filmtoaster

VIP

3

This is where I fail as a movie reviewer. I am too easy on the horror genre. The Platinum Dunes remake of Friday The 13th is a surprisingly faithful re-adaptation of the series. It satisfies my lust I crave from the stereotypical trashy horror flick: Blood, tits, drugs, sex, and gore. What makes the remake worth at least one viewing is it's sleek and stylish upgrade. This is definitely an improvement over the many sequels, much as the same route A Nightmare On Elm Street took, where the remake is better than most of the originals. Note aside, beyond it's guilty pleasure attraction, the depth of Crystal Lake is shallow. Many of the side characters have but any growth, their purpose is just to be killed in gruesome fashion (which is satisfying as hell), and the story is just another brain-dead person out to kill those who comes into his home. Must say though, for a downer guy as big as Jason, he sure knows how to set up some elaborate traps. You've heard this song before, only now, you get a kick-ass cover to it. If only the original song had some depth to it. Yeah, I said that about the original movie. Hope you guys have a most excellent Friday the 13th.

The biggest relief I can say about Ready Player One is it works, even without the never-ending barrage of pop culture nostalgia. Upset across all social media platforms, a concern I took part in, was the movie had no identity to show for itself, that it relied heavily on better films from the 80's to sell itself. I do not think the comments I made were bad or outdated now, as it is important to criticize art, but I can happily say I did enjoy this movie's core, even without the aid of the surface eye candy. This is the most Spielberg movie that man has made in quite awhile, after such masterpieces like The BFG. It follows the standard hero's journey he's used a number of times, this closely paralleling E.T., which was a welcome return. This is the director I fell in love with, and it seems he knew how to take the disaster of a book this is adapted from, and create an entertaining blockbuster. My bigger hiccups about the picture, are one or two tasteless scenes, specially the haunted house rendition of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. It's a crowd-pleaser moment, understandably, but something about it's total disregard for the meanings from the original film almost come off as disrespectful. It's the closest the movie touched the "Hey, remember this thing you recognize?!" predicament I was fearing before watching. I think a more shallow movie, hell Grease would've worked much better, could fix this. Any other issues I had could be pointed at it's predictability, and over-reliance on filling the run-time with references, some of which don't advance the story much. I could see what they were doing, showing Wade being smarter than everyone else in the game, but having him list off stuff like it's a references checklist is where it can get half-assed. But most of the callbacks are respectful and work, they did their research, thankfully. No cringe shit like Marvel Studios' Black Panther's, "What're those?!" Just end me. Happy to just say I've seen another blockbuster in four months that I didn't hate. I'm going to remember that opening race, good shit. And, I geeked out like hell when MechaGodzilla was fighting The Iron Giant. It makes no sense, but I understand that's the point.

CW: Christianity, Atheism, white males, a retarded plot

Do I even need to say anything? It's God's Я Us 3: A Light in Bankruptcy. Pure Flix, by some miracle of God, has managed to assemble a cinematic universe out of this fecal matter, just like Universal Studios and Focus was able to splurge out three Fifty Shades movies. I'm committing review sin by comparing two unrelatable franchises, but the parallels apply. I must ask, who is going to these to make them profitable? Suckers like me who want to watch some unintentional trash? Authentic Christian audiences who view these as important films? I would love to have a discourse with someone who honestly enjoys a broken wreck of a movie like this. Everyone can have their own taste, I welcome all perspectives, but it makes you curious. I admit, seeing Shane Harper's silly mug back again made me ironically geek out. It was the equivalent of a seeing a side-character cameo back in a Marvel product. All enjoyment is purely found in the accidental humor and structural problems. When a focal dramatic moment has met me laughing at it's scrambled pacing and distracting inadequate digital effects, you've failed at telling whatever story you were trying to. There's a sampling of laughably edgy conversation too, one where domestic abuse is brought up and another the Mandela effect being used to interpret Jesus may exist. It's too bad, Christianity could be so metal if shown on the big-screen with reverence. Pure Flix, you have money, make a badass action movie (that's not Samson), put some Bruce Campbell, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Dwayne Johnson in there, and you got me there opening day. Throw heavy rock in and hardcore Bible verses for maximum flavor. For now, we still have Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, and any Mel Gibson movie, so I guess we're good.

I don't even want to write anything. This movie makes me angry. Even with the mind-set going in that this is cheesy non-sense meant to please the brain-dead movie-going public, it fails to generate any sense that it understands what it wants to be and it's responsibility to respect it's predecessor. Call me exaggerating, but Pacific Rim: Uprising is a nightmare of a film, it's the last thing any fan should want of a property: Taking everything great a franchise has established, strip it down it's bare assets, then trying to sell it to dumb people. I've already said the first Pacific Rim wasn't a brilliant piece of cinema, but a lot of love went into crafting it's visuals and universe. Del Toro had a great eye for practical effects, lighting, digital composites, etc. I'm sorry Steven S. DeKnight, but he murders the franchise in every possible category: The writing is film school amateurish, the effects are below-average (lower than Transformers quality), the music is forgettable, and the universe has been shrunken down to a couple people, just like what The Last Jedi did for Star Wars. You had this mature and bad-ass world of Jaegar meets Kaiju action and you squandered it into the embarrassing cringe-inducing children's movie domain. I don't know how much hand John Boyega had in the creative process, but you can smell the cheapening all over the product. Everyone's picked apart the Jaegars moving too fast and the outfits not appearing as technically impressive, but down to the core, the writing, it's ruined. You thought Independence Day: Resurgence had lazy writing? Wait until you hear classic lines in Uprising that just reference how much better the writing was in the last movie. Want to write a great speech before the final battle? That takes too much effort. Just mention how great Idris Elba's "cancelling the apocalypse" speech was. They do this constantly in the movie, chucking, not even just random subtle call-backs, but full pieces of dialogue mentioning events in the last one. If you're not even going to bother writing your story better than garbage like Ender's Game and every other "youth training in military to stop evil force" movie, please don't insult the original by persistently referencing how much better it was. The action isn't even exciting. The physics and extremely out-of-place uses of slow-motion hinder any kind of tension or thrills. The finale in Tokyo is among one of the most underwhelming and confusing messes of editing ever. Resurgence was easy to follow at least, because it was set in the barren desert. How is it that a sequence at night in the rain, from the first movie, is easier to follow than one in daylight? And the movie just ends after they defeat the "final boss" Kaiju. No extra words to bring the characters' arcs to a close, you know, like a resolution should. It just goes from the characters getting out of their pod, having an out-of-place snowball fight, and the end credits. I almost couldn't believe it was over then. There was a brief mid-credits scene that poorly set-up future sequels that thankfully won't ever happen. It just dumbfounds me the entire cast went about putting this disaster together without one person going, "You know, shouldn't we at least get something right from the original movie?" Long-gone are the days of cool neon-aesthetic duel-outs with robots smashing ships into on another. We have the most bare-bones bullshit that's parading around as a sequel to a passion project of epic proportions. It's no wonder Del Toro isn't advertising this movie on Twitter. There's a part in the movie where they play the "Trololol" song as the Jaegars are flying away to fight. It was literally trolling it's audience.

Well, this is interesting. What makes the experience work is the dichotomy between the two lead actresses. Without them and Anton Yelchin to boost the script, I don't think the movie would work as effectively. Olivia Cooke does a strong job, oddly, playing a character who bares no emotions, and Anya Taylor-Joy, whom I loved from Split and The Witch leaves another fine role to add to her résumé. Unfortunately, the trailers, which I did not watch before seeing the movie, give the film off to be dark comedy, when in reality, it's a deliberately slow-burn drama in the vein of Yorgos Lanthimos. There are humorous moments to be sure, but none of them come off as deliberate comedy, just natural dialect. The core of the story is a drama about a girl wanting to escape her step-father and she's caught in the middle with a weird friend, who had something traumatizing happen to her. Yelchin doesn't have as big of part as some might expect, but regardless, he still nails the act of an overly-confident druggie who thinks he's hot-shit. The script is nothing remarkably spectacular or refreshing, but watching the main two bounce conversations off each-other upgrade the work. If you get a kick out of some slow drama mixed with splendid tension, try it out.

R.I.P. Anton Yelchin

Why are you doing this?

Why not?

This is a shame. I'm a big fan of the first film's creativeness and said director's talent to create some truly terrifying scenarios. Even though it bares huge flaws, it stands out to me as one of the best horror movies of the past few years. Said that, I was cautious but optimistic about The Strangers: Prey At Night, I love the horror genre, even the bullshit that's shat out every year. It's just a genre that's hard for me to get tired of. Before I rip into what really butchered this movie for me, I salute Johannes Roberts for trying his hardest to replicate the style of the first film, mainly in the first half. You got more family complications, they arrive at this secluded place, then the strangers want to come out and play. I was anxiously awaiting to witness what Roberts would conjure up this round to top some of the brilliant set-pieces of the first film... and, there are some cool moments here, like the man in the mask ramming a car into a house, a fight-out in a swimming pool, and a chase through a playground. There's memorable and pretty magical stuff here, not denying it. A lot of it is decently executed, good sound mixing, some adequate music choices, and two decent kills. Yeah, I'm spoilers now, so if you're really curious about seeing it, only see if you're a fan. My biggest setback arises in the last act. They show the killers' faces and then the two siblings kill all three off... supposedly one lives, cliffhanger nonsense. My issue is doing this goes against everything, I thought, the first installment was trying to establish. By not showing the killers at the end, it left them up to be anonymous, they could be anyone with masks, and that's what made it scary to me. By giving the killers an identity beyond their generic (yet recognizable) faces, it takes away the fear factor... a lot. When the reveal scene happened at the end of Prey At Night, I wasn't really feeling anything I expect Roberts wanted me to. I was just, kind of let-down. The finale is just an exact copy of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, so that was off-putting by that point. I wasn't invested in the tension, I was still hung-over from the reveal that just happened, so I couldn't help noticed the similarity in the final chase. I think it almost harms the original movie, as a movie on it's own credentials, it's just not all anything impressive, excluding the couple of stand-out scenes. I didn't feel any of the same tension the first film carried, so that sets it down a lot, on-top of the flaws it contracts, from the first.

I'll start off with a disclaimer: I've never played the 2013 re-boot of Tomb Raider, I'm not extensively familiar with the character outside her profession and appearance, but I am fan of the Indiana Jones films. The pointless warning set aside, looking at my enjoyment of the feature film as a stand-alone experience, it was mixed. I'm just relieved the movie isn't awful and is a step-up from sub-par "blockbusters" like Black Panther. So that there should tell you were I stand on it and if you're interested in seeing it. The biggest unfortunate misdeed this movie commits is how paint-by-the-numbers it colors, rarely trying to step outside the boundaries of the genre it's copying. No real innovation to distance itself from the likes of Raiders Of The Lost Ark for example, which it's very similar too. Instead of having her father explain the evil curse to another person, maybe to emotionally infuse the viewer to his character, they do a quick narration dump before the title screen. Cut to Lara's every-day life, and we get the Journey To The Center Of The Earth treatment. Learn about father doing much more than his business-life let on, go to hidden location, and adventure happens. There's this really pointless chase in Hong Kong with three burglars, which seemed cool at first, but after it was over, I realized it didn't add much to what was going on. Was it to show how poverty-stricken that area of town is? Hong Kong is full of scum-bags like them? Lara Croft is a self-reliant woman who can take care of herself? My guess it was to have a bit of action, I don't know, the scene just ends up with her meeting the person she was asking for. I must say, Daniel Wu's introduction is rather amusing, playing a drunkard sailor suits him.

But okay, the movie has the most predictable script ever, with a far more inciting history lesson just being a swappable farce, what does this movie do to be average instead of sixth-rate non-sense? A couple things, but the presentation and Junkie XL's score are two big ones. Ignoring the couple of embarrassing green-screen composites, lack of proper stunt-work, and heavy use of CGI in stretches, the direction is good. A slue of memorable and well-choreographed >muh vistas with great lighting, especially in darker locations. Roar Uthaug, never seen any of his other work, does a decent job, however credit most likely goes to George Richmond, known for doing Kingsman. But the single ingrediant Tomb Raider immediately excels is at Walton Goddamn Goggins. I've loved this man in every role I've seen so far, he never sucks. The second he comes into the picture, he steals everything. Every scene he's in he nails to a T. His character, Mathias Vogel, is not as developed as, say, Paul Freeman's Belloq from Raiders, and that's the only downside. You don't get to know why he's doing what he's doing or what he believes in what's going on, just that he has to do what he's doing. Essentially, Goggins is just doing an amazing performance for a henchman, so take that what you will, but he's great every frame he's on. I can't wait to see him be a villain in a Bond movie, it's going to happen eventually. The movie ends with a little twist and a sequel-grab, so yeah, Lara doesn't die, but everyone knew she wouldn't. Will I see it? I don't know. I hope they get a better script next time. It's nothing you haven't seen before, just with a semi-decent palette and couple stunning performances. If you were already excited to see it, go ahead, just keep your expectations low. It's alright.

Finally, a sensational and rousing comedy film that manages to make me laugh... hard... quite a few times. Diego Tutweiller has constructed a good list essay why Marvel movies and other such blockbusters have substandard humor in their writing. Check out the link and read just so you understand a little better. One attribute Diego didn't mention, which I've noticed happen more frequently, note Black Panther, is the cutting-out-the-music tactic. I'm sure you're all familiar with this move, even if you are consciously aware of it. Check this video from Cinemassacre, listing off his least-favorite movie clichés, he touches on the ever-popular stop-for-comedy tool all trailer editors use to make a joke hit harder than how they normally would. This is not an isolated technique only a few companies use, almost every comedy trailer in the past decade uses this. Even the trailer for Game Night is guilty. In the actual movie, that joke doesn't have that cut-away from the soundtrack. Not a fan of it, but it's the norm. The trouble is, this lazy method of "joke-telling" has seeped it's way into actual film productions. We don't even treat movies separate from trailers anymore, it's like now jokes in a movie are written specifically to be edited a way in the trailer. I don't have the clip now, because it's still in theaters, but Black Panther did this multiple times, very clearly. It bugged me when I saw it because I knew how cheap of an attempt at humor it was. It wasn't even a good joke, like, the hoth man just says, "We are vegetarians." It's the opposite of what you expected, and the dramatic music literally stops. It's bullshit.

But yeah, Game Night? Oh yeah, the movie I'm supposed to be talking about. It was great. One of the best constructed comedies of the past few years, it's amazing this comes from the same writer who did Herbie Fully Loaded and The Country Bears... yeah, I'm shocked. I don't know if it was sheer-luck or a lightbulb of genius one of the directors contracted, but the duo along with Mark Perez has strung together not just great reference-humor, but well-timed physical comedy, ironic meta bombs, and above-all else, believable and surprising-ly lovable characters. Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams' duet is excellent and full of rich on-screen chemistry. They fit so well together, you forget you're watching actors say words. I wish I could meet them in person. (◕‸◕) The way they spout off trivia and one-liners alone makes a viewing worth it, these two sell the film themselves. But working alongside them, albeit less so, the supporting cast, including the dumb-ass Ryan played by Billy Magnussen, just adds even more appeal. There's a wonderfully timed scene, minor spoilers for a little joke here, he's handing a businesswoman dollar bills across the table. She wants a hundred dollars, Ryan first slides across a twenty, but as he keeps sliding new bills over, the amount of each one gets lower and lower and the pace he slides them gets slower and slower. The timing of the cuts was so brilliant, I dare say better than the similar joke in Hot Fuzz. It's a cute short skit, but had me laughing out loud with the other people in the theater. I feel explaining the gags would be a huge disservice to the experience, so I won't detail much more. The music is nicely presented, the movie is stylish (I love the way establishing shots make the citiy look like a game-board, that was a brilliant touch), the humor is creative and full of twists, and the cast is memorable as all hell. If you have the chance, check it out, you will be pleasantly surprised and full of joy, if you're like me burnt out on most main-stream humor.

Jesse Plemons is a treasure, his whole act with his ex-wife is some of the funniest shit I've seen in years.

Man, I've gotten behind in writing reviews. I'm writing this in my college library, that's how pressed I am for time. The next couple entries will just be short, quick rambles for the films I've seen in the past week. Death Wish, I'm puzzled at the lukewarm and left-leaning reactions I'm hearing from audiences and those at Rotten Tomatoes. Was it released at "at a bad time" and is it a conservative's wet-dream? I don't know, ask the critics who denounced the original film from 1974, quote, "It was attacked by many film critics due to its support of vigilantism and advocating unlimited punishment of criminals. The novel denounced vigilantism, whereas the film embraced the notion." If you aren't aware, somehow, Eli has a hard-on for grindhouse features and exploitation movies from the 70's. He's worked with Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez multiple times now, Grindhouse, and the trio all love this era and low-budget type of production. So, the love for that genre is translated in a fascinating and fun approach, whereat times, the film feels like a flashback to drive-in cheese, in a good way. At other points, however, it captures a sniff or essence of a Wes Craven, yes, I just said that. Death Wish feels like Wes Craven's Scream for a few elongated sequences, noticeably the critical break-in with Bruce Willis' family. It's very reminiscent of the opening from Scream, which is why I bring it up. It may not be as clever, but it has that 90's flavor, like this movie has been in a time capsule for the last two decades. That doesn't make it dated, but it has that intoxicating aroma, which is what I love about Death Wish. Eli goes full-on with his kills, and they're all justified, if you actually watch the movie. The shoot-outs are so grand and memorable, I jumped in my seat and lost my breath repeatedly. For those who have seen it, that scene where he walks up to the "ice-cream seller" and just shoots him without hesitation, come on, is that not one of the best kills since some of the westerns of the 60's? Bruce Willis is a serious badass, you will want to be him. It's a true return for him as an action star. Mind you, it's a bit gory, you will be squeamish at a time or two, but that's Eli's formula, note Hostel as one of his more famous movies. But as a fan myself of the exploitation era, and genuine pure action, there's not a lot left for me to say but, this is a criminally underrated and underexposed action flick. A great return for the genre with majestic and perfected action. Sounds like high praise? Might be, but anyone who's a fan of THE grindhouse needs to see this now.

Wow, this latest Jennifer Lawrence "movie" is a lifeless slog, complete with horrible, uninteresting leads, unrecognizable bland locations, improper direction, lack of an emotional connection, and feels like only an edgy teenager would consider "artsy" because it's slow and quiet. Who the hell made this?

looks up the director's filmography

Oh, that explains a lot.

I know I keep giving mainstream movies a hard time. We're living in an age where blockbusters, like Black Panther, are superficial and lazy committee projects used to sell products to the general public. But then on the other hand, you got this stuff like Red Sparrow that just turns off said masses from the more original and creative small projects. I know this isn't a small movie, but it's an original movie not tied to some cinematic universe. The issue is, this movie's a piece of shit. It's the dilemma Downsizing and It Comes At Night had with audiences: being lousy "art" movies that are miss-marketed to a mainstream demographic. Doing this shit is only driving people back to the "safe" movies made by Disney. When people are dropping over $10 on a ticket, your film better match up to that selling price. There's a reason Black Panther is winning the box office right now, because people would rather trust a certified movie like that, than take a risk with a shit movie like this. I guess my incoherent rambling just boils down to... stop making bad movies? I don't know, my mind is spinning right now. Black Panther is undeniably a more coherent and gratifying experience, so they got me there, but at the same time, it's barely above this. Quality control has definitely been abolished, I will say that. These studios view something like Red Sparrow as the answer to the pleading call from losers like me, for more original projects. So, they don't care what it is or how good, just that it's the answer. We're already on the road where the only profitable movies will be the spectacle Disney movies, full of action and product placement. They infect all the months around them, so none of the smaller movies stand any chance. Only the few meme movies that Reddit and the Oscars pick up stand a chance at making an impact. Why else does Chris Hemsworth keep choosing to play Thor instead of doing other movies? Because they don't make as much money, and most of them aren't good movies either. Maybe cinema has always been like this, a handful of movies each year are worthwhile and the rest just aren't.

Holy shit, this movie took the biggest quality 180-turn I've ever witnessed. About a half hour into Den of Thieves, I was ready to call it quits. Slap a 'Please stop' and a one star rating on this and walk out, but miraculously, the clusterfuck of a script climbed itself out of it's conventional and edgy teenager levels of writing. It was able to correct it's under-cooked meat and present a thrilling second and third act. I can even pin-point the minute it happened. It's when Gerard Butler is at his daughter's school, he's talking to her through the fence, but when he gets back to his car, he breaks down in tears. Seen the scenario a million times before, but from that scene on, the big heist the movie had been horribly building up to started to happen. Let me just say, the editing, deliberate lack of music, the tension, the quick camera cuts, acute attention to detail, the raw acting, is all, pardon me, really fucking good. Unlike the previous fifty minutes or so, none of the dialogue or acting felt hokey, the performances are intense, and it's mature use of weapon handling just added to the realism. It's just shocking to me, because I've seen movies like Marauders, where the entire film reeks of amateurish direction and horrible trope-y childish ideas, and the whole movie is like that. "Oh man, this thug cop who doesn't play by the rules likes to party, drink beer, smoke, and beat criminals up. He's so cool." Den of Thieves starts off in that territory, horrible, criminal levels of bad, but inverted dramatically and turned great. I want to know what happened behind-the-scenes and who wrote the first hour of the movie. Everything involving the heist and subsequent chase is great. Go see this, just show up a half hour late, you won't miss much.

fuck that bear scene and fuck that camera footage

This is the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. movie I've always wanted. The disturbing imagery, psychological exploration, atmosphere, tension, it's all out of this world. The over-grown, disturbing, but entrancing layout of the shimmer is the long-awaited Chernobyl and Fallout-esque landscape I've wanted to see explored on-screen for years; but yes, it goes way beyond that. Ignoring it's few-and-far-between narrative hiccups, Annihilation is the one of few films in the past decade to have my full-attention start to finish. Come on, we all do this. I wasn't bouncing around ideas for my script for my review while I was watching, I wasn't thinking of other things in my mind as scenes passed by. Absolutely not, I was all in for this one. The story isn't what I'd consider too-brainy for the box office, in fact a number of it's themes are blatantly spelled out through dialogue, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting as hell. It's just abstract, which is what may be turning off the common audience. Despite it's on the nose nature, possibly from Paramount's pressures to make the movie more accessible, it manages to delve more into it's greater questions about evolution of life itself; the whole hour and forty minute journey of this project is a jaw-dropping experience. As I humorously stated above, there are a few very disturbing and shocking scenes here, so steer clear if you're squeamish at all, I was getting Sinister flashbacks.

The thing I've hated about a lot of productions coming out, is a lot of them fully grasp their potential. What do I mean? Many works, The Dark Tower comes to my mind, for example, may introduce a compelling plot point, like the main character has a connection to this object, or, this side-character came from an abused family, I don't know, some casual beat of the story that's introduced. But a lot of times what happens, is a segment like that is brought up, only to further move the story along, and that beat is totally ignored afterwards. I keep thinking, why not make the movie longer and tap into these really exciting ideas? You've got the base, go all the way with what you can within the story's limits. Go all the way. A real-world example, Silent Hill: Revelation, the master-piece-of-shit sequel to one of my favorite movies of all time, had an added set of characters that were introduced mid-way into the run-time, and the woman in the pair basically said, "We took a wrong turn, we got lost in the fog." And all I kept thinking was, "Why aren't we seeing that? That sounds like a cool and creepy tangent."

But even beyond that, not just plot-points, central themes of a movie. What I was worried, with Annihilation, was the environment in the shimmer is so fascinating and absorbing, I began to worry at a point the movie wouldn't explore it. It wouldn't show off much of the environment and what it's effects have been on what stays in it. But thankfully, it does tap into that realm, so I am satisfied. I kept saying, "Come on, come on, you're so close, just keep going with this creepy sequence," until finally, "Yes! You did it. You went all DAE way with it. I am happy." If there's one thing I hate about movies more than any other quality, it's untapped potential. Having a cool set-up only to go nowhere. Thankfully, Annihilation goes a long way and satisfies. If you want to be creeped the hell out, go see it right now.

This is the first movie I've ever brought a notepad with me to the theater and actively wrote stuff down. That was interesting; I will say, it made the movie go by much faster because I was more involved. I think instead of writing a proper review, I'm just going to hilariously re-write what I crudely wrote on my pad of paper.

"I got more joy out of the Mary (and the witch's flower) preview before the movie. How many seconds have I wasted watching that M&M's fake movie trailer? The wedding in this is much shorter than the one in Twilight, thank God. This is great cinematography. Why is Anna surprised by Christian owning a jet? She flew in a drone and helicopter in the first movie. There's generic action stealth music in this hijacking scene. 'It's Boobs in Boobs-land' is an actual line in this movie. 'Don't pull, they'll bite' is an actual line in this movie. This is The Room levels of bad, getting into the sex scenes quick. Generic plot with generic Danny Elfman music. Christian Grey drove all the way down to Anna's work just because of her fucking e-mail. Why no text messaging? Sitting on a couch for a conversation, such great direction. There's no plot, there's little fantasy sequences with pop music. 'Oh look, a fancy car! Oh look, a fancy house!' Horrible Anna race driving scene, pointless SUV-following sequence, Christian Grey no-have security? Wouldn't the SUV-guy find them later? Grey is a billionaire, his presence is everywhere. Going to New York to escape anonymous driver? Why? Comes back, go to fancy house for little vacation, more pointless sex and bathing scene. Anna restrains the intruder with her play handcuffs, how funny. Christian's trip to New York added nothing to the plot. Sex scenes are not earned or built up, they just happen. Another random vacation montage with soundtrack music. I feel the characters are one-dimensional on purpose so you can insert yourself in them. Embarrassing scene Anna dropping ice cream on Grey's chest with more soundtrack music, totally ignores drama from last scene. The whole movie has fake pseudo-drama, but uses it as a vehicle to sell women's fantasy sequences as a product. Who fucking cares about Anna's friend trying out dresses or getting engaged? 'Uh-oh! Anna rolled her eyes, better punish her in another sex scene with more soundtrack.' Play sad soundtrack song over news of Anna pregnant, it's forced drama. I started ironically getting into it by the end, like, 'Yay, Christian wants to have the baby now!"

There's this really silly flashback montage at the very end of the movie, using clips from the last two movies, as if we went on a journey with them or some shit. I'll admit, I'm going to miss hating on this franchise, it was a fun short-lived ride, unless they dig it back up for a spin-off.

R.I.P. The Fifty Shades Of Grey series

There was such a huge missed opportunity to push a pre-established joke. In one bit, Dug is sneaking into the enemy's royal arena to get some soccer balls for their team's training. The girl, Goona, sees and asks what he's doing. Dug responds, "I need to get some balls." Goona just replies, "You're really brave... or stupid. Probably stupid." I was thinking after that, why didn't she say, "You already have some balls for sneaking in here."

This is literally Aardman's Space Jam. I'm not exaggerating, it's the same script practically. Take Space Jam, replace the "heroes being turned into theme park attractions" with "heroes being forced to work in a mine," and then replace the basketball with soccer. There you go, same thing. Problem is, it's not as good, or even memorable as Space Jam. The soundtrack and Michael Jordon's green-screened performance with the Looney Toons' characters made the film a cult classic, even earning it a 15th anniversary re-release. I applaud all of Early Man's cast and Aardman's stunning stop-motion work, but the story is not anything special. It's every h eroes' journey story ever told, and not done any differently. I don't remember any of the cave-men's names because none of them were really properly developed, and there's over ten of 'em. That's just the unfortunate nature of kid's movies that are an hour and a half long. That brings me back to my My Little Pony: The Movie, that, this was not made for me, but keeps the adults in mind so they're entertained. I'm a big fan of Nick Park's work, the Wallace and Gromit series is one of my favorite franchises of all time. So, if you are hesitant about seeing this movie, I'll just say, go see it under the following conditions: If you have kids, if you have MoviePass, and if you want to support the studio. If you don't fall under any of those, don't bother, I hate to say it. Judging strictly on it's technical merits, it's a very-average movie held up by it's stop-motion spectacle.

I'm not even going to be bother with a long review, this "big-budget" religious piece of confusing garbage doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately, it's not terrible enough to be funny, i-it gets close in a couple places, but falls into the just-trash mountain. Samson is the latest disaster by Pure Flix, after such smash hits like God's Not Dead 2. They decided to go big-budget for this one, which I guess means paying $50 for a shitty SD drone-camera that looks horrible every time it shows up, the left-over CG from Gods of Egypt, and actors plucked out of the middle of a porno. There were times I was expecting a sex scene to happen, just because the production design and script felt like something out of that. Samson's fake beard he gets half-way in is some of the worst make-up appliance I've ever seen, there's a reason there's a category for this at the Oscars. Billy Zane looks like he's doing this for the million dollar check I'm sure Pure Flix promised him, he's so fat and looks so out of place here. And they managed to drag Sokka from the live-action The Last Airbender on-set too. I walked out around the time he grabbed Billy Zane's crown from atop his head, I couldn't stop thinking about the "BALD!" scene from The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. There's this quick little part before the third act beings, Samson and his brother step out of a cave, and good lord, the green-screen they had to use for these lines of dialogue is so horrible, I started laughing out loud in the middle of this empty theater. I feel awful for the class of Church kids that will probably be forced to endure this.

The fight choreography is terrible, the script is abysmal, the characters are flat with no depth, the special effects are eye-piercing, and the stock music deserves a round of applause. You guys know the Youtuber, Sargon of Akkad? They play his theme song in the movie, which I assume now is a stock piece of music. I really hope the budget for this wasn't any higher than $20,000. Monsters was made for less than $500,000 and Hardcore Henry was made for less than 2 million. Pure Flix, please just cancel God's Not Dead 3 now, have mercy on our souls.

Clint Eastwood's
A Series Of Pointless Events

I was going to write more, but my dad summed it up pretty good with that title. One of the worst films I've seen a long time. This is Tommy Wiseau's The Room levels of bad, not exaggerating. Scenes that are so short with no purpose are all over this movie. Some scenes even mirror ones from The Room, like when they go into an ice cream shop and for four minutes, talk about random junk that have no effect on the story. There's an entire section of this movie where these jackasses just tour Rome and take selfies all over the place. Nothing matters, all the dialogue is horrible, the acting is some of the worst I have ever laid eyes on, there's baffling editing choices, inconsistencies in the editing, bland music, and POINTLESS every-day affairs.

This movie has inspired me to take a notebook with me to movies now, so I can write shit down as I watch. I'm just now remembering stuff. There's a little moment with one of the friends as a kid, he's in his room, and on the wall, is a poster for Letters of Iwo Jima, one of Clint Eastwood's movies. Reminded me of that bit in Transformers 2 with Sam in his dorm room, and there's a Bad Boys 2 poster on the wall. But beside the nitpicks, the movie fails at it's emotional structure. The real heroes suck as actors, so it's hard to take their monotone mumbling performances seriously, and a large portion of the movie just focuses on random seemingly unimportant pieces of their life. We get no look at who the terrorist is or where he comes from. I felt no threat or tension in the final scene because the terrorist just came off as an incompetent shooter, just baffling. Even in Pearl Harbor, Michael Bay chose to include scenes with the Japanese army to hype up their power-level and what they could do to an American fleet. Here, there is not a single scene with any explanation or story for the terrorist, reducing my engagement. I'm not intimidated by him, so why should I care?

Typically, I disagree with the complaint that these army movies are nothing more than propaganda commercials for recruitment, but good Christ, this movie is the dictionary definition on throwing subtlety out the window. Spencer, or whatever the hell his name is, wants to join the Air Force. Okay, cool. Does that part of the story have any effect on the train attack at the end? No? What's the point of it? There is none? It's just to promote the Air Forces and the Marines? There's really no point to it? Thanks for wasting my time. Story comes first, plot structure comes first, tension comes first, characters come above-all, and this terrorism-level disaster of a "feature film" did nothing for me at all. It's also just a shame this isn't bad enough in a funny way to be like The Room. It borders into the category so many times, but keeps slipping into the just-bad territory. How did this happen, Eastwood?

You know, I gave this a below-average score when I initially watched it, but after thinking about this movie's place in the current wave of animated movies, I've bumped it up to a luke-warm recommendation. What do I mean? With the rise in such classic animated films to come out like The Emoji Movie and The Boss Baby, I almost feel obligated to recommend this movie just on the basis that it didn't insult my intelligence, and is a fine movie for children (or adults who are young at heart). I give the director Jayson Thiesson credit for going all out with the material and attempting to make this a Disney-style musical. The animation notably harkens back to great kid's films like The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, the character Pinkie Pie expressing some pretty colorful and eccentric faces. The point is, the animation is note-worthy, yes, it's all digital, but the work put in deserves appreciation more than some of the shit CG-movies out now. The bar has been set that low. The music is decent, encompassing a live orchestra to fuel the rather catchy songs, the characters are unique and recognizable, and overall, wasn't a chore to sit through. Remember, this wasn't made for me, but I'm glad it respects the adult viewers who are there watching. It's one of the better kid's movies to come out, we need to be encouraging this stuff, so, if you are an adult reading this, it's a decent pick to watch... well, if your kids haven't already asked to see it.

I think I've figured out Guillermo Del Toro, or at least, what I love and hate about his films. They're gorgeous, stylish, sensual, passionate, and beautifully crafted, but ultimately fall short in the script department. This is a trend I've had with every single one of his movies, including Pan's Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, Pacific Rim, and now The Shape Of Water. In my opinion, this is his best work to date. It's the most emotional I've gotten watching one of his pieces. Sally Hawkins is what absolutely sells this picture, above the retro aesthetic and whimsical music. Her performance is what makes the story believable, not to say the other cast don't give it their all. This is one of the best performances, if not THE best performance to come out of last year. She is so believable, it took my breath away at some pivotal scenes, I'm not kidding. That's what I admire about Del Toro's movies above a lot of others, is the clear passion that's being put in behind the scene. Even for some of his lesser-good projects, I can't hate them.

What makes The Shape Of Water just fall a little flat to me, which others may not find a problem with at all, is some scenes feel too short and underdeveloped. I understand this is a fairy tale and the entire story is supposed to be strictly about Hawkins and her fall for the unnamed creature, but then, why are some characters, small side characters mind you, given in-depth back-stories and entire scenes, when the outcome has little to no effect from them? There's a Russian side-plot that has a major effect on the story, but we don't get to know really much about what their intentions are, outside of Michael Shannon's character giving them the creature. I'm not saying we need an intricate explanation or anything, but there are a couple scenes with the Russians that have little weight in the overall picture, making the thread feel loose. Then, the montage of Hawkins interacting with the creature in the lab also feels just a tad short. Believe me, it's a positive when I say I wanted to see more. There's one scene and a montage with the two of them connecting, and then before we know it, she has to get the creature out or the Russians will take him. This is also where the movie falls into James Cameron's Avatar-levels of emotional manipulation. Michael Shannon's character is a occasionally comically evil, to the point where my brain got disconnected from being engrossed in the love story, and I said, "...why is he doing this?" The movie seriously relies on the audience being one-hundred percent sucked into the relationship with Hawkins and the creature, for you to buy every single plot point. This works most of the time, but others it's a big stretching it. I understand, it's a fairy-tale, the movie even starts and ends with a narration, but I feel it needs to still be believable within the confines of that set-up, especially with the serious moments come up. There's this one part, where Hawkins starts singing, and it's this big moment, because this is the first time she's made a sound the whole movie, but then, the scene doesn't work for me, 'cause it's not her voice singing and the dance-number is too short and silly for me to take seriously. I can clearly pick-up what he was doing, but those few elements deflated the tension.

The film still works, despite all that. I give Del Toro all my respect and admiration, his love for this project is all over this movie. I just wish another, longer draft was considered when filming. I still highly recommend you go watch it, there's plenty to appreciate, even if it's muddled up in a weird and short-lived bubble of happiness.

I loathe this recurring trend I'm seeing with a load of movies being put out, not just in the horror community. Studios take this engaging and expansive concept that could be fleshed out into a thought provoking and timeless archive of our culture, this Winchester story being the perfect capsule of life and death. There's plenty of interesting shit that's lightly tapped into... but like a ton of other projects of recent, we take this potentially enriching thing and throw it into the mainstream bubble. I can see the executives going, "Yes, this tale of a woman building time capsule rooms of dead people, and where they died, is cool and all... but it needs more poltergeists, jumpscares, and marketability." We're taking potential arthouse movies and slapping a studio coat of paint onto it. It's really disgusting.

In this movie, there are so many interesting conversations that are briefly explored. This woman is being told by supernatural beings (who were all killed by weapons from the company she owns), to build rooms in her mansion that capture their spirits and replicate the location where they died. That is so neat, and it amounts to barely anything. No big message at the end, no character study of this woman and the visiting doctor, who's also troubled just as much as her... really nothing. There's a lot of short scenes that go nowhere and inconsistent rules within the house. It's a generic ghost movie with a promising concept being used as the gimmick to draw suckers in like me. The synopsis is far more interesting than how it's executed.

I give credit for teed-bits of the production design, but we just had Crimson Peak and other great period piece movies, so I don't know what's the point of giving this credit for that. And for heaven's lord, I'm an apologist of egregious jump-scares, but this movie is not helping my case. I can't count how many times I wanted to walk about because of the predictable and ineffective jumps. Let's lock this movie up behind thirteen nails and forget it.

Even the poster is shit, step up your game, Netflix.

It's like two terrible hack directors, who are actually actors, saw It Comes At Night and The Strangers, then said, "Hey, let's remake The Strangers without understanding anything that made that movie interesting. Then let's throw in the ending from It Comes At Night. People will love this!" Nothing is explored, nothing is explained, all set-up plot threads early-on are completely ignored in favor of an open ending, there are no interesting characters, the drama is extremely forced and immaturely edgy, the cinematography and editing is jarring and even laughable at quite a few points, but overall, it's a fucking bore. It's trying to be like so many other horror movies (other bad horror movies, mind you, I mentioned Paranormal Activity 3 once when watching), and even doesn't understand why those were successful. All I can tell you, is Netflix is not having a good track record with their original movies. Sure, some of you may argue about Gerald's Game, but ultimately, nothing has impressed me enough into thinking paying for a subscription to this service is worth it. The idea I enjoyed Insidious: The Last Key more from earlier this month is downright unacceptable. Avoid this house, trust me, you won't want to buy it.

This movie is a miracle it exists and I'm so glad it does. It's great to see traditional 2D animation breath this lovingly on the big screen, and at the screening I was at, with a pretty decent crowd. I hope this means a comeback for this style and promises more in the future. Sure, the story is a little derivative of countless other works, but what makes the film feel whole and worthwhile is Mary Smith. She is just too damn adorable and likable right from when you first see her. The whole story is told from her perspective, so there are some sub-plots that aren't expanded or explained, and this is the reason why. It didn't matter in the main course. The point is you're supposed to be just as confused and entranced as her, and it works. The film manages to make itself fun and unique despite it's predictable and similar tropes you see in other anime films. The cast is adorable, the story is heart-warming, and the animation is absolutely spectacular, like really, some of the best I've ever seen, even better than a couple of the Miyazaki movies. Studio Ponoc really wanted to start out strong, to prove they can continue making these movies, and God, I hope they do. If you can still find a screening in your area, go seek it out. It's seriously enjoyable for what it is.