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.
After watching "All the Old Knives", I was all right with watching another Chris Pine movie. This one, however, was lacking in a few basic things that help the reader give a shit about the proceedings. First of all, motives are not clear. "I'm broke" is a crummy reason to do what he did. "I'm greedy" is a crummy reason for one military man to kill another. Sometimes, there's just no reason for some of the decisions that are made. I didn't care much about Chris Pine's family, and only a little about his friend. The virus subplot was completely underdone. I was just disappointed in this movie from middle to end.
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 - 15/20 - Another Groundhog Day scenario? I'm all in. Why not see how different types of people handle the same situation?
Cast/characters - 17/20 - Kyle Allen (The Inbetween) is proving to be a very charming lead, and Kathryn Newton (Freaky) is wonderful again. The characters were nuanced and were developed well.
Plot - 18/20 - The developing friendship between the two characters took more of a front seat in this movie than the comedy focus of Groundhog Day. The story of finding all of the good things that were happening while no one else is watching was a fantastic idea. The ending was very satisfying.
Dialogue - 15/20 - The banter between the leads around the deeper conversation pulls in the viewer. Their drive to understand each other was laid out well. Despite the fact that conversations often get repeated in this premise, I enjoyed the dialogue.
Setting - 15/20 - The little town was explored thoroughly, and it was pleasant to see all the different details as the characters played out their ideas.
80/100 - 4/5 stars - The leads have great chemistry, the supporting characters are charming, and the plot is wonderful. I'm really glad I landed on this movie to watch.
What in the jumped up f@#% is this? If I hadn't watched it for free, I would've asked for my money back.
Lead characters - 15/20 - Jessie Buckley was wonderful as Harper. Beautiful, graceful, with a touch of ass-kicker.
Secondary characters - 8/20 - Geoffrey himself was actually a cool cat. But the Rory Kinnear menagerie was god-awful, James was a twat, and Riley was wasted as a strong female secondary.
Story - 5/20 - Those 5 points were for the 1st half suspense building and character development. The last half completely shit the bed.
Dialogue - 10/20 - Conversations between Harper and others helped you understand the lead and her mindset.
Setting - 15/20 - I liked the old house, the woods, everything. Beautiful and yet creepy at times.
43/100
I was surprised by this movie. I've read some negative stuff on how the characters are stereotypical high schoolers, and the music is good but too focused on old-school metal, and the character arcs are too obvious. Let's respond to these.
Stereotypes often exist because they are real to some degree. Hunter being an outcast because of his style choices is not an outdated concept. This continues to be truth. There are jocks, rich kids, quiet girls, snobby girls, nerds, metal-heads, all kinds of people, and they behave in relatively standard ways. Some people transcend groups or become members of more than one, like Kevin being a bit of a metal-head nerd or Kendall being a quiet member of the snobby group. Having extraordinarily complex high school students in abundance would be an exception to normal life. I have no problem with leaning on stereotypes at this age.
If the kids want to base their sound on old-school metal at the expense of newer stuff (or The White Stripes) is their prerogative. Getting offended because they don't appreciate all types of music seems foolish. Kids like what they like, and you don't have to understand. I liked the music.
I read one comment about the "douche turned respectable" trope played out. That will never be played out, because watching a character get their comeuppance or simply having a light turn on is still a basic plot line for a movie to follow. This movie, though, coupled Hunter's singular desire to have a bitchin' band with Kevin's balanced life was good for both of them in that they came to respect each other. Emily as a sweet girl that has a bit of a screw loose was a fun concept. The relationship between Hunter and Kevin's band with Clay's band was interesting, as Clay surprised me with his positive attitude. Kept waiting for that shoe to drop.
I liked the movie a lot. It will end up being a guilty pleasure, because I imagine no one else will have seen it. I loved the three main characters, especially Isis Hainsworth as Emily. I loved the music development of the band. The plot was decent enough, although I'll never know why Hunter ended up in detox, as that wasn't his problem. I enjoyed it, though, and I look forward to watching it again.
Spy movies are often hard to grasp in the beginning stages due to the 900 characters that get introduced in the first few minutes. After that, the plot became quite interesting. Chris Pine isn't really one of my favorites, but he held his own across from the amazing Thandiwe Newton. I liked it! I'd watch it again. 3/5 for the interesting plot, and a half-star for Newton.
The good stuff:
** The chemistry between Pine and Newton was positive, and the sex scenes were pretty hot.
** The twist was neither crazy, nor given away too early. The ending was very logical.
** Some spy movies get too convoluted to watch. This one was laid out pretty well.
** This came in at a pretty tight 102 minutes; not a lot of useless stuff added.
The bummers:
-- Why have Laurence Fishburne in this movie if you're not going to use him much?
-- Without spoiling it much, I figure the terrorists didn't act as expected. Maybe that's not much of a bummer, but in one particular case, if a guy screws a terrorist over, he'll probably get killed.
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 - 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.
Premise - 17/20 - There aren't many erotic thrillers anymore; one with equal parts erotic and thriller, at least. A little bit of Rear Window coupled with the exposing of Sydney Sweeney's bod.
Cast/characters - 17/20 - Sydney playing lead character Pippa is not the only draw. Ben Hardy and Natasha Liu Bordizzo as the couple across the alley were very good in their roles. I didn't care much for the guy who played Pippa's husband Thomas.
Story - 17 - I tuned in for the erotic, and got engrossed in the thriller. Two hours long and not much wasted time. Some twists and turns, and everything built toward the ending, which was muted but satisfying.
Dialogue - 13 - Some grandiose parts, but decent overall. Not a lot of character development through dialogue.
World-building - 15 - The setting was mostly the facing apartments, with an eye doctor's office, a bar, and an art gallery thrown in. The apartments were pretty cool.
79/100 - 4/5 stars - More Sydney, please! However, I was pretty happy that the movie was also hot in a different ways.
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 - 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 - 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 - 15/20 - Michael survived? I can't believe it. But hey, I'm in for the next one.
Cast/characters - 12/20 - The returning characters were good, but Anthony Michael Hall wasn't great as Tommy.
Story - 12/20 - Oh, the stupidity. Half of these deaths were plain old helpless people. If you're going to go down, go down swinging. Wow.
Dialogue - 10/20 - Nothing to see here, but nothing too bad. The "evil dies tonight" was a little overdone.
World-building - 15/20 - Haddonfield went from unified to mob mentality to helpless dipsticks in a big rollercoaster ride.
Premise - 13/20 - A couple with problems? Interesting, but not special
Cast/characters - 15/20 - Ana de Armas has certainly blasted onto the scene. Ben Affleck has more acting ability than credited for, and he's certainly improving with age. Grace Jenkins plays their young daughter, and she is definitely fun to watch. The end credits scene gives you a big smile.
Plot - 15/20 - I was more interested than I thought I'd be.
Dialogue - 12/20 - Nothing special.
World-building - 10/20 - Nothing to see here.
65/100 - 3/5 stars - I enjoyed the watch, but honestly, it's not anything I'd watch again. It was forgettable in the long run.
Premise - 13/20 - Senior year and how to cope with the future as a couple.
Cast/characters - 17/20 - Oh my, Lana Condor. I love you. It was good to see almost everyone back.
Story - 16/20 - Good throughout, satisfying ending.
Dialogue - 13/20 - As you'd expect from a high school rom-com, but the serious stuff was good.
World-building - 13/20 - I love the Song-Covey family! Korea and NYC were new backdrops.
72/100 - 3.5/5 stars. Sorry to see it's all over!
Premise - 12/20 - Most things with Neo Nazis are going to frustrate me, so I knew that going in. I was curious how things were going to go bad, because they ultimately will.
Cast/characters - 14/20 - Jacqueline McKenzie was both strong and insecure (and cute) in her role as Gabe, a rich girl that suffered sexual abuse from her father. Russell Crowe was an easy choice to play Hondo, the violent and unhinged leader of the group. Daniel Pollock was great as Davey. Most other characters were just guys and girls.
Story - 15/20 - When things go bad, I want to know how it went bad, why it went bad, and what happens after it went bad. This movie covered all of those questions well. The ending was open and provoked some thought about the characters' futures.
Dialogue - 11/20 - A lot of hurtful things said. I'm pretty thick-skinned, but it still makes me shake my head to hear this stuff.
World-building - 13/20 - The viewer became involved in the fight scenes, and then a more distant observer for the quiet scenes. I enjoyed the setting.
65/100 - 3/5 stars - The relationship between Davey and Gabe was the best part, and everything went pretty much how you'd expect it to go. The ending was climactic and appropriate. The subject matter would keep me from watching it more than once.
Premise - 17/20 - Any movie with parallel universes and cause and effect scenarios will usually get me into the theater. I love this stuff and I was really looking forward to the movie.
Cast/characters - 12/20 - I liked Michelle Yeah. She played old lady, hot lady, and bad ass lady well. It was good to see Data again; it's been a while since The Goonies. Jamie Lee Curtis was weird, Stephanie Hsu was weird, everyone else was pretty weird.
Story - 10/20 - Disappointing. Just blah. The bagel? The hot dog fingers? The extended rock scene? The fucking raccoon stuff? Half of the movie was absurd, and I didn't want absurd. I would never tell anyone to watch this.
Dialogue - 10/20 - The script stretches two points into two hours: respect the freedom of others to choose their path, and go out there and choose your own path. Great, I get it. What a diluted way of saying it.
World-building - 13/20 - Some extra points here for creativity, though I didn't always find that creativity to be enjoyable.
62/100 - 3/5 stars - I have been very surprised by certain movies lately. I would tune in for an actress or something small, and find myself entertained. This was the opposite. I tuned in ready to enjoy, and finished disappointed. I would have to watch it again to find out if it was as bad as I thought. The only parallel I can draw is The Cable Guy, when Jim Carrey was on top of the world and it all came crashing down. Later, you watch it and realize it wasn't that bad, just...well...disappointing.
For the first 1/3 of the movie, I thought the parody of Nicolas Cage's career and life may have been taken too far. The cringe level was kept very high, and I was embarrassed to watch. However, as the plot started to push forward, the characters moved with it and made for an enjoyable movie. I laughed pretty hard at a few scenes, and the ending was satisfying. It just took a long time to change my mind from disappointed to appreciative.
The good stuff:
** Pedro Pascal (Wonder Woman 1984) was excellent as Javi, an unassuming "crime boss" that just wanted to meet Ncolas Cage. Javi was funny while maintaining appropriate levels of badassery to help the audience believe his lifestyle.
** During the scenes where Nic Cage is trying to be a hero, he actually looks like an actor playing a live action star without choreographed moves. As such, the character wings a lot of it, sometimes to hilarious ends.
The bummers:
-- I guess I'm just not a fan of Tiffany Haddish. At no point is she believable as a CIA agent. I'm not saying Ike Barinholtz is either, but at least he was comic relief. She just makes me question the casting director.
-- Cage's absence from his family's life to pursue his career would have been enough to believe his current status, but the hubris was a little over the top. The cringe level was almost too much to keep watching.
I was floating along with 4/10 stars in my mind for a while, then added two stars when the plot kicked in and when we got to see more of Pedro Pascal. The movie was OK, but it wasn't good enough to require that you see it in theaters.
If the lead Tessa had not been played by Joey King, I'm not sure I would've watched it. I've been a big fan of hers since Ramona and Beezus in 2010. She makes a lot of teen angst/romance movies, and I've appreciated the ones I've seen because of her. In this one, the only other actor I knew was Fear the Walking Dead's Kim Dickens as Tessa's adoptive mother. The plot had some pieces I thought were effective, even if it's not high art.
The good things:
** The chemistry between Joey King and co-star Kyle Allen was effective while portraying both the love story, both good and bad.
** I've got to put Joey King again in here. The camera loves her.
** The resolution of the love story was excellent, and the ending of the movie was appropriate.
The bummers:
-- Tessa's problems were related to her abandonment by her parents, but the movie didn't indicate why it created such disarray for her. Her past affected her ability to love and trust herself, so I would've liked to know more.
-- The seance sequences could've been cut short, although it does show the support of her friend.
-- The hotel scene toward the end was a little hard to believe.
Certain movies have an amazing way of working through a simple plot on the strength of well-acted, complex characters. Kudos to Mayim Bialik in her movie directorial debut. The movie was equal parts riveting and frustrating, as I pleaded for the son and daughter of an emotionally and physically abusive household to overcome that upbringing in different ways. I liked it and I hope you give it a chance, even though there isn't a vast amount of action, comedy, or special plot devices.
The good stuff:
** I was so happy to see Simon Helberg again after not seeing him since the Big Bang Theory. I don't have to be an acting coach to appreciate how he approached the nuances of his character. It was certainly different than TBBT for him.
** The primary lead Dianna Agron was new to me because I never watched Glee, but I was very happy with her performance as well. An emotionally defeated product of a long history of abuse is hard to portray, and I seemed to read all of her thoughts as I watched this.
** At first, the ending didn't seem strong, but then I realized that no one event is necessarily going to change the way a family works. I ended up appreciating the simple nature of the last few minutes.
The bummers:
-- It was hard to figure out the gardener. Is he interested in the lead or not? Does he mind the complications or not? You can't just quit when it's hard, unless you're actually quitting. Then I saw him again later. What now?
-- Nothing wrong with the movie, but it is tough to watch without cussing.
I wasn't sure I was going to be interested in this because I'm not a huge "I Love Lucy" fan. However, the deep dive into this harrowing week for Lucy and the show's cast was very interesting. The relationships between the characters were taken a little past the surface, Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem stole the show, and the auxiliary characters all played their roles well. I gave it 4 stars because I could recommend this to anyone. If you have a serious problem with an actor not perfectly playing an actual person, then you may just be unrealistic. It isn't easy to play an icon.
The good stuff:
** The characterizations of Lucy and Desi were wonderful. We learned how each had a great mind for the business, but also respected each other's career.
** Alia Shawkat as Madelyn Pugh, the only female writer in the room, was wonderful. Both funny and tough, I imagine she paved the way for many women to penetrate the production teams in TV and movies.
** The director of this movie did a great job presenting each aspect of the dumpster fire this one week appeared to be.
The bummers:
-- I don't think the documentary style was a great idea. I liked some of the dialogue there, but it just wasn't necessary.
-- 2 hours, 13 minutes is a little long for a movie like this.
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: 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 - 12/20 - On the cusp of his 30th birthday, a promising young theater composer navigates love, friendship and the pressures of life as an artist in New York City. I'm not a fan of musical theater, but it just came so highly recommended.
Cast/characters - 15/20 - Andrew Garfield was wonderful in the lead role! The surrounding cast, most of which were unknown to me, also played their roles with a lot of tenderness and emotion.
Story - 17/20 - An engrossing watch from basically start to finish! Very well-written.
Dialogue - 13/20 - The musical dialogue did a good job to help with characterization, even though I didn't like all the songs. The non-music dialogue was sometimes a little slow, but not bad.
World-building - 17/20 - Since I came in with relatively little interest, I was impressed by how invested I got in the plight of Jonathan Larson, his friends, and the musical theater industry.
74/100 - 3.5/5 stars - I would recommend this movie to anyone that might be interested in a well-acted, well-written musical drama.
Premise - 7/20 - A dog becoming samurai in a town full of cats? Ugh. My kids made me go.
Actors/characters - 8/20 - The voice actors are well-known, but Michael Cera is not nearly commanding of a voice enough to lead a movie. "Hank" sounds like a whiny dipstick and it's impossible to get behind him. In addition, the other characters not named Emiko were more annoying or vanilla than anything.
Story - 10/20 - Extra points for the ending, but I struggled to stay awake for the first half.
Dialogue - 2/20 - I don't think I've ever given a score that low, but even during kids movies there is usually redeeming dialogue. Almost every single joke fell flat. How does every joke fall flat?
World-building - 5/20 - Average visuals, but what a terrible idea for a movie. As such, the world built around this idea was terribly boring and plain.
32/100 - 1.5/5 stars
Premise - 13/20 - CIA, assassins trying to kill each other, blah, blah, blah. I'm in, but not all the way in.
Actors/characters - 18/20 - Great cast! Ryan Gosling is believable in this role. Chris Evans was great as a psycho govt contractor. Billy Bob Thornton is usually on the money. Ana de Armas is wonderful again. The actors and the characters were the main reason for enjoyment.
Story - 16/20 - Certainly not much drag in this high-paced action movie. Most everything made sense.
Dialogue - 15/20 - The banter was pretty funny. Thumbs up for sarcastic wit.
World-building - 15/20 - Or destroying. How much damage was done in this movie? Anyway, the creation of the back story fleshed out the story to create concern for the antagonist.
77/100 - 4/5 stars
Lead characters - 17
Secondary characters - 12
Story - 15
Dialogue - 15
Setting - 13
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 - Undercover FBI becomes a surfer to investigate bank robberies. OK, I'll bite, but not hard.
Cast/characters - 15/20 - Keanu is a plus. Patrick is a plus-plus. Lori Petty as a surfer works for me. Gary Busey isn't quite as crazy here. The extra characters were just guys.
Story - 16/20 - Story wasn't much of a surprise, even when I saw it the first time. The ending is satisfactory. The story could have been a little shorter; movies around this time seemed to have male bonding done within a sports activity, a fight, or both. The best part is the choice Johnny has to make between his career and his friends.
Dialogue - 13/20 - Enjoyable, slightly deep, not that special.
World-building - 17/20 - The immersion into the surfing world was interesting. The scenery was beautiful.
74/100 - 3.5/5 stars - Two legends doing what they do. No harm in that. Sit back and enjoy the wave.
