Brian Umbaugh

Premise: 6/10 - There have been a ton of movies where a person has mysteriously turned younger and older and learned a life lesson, so it's not new. In this one, the person turned into a septuagenarian. That's different, so why not?
Cast: 6/10 - I was drawn into the movie by Diane Keaton's presence, and she's still got it. She was wasted on this role, though. Elizabeth Lail was much better in Countdown; in this one she was obviously outdone by others on the screen. Taylour Paige was new to me, but I enjoyed her as an actress. It was good to see Wendie Malick again, and Dustin Milligan as the love interest did a fair job. There were way too many additions to the cast that didn't show out well in this movie.
Characters: 2/10 - Rita wasn't much of a protagonist. I'm an introvert as well, but she's a spineless, awkward introvert that is difficult to watch on screen. Even once she became older, it took a long time to become invested in her, and I can't say I ever really did. Carla was a strong female supporting character, as were the old women friends. Her agent was a terrible character that was terribly acted. Rita and Carla's friends were failures as people and quite annoying. Jack was a decent character without being very well-developed. A lot of disappointment here.
Story: 3/10 - The first 30 minutes made me want to leave. I understand Rita identifies with the laid-back pace and individualistic nature of most elderly people, but unfolding events were nothing but cringeworthy. As the plot devices developed, the story was quite predictable as we watched her discover herself, lose herself, find herself...not much of a new take. Some movies are "show don't tell", this was "tell don't show" when it was actually getting to the point at all.
Dialogue: 1/10 - The failures were part in the repetitive and shallow dialogue and part in the overwrought delivery of it. Every time Rita opened her mouth it was a disaster. Some of the dialogue between older Rita and her older friends was partially redeeming, but we already knew what was about to be said.
World-building: 3/10 - The viewer has to take a leap of faith in a movie like this, but a "past lives regression" tanning bed was beyond a leap of faith. Her life wasn't particularly interesting before or after her switch, outside of her love interest. The world of social media influencing is as fake as she apparently didn't want her life to be, and that's what she chose to do? The end was a bit redeeming, but it was too late.

21/60 - 35/100 - 4/10 - 2/5 stars - I walked out of the movie feeling OK about having watched the movie, and my wife thought it was OK as well. Basically, it turned out fine but it was cringey as hell watching the characters go through their struggle and the plot devices were very bland. It was somewhat cute and Diane Keaton had a spectacular wardrobe. It was enough to enjoy a date night, but it doesn't have any rewatchability.

Premise: 3/10 - I didn't like the Predator movies back in the day. Add that to a 1700's Native American period piece? I'm watching it because it's popular right now.
Cast: 7/10 - Most of the cast could have been absolutely anyone. However, Amber Midthunder was spectacular as the lead and I look forward to seeing more of her.
Characters: 7/10 - The lead Naru was a strong female lead in a typically misogynistic tribe. However, her cunning, perseverance and courage was amazing. The Predator is, well, the predator. The Native American characters were not outstanding, as they worked as a tribe to hunt so no one stood out.
Story: 8/10 - I wanted Naru to fight, I wanted her to win, I wanted her to get recognized. After the first ten minutes or so, I was invested in her story. The action sequences are great! The story didn't have a lot of twists and turns, but the additional characters added near the 2/3 mark helped add an extra layer to the quest.
Dialogue: 4/10 - The power was in the acting and the action of the story, not necessarily in the dialogue. However, if you're going to have Comanche and French, I wish the subtitles kicked those over to English. Regardless, you could get the gist of the language by context.
World-building: 9/10 - Other than the action, this was the strength of the movie: putting you in that time period with a simple situation leading the storyline. You're in the movie pretty quickly.

38/60 - 63/100 - 6/10 - 3/5 stars - I'm not going to plant my flag on this movie, but I did enjoy it. Amber Midthunder and her character Naru, the action sequences, and the world-building made it really worth a watch.

Premise: 5/10 - "A domineering but charismatic rancher wages a war of intimidation on his brother's new wife and her teen son, until long-hidden secrets come to light." A period piece about a ranch? Not usually my bag.
Cast: 9/10 - Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst got me, Jesse Plemons was great, and Kodi Smit-McPhee did a great job.
Characters: 8/10 - Boy, Phil was a dick. The toxic masculinity thing really makes me shake my head, but look at the time period. 1925 ranch hands? I can understand. Rose and Peter were vulnerable characters, but not everything is as it seems. George was good as the complement to Phil.
Story: 8/10 - I was wondering where it was going to go, like maybe he would fall in love with Rose. Nope...but would he fall in love with, you know, a different character? When all is said and done, did that even matter? The twists and character developments were superb.
Dialogue: 5/10 - Not much here. Much of the plot was read between the lines, not on the page.
World-building: 7/10 - At the beginning, I didn't care about ranching; well, I guess I still don't. However, you learned enough to get invested, and the characters did the rest.

42/60 - 70/100 - 7/10 - 3.5/5 stars - It has so many boiling sub-texts that you can choose your own adventure. Once it ends, you're like, "Yup, that's one way to go...but I didn't figure that was the way it was going." I like that. Good movie; I'd recommend to anyone looking for a well-acted, well-directed drama.

Premise - 17/20 - I was definitely opting in early based on the premise and the trailer. I could always use a good original action movie with a good cast.
Cast/characters - 19/20 - I knew most of these actors, so that was a good start. It was great to see Joey King hold her own against the big boys. I love her! Quite the diverse set of characters, and they all had a back story. You know it's a great ensemble when no one person takes over the movie.
Story - 17/20 - Don't look away, that's all I'm saying. So many character stories all coming together a bit at a time.

Dialogue - 18/20 - The sarcasm ran rampant, and the intelligent discussions were enjoyable. You can really learn about the paradigm of Thomas the Tank Engine.
World-building - 15/20 - You don't have to understand or learn anything to get this movie, but the incredibly complex storyline forces the viewer to get engrossed in the characters' lives really quickly.

86/100 - 4.5/5 stars - It starts quickly and it goes fast. As Ferris would say, "If you don't stop to look around once in a while, you could miss it." I loved it and I know I'll be watching it again.

Premise - 17/20 - A human and her clone have to fight to the death to claim that identity? I'm in.
Cast/characters - 10/20 - Why is Karen Gillan so weird in this? I love her, but her human character is very repressed and talks in a stunted way that is not really fun to watch. Her husband and her mother are both dicks. I liked Aaron Paul in this, though!
Story - 13/20 - No one ever found out what the health problem was! She's dying, and then she's not, and no one knows why? Hmmm. Simple story, though, and there was a lot of buildup to an anti-climactic ending. I did like the psychology behind the ending. Just a really slow burn.
Dialogue - 12/20 - The language and speech patterns are simple and not particularly profound. As the movie went on, I enjoyed it more.
World-building - 13/20 - The idea of a clone and a human being required to kill each other was an interesting dystopian future. I liked it, but the world built around that idea was not very interesting.

65/100 - 3.5/5 stars - I liked it, didn't love it. The limited characters were not all that interesting, and outside Gillan and Paul, the acting is not special. Disappointing, considering anything better than this would have been at least 4 stars. A lot of psychology and no real action.

Premise - 13/20 - The trailer made the movie seem pretty confusing. Aliens, maybe? Horses, and Glen from The Walking Dead? Not sure what's happening, but interesting enough to get me in the door.
Cast/characters - 12/20 - I liked Steven Yeun, his back story, and understanding his folly. I've seen Daniel Kaluuya around and he seems like a good actor, but I didn't like him in this. Smart, but unlikable. Keke Palmer was funny and an unlikely hero. The actors were OK, I guess, but I never invested any emotion in the characters.
Story - 15/20 - Original, as I'd expect from Jordan Peele. A great storyteller. Tangential scenes from Steven Yeun's past were interesting and yet vital to his character's psychology. A bit of a slow burn and convoluted ending, but from front to back it was mostly enjoyable.
Dialogue - 17/20 - The movie incorporated a "show, don't tell" philosophy that I enjoy, but the dialogue was able to let the viewer know the mindset of the characters and help develop relationships.
World-building - 15/20 - The setting wasn't that riveting, but I liked the connection established between the UFO's, the characters, and the ranch.

72/100 - 3.5/5 stars - Good, not great. Kudos for originality, bummer to the lack of interesting characters. Plus to the side plot with "Gordy's Home", minus to the subplot of the ranch and the family history. Watch it once to say you did, but it wasn't re-watchable.

Premise - 13/20 - First thing: never read the book. Going in fresh as someone who is watching a story about a girl that grew up mostly by herself in the marsh dealing with being a murder suspect. OK, not riveting.
Cast/characters - 18/20 - Daisy Edgar-Jones was wonderful in Fresh, so I was in for this. She is spectacular in this and quite a beauty. Didn't know any other actors other than David Straithairn, so I can be unbiased in saying they are did their jobs well. I enjoyed Tate and the shopkeepers. I don't have the backstories from the book, but I can get the idea in the short amount of time spent on character development and relationships. One question I would've liked answered is why Chase had anything to do with "Marsh Girl" in the 1st place. He was an ex-football star (so a public hero) and had chicks all over town.
Story - 17/20 - Dragged a bit in the middle after Tate did what he did, but the story was excellent and the ending was very good.
Dialogue - 15/20 - Apparently, narration had to be used to substitute for plot points, and I'm OK with that. Conversations with Tate were good, conversations with Chase were frustrating, and the courtroom sequence seemed effective.

World-building - 15/20 - Don't know much about a scenario like this because I've never seen backwoods NC. The visuals laid it out well. The town was created so that she had opposition from everyone as you might expect from a recluse.

78/100 - 4/5 stars - Daisy Edgar-Jones has become an actor that I'll watch regardless of plot. Again, without having read the book, I found the characters shallow but effective and the plot to move along well enough with a good beginning and end. Definitely worth the time.

Premise - 16/20 - A simple premise, but eventually a bit misleading. Regardless of that, I like the occasional small cast, no frills thriller, so I'm in.
Cast/characters - 16/20 - Great lead. Good supporting cast. Interesting characters, but not enough time to really develop them; however, their backstories are hinted enough to where we understand motivation.
Story - 18/20 - Dialogue, and then a twist. Dialogue, and then a twist. A little action, and then a twist. I like that strategy, because you never feel comfortable. This is where the premise was misleading, though; it wasn't really a "whodunnit?", but more of a constant "what the hell do I do now?" issue. That made it a great watch with a pleasant ending. The director did a lot with a little.
Dialogue - 13/20 - Very direct dialogue. Hinting at backstories, showing character traits, explaining mindset. All of that made the last half of the movie understandable. The knock, then, is that for a small cast, dialogue is key, and this is really bare bones with great delivery.
World-building - 12/20 - Blizzard, secluded area in the mountains, basically one small room and some external shots. Nothing crazy, but all of it useful to the story.

75/100 - 4/5 stars - I thought it was great. Simple and not extremely original, but it was like a play that simmers through Act I, gives you a new perspective in Act II, and hammers home Act III. I'll recommend this one as a quick and riveting watch.

Premise - 12/20 - This has been done way too much, with the caveat that this time she hasn't lived her life first before going back to HS.
Cast/characters - 17/20 - Maybe only Rebel Wilson would be all in for this role, but I found it OK. The joy was in the other actors and characters. Almost every other character, no matter how secondary, sold their role and was fun to watch.
Story - 15/20 - The story was not that original, and everything sort of went as expected. However, "expected" was good for me. The ending was satisfying. The middle was your typical frustrating "I have to f@#* this up first to fix it" story.
Dialogue - 12/20 - Steph's best friend (the principal) had the funniest dialogue. There were the standard conversations to learn lessons, but I thought Steph's dad had some funny and/or effective lines.
World-building - 15/20 - This high school was very pro-LGBTQ+, which is nice to see. The popular kids weren't douchebags. I like it all. In addition, how does a 37 year old ex-cheerleader fit into this new world? Slowly, it seems, and that's OK.

71/100 - 3.5/5 stars - Rebel Wilson is not nearly the type of actress I want to see in a variety of roles, but she works in this one. The story was standard and yet pleasing, but the characters were special. I enjoyed them the most.

Premise - 17/20 - The story of Elvis got me in the door.
Cast/characters - 13/20 - Austin Butler was fantastic. Tom Hanks did his job as a money-grubbing promoter in charge of one of the best showmen in the world, although I disliked almost every minute he was on the screen. Most other characters could have been played by anyone; no one really stood out.
Story - 13/20 - The beginning bounced around like a cartoon, and the end was longer than the actually end for Elvis. There was definitely a little room to cut some things out of the 166 minute run time.
Dialogue - 12/20 - Hanks's accent was grating, but Butler's voice (speaking and singing) was to die for. Their conversations really let you know who the characters were. However, most other conversations (except ones between B.B. King and Elvis) were not riveting.
World-building - 17/20 - The world of Elvis, much like the world of Babe Ruth, involved a real man elevating himself to mythical stature. Creating that world is difficult enough, but what about Elvis's beginnings do you focus on? Childhood, Sun Records, his mother? What about his career do you focus on? Early years, late years, death? What goes into that burrito? Priscilla, his friends, his legacy? The movie did a good job at touching on many things, but the focus on Parker detracted from the star of the show.

72/100 - 3.5/5 stars - The performances were monster and the two leads were great at their jobs. However, the movie was too long, the extra characters were not worth the attention in the story, and the focus on Parker rather than Presley was disappointing.

Premise - 13/20 - The premise was not much of a draw, although I was interested to see how an outsider copes with an autistic child and a single mother.
Cast/characters - 15/20 - The character arc of Cooper Raiff was the main idea, and he could only go up after being quite annoying for 45 minutes. The actor did a good job of taking his own words and fleshing out the role. Dakota Johnson was wonderful, and I especially enjoyed Vanessa Burghardt and Leslie Mann.
Plot - 14/20 - It was difficult dealing with this drunk, overgrown child for as long as I had to before he turned it around. However, his care for the people in his life was very sweet and made the movie enjoyable.
Dialogue - 12/20 - Nothing special, although there were some good conversations to build relationships.
World-building - 14/20 - The world built here was the relationships between family and friends, and how to navigate them. I was drawn into it.

68/100 - 3.5/5 - After a frustrating first half, the movie became a tutorial on how to listen to others and care for them without much regard for your own agenda. We could all use a little of that.

Premise - 14/20 - Love sports, not huge on basketball, so I was worried I wouldn't love it.
Cast/characters - 16/20 - Sandler's character was great, Hernangomez was very believable in the role, and most of the supporting characters did their jobs well. With so many NBA players in the cast, it was impressive that the egos were in check.
Plot - 17/20 - I didn't think I would love it, but I did. Believing in yourself and helping someone else believe in themselves was a good story, but the requirement that putting in the work is required to achieve your dreams was fantastic. The climax and the ending were well done.
Dialogue - 15/20 - The supportive conversation and the journey the two leads went on together was portrayed very well through dialogue.
World-building - 16/20 - I felt like I had a good look at the inner workings of the NBA combine and training programs here, which was a world only glossed over by most other basketball movies.

78/100 - 4/5 stars - A nice surprise from Sandler. He can play a wide variety of roles. If you're stuck because he spent too long doing Billy Madison-type movies, you're really missing out on what he can do.

It's not a popular opinion, but screw popular. I loved it. It's getting hammered by some people because that might get more likes. Or maybe some people hate fun. Or hate sequels. Or hate blockbusters. Or they're just dicks. If that describes you, then I'll save you some time - just f#@* off right now.

Premise - 18/20 - Finally...what happens when the created animals are let loose on the world?
Cast/characters - 18/20 - Both generations of leads are wonderful and DeWanda Wise was a wonderful addition. 2 pts off because the rich white guy was a weak character this time, and sometimes Bryce Dallas Howard is a little rigid again. "The movie relies too much on nostalgia"? Yes, it does. If you love the characters, what's wrong with seeing them again?
Story - 18/20 - Two main questions to be answered: can the existence of Maisie (and Blue's baby) hold answers to disease, and can dinosaurs and humans co-exist? This movie is taking some hits for having a weak story, but it's not meant for the art house. Does the story keep you engaged, and do you care what happens? Yes. The story works well for me. Two specific points: whether or not they created any new dinosaurs was immaterial. That wasn't the point of the movie. Second, the "evil corporation" bit is a little tired, but it's realistic. Chris Tucker's rule of finding out where the problems start -- follow the rich white guy. There's always a greedy individual/corporation at the heart of the world's issues.
Dialogue - 13/20 - The action was the draw, not the dialogue. It didn't distract, but it wasn't special.
World-building - 20/20 - The settings were wonderful, and this created world will never get old for me, even after 6 movies.

87/100 - 4.5/5 stars - What a wonderful ending to a storied franchise.