach to the first world war, with amputation being commonplace, and the smallest of wounds being fatal.

The cruelty is shown when Kat is shot mere hours before the war ends by a farmer’s child, the wound poisoning his organs, killing him. Additionally, Paul is killed moments before the war officially ends, being struck down by a bayonet through the heart. Combined with the many scenes of horrific bloodshed and detailed wounds, as well as the harsh and unforgiving nature of the soldiers to each other and their enemies, this film presents war in a very realistic way.

In my opinion, All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever produced. The film, which I watched in German to get across the raw emotion the actors portrayed, presents the first world war in a way that no other film has been able to quite capture. It is well researched, with few inaccuracies present, and shows the dangers of runaway nationalism and complacency with weapons capable of cutting down swathes of young men. I wholeheartedly recommend this film to anyone with even the slightest of interest in either of the world wars, for this masterpiece tells a story that should act as a warning to those who warmonger.

Love Lies Bleeding deconstructs the American Dream and broadens female empowerment through a fusion of erotic, psychological, and crime thrills. The themes include abuse, violence, love, lust, trauma, and control. There's mystery, suspense, motifs, dark humor, dynamic relationships, and trope bending. Its characters have distinct traits, motivations, and internal conflicts. The raw acting brings physicality, chemistry, layers, range, sincerity, mannerisms, intensity, stress, vulnerability, and patience. Its plot, emotions, and subtext all intertwine for a provocative yet thoughtful experience. Ultimately, Love Lies Bleeding shows the opposing unity between beauty and brutality.

Love Lies Bleeding blends bold tones, genres, and styles. The imagery adds motion, framing, depth, lighting, angles, and composition. Its dreamy editing offers inserts, slo-mo, montages, trails, pacing, and momentum. The subjective sound uses smash cuts, split cuts, violence, diegetics, distortions, emphasis, and timing. Its music is ominous, rhythmic, operatic, synthetic, and juxtaposing. The atmospheric production design depicts grimy Americana, the 80s era, and symbolic colors. Its cast has fame, skill, representation, and perfect fit. The visceral effects supply makeup, prosthetics, gore, and CGI. Overall, Love Lies Bleeding is an impressive balance of grunge and flash.

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

Overall Score: 8.8/10

Instagram Page

YouTube Channel

Wow. How did I go this long without seeing this movie. I have two main thoughts...

1. Val Kilmer not winning an Oscar for his performance let alone getting nominated is a genuine travesty.

2. Johnny Ringo's face when he sees Doc Holliday show up for the final duel instead of Wyatt Earp has to be one of my favorite moments in movie history. An all time great reveal.

I'm your huckleberry...

I just watched 'Cabrini' which was distributed by Angel Studios, the producers of The Sound of Freedom and apparently a TV show about Jesus. I went because I thought it would be a hilarious propogandist shitshow with terrible acting and cliche writing because of all the discussion around The Sound of Freedom.

It turned out to be quite good. It was extremely well shot, they made great use of the beautiful architecture of famous places like the Vatican and 1890's New York. They appear as places of opposition that contain enemies, and the scale and augustness of these buildings is well contrasted with the smallness of Mother Cabrini, the protagonist. She is an individual fighting against these massive institutions like the Catholic Church and the New York State government.

It is decently written. It addresses feminism and and anti-xenophobia in a very tame way, bur it is broadly repudiating patriarchy and xenophobia since the heroine of the story explicitly fights patriarchal racist figures for indisputably noble causes. However it doesn't really get into the specificities of sexism or xenophobia. Which, again, amazed me that it was even that understanding given The Sound of Freedom.

It was also amazingly acted, again given my low expectations. JON FUCKING LITHGOW IS IN IT. My jaw literally dropped when he appeared. I had been impressed when David Morse appeared, but the Jon Fucking Lithgow showed up, and my tiny mind exploded. Jon Lithgow only has like 10 minutes of screen time, but he's great and the lead actress Cristina Dell'Anna even shares a scene with him and holds her own.

It's overlong and contains a bit too much fluff. Especially the first hour, I checked my phone twice to asses the run time, But by about 90 minutes in, I was too invested to leave. Mother Cabrini's mission of helping Orphans and poor people is so pure, and she's portrayed with such an innocent Steel that I couldn't help but root for her.

Since I had been expecting nonsense, this film absolutely blew me away. I had been expecting The Room, but it was honestly about as good as Ferrari.

So I'm sure most people are aware of Ultraviolet, a movie that came out in 2006 and was critically panned in just about every aspect. I actually saw the first 30 or 40 minutes of the movie when I was a kid, but didn't see the whole thing. However about a few days ago, one of my Discord friends said he watched Ultraviolet and that it's pretty bad. This drew my attention and I decided to finally watch the whole movie in full out of curiosity for how bad it is.

And just as I expected, Ultraviolet is a mess of a movie. I'm not gonna go in depth since there's not really a point in doing that, so I'll just mention the basic stuff. The movie's plot is boring and kinda confusing, the effects and lighting are seriously ugly and the acting is not really great. However at the same time, the movie is kinda funny because of how cheesy it is. Like I chuckled when watching that infamous motorcycle chase scene and the scene where Violet is pulling two guys' hair out in a cemetery.

Speaking of which, I should mention the gimmick of Violet changing the colors of her clothes and hair. While the idea is neat in concept, it doesn't really server a purpose in the narrative. I mean she doesn't even use the gimmick as a disguise, so what's the point in that? Not to mention she only changes her hair during the opening and it's for no reason there too. Idk, it just seems bizarre to me.

I also watched a Youtube essay on the movie that mentioned the Unrated cut actually adds new scenes to develop the story. Though I might never see that cut since it's a DVD exclusive and I don't have much interest in buying the DVD to rewatch the movie.

I don't know much about Milla Jovovich, but I heard she's a good actress in other stuff. I feel bad the movie she was in was unfinished and choppy. So despite the movie being a disaster, would I say it's an unwatchable torture-fest? .....Ehhh, not really. I can see why some may get a kick out of this movie and I would say it has more rewatchability than say, almost everything from MCU Phase 4 and 5 imo. Shame that it goofed Kurt Wimmer's career though.