Women deserve better films than this, don't give them this. We're not helping women, whatever the hell that means, by giving them the most basic, bare bones, modern, disgusting trite nonsense this is. There's an eyerolling "girl power" montage right before the main titles appear. For no reason. It's not a commercial on television, it's not an advertisement, it's just a random clip show of girls doing stuff. It's just gross. There's no point to it other than flaunt, "Aren't I doing the female sex a positive by saying how good it is to have a vagina?!" All of the male characters are very comically sexist, white, and troublesome, outside of Patrick Stewart of course. The action is tired, a lot of it borrowed from stuff like Now You See Me and Mission Impossible, except much more obnoxious, thanks to Banks needlessly making all of our three new leads as insufferable as possible. Stewart especially I've never hated this much, not even back in the Twilight days. None of her jokes make any sense, she babbles every line, and she does it every time she opens her mouth. I was able to endure fifty minutes or so before realizing I didn't even know any of their names or what was going on because the film's priorities lie in all the wrong places, establishing the organization and the villain rather than our leads. There's even a humorous piece during the first major car chase where one of them asks, "Who is that? Why is he shooting at us?" And I was like, "I'm asking the same thing!" The first line in the film is, "I think women can do anything." Is this really a debate we're still trying to have and the media trying to push on to the general American public? Women in the west are the most freed and supported than at any other point in human history. How fucking ironic that this film that wants to act as a female power move is funded in part by China, a place that has internment camps for Muslims; they show happy Muslims in the film in that opening montage. Hey Banks, why don't you use some of your money you had to make this movie and go help out those people instead of sucking more Hollywood dick to get to make the Invisible Woman film you're now directing? I guess virtue signalling is more important. I only get heated about this because how hypocritical the people who are making this film are being. Glad this shit bombed.
Might be the worst movie I've ever seen. Blumhouse's recent string of woke politics has now infected one of the most beloved classic Universal monsters, in an abhorrent display of boredom and disrespect to the original character, James Whale's 1933 masterpiece, and H.G. Wells' novel. This has even less to do with the Invisible Man than the Hollow Man does, the main antagonist (who is repeatedly told to the audience that he's a BAHD man from the mouth of our lead, never from his own), doesn't even turn invisible, it's a suit. So, he's not actually an invisible man, he's just created a cloaking suit. What a load of bullshit. I was talking to an audience member in the elevator on the way to my car, and he asked, why doesn't he sell the suit to science? Literally do anything else than building such an elaborate contraption, just to stalk his ex creepily. He doesn't even have any goals or personality, all he wants is to have a baby with Cecilia. What for? No idea, use him for science? Control over her life even more? It's never answered, the Why? for his plans, which drains the tension from the film, and conclusion. All the scares are played out, by the books. Oh my, she's walking slowly through the dark attic, I wonder what's going to happen next. Hey guys, everyone thinks she's going crazy, because Adrian is making it look like she's doing terrible things. Totally haven't seen that from Saturday morning cartoon skits. Thanks Leigh Whannell for lying that we hadn't seen the entire film from the trailer, playing damage control, because we totally did. It's a boring, tedious, predictable "thriller" that doesn't do anything unique that any other horror film from the like seventy years has done, If you've seen any movie in your life, you will get on the edge, of falling asleep. The sad thing is, because of the micro budget, this will still be a success and we have to deal with another classic monster getting a similar treatment. What joy.
EDIT: It has now been revealed the original film/script was radically different, longer, and explained many of my issues presented in this review. Studios, stop butchering your films to be more palatable to audiences.
This is what happens when the people who say, "Godzilla movies don't need to have good human stories," get their way. Easily one of the weakest Godzilla films ever made and the worst of this series. You're not a fan of this franchise if you say Godzilla movies don't need story. Every one so far has had an interesting enough script to justify it's monster bits, even the worst Showa or Heisei outings do more. It's not even really sure what it wants to be. Kong is propped up as the hero and clearly the protagonist of this story with Gojira making cameos as he hunts the organization Apex, but then Kong just loses anyways. What purpose is there for even setting up these monsters as sympathetic when all writing and soul is tossed out the minute they start brawling in Hong Kong. It actually forgets humans exist for a good four minutes as these two punching bags throttle around neon buildings. Craft is gone, it turns into The Avengers, with barely any collateral damage. "Oh but, you can follow the journey through the monsters! You don't need humans to have that nuance." Oh really? Godzilla doesn't like Kong being off his island, he puts him in his place, story done. Talk about deep. No moments to breath or for a character to properly react. This is hot off the heels of King of the Monsters, a film that continues the themes of Skull Island and Gareth Edward's Godzilla. Dougherty's outing before this deeply explored the themes of what it means to live with these monsters on Earth. How do you continue living when a relative of yours has been taken at the hands of one of them, do you shut yourself off or do you try to change the world? Emma became essentially so riddled with guilt she released the devil on Earth. How are these monsters really not so different from us, considering they were birthed out of our own arrogant, persistent lust for control over this world. It's too much to get in to, but that film dealt a great deal with overcoming grief, putting your faith in God, coexistence, and forgiveness. Mark's scene where he looks in to Godzilla's eyes and finally restores his faith is one of my favorite moments from this series. There is nothing in Godzilla vs. Kong that could be remotely construed as a plot. Charles Dance's role has been replaced for some reason, we have a wacky podcast conspiracy guy that serves as just a walking prop for the viewer to see world explanations, Kyle Chandler as Mark has been reduced to a cameo, and on that note: Why is he working at Monarch? He consistently hated Godzilla until he had a change of heart and faith by virtue of Serizawa and Mothra. Monarch didn't change to the good guy, they're still an organization on the cusp of lawsuit and government shutdown. Would GvK mind explaining that for us? How and when was Apex formed? How is it possible the creation of MechaGodzilla never leaked out? The world has been introduced to the titans. It's plainly established everyone is obsessed with these things, the internet and news won't shut up about them. The government doesn't know this is how Apex is using their power supply? In '14, it's at least explained their research on the MUTO was a government cover up for Monarch, that's why Joe in that film became a crackpot theorist who wouldn't let the nuclear incident go. But it's not 2013 anymore, the creatures are no longer a big secret. In King of the Monsters, the people unleashing Ghidorah to rival Godzilla are small band of eco-terrorists, they aren't a multi-billion dollar corporation. It makes no sense and done so much more poorly. It's rushed and done with quips. The most we ever get in terms of world building is a single shot of a map and newspapers, talking about the UN vetoing Godzilla or Apex facilities springing up across the map. We don't hear internal communication or even have a Senate scene like in this last film. The world has simultaneously been expanded greatly and shrunken to nothing, something Pacific Rim Uprising also horrifically accomplished. This series was built off the foundation of engaging with this science fiction, government monster universe through the lens of a sympathetic every-man that's been hurt by the monsters in some way, usually a familial death. Dr. Nathan Lind is given two words to establish he lost a brother in the Hollow Earth, but nothing ever comes of that information. Humans? There are storytelling devices used to get the audience from scene to scene. In the same span of runtime, from '14 to this, Bryan Cranston is grieving over his dying wife, to this has a fat guy making jokes about toasters. The most amount of interesting character development are thrown away in two very specific pieces of dialogue. The little native girl's family was killed by the storm surrounding skull island, which we saw in Kong's film, as was the whole island wiped out. I imagine there was a sequence that explored this and able to give a more tragic or perhaps resounding, uplifting message of sticking with family even when you've suffered so much loss. It would fit the overarching narrative that's stuck to this MonsterVerse so far, but it seems the cutting room floor did a number to this movie, as even stated by director Adam Wingard. It really does feel like the movie is playing damage control. Audiences didn't understand the previous films' stories, so they got fed up trying to understand them and just declared they don't want any characters in these movies. So we get walking action figures that say the words necessary to get us to our next fight. The best potential that existed in one of these dolls was Shun Oguri's character, Ren Serizawa, who is related to the Serizawa of previous films, the one who sacrificed himself to save Godzilla and prove humanity needed to accept him as their king. It was a very touching, holy piece in the last film, and Ren could work as an antagonistic son who resents his father for giving up his life to this monster he doesn't understand, and we could go through a similar arc Mark Russel did in the last film. None of this is realized, he is a dummy test pilot told to get in the goddamn chair, like it's an Evangelion reference. The most amount of enjoyment anyone could get out of this is the splodge of CGI dumped on to the screen with no visual grace or narrative substance. If that's all you want, then I pity what this means for blockbusters. Edwards crafted a fantastic character movie in 2013 and the series has been handed a blow here.
Not even discussing the quality of the film it's about, The Last Jedi, this is actually a poorly structured documentary. From it's first introductions, it's the wrap party followed up with clips of internet buzz about the film's director choice, and from there, starts showing off the cycles of the production. The big issue, in comparison to The Beginning film showing The Phantom Menaces's shoot, is there is hardly a straight timeline of events. You don't know how far away pre-production is from shoot, how far Rian was along writing the script when the sets were being built, when storyboards were being drawn and colored proper for practical and digital techniques, when effects demonstrations started, any conversations really between Rian and the producers, etc. The entire ordeal is glossed over with rapid pace, never stopping it's stock orchestral score to showcase the fancy B-roll they took for this. The style of which this is edited is less of a documentation of what happened, and instead a very fancy marketing show-reel. Pieces of conversations are let to breath, but sometimes the punch line or follow up to conversations are not finished, random choices of what to include and what not is jarring, i.e. the comment about Russian tweets which has nothing to do with the preceding and proceeding sequences, and nothing ever really makes sense. It's like a jumbled compilation of pieces of the production with graceful intent, but no foundation. Everything feels out of order and it doesn't make me feel like I'm actually there experiencing the labor intensive shoot with the crew. I feel like I'm being told what happened, rather than being shown it, which brings me to one of my major gripes, is the over extensive use of narration and interview footage/audio instead of raw B-roll conversation. There is some to be found, sure, but it feels less personal and intimate when a lot of what is being fed to me is not the initial or in the moment feelings of the people involved with the production, but heavily scripted and filtered interviews after the fact. There's a manufactured feeling which I can't shake, and that's my question. Why was this made? Genuinely, I want a real answer, why was this produced and released? Why wasn't one done for The Force Awakens or Rogue One, especially the latter, I would have loved to have heard from Gareth Edwards' mouth his process for making the movie, especially in regards to his documentaries for his film Monsters. What was the goal here? Well, I'm going to put my tinfoil hat on and conclude, the studio probably knew there was going to be backlash, or at the very least, misunderstandings about the creative choices taken with the script and presentation as a whole. It's almost like they anticipated the vitriolic response to the final picture, so my guess is at some point in pre-production they started making this. They probably loved what Rian was doing, "being risky," but that's the point of this, it's a piece to convince the viewer why Rian is a misunderstood, genius director, in a veil attempt to save face, to show the public that they actually "make creative decisions" and this film is some kind of work of art. That's why there's inclusion of a number of interview pieces from actors Mark Hamill and some of the crew facing their concerns about aspects of Rian's planning, but are painted in the light that, oh, he know what he's doing and it should be supported. I want to respect the work by the cast in the background that actually seemed to care, but there's something so disingenuous about everything here. In comparison, Rob Zombie's Halloween documentary that is over four and a half hours long uses almost no interviews, only when it helps the day of shoot, not much narration, just straight B-roll from the start of pre-production, to the very end, and it is one of the best documentaries I've ever watched. The important thing is it's a day by day look in to it, not a shimmering gloss. It's actually a journey, you become attached to the crew through it, nothing is left out. This, it feels like revisionist history.
I'm not even sure why I watched this. I was spending time with my folks and they decided on this, because the trailer admittedly looked inciting. But due to it's very unclear focus, any emotion the film tries to power, falls short because of lack of development between most of the leads. There's an entire subplot somewhere in the second act involving the workforce prison on this planet, you know "world building," but nothing it dredges through helps the characters become more dynamic. It's filler for the sake of entertainment. There's a fight in the mess hall, the captive monsters are let loose in an escape scene, but as I was watching, I was like, "Why am I watching this?" The entire focus of this story is this dad trying to save his daughter as the government is launching a deadly virus to wipe out this planet's population. Why am I watching unrelated characters do stuff that have little impact on the central character? It does this multiple times. Oh, the mains go buy weapons from this arm dealer. Let's give the arms dealer a five minute shoot-out scene that literally does nothing for the story. Some people say movies can be cut down to be shorter, and most I disagree with, but here, you literally could cut out over a half hour of material. The focus is so off, that when the emotional climax (and sacrifice) happens, I'm left more numb than bawling my eyes out, like I'm sure they wanted me to. There's a little something from every science fiction movie ever done here, just not as good. Oh well.
I'M BACK! OH YEAH, FUCK THIS MOVIE.
Venom is unfortunately everything I feared it would be. This year has been especially brutal to blockbusters as studios are rushing to neuter their projects in hopes of recouping losses from spending too much on their budgets, even though Logan, Deadpool, and IT have proven R rated films can be monster hits. We've seen Jason Statham trash talk The Meg just days before release, and while that may have made half a billion dollars, no one is talking about it and is already culturally irrelevant. These are the kinds of movies were are putting on the top box office charts; shit we don't even like. Now we have Tom Hardy depressingly revealing in interviews all his favorite bits to film were cut out the movie, something a good forty minutes. It shows, the editing and pacing of this movie is a haphazard mess. Scenes come and go so quickly, you're never sure what emotion to be feeling. Eddie breaks up with his fiancée and like, it jump cuts six months later so quickly and he's being goofy. Events transpire like fingers snapping, so a lot of it becomes a blur. One of the scientist ladies comes to Brock because she thinks evil baddy, Drake, is doing immoral research using the symbiotes. She seems kind of interesting, but her only purpose is to dispel hideously bland exposition, make a snappy one liner to a security guard, get caught, then given as a test subject to a symbiote. No one in this pile of cinematic universe dreck is given an ounce of character development outside of Eddie. Tom Hardy shines in the few moments he gets to chow down on some frozen tater tots, but they're cluttered in between headache inducing action scenes that can't show any violence. Upgrade just came out a couple months ago and that's a better Venom movie than this, beaming with a better paced story and much more paid off emotion (the first ten minutes had me near crying), plus, hardcore violence. I hate to play the IMDB audience normie reviewer, but I'm just going to say it, imagination is for pussies. If I'm dropping down $12+ on ticket, and it's not explicitly an arthouse film, you're damn right I'm going to be mad when violence is happening as part of the set piece and you don't show it on screen, especially if that's the selling point of a movie. This was so clearly shot to be R, I could just picture the blood splattering and grotesque imagery, but because of the editing, it's not there. The PG-13 curse has robbed us of Venom ripping people's faces to shreds. Oh sure, they imply it, hell, he does it a few times, but the cutting happens so quick, it's like he swallows them whole and quickly disposed of off screen. Venom resorts to just jumping all around the room and throwing people into walls. The disappointment I feel watching a freaking Venom film, a property that's come from a more serious comic book series and has the potential to withhold a three hour R rated epic shows how much the mark has gone left field. Sony would rather make the character as friendly as possible and able to blend right in to the Marvel Cinematic Universe if I buy out would happen. This is the movie industry today. I saw a review for this movie in a magazine that mistakenly categorized this as a film in the Infinity War. I don't blame them. I can't tell the difference. The stink you get from the formulaic quips, forgettable villains, and regurgitated hero origin story could fit right alongside Ant-Man. What a bollocks shame.
Okay, before I type anything, a little update on my writing. I feel like I try to correct myself too often, to make my reviews appear more professional than they really are, which can get in the way of my actual opinions on a movie, and getting reviews out quicker. I'm doing it right now as I type this, it's become a habit. My point is, from now on, I'll try to just spill out my thoughts without worrying too much about format. I'll keep them in mind, but what I want to share comes first. The Happytime Murders is your standard detective murder mystery, only with a gimmick of Muppets being very adult (swearing every other sentence). What makes this so funny is it's directed by Jim Henson's brother, who's responsible for The Muppet Christmas Carol and it's funded by the Jim Henson Company. This is basically a Muppets movie, just for adults. At first, it appeared as just one of those spoof parody movies made by the two hacks who did Disaster Movie, but no, this is the real deal. That said, the script needed work if it wanted to at all resonate with audiences and stand out as a classic you could revisit. This lacks the charm or wit of, say, an Edgar Wright film. It's amusing as hell to see a Muppet in a porn shop, watching a puppet jack off a cow, but it kind of just shows adult behavior without earning any of it or showing it in a clever way. Okay, so puppets are snorting cocaine and jizzing all over the place. It stops being funny after ten minutes. This movie would work better as just a short comedy sketch, like a twenty minute television pilot. Melissa McCarthy is surprisingly passable, I usually find her type of yelling and fish out of water humor annoying, but she restrains herself a little here. All I can say is, if you want to see Muppets be represented as an oppressed group in society (social commentary on minorities), dealing drugs, having sex, saying "fuck" every other sentence, you could find enjoyment in pirating this flick. I would like to see them make a sequel to this, actually. There's potential with this approach, just needs an original, crazy script, that's worthy.
Everyone's seen this movie already, so my thoughts really don't matter. I saw this out of obligation, not 'cause I was on the edge of my seat in roaring anticipation if my flavor of the month favorite character would live. All I can say, this is the best Marvel Studios movie, just on the basis it feels like a... movie. Yeah, with a story, a character to follow, and a real artistic production value behind it. Granted, it still falls short because of the studio mandating and tiresome quips, some of the jokes land, but most don't. The real protagonist of the film is actually Thanos. From the start, you follow him, like he was written with the hero's journey in mind, and he has a clear set up and pay off. He's the best written character in this entire goddamn universe because he is interesting; he has purpose, and I can say that since I've seen over 13 of these released products. As vengeful and heinous as his "overpopulation" removal solution may be, he actually gives solid reason for his actions and you almost end up feeling for him over any of the other disposable and rather annoying superheroes. Who the hell even is Bruce Banner anymore? What does he do? What is his job? Why does he not contribute anything more to this universe other than babble around and turn into the Hulk every once in a while? He's the most useless character in all of this. Thankfully, the Russos' actually attempt to demonstrate the consequences this time around, and use basic human emotions to tell the story. Because of Peter's sudden lack of judgment and losing control of his anger, Thanos gets the gauntlet back and dooms the entire universe. Gamora is given a decent backstory that comes into fruition, she's the adopted daughter (little one) of Thanos, and it works emotionally whenever the two are together. When certain characters are given proper screen time, this works. Other times, some are throw in purely for fan service and have no overall impact on the story. This movie should've just involved Gamora, Quill, Strange, Stark, and Parker, the rest of the cast is there to make this the Infinity War. I really hate Black Panther. This movie isn't bad. I still like Batman v Superman more, yeah, sue me. (I know we shouldn't compare the two, just throwing that out there)
Bill Skarsgård was in this movie and there was not one Pennywise reference. Writers, you have failed me.
Wow, I am really on the fence about this one. I don't have much to say about this, just, if you enjoyed the first, you'll be fawning all over this one. It's better. I'm not a fan of Tim Miller's original, mostly because of the constant meta humor and terrible, inconsequential story. It just didn't click with me. Making a jab at a popular movie that recently came out isn't clever writing. Deadpool 2 is exactly what you would expect of a sequel that thrives off a film built on fourth wall jokes and inappropriate gags. It's the reason you're in your seat. Thankfully, the jokes are actually more respectful this time around and not as often as expected. The Take-On Me piece is the best thing to come out of the movie; I chuckled. And Cable makes for a great character, actually much more so than the Wade Wilson. Josh Brolin nails every role he's in, which is why I wanted more of him. He's a tragic anti-hero, but unfortunately, his struggles aren't given much attention. He brushes all his reason for being there in the last scene (yes, I get what they were doing), but lacked in any satisfying wrap up for his arc. We instead have to focus on the lamest, eye-roll inducing fat kid, Russel, and his quandary at his abusive orphanage. It's so lame and not interesting, but we're forced to endure it, because it ties back to Deadpool's relationship with his wife. It's the center of the movie, and I couldn't give less of a fuck. They could've gotten a better actor, or something. Given more screen time to the horrible crimes the orphanage is committing, but just, I did not care. And at times, it seems the movie didn't either. There's a few subplots that briefly come up, only to be swept under the rug only minutes later. Whatever happened to the kids Negasonic Teenage Warhead were saving in the finale? What happened to the orphanage, or Russel for that matter, after the battle was over? It might be looking for things that aren't there, but the story felt incomplete. It's a cryptic and broken script that's copying Guardians Of The Galaxy and The Terminator, missing any kind of emotion. This should've been all about Cable, not Deadpool making dumb jokes as a guy gets cut up in a shredder. If you just want a silly action movie, with subpar work of John Wick director David Leitch, pounded together with wacky and gross humor, you will like it. It just didn't do much for me. Not going to remember it in a week.
Okay, if you've followed me for a while, you know I would never sell out my voice for money or clicks. I don't construe my feelings to be contrarian, and I've stated a number of times I don't enjoy hating. Oh sure, A Quiet Place looks fantastic in comparison to the relentless gluttony dispenser of superhero blockbusters, but what about it's own? John Krasinski creates a well crafted picture: it looks and sounds great, although it cheats by making everyday sounds artificially quieter. But, I can't help feel the short run time, and plot holes that are coins gushing out of a slot machine, more than you can carry, rot the spine of what otherwise is an intriguing concept. An apocalypse of monsters that seem unstoppable, attracted by simple noises? Having just seen the teaser, I was itching to see what could be done with a story like this. There were, almost literally, a couple seconds of what I could consider worthwhile achievements. The location and cinematography is excellent, using tricky lighting and blocking, but only serves as the means of telling a very cliched story. I don't understand it. How was it that I was bored through this? This has been done better in so many other monster movies, even from Platinum Dunes' own catalogue. What about Signs? None of the characters were interesting, which could be accounted by their lack of speaking, but even performance wise. I didn't create a connection to any of just the cast of six characters. Krasinski is the most intense, but we don't know anything about his past life. What was Emily Blunt's occupation before this? What did they like to do for fun? Have they always lived at this farm? What is the political and social ramifications of the catastrophe on the rest of the world? What did the kids do before the invasion? Where are the creatures even coming from? What sounds can the monsters pick up and why do they not attack at some of them? We don't know. I can appreciate it just focuses on the crucial events, like an old horror movie from the seventies (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre), but it's hard for me to care about a creature coming to attack when I don't care if someone is going to be killed, not even the newborn baby. If you want an example of killing a child done better, just go to the recent IT. It guts you watching Georgie get sucked below the streets, because it took the time and carefully put an emotional tie between the lead, Billy. It's tried here, but to a lesser extent. The writers have already announced a sequel, so maybe the budget will be much larger to expand the world of this universe, but money is no excuse. 10 Cloverfield Lane had nothing, and that boasted an incredible creepy narrative. I nearly laughed when Krasinski screamed and sacrificed himself, while the daughter just stared with her gaping mouth open. And, again, my issue's not the under utilization of it's possibilities, but just that I wasn't able to care about anything going on. Everyone just seemed so flat. And especially more of a problem, when the weakness is so obvious, and shown in a silly way, it makes the monsters all less terrifying. I believe, a spectacularly wasted use of a great idea, most likely just getting praise for not being a Marvel movie.
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.
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 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.
This is the definition of a crowd-pleaser horror movie, and it seems Blumhouse loves to churn those out. The biggest problem with this movie for me is it's obvious blandness and average quality. It's almost like the script is aware that it's using such a tired scenario, so they almost make fun of it at times. That doesn't mean it's a parody of itself, but it seems the cast knew what they were doing, and purposely wrote certain lines and shot scenes in some manners that are deliberately light in tone. I didn't expect to be this much comic-relief, but the audience I was with was laughing about the same amount of time as they were screaming. Which leads me into my argument, that this movie is only worth watching if you're seeing it with an enthusiastic crowd. Go opening weekend late at night when it's packed, it's hilarious. My theater was so loud, I was just enjoying myself at the reactions. But that's all this movie has going for it, besides a couple decent scenes and soundtrack. Don't watch it alone in your room, that's not what it's made for. Watch with friends or with a crowd or don't bother. Not the best way to start January, but this could've been way worse. Just painfully average.
Jason Zeldes directs a passion project about the lives of students who take a Shakespearean novel and adapt it to their own cultural understanding. Donté Clark introduces the movie by stating he didn’t think much of play Romeo & Juliet when he was at the age of 15; however, at his introduction of street violence and gun killings, by the age of 22, he understood how much the story related to his current lifestyle. With the talent group, RAW Talent, him and a group of other young people go about adapting the famous story, in the hopes it will send a message to the citizens of Richmond.
The movie is shot with an observational verité style, in that the director doesn’t involve himself with the content in the movie, outside parts with paragraphed text. All of the students tell their stories through interviews and on-site recordings, like raw unprepared videography, footage varying in quality. What I like about Romeo is Bleeding the most is it’s fast-cut, nicely capturing the uneasy and tension-filled environment the movie was shot in, and, how Ken Jaworowski from The New York Times puts it, “mimics the hip-hop and jazz-inflected rhythms of the student-poets.” What made it most effective for me, was it’s use of voice-overs from interviews over additional footage. There’s a number of great sequences that illustrate the gravity of a situation by using this technique, like the sequence when the Chevron plant blows and you hear voices play as footage of the incident happens. There was great editing here.
I will be honest, however, that I had no expectations for this at all and wasn’t interested in the topic the movie presented. Romeo & Juliet just happens to be my least favorite play written by William Shakespeare, and the idea of poor or unprivileged youth using poetry to fix their situation sounded like a pitch for another drama that everyone’s seen before. I just had no interest in seeing that story again. Luckily, Zeldes does manage to make a couple of intriguing sequences, mentioned previously. Another good one was when you find out Dante’s brother was shot and killed right as he got out of prison, and the scene plays out very seriously. There’s no music playing and only the sounds of typewriting can be heard as he’s documented that he was killed on the street. What the documentary needed was a little more of that. I appreciated that Zeldes wanted to get every side of the story, including the police, but the biggest struggle I had to overcome to get through the entire film was a lot of the undeveloped pieces in the middle, ultimately making large sections of the movie seem pointless. That made it difficult for me to get through the entire piece, already have the task of overcoming my disinterest in the bare concept.
What gave the finale a nice little bow was seeing the crowd enthusiastic about RAW Talent’s finished play and giving hope in the audience that the dire situation may be turned around. I could detail how I disagree politically with some of the arguments given, but the point of reviewing a movie like this is for it’s filmmaking. Romeo Is Bleeding does a decent job with it’s aesthetic raw quality and giving the viewer some great scenes, but overall, just feels like a mess at times. Watch it depending on how much you care about the topic.
Wrote this for Film Appreciation Class.
I went in expecting absolutely nothing and came out mildly enjoying it. I'll just get a few things out of the way before I reach my verdict. As a rompy heart-felt Pixar movie, it works at hitting all the notes. Take your family to see it, you'll all enjoy it. If you're of Mexican heritage, I'm sure you will absolutely love the movie, I think that much is clear. I don't think anyone's shocked when the box office for this is the highest in all Mexico history. I've had a long, personal, and almost battered-house-wife-type relationship with Disney. That corporation has done so much shit in the past decade that has infuriated me to the point of boycotting any of their media, including the popular theme parks. But now that I have a MoviePass, I have no excuse to not see every movie that comes out into theaters, so I figured I'd waste a few hours to form my own opinion. Ignoring the infuriating Frozen short that plays before-hand, Coco excels at tugging the heart strings, while simultaneously adding nothing unique or original to Pixar's line-up. I know, according to premiere critics, every story-line that is possible has been done already, but it strikes me that Pixar doesn't really try to hide their formula. I think the biggest sin Coco commits is how blatant it is when it uses these cliches. The young boy who wants more out of life, but his family refuses to let him cliche, the villain is revealed to the world via hidden camera cliche, the stranger protagonist meets turns out to be family-related cliche, and so on, and so on. Some may not mind these tropes, and I'm totally okay with it. Ignoring the tiresome and eye-rolling story patterns, Coco does manage to shine through and give us a couple of great little moments, muddled in the predictable story. The twist reveal and flashbacks towards the end of the second act are the most interesting, to say the least, and will give people flashbacks to Jessie's backstory from Toy Story 2. It's the one aspect of the movie that really makes it stick out, as well as the nicely-done final ten minutes. I won't spoil what these are, but they're good sequences. They're what raise my recommendation for Coco from below-average to it's worth seeing in theaters. It's not something I'd rush out to see, but there's no harm in going to see it.
I have a soft-spot (sort of) for Anna and Elsa, just because of how cute they are. But beyond their short-lived moments on screen, this special has almost nothing going for it. I assume Josh Grad is easy to have, because he's not doing anything big as opposed to Idina Menzel, and Olaf is a hot-selling toy, so he's always ready to do more Olaf shorts. One of the biggest things I actually hate about this short is it drives home that the special bond Anna and Elsa carried throughout their childhood was the fact they shared Olaf drawings and creations to each other. Just fantastic, the biggest thing I hate about the Frozen cinematic universe, is what connects Anna and Elsa's love. Whatever. At least this short will entertain the kids, I suppose. But I want to know who the fuck approved a 23 minute short before a feature-length movie. I'm guessing Disney had absolutely no faith in Coco, so they had to rope people into seeing it because Frozen is smacked right on the poster. Well, to be fair, they may have had faith in Coco, but didn't think people would willingly see it. There's even like a 30 second behind the scenes glimpse before the movie starts, that plays after the Frozen short, talking about the amount of work that went into the animation in Coco. They're really hoping people appreciate the work that went into it, really coaxing them. My advice? Reserve your seats for the theater online, then show up a half hour late. You'll be fine, trust me.
For what it is, it's a good history lesson and introduction to the history of music in movie's history, going as far back to 1895 to explain how much score had an impact on the visuals of film. I got a kick out of seeing more obscure composers, a lot of whom I love, actually have a chance to talk about what they do in their profession. Hearing Christopher Young and Steve Jablonsky get the recognition they deserve made me smile a little. But aside from the self-congratulatory stance the documentary takes, I didn't actually get a whole lot out of it. Now, that's just a problem for me and me alone, since I'm an avid fan of movie music already, I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. If you're just getting into movies and their accompanying soundtracks, this is a good documentary to get your start. But if you know even just a little bit of the ever-growing change of film music, this might not be for you. There was no clear question or hard topics being tackled like I expected, so part of me felt a little empty after watching. I got to see this at a screening where the director did a Q&A session afterwards, so that was nice to at least hear from him a little. I applaud his efforts, but it's just above-average to me. However, big props for the James Horner tribute in the end credits. That was nice.
DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. I REPEAT. DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER.
The trailer for this tension-filled drama is a complete misrepresentation of what the movie is actually like. It totally betrays the focus of the movie and what it's really about. This is probably why some audience members are turning this movie away, because they either don't understand it or had different expectations going in.
That being said, I don't even really consider this a horror movie. That's to be expected with low-budget Art-house productions, like The Witch, but even The Witch was filled with actual scares and real dread. I still go back to that movie to this day, because it left a very real impression on me, a very creepy one.
It Comes At Night boasts 3 things:
Great performances
A claustrophobic and sometimes very tension-filled environment
Good music
And that's about it. The reason I'm giving this movie 3/5 stars, an above average rating, is those qualities really sell this movie. Those 3 things made me feel I didn't waste my money and got my time worth's spending.
Let me make something clear first before I go any further. I LOVE slow-burn horror movies. I'm an advocate for them. When a movie can perfectly combine jump-scares and atmosphere, it makes for some of my favorite movies of all time.
The problems I have with It Comes At Night though are 2 very simple things, and this could just all be me and only problems for me:
It feels like there's supposed to be this feeling of dread throughout the movie, I felt like I was supposed to be really depressed and battered down at some of the events happening, but a lot of these tension-oriented and scary scenes didn't really go all-out. They didn't go balls-to-the-wall and kept a scene going for more than 5 minutes. What I mean is, whenever a situation came up that was bad, like the dog barking at the woods and then running off, it never went past the initial concept of the scene. The scene lasts for 5 minutes, the family goes back inside the house, maybe a TINY bit paranoid, and then a few scenes later, the dog shows back up sick from the unnamed disease, and has to be put down. It wasn't like in other movies, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Witch, where a pivotal scene like that would just build and build. The only scene that resembles something like that is in the finale, and even then, it's only about 10 minutes tops.
And the other thing was they NEVER explained what actually comes at night. I know, I know, this is a very silly response that sounds like it would come from a mainstream movie-goer who doesn't get these kinds of movies, but this aspect of the movie actually bothers me. They NEVER, EVER, ONCE, in the entire movie ever even hint at what possibly could be causing the disease or where's it coming from. No talking about where it started, how many people have it, just nothing at all. My problem is, I wouldn't mind that they don't fully explain the disease, but the fact the title of the movie and even scenes in the movie itself hint that they would eventually explains "what comes at night." Does the disease only show up at night? Do nightmares only show up at night? I guess these questions don't really matter, but it'd be nice if the movie distracted from those questions long enough to get me really invested in what was going on with the families.
Also, the ending is one of the biggest fuck you downer endings I've seen this year. It's almost as fucked up as the ending to The Wall. And YES, I understand the purpose of these twists. They tie into the central theme of the movie.
I just, I don't know. I want to give this movie a higher rating, but something about it is holding me back. There were tastes of genuine tension and there were great performances, but I don't know. I may have to think about it longer before revisiting this.
There's not too much I can say about this movie.
Chris Pratt has his usual funny moments, Dave Bautista has some very laugh-out-loud bits, and Rocket:tm:, played by Bradley Cooper, is given much more screentime than I thought he would get.
Kurt Russel, however, steals the fucking show. I love his roles in other movies to death, so it was great just to see him at all. He had much more weight to the story than I thought he would, and I didn't expect him to turn out as the villain, so that was a nice surprise.
However, the story itself did get pretty dang predictable at points. Characters go here, seemingly good guy turns out to be the villain, they fight him, the end. It's childish writing, but it works well enough. If Kurt Russel wasn't playing the father of Starlord:tm:, my rating of this movie would go down quite a bit.
What saves the movie though, besides Russel, is the scale of the story and the way the humor is implemented. Rocket:tm: steals battery components from a race of people at the beginning of the movie. This isn't just a one-off joke, this actually affects the course of the story. That little joke actually isn't just a side-gag, but actually pushes the narrative. I like that kind of shit.
The "Awesome Mix Vol. 2" has some great new tracks. It was fun hearing Mr. Blue Sky play as the crew fights the octopus monster in the opening credits. Now all the Youtube videos for that song will be flooded with, "Yo, , anyone?!" However, it is good newer movies are exposing this generation to all kinds of good music. I used to hate how new movies have soundtracks filled with just songs, but now I get it.
Going back to my point a paragraph ago, the scale of the story surprised me. There was no super giant evil bad guy that needed to be stopped (Not really), there was no big army to take down the villain, this wasn't just a retread of :tm:. It was a story of Starlord:tm: finding out who his father was, not liking was he was doing, and taking him down. That's about it. There's like 3 locations the whole movie and it's all centered on just one plot point. I appreciated that. Seeing the crew just stay in one place and talk was a refreshing take on a "superhero" movie.
Eh, I've definitely seen worse films, especially in the horror genre, which is fucking littered with trash. John Carpenter has the bar set for him so high because of what he's done in the past. The Thing, Halloween, and They Live were revolutionary genre masterpieces. So, I can understand how it would be hard to not look at Carpenter with high expectations, especially for a horror film from him, the madman himself.
It's definitely not anything great or anything, and it's not terrible. It's just painfully average, which is it's biggest problem. I like movies that are either entertaining as fuck and very good, cinematic masterpieces, or movies that are so bad, they're funny. There's nothing in the middle for me. If you're movie is average, it's a damn shame. I'd rather laugh at a bad movie than be bored. I want to either be impressed, or entertained, not checking my phone's clock, which happened quite a bit throughout the middle of this.
It feels like a made-for-TV movie made by no-name director, it's that bland. There are some okay performances scattered throughout, and I admit, the twist did get me a little bit, but it's nothing that would shock the hell out of me, like 'Sinister' or 'Drag Me To Hell' did. So, everyone the girl knew was just a made-up personality trait of hers. Big-whoop. I'd rather go watch 'Psycho', at least it offered something to enhance the genre it's in. 'The Ward' is a horror movie that wants to be other, better, and more successful horror movies that came out when John Carpenter wasn't doing horror movies. I could name so many things from this movie that it does, that I've seen other movies do much better.
I didn't realize who directed the movie until after I watched it, and when I found out, I was a little disappointed. I'm not going to say John Carpenter has lost his mind or anything, unlike Ridley Scott, but Carpenter, is old and he made a bland, generic movie. Nothing I'd get too upset over, just disappointed.
initial impressions incoming
Just like the characters in the film repeatedly like to chant in gleeful unison: Everything is not awesome. Coming from someone who had a deep admiration for the first film way back five years ago, because of it's inventive storytelling, quotable dialogue, and surprisingly lovable brick characters, I was given the impression the follow up would match or come close to capturing that lightning in a bottle the first had. However, about fifty minutes in, I realized this film straight up barred in to awful realms. This film is now proof that having an inventive style doesn't mean anything if not for the characters. Oh sure, the presentation here is top notch, as is expected from Phil Lord and Chris Miller's other work, I'm looking at you Spider-Verse, but unless you can enrich my experience with some amazing action to fill that void, or characters that I can at least follow through the dreck, there won't be anything to chew on. The Lego Movie 2 suffers from extreme sequelitis, much in the same vein as Incredibles 2, where in order for a sequel to justify it's existence, characters have to take steps back in their development, arcs have to be completely disregarded that way the sequel can essentially remake it's predecessor to keep that tone and flavor audiences liked about the previous installment. This has only worked a handful of times on some films I find guilty pleasures, but rarely does this tactic pay off. It comes off like you're watching a shittier version of something you liked. Trust me, they try to redo that ingenious human connection that the first's twist gave us, but it's almost overdone to an annoying extent and doesn't have any of the impact the first had, where the LEGO story was revealed as one big parallel to the boy's real life relationship with his father. Doing that again, offers nothing new. Now that little kid has to overcome his sibling rivalry with his sister, as the two bicker over who should have control over the lego's, and at a few moments, you feel like it'll work, but just comes across stale and almost like a television continuation. This doesn't have the grand, epic scope of the first, instead opting for something more personal, that oddly, doesn't explore the characters it's attempting to deconstruct. It acts as a self reflection of Emmett and his relationship with himself, and in turn, affects his interactions with his sister. Something much more ambitious could've been done here, but it feels like half a script is missing and a ton of filler is thrown in instead, like the cringe inducing musical numbers. I wouldn't recommend checking this out, which is a shame, and my expectations weren't high.
Updated to read more coherently
Well, that was a whole lot of nothing. If you're new and reading this, I think I should lay down my opinions on the Star Wars franchise. I have a lot of nostalgia for the original trilogy, I unironically enjoy The Phantom Menace, genuinely love Revenge of the Sith, and currently dislike the direction Disney is taking the series with Episode VII and VIII. Rogue One is the only new film put out that I liked, attributed primarily to Gareth Edwards' vision for that particular story. The saga has a special place in the back of my heart, but I'm not a blind fanboy. I recognize when something is poorly done, or in Solo's case, having no reason to exist. It's amazing a pop culture icon as big as this has sunken into bargain bin or Netflix territories of inconsequential narratives. Aside from a couple winks and clever callbacks to aforementioned, and soon to be coming up, events in future and past films, there's no consequences in the story and nothing seems to matter. We have a stagnant and poor actor playing alongside Emilia Clarke in a bad school play of Bonnie & Clyde while doing shit that doesn't make sense, other than that it needs to happen to satisfy callbacks in future installments. And what's a shame, is there was potential here. Maybe Gareth Edwards' hands being dug into this universe indirectly influenced the design in a way, but seeing Han fight as a soldier in the beginning was an interesting route to explore. I liked some of the dialogue, a bit of it feeling much more natural than what's been going on in other quip filled biggies. Ron Howard does a decent job, I'm a fan of his work, and his direction is unique and hands on. Unfortunately, his flavor doesn't seem to appear much. Once more, a committee and a yes man cobbled this up, Howard seemingly compromising his style for simple "wow" moments. But overall, it is competent. I wonder how much of this is Lord and Miller way back from what they shot. I wish there was more of Howard, his look just seemed scattered throughout. There's a moment at the end where Emilia is looking out the window at Han, and, it was a small gesture, but the cinematography combined with Powell's music made for a surprisingly memorable moment. It had a raw quality and felt like... a movie, specifically reminiscent of a 60's drama. But it was just another little nugget in a space of nothing. I liked the idea of showing the storm troopers as actually threatening, pushing civilians around, it felt right. The scene of Han and Kira getting separated between the bars works, there's attempt at character building. But around after the opening on Carillion, the arc kind of stagnates. Everything interesting happens in the first twenty minutes. They may have played all their cards out too early, but just, I don't know. Once they arrived on the ice planet for their first heist, I became so disinterested, and anything kind of established early wasn't considered for bringing back up later in the story (aside from the dice). Arcs weren't considered, things just... happened. Scenes just happened. The most satisfaction I found were just a few shining pieces of competent film making, like the spectacular storm chase with the Falcon, but they're thrown in service of a story with characters as wasted as Rose Tico. Woody Harrelson is wasted in this shit, his only purpose is to teach Han to never trust anyone, which doesn't even really seem to affect Han anyways. He buddies up with Chewbacca at the end regardless, so Harrelson's arc ends with no impact. His girlfriend dies during the first heist, and everyone forgets about it so quick. When droid asked for equal rights, I swear I was ready to walk out. Yes, Star Wars has always been political, but the stories themselves have underlying subtle political echoes. This was just a lazy call out to current year politics, and screamed lazy writing. As for the lack of any tension, it doesn't have anything to do with me knowing none of these characters will die, because this is a prequel, but this doesn't tell me anything I care to know. Oh yeah, I'm so worried the annoying female droid is going to die. It's more useless than the C3P0 and R2-D2 meeting in Episode I. So, Darth Maul is back miraculously. Cool. What does that add to this story? How does it develop the characters anything beyond fan service tripe? Why does it matter? Why does anything that go on in this movie matter? Stuff just happens. Think about it. Take away the brand for a second and think about the events that happen here. I don't know who's saying it, but Donald Glover is passable at best as Lando. So, he smiles a few times and says some snappy things at a card game. That's not a character. Han Solo is not developed anymore than he was in the originals. His character doesn't really evolve or learn any lessons. After the opening, he's reduced to standing around really awkwardly and repeat how much of a great pilot he is. They were just hitting the beats at the right moments and hoping it was entertaining enough so you wouldn't hate sitting through it. The villain is one of the most useless, throw away, gangster cartel dealing baddies you've ever seen. I've seriously already forgotten his name. You know, I go to movies to be enriched. To either be gleefully entertained through worthwhile action that carries meaning, learn valuable life lessons, and to think. I don't go to be numb for two hours as recognizable flashy colors simply blast on a big screen. And like I have to repeat, I don't preach this to be pretentious, these are my feelings. I'm done getting peer pressured into seeing all these big movies I have no interest in, a lot of which leave me feeling empty, rather than quenched. I'm done giving Star Wars a chance. My highest compliment to Howard is, I didn't hate this. It didn't destroy the legacy and reputation like The Last Jedi. I'm just disappointed. Rogue One was the lucky strike in the losing ball game.
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
Holy fucking shit, I was not expecting that godforsaken ending. What a way to fuck up someone's day.
The movie itself is just above average, offering some good tension-filled moments and impressive special effects, but nothing too groundbreaking. The characters aren't given any special personalities and their backstories are given all through blatant exposition. No creativity in the character building, for this one. The alien design I found to be quite cool, as it evolved over time and consumed smaller animals and eventually humans. Going into this, I don't know why, but I was surprised by the amount of gore and violence, which I dug. I didn't realize it was a rated R film and a full-on shock horror piece, and while there is tension here and there, it's in pieces, which is a problem. There's no hanging tension in the air through the whole movie. Why are there momentary breaks where the humans are content and calmly just sitting around while a fucking alien is on the loose in the ship. Now some might say they did this in the original Alien from Ridley Scott, but that was a much larger ship and the alien was human sized. This bat-type alien is on a very small NASA research ship and could be just a couple feet away. But whatever, besides the problems the movie has, I did have fun watching it and I did get tense during quite a few parts, so props for that.
But that damn ending, I love it. I called it just a minute or two before it happened. Glad the writers took the fucking risk and made a memorable ending that sticks with you. We need more endings like this.
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.
Man, these Trump 2020 campaign ads are getting pretty elaborate.
I don't know how to rate this right now. It feels like The Room 2.0. So hilariously partisan with it's image of what a right winger looks like, while basically telling a story how a racist, misogynistic guy goes off to shoot cuck porn because he's desperate for pussy. It's almost so bad and outlandish with it's acting and scripting that I was laughing a good portion through. If you don't take this seriously, which I don't know how you could, you can get some fun out of this. It's also a classic crux of, "Everything you said is wrong, but I'm not going to explain why," sort of thing. Not the obviously misogynistic parts and the bits of clear mental illness, but the politics. Ronnie as a character shows no growth and stays the same from the start, to the end, only changing is his incite to violence. The mindset lingers though, which begs the question how this is social commentary. The amount of people like this main character that exist are astronomically slim, you can't help but feel the writing suffers from an forced perspective. The music is at least decent. Lambert, you may be the next Tommy Wiseau.
(Anyone else find it interesting with some of these movies now, in order to coax people to give the movie some extra credit points, they show a brief behind the scenes clip about the movie right before the movie starts? And then they say thanks for coming out and supporting the movie? Disney's Coco did it and now this. Guess it's going to become a trend now, considering the sky-dropping ticket sales...)
I'm gutted. Like, genuinely disappointed. As someone who was looking forward to this spectacle, listening to the soundtrack on Spotify before the movie even came out, I can't believe this is what I'm having to write about this. I expected this to be in my top ten of the year. I was hoping for a grand and memorable epic that had wonderful stuff, full of lovable characters, magical musical sequences, and etc. But this is not what I was treated to, no sir. Through the first half of this depressing bore, I kept bouncing around my head with my future rating, asking like, "Is this above-average? Am I enjoying this? Yeah, I guess so. There's been some cool scenes and music so far." But as the movie just kept trudging along past some seriously unexciting and eye-rolling numbers, I very slowly started to lower my expectations and rating. It wasn't until the very end when I very audibly said, "Oh my god, that can't be the end," and then the black screen came. The credits started rolling, and I just stood up. My face was literally down and I just felt depressed. I was the only one in the theater, by the way. Walking to the car, I couldn't believe what I just saw.
I'd say there's less than 10 actual minutes of P.T Barnum doing fantastical things on a stage. The rest of the movie is drama between him, his family, some European singer whom he takes on tour which causes further drama with his ensemble of freaks, and then Zac Efron's absolutely pointless subplot trying to get with one of the performers. There's so much the movie tries to tackle, and yet doesn't develop any of it, and then forgets the main reason people are there in the theater in the first place: To see the big dance numbers with jukebox music. I understand, this movie is really just about Barnum's life (When it actually isn't) and not about the big musical numbers, but if you're going to sell your movie on being a Luhrmann-esque musical, at least try to deliver on some of that. And if you won't do that, at least make your movie interesting to watch. There's the whole thing with Barnum's daughters, wanting to give them a good life, then there's his greed and wanting to become better than what he was, then the tour with the singer, then there's fulfilling what his wife wanted in their initial marriage (She has no character development the whole fucking movie, by the way, she's wasted), then there's gathering the freakshow people, then there's meeting Zac Efron, then there's Zac's sub-plot, and just, god, there was so much tapped into, but unused fat. This is actually a case where I would've preferred a four-hour 60's style musical epic, just so we could flesh out all of these ultimately pointless scenes. Some are genuinely interested. I wish there was like a big confrontation with the protesters, there KIND of is, but not much.
There's this other part where a critic comes to Barnum about the show, and honestly, he was the most interesting and sound character the whole movie, not even joking. Barnum tries to write him off as a snobbish newspaper critic who hates fun, but later after Barnum's building is destroyed in a fire, the critic comes back to him a final time. His words are actually the focal-message to the entire film, the big message, "Even with your cheap and fake display, you had people up there, all shapes and sizes, yet treated as equals." This line didn't come from the propped-up "wise" Barnum, not his wife, not his children, not even one of the freaks... the freaking newspaper critic. There's a problem with your movie when your most interesting character is that guy. I could even forgive the gigantic sub-plot about the European singer if at least the editing and pacing was done better. I'd say roughly 1/3'd of the entire run-time is this scandal drama that Barnum gets into with this woman; it's so uninteresting. People say this movie is like a tribute to Luhrmann's musicals; oh fuck no, it absolutely isn't. If you pay attention to the creative choices in that Red Curtain Trilogy, the dialogue and camera movements are so wacky and crazy, even in some of the calmer moments. The only shots I remember from this are clearly the trailer shots from the first 10 minutes. All The Greatest Showman has are some decently-done musical numbers mixed in with some really bad and under-developed "character" scenes.
When I was listening to the song "This Is Me" before I saw the movie, I envisioned something much more grand and amazing than what I saw on-screen. I got this idea of like a big emotional performance on-stage by Keala Settle, during the circus tour or something. Or even what if this was to the protesters? Wouldn't that have been more emotionally engaging? Instead, this is just her walking into ball-room with all the rich people scoffing her. Sure, I get what they were doing, but it was not nearly as effective as it could've been, and there was no build-up to it. What if the song happened after a whole sub-plot of confrontations happened with the protesters? I don't know, just something better than the shit I saw. The opening sequence with Barnum as a kid is so rushed and over-looked, that the connections to that opening later on have no effect because it's so brushed over. There's a whole part with his wife that ties back to that opening, and it's longer than the opening itself, it's ridiculous. Let me ask you a question: Without looking up the IMDB or page here, can you name off any of the characters besides Barnum's family and Zac Efron? What's the bearded fat lady's name? Why is it that I'm not able to remember her outside her appearance and one song? Great job getting me attached to these freak-show displays. By the end of the movie, I'm still in the exact same place as when I entered, not moved or mentally changed.
@Jumpy, I'm jealous of the theater experience you had. Getting to laugh at the movie with a bunch of other people? Man, did I wish I enjoyed sitting through this, at least for the rights reasons. Just the fact I was actually bored by what I was watching is a testament to how much they fucked up. I'm really, seriously disappointed. Don't go into this movie expecting the circus. You're not going to get it. All you'll get is a boring fan-fiction of a much more interesting sounding movie. Maybe my imagination for The Greatest Showman was more than what they could deliver. Just unbelievable. I'm going to go watch Moulin Rouge! again, bye guys.
TL:DR Watch Alien, then Aliens, then play Alien: Isolation, then watch the assembly cut of Alien 3. You're done after that.
I've thought of a lot of different ways I could open this review, but I'm going to do something simple... and start with a checklist; a list of questions for a typical audience member.
Do you want a suspenseful slow-burn gripping horror movie? If you answered yes, you're not going to get it at all.
Do you want a memorable and unique action thriller with new and exciting ways to show suspenseful gripping warfare? If you answered yes, you're not going to get that either.
Do you want memorable and interesting characters that go through arcs, have interesting personalities, and you eventually become really attached to them? If you answered yes, you're looking in the wrong fucking place, boyo.
Do you want a philosophical interesting study of human nature that chronicles the creation of a deadly species; one study that makes you question the existence of mankind? If you answered yes, you'll get a very shallow and uninteresting concept like that doesn't go anywhere, but it's kind of there.
Do you want a shitty lackluster horror movie that relies on tons of jump-scares, no tension or suspense, absolutely retarded humans that don't act like real people, sprinkles of exposition and pseudo-intellectual dialogue about creation, absolutely atrocious looking CGI, and constant copycat recreations of stuff that happened in the original Alien? If you answered yes, THEN THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU!
Alien: Covenant is really an anomaly of a movie for me. I've never been so confused at the choices made by a director and a screenwriter, while I was watching the movie. I really want to know what was going through their heads. I want to ask them this one question: "What was the goal of this movie?"
As a horror movie, it fails on every front imaginable. You know that movie "The Cabin in the Woods"? The movie where the scientists release toxins into a typical horror movie cabin to cloud the visitors' judgement, and that explains why so many horror movie characters make really stupid decisions? Yeah, imagine that concept, but it was done for serious. The absolute baffling and obviously illogical choices some of these characters make, actually make me roll my head in utter disbelief at how stupid these colonists are. They don't wear helmets when going onto an alien planet, they don't follow any sort of protocol, they don't follow any code, they decide to poke everything they see, and generally act like incompetent children. The fact these people were given the task to colonize another world and be responsible for the lives of over 2,000 colonists is unbelievable. I don't buy it for a fucking second.
Continued from the last paragraph, there's this one scene about 1/3 into the movie, where one the passengers gets infected with this kind of bionic metal floating thing and instantly becomes sick. He's dragged back to the space shuttle that's landed on the planet and is put into the medical room. Girl 1 gets locked into the room with Infected 1. Girl 2, who was already on the space shuttle, locks them both in and refuses to open the door. Infected 1 starts to shake rapidly and something starts to pop out his back, blood flying everywhere. Girl 1, for some fucking reason, decides to hug Infected 1 like the dumb shit she is. The little xenomorph pops out Infected 1's back in a little blood sac, and proceeds to attack Girl 1. Meanwhile, Girl 2 is acting like frantic spaz and goes and grabs a shotgun. She opens back up the room and walks slowly to Girl 1, who's being ripped apart by the alien. She then slips on the pool of blood like a fucking idiot and accidentally fires the gun. She gets up and tries to scramble out of the room, and then gets her foot caught in door, crippling it, again, like a complete idiot. The alien chases her out of the room into the cargo bay of the shuttle, where she proceeds to just shoot wildly until she fires at a gas canister, blowing up the entire space shuttle, stranding all the other passengers on the planet.
Now, when it comes to logic in movies, I'm not harsh on it at all. I'm actually an advocate for suspending disbelief and just accepting that sometimes, people do dumb shit when they're scared. Yes it's true, people when they're clouded by emotions, will act incoherently or stupidly. I firmly believe that in movies and I know people will write characters like that to make them more believable But this... this scene, was so fucking infuriating to watch. Was it supposed to be silly? Was it supposed to be scary? What was the point of this scene? I was watching a really pathetic human acting like a complete moron acting crazy, until she decides to shoot a gas canister. The entire sequence was really just sad to watch, and not in a good scary way.
And even as an action sequence, it's not thrilling or intense either. I wasn't riveted or on the edge of my seat as the events before me unfolded. I knew exactly what was going to happen, with the xenomorph poping out Infected 1's back, but this raises me to a big point that I want to bring up, one of the fundamental biggest problems I had with the movie, besides the fact it's not scary:
The xenomorphs themselves are not scary at all. I'm actually amazed people are giving this movie a pass, rating it with like a 3/5 or higher. I just don't believe that in the slightest. When I think of Alien, I think of claustrophobic terrifying corridor encounters with a deadly and unknown hostile life-form that could kill you in an instant. This nail-biting and tension-filled wait for the thing to go away. Ridley Scott, with this movie, effectively ruins what makes the Alien scary. I have NO problem with Scott trying to explore the mythos of the alien universe, and even explain where the xenomorphs came from. I don't particularly like it, I think it ruins the mystery of the alien, but I can appreciate Scott trying to do something different. But the way the aliens are showcased in this movie, don't make them out to be the terrifying monsters that lurk in the shadow, waiting to strike and then pounce back into the darkness, just ready to sneak up on you. They're now just generic movie monsters now, not exhibiting any of the familiar traits or behaviors of xenomorphs from the original trilogy. Instead of hiding and lurking in the shadows like a deadly creature, these fuckers are running out in the open, just attack humans aimlessly. I felt like I was watching a Friday the 13th movie, but if Jason Vorhees was just skinned over with a alien suit. When I see a xenomorph just come up behind a naked couple in the shower, I don't think of alien, I think of Shylock cliche horror from other movies that are terrible, especially the Friday the 13th sequels. When I see a xenomorph attack a fucking security camera for no reason, other than to give the audience a little laugh, that doesn't feel like Alien. I'm not saying the movie has to be the same as the original, hell, far from it. I want them to do stuff that's different, but you have to understand the rules and behaviors of the world you're exploring first. It's like Ridley Scott forgot the movie he was trying to make.
Another two problems I have with the xenomorphs, are the visual effects and the animation. It's sad to me to think that human suits from over 40 years still look better than CGI from this year. I don't know who was in charge of creating the digital effects for this movie, I don't know if they were rushed or something, but effects for the aliens was fucking terrible. Not once was I convinced in the whole movie, that what I was looking at was a real alien that posed a threat to the humans. The glossy and horribly modeled xenomorph models looked like they were from a low budget experiment project, not a big budgeted blockbuster. But even with the awkward and awful looking models, I felt the animations were all wrong. Thank about what a xenomorph is: It's an alien that infects it's host and then takes the form of the host it infected. 100% verifiably based on what we've seen in the alien universe thus far, when a facehugger infects a human, the resulting xenomorph looks and moves like a human. It stands upright and walks like a human. When a facehugger infects an animal, let's say a dog, the resulting xenomorph movies on all-fours and acts like a dog. We saw this in both Alien and in Alien 3. But for some reason in Alien: Covenant, when the facehugger takes over the human captain, the resulting xenomorph moves more like an animal... running on all-fours. Which, if you think about it doesn't make any sense, based on what we've seen. Yes, Ridley Scott could just be rectonning Alien 3 because "most fans didn't like it," but this animation fundamentally undermines what the term "xenoMORPH" stands for. The embryo morphs into the lifeform it's taken over. It takes the physical traits from it's host. But besides that glaring error in the choice of animation, the actual digital movement of the xenomorph model looked really fake and stupid. The way it ran down corridors and up and down ladders was not convincing in the slightest.
And even when the horror doesn't work, the action doesn't work either. You'd think they'd be able to get one of these elements right, but nope. Because there's no tension in the air and xenomorphs are just running out in the open like deer or whatever, there's no reason for me to get invested in the close-encounters action that's happening. Sure, some people shoot some guns and there's a part at the end where newcomer-captain Daniels is dangling off a space shuttle, but none of the action feels new and fresh. In fact, most of it feels extremely anti-climactic. It feels kind of tact on, like Ridley Scott was making one movie and realized, "Oh yeah, I have to make this a little exciting for audience members. I'll just throw in an action scene here and there. That'll shut them up." None of it feels earned. It just feels like it happens for the sake of happening, and Scott doesn't try to do anything unique with the direction. I was thoroughly bored in every 2 action scenes. The xenomorph just follows the heroes out onto the second space shuttle that comes down, and chases them like a generic bad guy. What happened to the alien sneaking up and avoiding detection, luring the victims into a false sense of security?
The climax of this jumbled mess was literally a carbon copy of the ending from both Alien and Aliens. New-captain Daniels and Danny McBride's character lure the xenomorph into the cargo bay back on the main ship, and then blow the fucker out into space. Same shit again. Nothing original or done differently. I'm really getting sick of it.
Okay, now will all my grievances out of the way, all of my anger hopefully vented, there is one thing critics and audiences are trying to give this movie credit for, or even justifying their reason for the movie earning a fucking 3 stars or higher. Michael Fassbender. He's the center of the movie. He's the core of what this movie's about. The very first scene is his character David, from Prometheus, having a discussion with his creator. This gets them into a talk about what it's like to create, and where humanity will go. Is the role of humans to die off and make way for the next creation from father? Ridley Scott tries to use Fassbender as a tool to try to talk philosophically about life and death, and the horrors of creation. There's a back and forth sequence in the middle of the movie where David and Walter, another synthetic android that looks like David, have a conversation how David has followed in his fathers footsteps, and experimented to create his own life, effectively building the alien xenomorphs. Yes, the synthetic David actually created the xenomorphs, which, I'm okay with the writers doing something interesting like that, but... it doesn't go anywhere or try to answer real serious questions. It just brings up some empty blanket questions about creation and why it's horrific, but never does anything with it. In one scene with the original captain from the colonist crew, he gets taken over by a facehugger, and later, when the xenomorph chestbursts out of his stomach, sad piano and violin music plays, trying to poise some kind of greater question about the xenomorph. To me personally, it doesn't do anything other than just make the aliens not scary anymore. It actually makes me not scared of the xenomorphs anymore. Now they just seem like toys a man came up with, which is fine idea... if the man who created them was actually scary. Michael Fassbender does a decent job with the material he has, and he's a fine actor, but in no way is he intimidating, and I don't believe for a second that he created the xenomorphs. Also, this raises the question, what about the alien queen in the movie 'Aliens'? Where did she come from? The xenomorphs aren't a race like previously thought? Why isn't this explained? Oh, I have to wait until the NEXT sequel to learn that. Goddamn it.
When it tries to be smart, it doesn't work. When it tries to be scary, it doesn't work. When it tries to be action-packed, it doesn't work. When it tries to add depth to the characters, it doesn't work. I didn't like really anything this movie had to offer. I thought some of the music was decent and Michael Fassbender's performance was alright, but that's not enough to save a movie like this. When I think about Covenant, then I think about Alien, it just makes me sad. The original Alien was a groundbreaking masterpiece that worked because it was filled with tension. Ridley Scott is now just using the Alien franchise to try to act pretentious, calling Alien: Covenant a "thinking man's Alien movie." Oh, bite me, Ridley. Your movie isn't smart in any way. It's terribly paced, horribly focused, not scary, not interesting, and not worthy anyone's time.
This is the Attack of the Clones of the Alien franchise. Ridley Scott is now George Lucas, trying to claim ultimate ownership of the franchise. It's quite sad. Very disappointed in this disaster.
A great idea ultimately squandered by an extremely slow pace, uninteresting pieces of dialogue, and a godawful final ten minute narrated ending. Seriously, if you're going to watch this movie, the minute the cops find her on the ground in the forest and the screen cuts to black, shut the movie off right there. Everything that happens after that ruins the movie. It's a hack sequence. But the biggest set-back for me was the under-utilization of the concept. You have this great idea, a woman strapped to a bed at night, no one around, no one to help, and it's getting dark out. Think of all the absolutely terrifying things that could happen in that scenario. Instead, she just has these arguments with herself and her now deceased husband. Talk about throwing away a great set piece. Now, I'm not saying these parts are bad at all, in fact they're some of the best parts of the movie, but I expected much more from this, a full length feature. It feels like a short film that was stretched out to an hour and forty minutes, which was way too long. This could've easily just been a twenty five minute short film or something. The dialogue and editing needed a lot of work; lots of trimming should've been done. Ultimately, I think it's a cool idea, but stretched too thin to it's bare concept, and the ending ruins the movie. Also, why does every single fucking Stephen King story have to have a pedophile? I get that he's a talented writer in some regards, but goddamn King, you are very predictable. People hate unnecessary jump-scares in movies? Well, I hate unnecessary narration.
