cinemapersonified की समीक्षाएं

Rating - 5.9: Overall, while Amanda Seyfried delivers a standout performance and the musical numbers are well-executed, the problem with 'The Testament of Ann Lee' is that the concept just isn't interesting enough to make a movie about; there is a reason Ann Lee's Wikipedia page is like two pages long because there just isn't that much of a story to tell, and it shows on screen with how stretched out the plot is.

Direction - Decent to Pretty Good: The direction on a macro scale is good, as they build the world well and execute well-choreographed musical sequences that are woven well into the story; The direction on a micro scale is decent, as it emulates the time and the struggles of the character; The storytelling is the biggest issue for this movie because there just isn't that interesting a story to tell, as they try to stretch out the plot farther than it can go, to where the second half of the movie just feels completely void of anything meaningful going on; Even though there isn't much plot, the musical sequences are woven well into the movie to progress the story; They build tension poorly because they do a poor job of building stakes because this just isn't that interesting a main character or story to follow

Story - Bad: The crux of why this movie isn't that good is that the concept just isn't that interesting; there's a reason why Ann Lee's Wikipedia page is like two pages long and why the Shaker religion is basically extinct because there really isn't that much of a story to tell; the plot structure is interesting in the exposition as they build up Ann Lee's character and backstory, but the second half of this movie just feels pretty boring and stretched out because there really isn't anything going on, with the ending feeling anticlimactic despite how stressful they set it up; character writing is pretty good for Ann Lee as they paint her as this new reincarnation of Christ come back to save her followers, but the remaining characters in this movie are given no material to make you care about them as they all just mold into the same generic period drama character

Screenplay - Bad: The dialogue is very period drama and off for the time; The symbolism is hard to believe because the journey you go on for this character kind of makes this movie feel pointless because there is just no significance or impact of Ann Lee on religious or American history, that's why nobody knows about her or the Shakers; The foreshadowing is pretty bad as it just solidifies that there was no reason to make this movie because it builds up to such an anticlimactic ending

Acting - Pretty Good: Amanda Seyfried - Good to Very Good (Carries the movie well, as everything revolves around her; She accurately portrays a Mancunian who leads a group of religious hopefuls to the new world; She shows the hardship needed for someone being persecuted religiously; Shows off her experience carrying musicals, as they are well executed because of her; Has pretty good chemistry with the whole cast), Lewis Pullman - Decent to Pretty Good (Plays his role well and has pretty good chemistry with Amanda Seyfried, he's just given no material to work with), Thomasin McKenzie - Decent (The narrator for the movie, but that is basically all her speaking dialogue as she is basically a background character), Christopher Abbott - Pretty Good (Character shows the power struggle he faces when Seyfried begins to control and dictate the relationship after she gains influence; He has decent chemistry with Seyfried), Tim Blake Nelson - Decent (Maybe he has, like, two lines in this movie), Rest of the cast - Decent (Everyone in this movie just feels the same as there is no individuality in the supporting cast; The background in the musical numbers does help show how intricate and well executed they are; The cast really doesn't have that much chemistry in the dramatic moments because everyone just feels like they are there)

Score - Good: Helps make the movie feel musical and does incorporate the themes throughout the movie to help establish the tone and time period

Soundtrack - Pretty Good to Good: The musical numbers were well executed and did play an integral part in helping move the story forward, there just weren't any memorable songs from this movie The musical numbers were well executed and played an integral part in helping move the story forward, there just weren't any memorable songs from this movie

Cinematography - Good: Well shot and executed helps make the musical numbers feel well executed with its blocking and ability to capture what is on screen

Editing - Pretty Good: Fine for the most part, it tries to have some seamless cuts but fails to capture what it was trying to do

Sound - pretty Good: Helps with establishing how musical this movie is

Production Design - Good to Very Good: Helps with recreating the time period in both Manchester and colonial America

Makeup - Good: Helps show the characters aging and the effect time has had on them

Costumes - Very Good: Help with recreating the time period and what these characters would wear in Manchester and Colonial America

Pacing - Pacing is pretty good for the first half, but feels incredibly slow in the second half as they try to stretch out plot and storylines that are just not there or are interesting; The musical numbers do not slow this movie down as they are integral to helping tell the story

Climax - Climax is underwhelming because they do a bad job building up the stakes for Ann Lee and her mission; to the point where you don't really care what happens to them in the end

Tone - Tone is very 1700s England and America, as there are many shades you would see from a period drama during that time; the movie very much is a musical, but it is not so in your face about it because it is integral to the story

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival.

Rating - 7.6: Overall, a pretty good drama that uses its actors and script to bring to life the grief the main character feels being estranged from her father, but nothing really blew me away with "Sentimental Value" because I feel like I have seen this movie done better before.

Direction - Pretty Good to Good: The direction on a macroscale is pretty good, as it does set up this world well; The direction on a microscale is good, as it allows the actors to act and share their emotions, which is necessary considering the movie is really built on its interpersonal scenes; Storytelling is pretty standard, nothing special; Tension is built emotionally and well

Story - Pretty Good: The concept is interesting as it uses its homage to filmmaking and acting to build this world, but at its core, this movie is about an estranged father-daughter dynamic; tbh, I feel like I have seen this movie done better before; the plot structure is pretty standard; character writing is strong as it does create characters you can empathize with as you see how complex these characters are, especially the lead two

Screenplay - Good: The dialogue is pretty strong and mixes Norwegian and English well; The humor is faint but does help lighten the mood at times and make this movie feel human; The symbolism is strong, as it deals with the emotions and feelings you experience from an estranged father daughter dynamic and how both sides experience pain from it; The symbolism for this movie makes it feel more human; The foreshadowing is pretty good, which makes the ending make sense from an emotional standpoint

Acting - Good: Stellan Skarsgård - Good to Very Good (Uses his experience as an actor to guide this performance, as he is one half of this estranged father-daughter dynamic, creating good chemistry with the cast and especially Reinsve), Renate Reinsve - Good to Very Good (Shows how she carries this trauma and heartbreak from her estranged relationship with her father well, as she is the emotional compass for this movie; She has good chemistry with the whole cast, and especially Skarsgård), Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas - Pretty Good to Good (Plays her role well and has good chemistry with Reinsve, but is not given that much material that really showcases her), Elle Fanning - Good (Feels like a big American name to help sell this movie, and she does a good job playing her role as an outsider trying to insert herself in this troubled family dynamic), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (Everyone plays their role well as this movie is really about letting the actors act with the script they are given, no true bells and whistles; The chemistry in the cast is pretty strong)

Score - Pretty Good: helped with establishing the tone and tension of the movie

Cinematography - Good: Felt like it came from an experienced and established director; Really enjoyed the lighting and sunsets and sunrises they used because it helped with establishing the mood

Editing - Good: Felt like it came from an experienced and established director, but nothing special

Pacing - Pacing is a bit on the slower side as this movie is more of a slow burn; There are many scenes that I felt could have been cut, saving maybe 10-15 minutes

Climax - Climax helps resolve things from an emotional standpoint, but nothing really blew me away

Tone - Tone is very much a standard drama, helping bring to life these characters dealing with human emotions

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival; I feel like I've seen this movie done better before.

Rating - 8.2: Overall, the definition of what a comedy-drama should be as 'Is This Thing On?' is so raw and in-your-face with its cinematography as it amplifyies Will Arnett's performance, who uses stand-up comedy as a therapeutic outlet for his character's divorce; even though some of the storylines felt useless, this is a redemptive effort for Bradley Cooper, as he does a full 180 from Maestro by being more hands-off and letting the actors and the script play.

Direction - Good: The direction on a macroscale feels very raw and personal as it accurately portrays the hustle of the New York Comedy Scene through the lens of a raw and in your face camera; The direction on a microscale is good as the movie feels therapeutic with the protagonist venting about his struggles through comedy, basically live action Bojack Horseman; The interpersonal scenes between Arnet and Dern felt real as it accurately captured their dynamic; Though the group setting scenes were kind of unnecessary and brought the movie down; This movie feels like a complete 180 from Maestro as it is stripped down to let the actors and the script do most of the work; Storytelling feels so raw and real as you are so close to this protagonist and his struggles, literally from a camera perspective, as you see he uses this newfound love of comedy as a therapeutic outlet to get through his divorce; Tension is built as it uses your emotional investment in the protagonist to make you feel for him as he goes through his struggles, and cringe when he bombs on stage

Story - Good: The concept is very interesting, as it is about a father finding a newfound love of comedy as an outlet to get through his divorce, which is amazing considering this is based on a true story; the plot structure is good for the A and B plot, but the C plot just felt very unnecessary and clouded this movie's story; character writing is very good, as it paints this protagonist as a character we can empathize with, as he finds his new wind in comedy he uses as a therapeutic outlet to get through his divorce, though Laura Dern's character felt a little flat

Screenplay - Good to Very Good: The dialogue is profound and funny, as this movie is what a comedy drama should be; The humor is really good, as it interjects stand-up comedy throughout the movie to make it feel topical and as if you're in the comedy cellar watching the main character; The symbolism is strong, as the movie does touch on therapeutic outlets and the concept of going through a divorce and trying to coparent; The foreshadowing feels a little weak and stretched out, but this is what happened in real life, so I will allow it

Acting - Pretty Good to Good: Will Arnett - Very Good (Basically, plays a live-action Bojack; Really brings to life this character as you can empathize with his struggles as you are interested in seeing his standup career come to life as a therapeutic outlet for his divorce; Has good chemistry with Dern and pretty good chemistry with the cast), Laura Dern - Good (Plays her role well and has pretty good chemistry with Arnett to show one side of the dynamic of this divorce; Her solo scenes and storylines are not that amazing in comparison to Arnett's story, but she does show her own grieving process for this marriage coming to an end; With her Oscar win as a divorce attorney in 'Marriage Story', it seems like she is very familiar with the topic to play with it), Andra Day - Decent to Pretty Good (Plays her role well, but her material is not the best as her scenes are not really that well written and are not that interesting), Bradley Cooper - Pretty Bad (Sadly, the worst performance in this movie was his, as he was relegated to this slapstick physical comedy character that doesn't use any of his strengths; it's good he is barely in this movie because his scenes are honestly some of the worst in the movie), Rest of the cast - Decent to Pretty Good (Everyone in the cast plays their role well and helps bring to life the underbelly and hustle of the New York comedy scene; The chemistry in this cast is fine, but scenes are really better in the one-on-one interpersonal scenes; The jumpscare cameo also does a pretty good job given his background, you will be shocked when you see who it is)

Score - Good: Does a good job at establishing the theme and tone of the movie as it feels like an extension of the raw and fast-paced culture you would see in the New York comedy scene

Soundtrack - Pretty Good: Uses Under Pressure well to make this movie feel wholesome

Cinematography - Great: The best part of the movie was that it was so raw and in your face in order to help amplify the emotions the characters were going through, as if you are with them experiencing these events in real time, which is also helped considering everything is done in handi-cam

Editing - Very Good: Felt raw and seamless at the same time as it is very clear this movie was stitched by a professional; does an amazing job in conjunction with the cinematography to make you feel like you are right there with the characters with how in your face it is

Sound - Pretty Good to Good: makes New York and the comedy scene feel like a character in this movie

Production Design - Good: New York is a character in this movie, as shooting in real locations helps personify the hustle of the New York Comedy scene, especially in places like the Comedy Cellar

Pacing - Pacing is fast-paced in the comedy moments to show the hustle of the New York comedy scene, but a little slower and drier in the group setting scenes

Climax - Climax is executed well as it captures what happens in real life, and ties a bow on the story; Could have been better but this is what happened so I'll let it slide

Tone - Tone captured the raw grittiness of the New York comedy scene, as it is so up close and personal to get the feelings of this main character, who uses his material as a therapeutic outlet to get past his divorce; This movie is what a comedy drama should be; This movie feels like a live-action remake of Bojack Horseman

Final Notes - "Saw premiered at Austin Film Festival"

Rating - 8.3: Overall, a cute rom-com that explores the love triangle dynamic in a unique way by touching on themes of morality and the afterlife; this movie does a good job incorporating humor throughout, but is still pretty formulaic to the rom-Com template as the second half of the movie becomes pretty safe and predictable.

Direction - Good: The direction on a macroscale feels like an homage to 60s cinema, while also using the ridiculousness of the world to add to the humor; The direction on a microscale feels like 60s cinema, and it does a good job of bringing out the comedy and the relationships in the interpersonal scenes; Storytelling is pretty simple, often using comedy and love story tropes to fall back on to drive the story forward; Tension is built by using your interest in this love triangle to keep you invested in what happens next

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is a pretty unique idea for a love triangle as it explores this idea in the afterlife, touching on ideas of morality and love in a fun and cute way; The plot structure is pretty linear and formulaic; Character writing is pretty standard for a love triangle with characters being from the 50s and 60s

Screenplay - Good: The dialogue is funny as they do a good job trying to mix humor into the dialogue to make the movie funny and cute; The humor is a big part of the storytelling as it makes the movie fun and enjoyable, even though it tries to be a little too funny with there being a joke in almost every piece of dialogue; The symbolism is fun and cute as it touches on topics like love and morality, and how this plays into the afterlife; The foreshadowing is present and fine for the most part, even though it is a bit predictable towards the end

Acting - Pretty Good to Good: Miles Teller - Good (Has a lot of charisma and comedic timing; Has good chemistry with the cast, especially Olsen and Joy Randolph), Elizabeth Olsen - Good (Plays the lead well and has this 60s aura that really works for her character; has good chemistry with Teller and Turner to help bring to life this love triangle), Callum Turner - Pretty Good (Pretty good in his role and holds his own; He has pretty good chemistry with the cast, especially Olsen), John Early - Pretty Good (Plays his role well, and he has pretty good chemistry with the cast), Olga Merediz - Pretty Good (Has pretty good comedic timing and pretty good chemistry with the cast, especially Olsen), Da'Vine Joy Randolph - Good (Shows her Oscar-winning talent as she fills up the room with her personality and charm and has great chemistry with Teller), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (Everyone plays their role well in helping elevate the cast and playing to the comedy standards the movie sets)

Score - Good: Pretty standard, helps with setting the tone and creating an entertaining energy

Soundtrack - Pretty Good to Good: Pays homage to the 50s and 60s

Cinematography - Good: Standard for a Rom-Com; pays a part in helping set up jokes and making the movie funny

Editing - Good: Standard for a rom-com; pays a part in helping set up jokes and making the movie funny

Production Design - Very Good: Make this world feel unique, as the idea of a junction before finding your eternity plays a part in the messaging for the movie, and it plays a part in the humor because many of the jokes are laid into the production design itself

Costumes - Pretty Good

Pacing - Pacing is fine for the most part, but a bit slower in the second half

Climax - Climax is cute and enjoyable, but feels very formulaic with other rom-coms that involve a love triangle

Tone - Tone very much feels like a Rom-Com that pays homage to the 50s and 60s

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival.

Rating - 7.8: Overall, a beautiful look into the calmness of the Pacific Northwest as we see the life of a hermit seclude himself from a world that is moving past him as he grieves through trauma he has experienced; while I did feel like this movie is beautifully shot as it captures the serenity of the PNW wilderness, there really isn't that much interesting story or dialogue to go through as the movie is more about this hermit's relationship with his changing world.

Direction - Pretty Good: The direction on a macroscale feels beautiful as it captures the calm of the PNW; the direction on a microscale is pretty minimal as the movie is a character study of a hermit interacting with his surroundings, with the world changing around him; the storytelling is pretty minimal as it uses narration in conjunction with minimal dialogue to show how the protagonist interacts with a changing world

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is a character study of a hermit in the wilderness overcoming grief while experiencing the world change around him, showing the beauty in isolation and old ways; The plot structure is pretty linear and straightforward; Character writing is good as it shows how sheltered and rigid this main character is as he loses the people around him and how the world is changing faster than he can keep up, letting him interact with interesting characters to show how interesting his life was; While the characters are written well, I could not find myself relating to them that much, especially considering I just watched 'Hamnet' before

Screenplay - Pretty Good: The dialogue is pretty minimal as it uses narration to tell the story and allows the protagonist to silently interact with his environment, though it does have some well-written monologues; The humor is incorporated well as it helps make characters lively and enjoyable; The symbolism is kind of beautiful as it shows the beauty in seclusion and how this rigid hermit interacts with a world changing faster than he can keep up, making meaningful memories with those he meets upon his journey; The movie also does a decent job touching on grief, but 'Hamnet' just does a better and more profound way of addressing this; The foreshadowing is present as they do jump between the future and the present, but is not super strong

Acting - Pretty Good to Good: Joel Edgerton - Good (Embodies the character well, and does a lot of showing without telling to help paint the character as a hermit hiding from an ever-changing world), Felicity Jones - Pretty Good (Plays her role well, as she has good chemistry with Edgerton to show a husband and wife dynamic), Kerry Condon - Good (Isn't in the movie for that long, but makes the most out of her scenes through her empathy and chemistry with Edgerton), William H. Macy - Pretty Good to Good (Uses his experience playing similar characters to guide this performance; Very funny and has good chemistry with Edgerton), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (Very minimal cast, but everyone plays their role well, and there is good chemistry throughout)

Score - Pretty Good: Helps show the calm and beauty of the scenery; helps with setting the tone and time period

Cinematography - Very Good: Really beautiful as it captured the calm and beauty of the Pacific Northwest; Felt like an integral part of the storytelling as its chopped letterboxed felt like it was an extension of the rigid viewpoint of the protagonist; Had similar vibes to Nickel Boys, but was not first person POV, it kind of feels like second person POV because you feel like a character with the protagonist

Editing - Good: Polished and well-edited, helped amplify the beauty of the scenery

Sound - Good: Helps show the calmness and beauty in the PNW wilderness

Visual Effects - Pretty Bad: Felt a little forced as it was pretty obvious when they CGI'd things into the movie

Production Design - Very Good: The PNW feels like a character in this movie; with how beautiful it is shown as a major part of this movie is the protagonist's relationship with his surroundings; as he secludes himself from the world

Costumes - Good: Helps show the time period

Pacing - Pacing feels both slow and fast as it goes through plot points quickly with its narration, but there really isn't that much plot, so it can feel slow at moments

Climax - Climax is wholesome, but nothing special

Tone - Tone is definitely a period drama that feels like a beautiful look into the life of a hermit who secludes himself in the PNW wilderness as he tries to grieve over his loss

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival.

Rating - 8.0: Overall, a profound movie on loss and grief, Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal deliver powerful performances to show how a personal tragedy led to Shakespeare writing one of his most memorable works, culminating in a phenomenal and gut-wrenching climax; I wanted to love this movie more, but unfortunately, this movie is held back from being great by its poor plot structure and incredibly dry moments at times, as it genuinely feels like an entire 30-minute third act was cut from this movie.

Direction - Good: The direction on a macroscale is a little too artsy and dry, while they do a very good job showing how beautiful this Shakespearean world is, the cinematography and editing were a little too dry for me; The direction on a microscale is great, as you really can see the relationships between the characters, helping emphasize the grief and trauma they feel when the conflict arises; There are many moments in this direction that are truly beautiful and powerful to watch, like some of the monologues in the later half of the movie and the entire ending, but these moments feel washed out from the dry and boring moments that feel dragged on; Storytelling is a huge issue for this movie because it cannot tell the story properly because the plot structure is imbalanced; They build tension incredibly well in the second half because of how emotionally invested you are in this conflict and how these characters are dealing with it

Story - Pretty Bad: Even though the concept is a really interesting idea, that Shakespeare's son Hamnet's death inspired him to write Hamlet, this concept is poorly told because of its bad plot structure; The plot structure is the biggest issue for this movie because the first half of the movie is entirely exposition, and the conflict is introduced past the halfway point, leaving less than an hour to actually address the conflict of the story; It almost feels like an entire act has been cut from this movie, as there are maybe one or two scenes between the conflict introduction and the climax, leaving no room for the actual concept for this movie; The character writing is great, as they really explore the grief and trauma these characters experience with the loss of a loved one, and how they influence their lives moving forward

Screenplay - Very Good: The dialogue is very Shakespearean and incredibly profound; the symbolism is rich as it deals with the trauma and grief of losing a child, with the performances feeling heavy and incredibly authentic as you empathize with what they are going through; the foreshadowing is strong as the loss in the movie helps inspire an architect, Hamlet, though you kind of already know what this movie is about if you read the given synopsis

Acting - Very Good: Jessie Buckley - Great (A truly magnetic performance that captures both the strength and vulnerability of Agnes; She shows the complexity of a mother grieving the loss of her child while also trying to navigate her own identity, with her husband not being there for her time in need; has great chemistry with Paul Mescal), Paul Mescal - Great (A truly powerful performance that feels very authentic to Shakespeare as he shows how the grief of his son Hamnet leads him to create his most iconic work, Hamlet; has great chemistry with Jessie Buckley), Rest of the cast - Good (The supporting cast is strong, with each actor bringing depth to their roles and enhancing the overall emotional impact of the story, especially the children in the film who have to navigate this tragedy; everyone in this movie feels authentic to the Shakespearean time period)

Score - Very Good: The score is very beautiful and helps set the tone of the movie; the problem is it is used sparingly because Zhao uses a lot of silence throughout the movie to let the dialogue and performances set the tone itself; even though it does make the movie feel dry at times

Soundtrack - Very Good: Even though "On the Nature of Daylight" is used perfectly in this movie, Max Richter needs to let this song go

Cinematography - Decent: A real spectrum of shots exists, as there are many shots and sequences in this movie that are truly beautiful to watch, yet there are many shots that just feel unnecessarily artsy and dry

Editing - Pretty Bad: The biggest issue for this movie is because many of the stitches and transitions just feel too basic and dry

Sound - Pretty Good: Helps show the beauty in the scenes; The lack of sound in some scenes does help emphasize the emotions of the characters, but also makes the movie feel dry at times

Production Design - Great: Truly emulates this Shakespearean time period with its authentic sets and locations

Costumes - Great: Truly emulates this Shakespearean time period with its authentic wardrobes

Pacing - Pacing is a complete mess as the first half of this movie is incredibly slow because it feels like exposition, and the entire second half feels incredibly rushed because they basically have to tell the story in under an hour; This movie feels like a whole thirty-minute third act was cut as there is barely any rising action; If they wanted to keep this runtime, which they should not, they should have cut the exposition in half and transferred it to scenes after the conflict introduction to help balance the movie, but they should have honestly just increased the runtime because this movie just feels too short

Climax - Climax is phenomenal and gut-wrenching as it is executed perfectly as you empathize with Agnes and Will as they bring to life Hamnet through Hamlet, with the final sequence being incredibly emotional

Tone - Tone is very much a Shakespearean tragedy

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival; It is genuinely crazy when this movie decides when it wants to be fantastic and why it wants to be dry and boring.

Rating - 9.0: Overall, the movie is a unique blend of humor and social commentary that uses its goofy humor to help emphasize its profound themes about unemployment and the struggles of providing for a family in such a competitive world; Park Chan-wook's direction is both experienced and intentional as he tells this story through the lens of Lee Byung-hun's memorable performance.

Direction - Great: The direction on a macroscale is great, as it mixes both suspense and goofiness to create such an entertaining experience; The direction on a microscale is both profound and fun, as it explores the characters' emotions in such an exaggerated way to help emphasize the messages of the movie; Storytelling is both profound and goofy in such an exaggerated way that it helps emphasize the messages of the story, in such an entertaining way; He builds tension in such a funny way that makes you invested in what is going on, yet laughing at the same time

Story - Good to Very Good: The concept at its core is about the struggles a man will endure to find a job to provide for his family, in an exaggerated way of killing his unemployed competition to get the job; the plot structure is linear, but it feels a little imbalanced as it feels more weighted in the first half than the second half feels a little rushed; character writing is incredibly strong as they create this exaggerated character who, at his heart, does not want to be unemployed as he wants to provide for his family and not seem like a failure, having no other choice but to kill his competition to show as a symbol how competitive the job market is with work being automated and taken over by private capital

Screenplay - Great: The dialogue is strong, profound, and goofy, making the whole experience meaningful and entertaining; The humor is very goofy and fun; The symbolism is profound as it's exaggerated to put emphasis on its message; The movie touches on themes of unemployment being so bad for a man and his purpose that he is willing to kill his competition to get a job, showing how competitive the world is with private equity cutting jobs and automation shrinking the workforce; The foreshadowing is pretty strong, which is a given with how the story is structured

Acting - Good: Lee Byung-hun - Very Good (Really takes control of the story in his own hands as he shows the struggles of unemployment and doing whatever it takes to financially support his family, even if it is over-the-top and goofy; He has very good chemistry with the rest of the cast), Son Ye-jin - Good (Plays the wife compatriot well as she shows how supportive she is of her husband and how she tries to keep the family together despite the struggles they are facing; has good chemistry with Lee Byung-hun), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good to Good (Everyone plays their role well and has good chemistry with the rest of the cast; everyone feels authentic, and the exaggerations they put off help emphasize the messages of the movie in a goofy way)

Score - Pretty Good: helps with establishing the tone

Soundtrack - Pretty Good: Helps with establishing the tone

Cinematography - Good: The pans and zooms help with making the movie feel very goofy, while still emphasizing the emotions of the characters; it feels very experienced and intentional

Editing - Good: The editing helps emphasize the goofy tone of the movie while still keeping you invested in the story; feels very experienced and intentional

Pacing - Pacing is a bit of an issue for this movie because the first half feels a bit slow, while the second half feels a bit rushed to get through more of the story in such a shorter amount of time; runtime should have been the same, but there should have been a better balance between the two halves

Climax - Climax is executed well and feels like closure for the movie, even though the AI message does feel a bit tacked on

Tone - Tone is both a profound drama and a goofy comedy, as they use the latter to help emphasize the themes of the former

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival.

Rating - 6.2: Overall, this movie does not know what it wants to be, as it tries to be both a sports movie and a hard-hitting drama about trauma, but does not give enough time to be great at either; the first two acts and resolution are just a generic boxing movie, but the third act truly is a powerful drama about trauma and abuse, as Sydney Sweeney delivers a pretty powerful performance in this portion of the movie.

Direction - Decent: The direction on a macroscale is a major issue for the movie because it just feels generic, especially in the first hour and the final 15 minutes; The macroscale direction in the 3rd act is good, but the problem for this movie is that it does not know what it wants to be; The direction on a microscale is pretty generic, a little dull at times because there really isn't that much chemistry in the cast and a lot of the performances feel exaggerated or over-the-top; The storytelling is a major issue for this movie because for Act 1, 2, and the resolution, it is just a generic boxing movie that sprinkles in personal issues; I did enjoy the storytelling in Act 3 because it deals more with the personal issues of Christy, but ultimately in the end, this movie does not know what story it wants to tell (her career or her personal struggles) as it tries to do both when it can't; Tension is pretty predictable and bland for Act 1, 2, and the resolution, but it is very good in the third act because it uses our uncomfortable feelings with what is going on screen to make you feel very uneasy

Story - Pretty Bad: The concept is the life of Christy Martin, but the movie tries to touch on both her boxing career and her personal struggles when it should only really touch on the latter to be profound; The plot structure is a major issue for this movie because it is this generic boxing movie for Acts 1, 2, and the Resolution, but it is a different movie in the third Act; Because of its weird structure, the movie does not know what it wants to be; Character writing is pretty good to good for Christy because it does paint her as a flawed character who projects negativity because of the trauma she receives at home, but every other character is just a generic trope

Screenplay - Pretty Bad: The dialogue is so generic and bland; the humor is decent; the symbolism is profound in act three because of the DV issues they talk about, but it is generic for the most part; the foreshadowing is a massive issue for this movie because it's very obvious where this movie is heading with on the nose roots the movie places throughout the movie; I was shocked that the crowd didn't know things were going to happen because I read this movie like a book

Acting - Pretty Bad: Sydney Sweeney - Pretty Good (Definitely one of her better performances, as she transforms herself for the role; even though the accent work is a little rough at times, and it doesn't really seem like she is doing anything special, she delivers a pretty powerful performance in the third act), Ben Foster - Bad to Pretty Bad (Just such an over-the-top performance that feels like over-acting at times than realistic definitely feels menacing and his lack of chemistry with Sweeney helps, but this is just more how the character is written rather than his performance), Merritt Wever - Pretty Bad (Very subdued and quiet performance; is meant to show lack of emotion and empathy, yet still somehow doesn't feel believable when she does this), Katy O'Brian - Pretty Bad (Just a generic performance; nothing really stands out about it), Rest of the cast - Pretty Bad (There doesn't feel like there is any chemistry between any of the cast members; the background actors just feel generic)

Score - Decent: Standard helps with establishing tone and tension

Soundtrack - Pretty Bad: Generic boxing movie soundtrack;

Cinematography - Decent: Standard; nothing special; what you would expect from a boxing movie

Editing - Decent: Standard; nothing special; what you would expect from a boxing movie

Sound - Pretty Good: Crisp; what you want from a boxing movie

Visual Effects - Decent: helps show gore and injuries; does not age the people well

Makeup - Decent: Helps show gore and injuries; Does not age people well

Costumes - Pretty Good: Gives Christy iconic boxing outfits

Pacing - Pacing is slow in Act 1, 2, and the resolution because of how generic it is; pacing is just right in Act 3 because it helps with building the tension

Climax - Climax is the best part of the love, as it is executed very well, making you uneasy with what is going on; the ending is straight up a Dhar Mann narration

Tone - This movie doesn't know what it wants to be; it tries to be both a sports movie and a hard-hitting drama about trauma, but it tries to play both sides and doesn't do a good job being right for the whole movie

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Austin Film Festival.

Rating - 3.2: Overall, a complete misfire from Luca Guadagnino, as the lazy direction, bad acting, and incredibly on-the-nose messaging and writing make this movie a chore to sit through; for a movie that is supposed to have such profound commentary on an important topic, it has no idea what story it wants to tell as it tries to play both sides for a clearly one-sided argument.

Direction - Very Bad: The direction on a macroscale both does too much and too little at the same time, as there are so many moments where it unnecessarily has these weird pans and build ups, without ever saying anything; The direction on a microscale is very bad because there are so many moments in the interpersonal scenes where it feels like there is no director in the room, causing the actors to just ramble; The storytelling is very bad as it initially tried to present two sides of a situation, but it is very obvious which side is correct, so you aren't really invested in what is going on; There is just so much unnecessary plot and dragging moments that the movie as a whole feels like it is making no commentary, despite it being so on the nose with its messaging; Tension is incredibly forced, to where it is just had, as they exaggerate the score and sounds to where it becomes more annoying than intriguing

Story - Very Bad: The concept is topical and interesting, they just do such a poor job articulating it and give a terrible rationale for the conflict or why things are going on; the plot structure is just so bloated with unnecessary plot and misdirections that you feel like you are wasting your time, this movie could have been 30 minutes shorter, and it still would have been too bloated; character writing is terrible, as you cannot empathize with the older generation, and they are so on the nose with the messaging with the younger generation that it becomes annoying to watch

Screenplay - Very Bad: The dialogue is so bad because of how forced and unnatural it is, as it comes off as more pretentious than profound; the humor is not funny; the symbolism is so on the nose that it hurts its messaging rather than making a profound statement about a necessary topic to discuss; the foreshadowing is so bad because it is so obvious where this movie is heading in every scene that you become so bored by what is going on; I read this movie like a book, with every step they were going, that it makes the movie so predictable and boring

Acting - Bad: Julia Roberts - Decent (Feels like it is limited as there is a clear ceiling she hits in the dramatic moments; There is nothing inherently wrong with her performance, but it is just not that interesting), Ayo Edebiri - Bad (Feels miscast in the role as it doesn't play to her strengths, as she feels a little out of her element in the more emotional scenes, which are definitely necessary considering the topic of the movie), Andrew Garfield - Bad (Just so exaggerated and feels incredibly unnatural; For someone who has a 'usual' at an Indian restaurant, he eats Indian food like he's never seen food before in his life), Michael Stuhlbarg - Pretty Bad (They use this subtle, dramatic actor in a comedic relief way that just doesn't work; either play to his strengths or don't use him at all), Chloë Sevigny - Pretty Bad (Incredibly misused because she maybe has like two scenes where she actually has dialogue, and in those scenes she maybe speaks twice), Rest of the cast - Very Bad (Such bad background acting that feels completely unnatural and toneless; There is no chemistry in this cast whatsoever, which is a huge problem for a movie that is supposed to be about relationships and interpersonal scenes)

Score - Pretty Bad: The actual music was fine and had nice jazz and classical motifs you would hear in higher education; it is just so poorly mixed into the movie that it becomes incredibly distracting as it forcefully tries to build tension with how sudden and loud it is

Soundtrack - Pretty Bad: An extension of the score, with its same good and bad reasons

Cinematography - Decent: While it does have this interesting pan, it is really excessive with its panning and just feels like they left a camera in the room and forgot that they hit record

Editing - Bad: So many sharp and bad cuts make me think this movie was shot and edited over a weekend

Sound - Terrible: So many sharp and bad cuts make me think this movie was shot and edited over a weekend

Production Design - Decent to Pretty Good: Shot on a campus that helps give this movie its academic feel

Costumes - Decent: The real crime was wearing white after Labor Day

Pacing - Pacing is atrocious as the movie is just bloated with so much unnecessary plot and slice-of-life scenes that it drags down the entire movie; they could have cut 30 minutes out, and it would have still been slow

Climax - Climax tries to make a profound statement, but it is so obvious what will happen that you can predict it ahead of time, a sign of terrible foreshadowing

Tone - Tone tries to be this psychological thriller, but it does not know how; this movie feels like Tár at home, but so much worse

Final Notes - This movie genuinely felt like it was shot and edited over a weekend.

Rating - 4.5: Overall, if you treat this movie as a Nine Inch Nails visualizer for their new album, it is not so bad; but Tron: Ares just lacks any personality with its terrible writing, bad acting, and bad direction as this movie put all its chips into making a visually impressive movie; and that's the reason why it's failing at the box office and with audiences.

Direction - Bad: The direction on a macroscale is good, as this movie is very visually pleasing and immerses you into this cyberpunk world, even though many of these sequences feel way longer than they needed to be; The direction on a microscale is horrible because almost all of the acting is stiff, and the dialogue is just so bad that it is very obvious they put no effort into this half of the movie; The storytelling is terrible because the writing is just so bad, and the acting is so bland that there is nothing really to say, especially considering almost all the budget went into the visuals and action sequences; They build tension so poorly because so many scenes are just unnecessarily bloated that you just get bored and uninvested in what is going on

Story - Very Bad: The concept is just so useless and fake, it's all an allegory for being skeptical about AI and technology, but it is just so shallow and formulaic that it doesn't provide any meaningful commentary; the plot structure is incredibly bloated despite the story being very minimal; character writing is terrible as the AI developing feelings is so cliché, and none of the human characters have any personality to care for them

Screenplay - Terrible: The dialogue is atrocious and unnatural; the humor is terrible because they try way too hard to be funny with all these comedic relief characters and moments, but I laughed maybe 1.5 times; the symbolism is so cliche and forced as this movie is supposed to show the dangers of AI and tech, while also showing an AI developing feelings; the foreshadowing is obvious because this movie is incredibly predictable

Acting - Very Bad to Bad: Jared Leto - Decent (Considering he plays an AI with barely any emotion, they kind of wrote this part to play to Jared Leto's strengths), Greta Lee - Very Bad (It is just so toneless and bad that even the AI characters have more personality than her), Evan Peters - Terrible (Just too over-the-top that it's just obnoxious and annoying; Cannot connect with anyone; I feel like most of his performance is bad because he's just given terrible dialogue to work with), Jodie Turner-Smith - Pretty Bad (A little too robotic and stiff, but she plays an AI, so it is somewhat understandable), Hasan Minhaj - Bad (This forced comedic relief character is just not funny whatsoever), Arturo Castro - Bad (This dude literally plays the same character in every movie I have seen him in), Gillian Anderson - Decent (Plays the mother figure decently well;), Jeff Bridges - Decent to Pretty Good (Basically a fan service cameo), Rest of the cast - Very Bad (What you would expect from a big-budget movie with bad filmmaking and writing)

Score - Very Good to Great: The best thing about this movie is that Nine Inch Nails is the perfect fit to fill the void Daft Punk left; if you treat this movie as a Nine Inch Nails Visualizer for their new album, it is not so bad

Soundtrack - Very Good to Great: See score notes

Cinematography - Decent to Pretty Good: Standard big-budget cinematography, did enjoy some of the shots in the techno-cyberpunk world they created

Editing - Very Bad: There are just so many scenes that go on way longer than they need to be, making the movie feel bloated and dragging

Sound - Good: It should be good, considering how much money they put into this movie

Visual Effects - Very Good: Is a highlight of this movie because the movie is very visually impressive, showing how much money went into this movie; I was a fan of the 80s campy grid because it felt both nostalgic and unique

Production Design - Good to Very Good: Mostly a green screen, but they did create a techno-cyberpunk world that is visually appealing

Costumes - Good: Standard Tron outfits

Pacing - Pacing is incredibly slow because this movie just drags out way too many scenes and shows off its visuals for too long, which makes the movie feel bloated and boring

Climax - Climax is entertaining

Tone - Tone is definitely the sci-fi, cyberpunk action movie you would expect, but it is also just a bad studio movie in its dramatic moments, and even in its action sequences.

Rating - 6.2: Overall, Indy truly is the star of the show as he really is a good boy, and this movie is a unique concept in how it is told from his perspective without him even knowing; besides that, it is what you would expect from a DIY, low-budget horror movie that is only 70 minutes long.

Direction - Decent: The direction on a macroscale is what you would expect from a DIY, low-budget horror movie; The direction on a microscale is interesting because it uses the Kuleshov Effect to make Indy the star of the show, but besides that it is what you expect from a low-budget horror film with barely any actors; Storytelling is very minimal because there really isn't any story and there's barely any dialogue, so you have to use Indy as your lens into this world; It builds tension decently well as it uses your emotional attachment to Indy to make you care about what happens to him

Story - Bad: The concept is very minimal and what you would expect from a low-budget horror film, it is more about the idea that this movie is told from the perspective of a dog because nothing new or exciting happens; The plot structure is incredibly minimal because the story is pretty generic and the movie is only 70 minutes long; Character writing is very minimal, it is just more about what they were able to get out of Indy without him knowing what was going on

Screenplay - Decent: There is barely any dialogue considering this is a film told from a dog's perspective, but the dialogue they do have is what you would expect from a low-budget horror movie; The symbolism is kind of profound if you consider this film is told from the perspective of a dog and its relationship with its owner, but besides that, it is pretty basic; The foreshadowing is what you would expect from a low-budget horror movie that is only 70 minutes long

Acting - Good Indy - Great (He is a good boy), Rest of the cast - Pretty Bad (What you would expect from an incredibly low-budget horror movie with barely any actors, especially with the fact that the film is shot from the perspective of a dog, so you can't even see their faces)

Score - Decent: What you would expect from a low-budget horror movie

Soundtrack - TODO: TODO

Cinematography - Decent to pretty Good: What you would expect from a low-budget horror movie, though I did like how they used a lower angle to make this movie look like it is from the perspective of a dog, blurring the faces of humans that are out of the dog's line of sight

Editing - Decent: What you would expect from a low-budget horror movie

Sound - Decent: What you would expect from a low-budget horror movie

Visual Effects - Decent: What you would expect from a low-budget horror movie

Pacing - Pacing is pretty slow considering that there is no dialogue and barely any story, which is kind of weird considering this movie is only 70 minutes long

Climax - The climax kind of ruins what this movie was building up to because they changed things up from how the rest of the story was told

Tone - Tone is what you would expect from a low-budget horror movie.

Rating - 7.3: Overall, a movie that has many stunning individual pieces such as the stunning cinematography, experimental score, and very good performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that should be applauded on their own, but the story and writing fail to provide any glue to hold these pieces together as there really isn't much going on.

Direction - Pretty Good: The direction on a macroscale is stunning, as this is a very visual and beautiful movie; The direction on a microscale is very theater-esque, as it is just a two-man play, with Daniel Day-Lewis doing all the heavy hitting; The storytelling is a big problem, as there really isn't any story to tell, despite them trying to force one; The way they build tension is poor, because it gets kind of avant-garde and surrealist, as moments to emotionally invest yourself into what is going on; Even though it is good on a macro and microscale, they don't do a good job connecting the two, as they are very disjointed

Story - Decent: The concept is a little too simple, as it is just a familial drama, but it doesn't really have that much substance to make it interesting; the plot structure is pretty linear, just very shallow in substance, it ends how it should, but is not well, as it feels too abstract to get to that point; character writing is the best part of the writing because it paints Ray as an old man filled with so much trauma that he has to escape the world to find peace

Screenplay - Decent to Pretty Good: The dialogue is very play-esque, not amazing but filled with depth and trauma the characters experience; the symbolism is present as it deals with trauma and how it affects the protagonist as he secludes himself from the world to find peace

Acting - Good: Daniel Day-Lewis - Very Good (It's nice to see Day-Lewis still has it because he shows why he is one of the greatest actors of all time; Shows the trauma that Ray feels and how it made him the person he is, escaping the world to hide from the horrors he left behind; Has good chemistry with Bean, as this movie really feels like a two-act play about nothing, similar to Waiting for Godot), Sean Bean - Good (Holds his own in his scenes with Day-Lewis as he is meant to absorb the trauma dumping the protagonist gives him, and this works because of his good chemistry with him), Samantha Morton - Pretty Good (Shows some emotion, but isn't really given that much to work with, as it's really a movie about the main two), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (The movie is really about the main two actors, but their chemistry is pretty strong)

Score - Great: Really enjoyed it, as it felt like a punk experimental score that really fit the vibe and aesthetic of the movie

Cinematography - Great: Such a beautifully shot movie is visually stunning as it is filled with beautiful landscapes and scenery, and is a reason to watch this movie alone; a massive feat considering this is a low-budget directorial debut

Editing - Bad: Not well edited, as many of the scenes felt unnecessarily long, and it left these awkward pauses and silences that just made the movie feel slower than it actually is

Visual Effects - Decent: Felt too abstract and unnecessary at points; Is used well to help build the scenery

Production Design - Good: More about the landscapes, they filmed it as it was stunning scenery

Pacing - Pacing is incredibly slow because the movie has so many scenes that are just two-person conversations with unnecessary pauses; this movie could have been cut by 20 minutes to be a lot tighter

Climax - Climax really hurts this movie as it is too abstract and surreal to be taken seriously, and it kind of ruins what they built up to that point

Tone - Tone is very play-esque, as a majority of the movie is two-person conversations, though the macroscale scenes do make it feel like an avant-garde film.

Rating - 5.8: Overall, such a boring movie cannot be saved by its memorable performances from Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt as well as its great makeup because the story is so nonexistent; the dialogue is so bland; and the interpersonal scenes are all passive-aggressive arguments.

Direction - Pretty Bad: The direction on a macroscale has this documentary style, as if you are following Kerr in his private life; The direction on a microscale is genuinely boring, as most of this movie is just passive aggressive argumentation, even though Blunt and Johnson do have chemistry; The storytelling is the biggest issue for this movie because there is just no story to tell, so everything just comes off as boring, as you don't really care for what's going on since nothing is going on; It builds tension poorly because this movie is just so boring

Story - Bad to Pretty Bad: The concept is a letdown because it is a biopic on Mark Kerr, but it just comes off as a boring documentary since there is no story to follow; the plot structure is nonexistent; character writing is pretty good as you do understand these characters and their struggle, but it is not enough to really cover up for the story mistakes

Screenplay - Pretty Bad: The dialogue has no flavor as it is just very bland and boring; the symbolism is kind of forced and just surface-level; the foreshadowing is predictable

Acting - Good: Dwayne Johnson - Good to Very Good (Really transforms himself into this performance as he becomes this gentle giant that wants to love and respect others but cannot reciprocate that to himself; He has good chemistry with Blunt, even though their scenes are kind of boring; His physical transformation is something that also should be applauded as he gained 30 lbs of muscle for the role), Emily Blunt - Good to Very Good (Plays this multifaceted character that cares for Kerr, but is simultaneously self-destructive when he won't let her in, trying to enable his bad behavior so that she isn't alone in being the monster; Has good chemistry with Johnson, even though their scenes are kind of boring), Rest of the cast - Pretty Good (Considering this movie uses a lot of non-actors, Safdie does a good job bringing the most out of them, as no actor really turns in a bad performance in this movie, even though it does get a bit boring at times with the material)

Score - Bad: Really ruined the tone and the vibe of the movie as it was too spacey

Cinematography - Pretty Bad: The use of 16 mm made the movie feel like a documentary, but the motion in a lot of the scenes just felt nauseating and unnecessary; This has to be the most useless way to ever use IMAX cameras in a movie

Editing - Bad: The film is not edited well, as there are many shots that are just too long, and the overall editing just feels poorly cut, making this movie feel slower than it actually is

Sound - Decent

Visual Effects - Decent to Pretty Good: Practical effects, the MMA fights were entertaining, but they did not feel like anything special

Production Design - Pretty Good: Helps recreate the time period and the

Makeup - Great: Without a doubt, the best aspect of this movie is how they fully transform the Rock into Mark Kerr, making him almost unrecognizable

Pacing - Pacing is incredibly slow because this movie has no story to go through; They could have genuinely cut 30 minutes and it would have been the same movie

Climax - Climax pretty lackluster despite its action;

Tone - Tone feels like a slice-of-life documentary rather than an MMA biopic; it's trying really hard to be 'Rocky,' but with boring characters.

Rating - 6.1: Overall, it is very much your typical teen horror movie as it follows almost every trope to a tee, but it is still entertaining.

Direction - Decent: The direction is your generic horror teen movie drama, though it does build tension decently well considering the story is somewhat interesting

Story - Pretty Bad to Decent: The concept is somewhat interesting, but on a macro scale is pretty generic; the plot structure is your typical teen movie horror movie structure, but the epilogue was unnecessary; character writing is fine, I just didn't really care about these characters besides the lead because it's just templated characters

Screenplay - Pretty Bad: The dialogue is your typical teen horror movie dialogue; The humor is your typical teen horror movie dialogue; The symbolism is pretty shallow; The foreshadowing is somewhat present, but is also a bit predictable

Acting - Pretty Bad to Decent: Dafne Keen - Decent (Plays her role decently well, but there does not feel like too much depth or range), Sophie Nélisse - Decent (Plays her role decently well; has decent chemistry with Keen), Sky Yang - Pretty Bad (Typical teen movie performance by someone who is clearly not a teen; this dude is 26), Jhaleil Swaby - Pretty Bad (Typical teen movie performance by someone who is clearly not a teen, this dude is 26), Ali Skovbye - Pretty Bad (Typical white chick performance in a teen horror movie, I also can't tell whether she was mean or nice), Percy Hynes White - Pretty Bad to Decent (Plays the typical bad guy in a teen horror movie; isn't necessarily bad, but is just very forced), Michelle Fairley - Decent (Basically, a cameo), Nick Frost - Decent to Pretty Good (Dude, why are you in this movie; I kind of gasped and pointed to the screen when I saw him), Rest of the cast - Pretty Bad (What you expect from a teen horror movie going straight to streaming; this does not count any child actors, but this movie is basically mid-20-year-olds acting like they're in high school)

Score - Decent

Cinematography - Decent

Editing - Decent

Visual Effects - Pretty Bad: Felt a little tacky and of its budget

Pacing - Pacing is fine but a little bit on the slower side; it could have shaved five minutes to make it tighter

Climax - Climax is entertaining, but the epilogue was completely unnecessary and kind of ruined the movie

Tone - Tone is very much like your low-budget teen horror movie

Final Notes - Saw world premiere at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 7.7: Overall, a pretty good and polished supernatural horror movie that at its core is a profound familial drama; this movie is carried by its strong performances and interesting story that is told well through auteur-esque cinematography and horror techniques, even though it is a little predictable towards the end.

Direction - Good: The direction on a macroscale is pretty good because it creates this supernatural ambiance that helps add to the fear and horror of the movie, while simultaneously looking polished; The direction on a microscale is good because this is where the familial drama shines and the jealousy the protagonist has with this new wife coming into her life, and how this wife is a parasite in planting herself; The storytelling is pretty good because it uses an interesting story with a horror concept to make you invested in what happens, as it slowly unravels the conflict and its purpose; They build tension very well because this helps build up the supernatural aspect of this movie

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is interesting as on the surface the movie is a supernatural movie, but at its core it is a movie about Arab families and the jealousy women can feel when a second wife is brought into the family; the plot structure is pretty standard for a supernatural movie; character writing is good as it shows the jealousy the protagonist feels in this situation and creates a sense of mystery with the second wife

Screenplay - Decent to Pretty Good: The dialogue is standard, nothing special; the symbolism is pretty good, as it touches on jealousy and Arab familial dynamics; the foreshadowing is what you expect because you kind of see where this movie is going based on its genre and what is introduced in the beginning

Acting - Pretty Good: Bdoor Mohammad - Pretty Good to Good (Really embodies her character well and shows the paranoia and jealousy that her character is going through; Has pretty good chemistry with her co-stars), Sarah Taibah - Pretty Good to Good (Really plays this cunning and ominous second wife character well as her character really has a dark aura about her, despite trying to be so friendly; Has pretty good chemistry with the cast), Iman Tarik - Pretty Good (Plays her role well, and she has pretty good chemistry with the cast), Jasem Alkharraz - Decent (Not really in the movie that much, but he is really nothing special when he is in it; He has decent chemistry with the rest of the cast), Rest of the cast - Decent (The movie is really about the main three, but everyone plays their roles well)

Score - Decent: Helps with building tension and an ominous tone you would expect from a supernatural horror movie;

Cinematography - Good: Very well shot for an Indie movie, as there are many camera angles and techniques that make this movie feel auteur driven; uses camera angles and rule of thirds well for the supernatural moments to build anticipation and fear

Editing - Pretty Good to Good: Well edited and feels auteur driven

Sound - Pretty Good to Good: Use sound well to build anticipation and help in the supernatural moments, even though it can rely a little too much on jump scares

Visual Effects - Decent: Decent, but nothing special as it does look a little low-budget at times

Pacing - Pacing is just right, as it does not feel too fast or slow

Climax - Climax is a typical supernatural horror ending, nothing special; ending was a little predictable

Tone - Tone on the surface is a supernatural horror movie, but at its core, the tone is a familial drama

Final Notes - Saw it at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 4.8: Overall, a messy movie that has its positive moments, like Sam Rockwell and Juno Temple's performances, but is ultimately so on-the-nose with its anti-technology and anti-AI message that it feels so out of touch and boomerish; unfortunately, Gore Verbinski isn't getting out of director's jail with this one.

Direction - Pretty Bad: The direction on a macroscale is a little chaotic and messy, with its messaging being a little too boomerish; The direction on a microscale is pretty good despite how chaotic it is, as it makes the movie feel more like a comedy; The storytelling is really all over the place, as it tries so hard to make commentary on technology and AI, but it is just very out of touch that it feels very boomerish; The storytelling also collapses towards the end with how it ends

Story - Bad: The concept is honestly not good because it's supposed to be this Groundhog Day type movie that is commentary on technology and AI, but it is not good at either; that it just comes off as out-of-touch and boomerish; The conflict is also just not that interesting; The plot structure is a mess because it has these vignettes throughout the movie to show characters' backstories, but only the Juno Temple one is interesting; Also, with how this movie ends, you feel like you wasted your entire time watching this movie; Character writing is pretty good for Rockwell, Temple, and Lu Richardson's characters because it does paint them with interesting backstories, but the rest of the characters are just bad

Screenplay - Bad: The dialogue is honestly so out of touch and boomerish that it just feels preachy and bad; The humor is not that great for the most part, but the black comedy moments in the Temple vignette are pretty funny; The symbolism is so on the nose that it just feels out of touch and boomerish; The foreshadowing is not that great and feels negated with how this movie ends

Acting - Pretty Good: Sam Rockwell - Pretty Good to Good (Not his best performance, as it's just a little too wacky and all over the place, but he is such an experienced actor that he makes it work; he has decent chemistry with the rest of the cast), Haley Lu Richardson - Pretty Good to Good (Plays a role that is really suited to her strengths as it's a character we have seen her play before; Has pretty good deadpan comedic timing and emotional depth; Has decent chemistry with Rockwell), Michael Peña - Decent (Kind of really just there; doesn't have much to work with), Zazie Beetz - Decent (Kind of really just there; doesn't have much to work with), Juno Temple - Good to Very Good (The best performance in the movie is as she gives a lot of emotional depth as she is processing her grief; It works really well with Rockwell and the rest of the cast), Rest of the cast - Decent (Everyone plays their role as the performances were decent across the board)

Score - Decent

Cinematography - Decent: Feels kinda low-budget, which is indicative that this movie probably did not have many resources

Sound - Decent: Feels kinda low-budget, which is indicative of this movie probably not having that much resources

Visual Effects - Bad: Feels kinda tacky and low-budget, also, for a movie that does not use AI, a lot of the visuals look AI generated; The greenscreen parts looked really off

Production Design - Decent: Feels low budget, but helps give the movie a makeshift future feel at moments

Makeup - Decent: Feels low budget, but helps give the movie a makeshift future feel at moments

Costumes - Decent: Rockwell's costume looked a little tacky, but it did personify him and the futuristic chaos of the movie

Pacing - Pacing is on the slower side with how this movie's plot is structured, and it felt like a slog because of how much I didn't enjoy it

Climax - Climax is fine, but it feels incredibly pointless with how this movie ends

Tone - Tone is a messy black comedy, and the movie feels out of touch with its boomer messaging

Final Notes - Saw world premiere secret screening at Fantastic Fest; I met Gore Verbinski after the screening, and he was very nice.

Rating - 6.4: Overall, a decent apocalypse movie that uses the emotions of the situation to drive the minimal plot, shot on a shoestring budget.

Direction - Decent: The direction on a macroscale does the most it can to make the world feel like it is in an apocalypse with such a small budget; The direction on a microscale is decent and shows the emotions these characters would go through if they had three days left to live; Storytelling uses the emotions of the situation to really tell the story because there really is not that much plot; It builds tension pretty well as they use the emotions and fear of the situation to create a hectic environment

Story - Decent: The concept is pretty simple, as it's an apocalypse movie with the world ending in 3 days, following a family during this time period; The plot structure is pretty simple; Character writing is fine

Screenplay - Decent to Pretty Good: The dialogue is standard; the symbolism is pretty good, as it touches on how the world would react to it ending in 3 days, touching on personal and familial anxiety about the situation; the foreshadowing is decent, considering you know what will happen by the end of the movie

Acting - Decent: Víctor Clavijo - Decent (Plays the lead decently well;), Mariana Cordero - Decent (Shows some range), Eduard Fernández - Decent (Plays the villain decently well), Rest of the cast - Decent (Everyone plays their role decently well;)

Score - Decent: Helps with the tone and tension of scenes

Cinematography - Decent: Feels very 2000s with its low-budget, apocalypse feel as it feels like it took a lot of inspiration from 28 Days Later

Editing - Decent: Feels very 2000s with its low-budget, apocalypse feel as it feels like it took a lot of inspiration from 28 Days Later

Sound - Decent: Feels very 2000s with its low-budget, apocalypse feel, as it feels like it took a lot of inspiration from 28 Days Later

Visual Effects - Decent to Pretty Good: Uses a lot of movie magic and low-budget CGI to make the most of what they can on such a shoestring budget

Production Design - Decent to Pretty Good: Uses a lot of movie magic to make this world feel like it is ending on such a low budget

Makeup - Decent to Pretty Good: Use a lot of movie magic to make this world feel like it is ending on such a low budget

Pacing - Pacing feels on the faster side in each scene to make this movie hectic, but the movie feels pretty slow on a macroscale because there isn't that much of a plot to go through

Climax - Climax is entertaining

Tone - Tone is very low-budget apocalyptic and takes a lot of inspiration from 28 Days Later

Final Notes - Saw 4K restoration at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 7.8: Overall, a true melting pot of a movie as it is a kung-fu, familial drama, and romance all wrapped up in one that juxtaposes Chinese and Italian cultures to make an entertaining experience; but, it is really held back by its dual climax structure because you have such an adrenaline dump after the first that you really do not want to go through a second.

Direction - Pretty Good to Good: The direction on a macroscale is good, as they show this Chinese world is embedded in Rome, and they do an amazing job building the kung-fu action sequences, as it makes this movie feel like an action-packed adventure; The direction on a microscale is good, as the movie is built on its interpersonal sequences between the characters, as it makes you empathize with their struggles; The storytelling is good for the most part, as you get invested in the story, but the structure feels like an adrenaline dump, as there are two climaxes; Tension is built well, as you really get emotionally invested in these characters, and tension is built well in the action sequences

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is unique and interesting because it is a familial story told with different cultures that are interesting, with a Kung-Fu and romance movie attached as well; The plot structure is pretty good for the most part because it is a main story with two subplots, but this kind of hurts the ending because there is a climax and then a second climax right after because it had to end the main revenge story and then the familial conflicts right after; Character writing is good because you care about these characters and their struggles, painted with a lot of depth that makes them memorable

Screenplay - Good: The dialogue is good and well written; The humor is definitely there and helps make the movie feel genreless at times, and it helps ease the tension in the movie; The symbolism is strong in this movie because it touches on familial topics, cultures clashing and melting together, and romantic interests; The foreshadowing is decent

Acting - Pretty Good: Enrico Borello - Decent to Pretty Goof (A little bit stiff at first, but comes into his own towards the midway point and plays a lead with some range well; has good chemistry with Liu), Yaxi Liu - Good (Has a good amount of range and really embodies someone mourning the loss of her sister; shows poise and expertise in the action scenes; has good chemistry with Borello), Marco Giallini - Pretty Good to Good (Feels like an experienced actor who really steals scenes he is in and lifts up his cast mates; has good chemistry with Borello), Sabrina Ferilli - Decent to Pretty Good (Plays her role well; Has pretty good chemistry with Borello; Isn't really given that much to work with), Chunyu Shanshan - Pretty Good (Plays the typical menacing villain well), Rest of the cast - Decent to Pretty Good (Everyone plays their roles well and helps lift up the cast)

Score - Good: Blends Chinese and Italian influences to make this movie feel like a melting pot of both cultures; Used effectively to build tension and help set the tone, especially in the action sequences

Cinematography - Good: Executed and shot well, really helps bring to life the action sequences

Editing - Good: Executed and shot well really help bring to life the action sequences

Sound - Good: Executed and shot well really helps bring to life the action sequences

Visual Effects - Good: Help really brings the actions to life, especially with the use of practical effects

Production Design - Good: Helps show the juxtaposition of this Chinese culture inside Rome

Pacing - Pacing is pretty good for the most part, but gets kind of slow at times; The way the climaxes are structured, everything in the end of the movie feels slow as you had an adrenaline dump from the first climax

Climax - Climax is a big issue with this movie because there are two separate climaxes; When the first climax ends, you have a huge adrenaline dump that doesn't allow you to experience the second climax

Tone - Tone is a mix of many genres, as this is truly a melting pot a kung-fu movie, a familial drama, and a romance

Final Notes - Saw premiere at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 9.3: Overall, a great movie in what is PTA's most approachable movie that uses Thomas Pynchon's 'Vineland' as a way to show how history is repeating itself with the current political administration, all carried by incredible writing, memorable performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, and polished filmmaking.

Direction - Great: The direction on a macroscale is great, as Anderson builds an epic that is in a world that echoes sentiments of today's America, having memorable elements that make this movie memorable and worth talking about in the zeitgeist; The direction on a macroscale is also great in the action sequences, as they feel incredibly polished and visually stunning; The direction on a microscale is traditional to PTA, because the relationships in the movie really help move it forward, as you learn what is at stake for every character, and it also helps that he mixes dramatic and comedic moments well, like he is accustomed to doing; The storytelling is a linear epic across 16 years, as this movie is his most approachable movie in his filmography, but he uses his experience as a filmmaker to make this movie fly right by; He builds tension well, because he uses the audience's emotional investment in the characters to make you on edge when something bad happens to them

Story - Great to Incredible: The concept is an inspiration on 'Vineland,' but in a modern context, as it critiques the current political climate against ICE and the Trump regime; Politics aside, this movie is about a father-daughter relationship as the former has to go on an action-packed adventure to save the latter; The plot structure is more linear and straightforward than his previous movies, but this makes things more approachable to a larger audience; Despite the movie's long runtime, PTA makes this movie fly by as it feels like every scene in this movie is effectively used, and there is no fluff; The passage of time and when this movie is set is not clear because there are many plot holes that are introduced in the beginning of this movie that really skew when this movie takes place, like song choices and the phones they use in the beginning; Character writing is great as it creates these multifaceted characters that have morals that you can empathize with, and despite how some of these characters may traditionally be, there are aspects that you do hate about them, making them feel more real; The character writing for this movie is critical in making it memorable because he creates some characters that you will remember for a long time, like Bob Ferguson, Colonel Steven Lockjaw, and Sensai

Screenplay - Incredible: The dialogue is sharp, profound, and well executed as PTA shows why he is one of cinema's greatest living writers; The humor is used effectively and well, as it essentially makes this movie feel like a black comedy at times, as it cuts through the tension of the more intense and dramatic moments; The symbolism is incredibly profound, as the movie is a commentary on ICE and the present Trump regime, and with this being inspired by *Vineland's* commentary on Reagan's America, it is a testament to how history is repeating itself; In such a multifaceted movie, PTA still creates a simple movie that boils down to a father-daughter relationship that feels personal to him and his mixed-race children; The foreshadowing is great, as you really do notice it the second time you watch this movie

Acting - Very Good: Leonardo DiCaprio - Great (A typical DiCaprio performance as he shows why he is the greatest living actor with his range and charisma; really embodies this character well as he shows emotional depth and comedic timing to make Bob Ferguson come to life; has great chemistry with the rest of the cast as his relationships with del Toro, Taylor, and Infiniti make you invested in these characters), Sean Penn - Great to Incredible (Makes this truly menacing come to life as he steals every scene he is in; Shows why he is a two-time Oscar winner, who is going to win his third; His disconnect with other actors really helps his character be so unlikable, yet memorable), Benicio del Toro - Very Good (Feels overshadowed by DiCaprio and Penn's performances, but shows why he is an Oscar winner himself because you just love his character and his dynamic with DiCaprio; he brings a good amount of comedic relief that really helps lighten the tone of the movie), Regina Hall - Good (Really, isn't that much screen time or material to work with, but she shows her presence and holds her own in the dramatic moments), Teyana Taylor - Very Good (Really creates such a multifaceted character as she shows how even those who fight for the right cause can be corrupted and immoral people; she creates a character that you empathize with, yet really hate at the same time; has very good chemistry with DiCaprio and the rest of the French 75), Chase Infiniti - Pretty Good (Feels a little stiff and unnatural in the first half of the movie, but comes into her own as she is given more independence and emotional material to work with; Given she is the most inexperienced actor in the cast, she does a pretty good job; Her chemistry with DiCaprio is not the best in the beginning, but it improves as the movie goes on), Rest of the cast - Good (PTA really manages a cast of this size very well, as everyone really feels elevated and nobody really phones in a bad performance; even the minor characters, especially in the 'Christmas Adventurers Club,' have their memorable standout points that help tell this story and make this movie feel well polished)

Score - Great: Creates some iconic themes really help set the tone for this movie; The relationship between Greenwood and PTA is so strong that the chemistry they have is obvious when you hear the finished product with the film

Soundtrack - Very Good: Used well in helping to set the tone; I was genuinely caught off guard when they started playing 'Mo Bamba,' but I definitely was jumping in my seat when it came on; Some of the song choices in the dance present some plot holes about when this movie could take place

Cinematography - Great: Make this movie feel like an old-school epic as they use the VistaVision cameras very well to create an action-packed adventure; It creates some iconic shots, like the highway scenes, that are so visual and timeless

Editing - Great: Has so many seamless shots that make this movie feel very polished and well executed; the fades they use pay homage to old Hollywood epics

Sound - Great: Feels well polished, and personifies this Hollywood epic into being an action-packed adventure

Visual Effects - Very Good: Very good use of practical effects that makes this movie feel like movie magic and an old-school epic; makes the action sequences entertaining and exhilarating

Production Design - Good: Creates this fictional town of Baktan Cross that feels like a sanctuary city in California

Makeup - Good: Helps with showing some of the damage

Costumes - Very Good: Help create and paint iconic characters, like Bob Ferguson and Colonel Lockjaw

Pacing - Pacing is surprisingly just right despite its long runtime, as PTA makes every minute feel used and necessary

Climax - Climax is executed well, as it has some of the most beautiful shots in the entire movie and is very action-packed

Tone - Tone feels like a political war, action epic, and black comedy at moments, but this movie really boils down to a father-daughter drama at the end of the day; it has a PTA feel to it despite being very approachable for mass audiences

Final Notes - Saw press screening at Fantastic Fest; Saw second screening in 70mm at Alamo Drafthouse.

Rating - 4.0: Overall, it's very obvious Arizal just wanted to make a 90 minute action movie because all the money and budget went into creating these over-the-top action sequences that truly feel illegal to watch, leaving no money or effort whatsoever for the acting and writing; Is this movie a bad movie? Yes; Is this movie entertaining to watch? Absolutely, because the good action moments mixed with the terrible dramatic scenes synergize to make such a campy fun bad movie.

Direction - Bad: The direction on a macroscale is incredibly 80s camp from a world-building standpoint, but it is very well executed and over-the-top from an action standpoint, even though it can be campy at times; The direction on a microscale is just lazy and so campy that it is obvious the director had no interest in directing these scenes, which kinda adds to the fun bad movie nature of this movie; The storytelling is just so lazy and bad that it makes the movie entertaining because there is no way this movie can be taken seriously when there is no story to tell; They surprisingly build tension decently well because the 80s score and the high-stakes action scenes make it an exhilarating experience

Story - Terrible: What story; There is only a story because they needed something to move the action scenes along, because it is very obvious Arizal just wanted to make an action movie for 90 minutes, but didn't have the money to do that

Screenplay - Terrible: The dialogue is just so campy and bad that it is entertaining; the humor is 80s camp, considering how dumb this movie can get; the foreshadowing is nonexistent because things just kind of happen in the movie, especially considering how it ends

Acting - Bad: Christopher Mitchum - Bad (Such a campy and bad performance that feels so disconnected from the story and cast, but it is just so fun to watch because of how bad it is), Bill Wallace - Bad (Your typical bad 80s villain performance in a bad low-budget action movie, but it is just campy enough that it's funny), Ida Iasha - Bad (Your typical bad 80s damsel in distress performance is just so campy and bad that it's funny), Rest of the cast - Bad (Everyone is just so bad that it's funny, what you would expect from a low-budget 80s action movie that is campy in nature)

Score - Decent to Pretty Good: 80s action movie score that really fits the tone of the movie

Cinematography - Pretty Bad: There are some moments where the cinematography is actually pretty good, like in the action sequences, but there are some moments that it is just so bad that it is funny because there are many scenes where the actors are just completely out of frame

Editing - Very Bad: The editing is just so lazy and bad that this movie feels like it was put together in a weekend, and that helps add to the camp and fun

Sound - Decent: Helps make this movie feel like an over-the-top 80s action movie

Visual Effects - Pretty Good: The practical effects for this movie are actually good for a low-budget 80s action movie because it feels like that is where all the money went, as the movie is filled with over-the-top practical effects that make this movie feel like a spectacle; though there are some moments where you see the limitations in the budget, like the electrocution scene; it is very obvious this movie was shot in a different country because there is no regard for life with the stunt coordination

Pacing - Pacing is fast in the action sequences and incredibly slow in the dramatic sequences, which makes me believe Azizal just wanted to make an action movie and did not care about actually telling a story

Climax - Climax is so all over the place that it's actually pretty funny to watch because there is no way people act like this in real life

Tone - Tone is incredibly 80s low-budget action movie camp that it's so bad that it's good and entertaining to watch; like if Tommy Wiseau made a low-budget 80s action movie

Final Notes - Watched for Weird Wednesday at Alamo Drafthouse for Hyperreal Film Journal; saw 35mm print.

Rating - 7.4: Overall, a valiant effort for a directorial debut as Chris Stuckmann shows his potential as a filmmaker with captivating storytelling and ominous world-building, but the movie suffers from issues you would expect from a new indie filmmaker with its amateurish cinematography, cheap visual effects, and an inability to stick the landing because the final 5 minutes ruin this movie's chance of being something special; I hope Stuckmann can parlay this into making bigger budget movies as he shows potential as a filmmaker, but hopefully he uses his budget wisely because it is obvious Neon wasted the increased budget on cheap CGI and unnecessary reshoots.

Direction - Pretty Good to Good: The direction on a macroscale is built well, as they create this ominous mystery in a demented world; I really enjoyed how they weaved the documentary and found footage into the movie; I felt the filmmaking style in the dramatic moments felt a little amateurish with how it looked, which makes sense because this is a directorial debut; The direction on a microscale is pretty good, as you can really empathize with their struggle to find her sister; The storytelling is good for the majority of the movie, as they create a mystery that slowly unravels, but keeps you engaged, as you want to see how things play out; I was not a fan of how the storytelling was in the last five minutes; Tension is built well, as you are emotionally invested in these characters, so you feel on edge when something bad happens to them

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is good, as it's a missing girl mystery that weaves in found footage elements to give it a Blair Witch feel, and the conflict is presented in a way that it doesn't give away too much, but at least gives you a why for why things are happening; The plot structure is good for the most part, as the movie feels like a good mystery that slowly unravels the more you try to solve the disappearance, though the resolution wasn't that great, as it felt forced; Character writing is good, as you get a sense of the protagonist's struggle trying to find her sister and the world they live in affecting them; The character writing is critical in helping connect with the protagonist's struggle, as you feel invested in her trying to find closure

Screenplay - Pretty Good to Good: The dialogue is sharp for the most part, nothing super outstanding; the symbolism is very strong, as the movie touches on issues of loss and grief as well as pagan and found footage supernatural tropes; the foreshadowing is strong in the movie, as it helps the protagonist try to solve the mystery

Acting - Pretty Good: Camille Sullivan - Pretty Good to Good (The star of the show, she shows a wide range of emotions and is the emotional core for this movie; we experience this mystery through her eyes as she is motivated to find her lost sister after 12 years), Brendan Sexton III - Pretty Bad (Honestly, it feels very stiff and doesn't have chemistry with Sullivan), Robin Bartlett - Decent to Pretty Good (Plays a real sinister character, but doesn't have much time to work with), Sarah Dunn - Pretty Good (Really shows a wide range of emotions as she really embodies the character and feels like what the lead of Blair Witch Project should have been), Keith David - Pretty Good (Feels like he was a part of the reshoots, but he does a pretty good job and has chemistry in the one scene he is in), Rest of the cast - Decent (A pretty small cast, but what you would expect from a low-budget horror movie)

Score - Decent: Helps with building tension

Cinematography - Decent: Cinematography in the documentary and found footage moments was really good and weaved well into the movie; when they switched to a traditional camera, it felt pretty amateurish and not that appealing, which makes sense because it is a low budget directorial debut

Editing - Decent: Editing for the found footage and documentary clips was pretty cool, as it made the movie feel like a mockumentary, but the rest of the movie just felt kind of bland in terms of editing

Sound - Pretty Good: Feels amplified to help heighten tension and make you feel scared of what is going on

Visual Effects - Bad: It felt very cheap, and it was obvious it was added when the budget was increased

Production Design - Pretty Good: Help create this pagan, ominous world of the abandoned Shelby Oaks

Makeup - Decent to Pretty Good: Helps show the impact of the hauntings

Pacing - Pacing is fine for the most part as the movie goes at the right pace

Climax - The climax is good and well executed, and the ending was a big let down as it basically felt like they threw away everything they built up to

Tone - Tone was a mystery and a found footage film combined; I would have really liked to see them continue the documentary style throughout the movie

Final Notes - Saw press screening at Fantastic Fest; Met Chris Stuckmann after the movie.

Rating - 4.9: Overall, a horror movie with well-executed horror sequences and a pretty good performance from Dakota Fanning, but Vicious makes you wonder why you are watching this movie because there is no story and no reason to care about the conflict.

Direction - Decent: The direction on a macroscale is pretty good at instilling supernatural horror and fear; The direction on a microscale is pretty good as you can see the struggle coming out of the protagonist and the other characters; Storytelling is not good at all because they do not do a good job explaining what the story is, why it is significant, and why we should care; Tension is developed well as it uses a lot of elements you see from a supernatural movie, though it can be cheap at times with the jump scares

Story - Bad: The concept is barely explained, you have to piece things together, and this makes you not really care about the conflict; The concept was so poorly explained that I left the theater wondering what the point of this movie was; The plot structure is just rising action and climax, the resolution is there but drags out a bit; Character writing is alright but could have been better because you know this character's struggle but you do not really know that much about them besides what is on the surface

Screenplay - Pretty Bad: The dialogue is pretty forced; The symbolism is there in terms of the conflict and its "supposed" reason, but is not really the best besides that; The foreshadowing is decent and helps set up the conflict, even though it could have been better

Acting - Pretty Good Dakota Fanning - Pretty Good (Really a one-woman show, as the entire movie is just her acting by herself, and she does a solid job portraying the emotions and fear the character is experiencing, despite being given no material to work with), Rest of the cast - Decent to Pretty Good (Really is just a Dakota Fanning one-woman performance, but all the performances are solid and help with uplifting Fanning)

Score - Decent: Helps with building tension

Cinematography - Decent to Pretty Good: Does some cool things with its unique shots and in the horror moments, but is pretty generic besides that

Editing - Decent: Typical low-budget supernatural editing

Sound - Decent: Feels obsessively loud, but besides that, it is what you would expect from a supernatural horror movie trying to raise the tension

Visual Effects - Pretty Good: Pretty good low-budget supernatural horror; it definitely brings out the scares and the cringe when watching the gory scenes

Makeup - Decent to Pretty Good: Help show the gore

Pacing - Pacing is pretty slow because the story is kind of nonexistent, so it just feels like a supernatural compilation for an hour

Climax - Climax is decent, the resolution kind of holds the movie back

Tone - Tone is your typical supernatural horror movie;

Final Notes - Saw the world premiere at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 5.7: Overall, an entertaining horror movie that is just carnage for an hour with cool practical effects, but Primate knows what it is trying to be because there is no effort to give this movie a story and direct these Outer Banks level teen actors.

Direction - Pretty Bad: The direction on a macroscale is pretty good, as they capture the gory horror aesthetic well and make you crawl in your seat with the rage and rampage you are watching; the direction on a microscale is bad because it's Outer Banks level acting and writing that makes it feel like a stupid teen comedy; storytelling is pretty minimal because there really isn't any story; tension is built pretty well as you crawl in your seat with what you're watching on screen, while simultaneously being mad at them making dumb decisions

Story - Pretty Bad: The concept is simple, basically a chimp goes crazy from rabies; The plot structure is basically just a rampage for an hour with very minimal exposition; Character writing is there, but you don't really care for any of these characters

Screenplay - Bad: The dialogue is extremely bad because it's Outer Banks level writing; the humor is dumb teen comedy humor; the symbolism is what you would expect from a dumb comedy; I did enjoy the linguistics and deaf aspects of this movie; the foreshadowing is what you expect from a movie like this considering it's not original at all

Acting - Pretty Bad: Johnny Sequoyah - Pretty Bad (Typical Final Girl performance, feels like Outer Banks level acting in the teen comedy moments), Jessica Alexander - Pretty Bad (Outer Banks-level acting and decision-making), Troy Kotsur - Good (The only experienced actor in the cast, as it shows when he is acting and interacting with his castmates; He has poise and really makes his scenes better), Rest of the cast - Bad (Does not include any child actors; Outer Banks level acting from the entire cast as it is just bad and cringey teen movie acting)

Soundtrack - Pretty Bad: execs ask "what's the most popular song of summer 2024" for a movie that comes out in 2026

Cinematography - Decent: Feels high budget and polished; helps with establishing tension

Editing - Decent: Feels high budget and polished; helps with establishing tension

Sound - Pretty Good: Helps with establishing tension, what you would expect from a horror movie

Visual Effects - Good: Really enjoyed the use of practical effects and puppetry; made the kills feel gory yet realistic

Makeup - Good: helps showcase the gore and destruction

Pacing - Even though this movie is less than 90 minutes, it still moves very slowly because there isn't any plot; it's just carnage for an hour

Climax - Climax is entertaining and well executed, more about creating a show rather than having any substance

Tone - Tone is very much a teen-led, high-budget horror movie that feels like an Outer Banks teen comedy at moments; the horror tones were pretty standard

Final Notes - Saw press screening at Fantastic Fest.

Rating - 9.5: Overall, a milestone in animation, Toy Story reinvented the stories we could tell with animation and how we told them, with its groundbreaking CGI animation, profound storytelling, and iconic characters that have become a mainstay in pop culture.

Direction - Incredible: The direction on a macroscale is as this build, this world told from the perspective of Toy Level, making everything bigger than it looks; the direction on a microscale is incredible, as the dynamic between all the toys is iconic, especially between Woody and Buzz; the storytelling is amazing, as they really tell such a rich story with very little runtime, it is concise and gets to the point that it is easy to understand for everyone; they build tension surprisingly well, as it is more about caring for these iconic characters as they encounter challenges in the story

Story - Incredible: The concept is iconic, as telling a story and building a world from the perspective of toys is one of the most important stories and franchises in animated history; the plot structure is short and to the point, as there is no fluff in this 80 minute runtime; character writing is iconic, as they created such iconic characters that have become such a mainstay in animated history, also making them fallible by making Woody jealous, and Buzz delusional and depressed

Screenplay - Great: The dialogue is iconic and fits all ages, being friendly and profound at the same time; The humor is fun and playful for all ages, especially from Don Rickles; The symbolism is strong for an animated movie, as the movie touches on themes of jealousy, identity, and judgment; The foreshadowing is what you would expect from an animated movie

Acting - Great to Incredible: Tom Hanks - Brilliant (Redefined the voice acting industry with this role as he perfectly embodies not only Woody but the emotions the character is going through as well; He has excellent chemistry with Allen), Tim Allen - Incredible (A pillar in CGI voice acting as he perfectly embodies the stiff nature of Buzz Lightyear, while simultaneously giving him emotion despite his character not having any in the first half; He has excellent chemistry with Hanks), Don Rickles - Great (The true comedic relief character for this movie is as he's basically just playing himself, but toned down for a family audience), Rest of the cast - Very Good (Everyone plays their role very well as this cast is cohesive and has great chemistry)

Score - Incredible: Playful and iconic, truly the start of not only establishing the Toy Story franchise but also how other Pixar movies sound

Soundtrack - Great: "You got a friend in me" is one of the most iconic songs in movie history and plays an integral part in not only the score but the movie's themes; the rest of the songs are good too

Editing - Very Good: Well stitched together and helps make the movie feel tight, while not being simultaneously either bloated or rushed

Sound - Great: Helps make this move feel playful and fun, ushering in a new way we hear animated movies

Animation - Incredible: Groundbreaking for the time, Pixar took CGI animation to new limits with this, ushering in a new era of 3D animation that became the mainstay in movie history; feels a little dated looking, but holds up pretty well regardless

Pacing - Pacing is surprisingly tight for only an 80-minute runtime, as it doesn't feel rushed or dragging at any moment; this is a testament to a well-structured plot that has no fluff

Climax - Climax is fun and entertaining for all ages, and it brings closure to the 80-minute journey you go on with these characters

Tone - Tone ushered in a new way we view animated movies as this created the "Pixar" feel with 3D animated stories that are for children yet are profound in their messaging for all ages

Final Notes - Watched 30th-year anniversary re-release.

Rating - 6.8: Overall, a thrilling Stephen King adaptation that creates a tense world from an interesting concept, but is held back by its cringey dialogue and slow pace.

Direction - Pretty Good: The direction on a macroscale is going as it does, building the world well and helping show the stakes of this contest, but it doesn't do that amazing of a job showing how dystopian the world has become; The direction on a microscale is not that good because many of the interpersonal scenes have these weird pauses and aren't tight, but the one-on-one scene between the two leads is pretty good, as it makes you care about their struggles in the conflict; Storytelling is simple and good, as it doesn't really over complicate things, it's a linear journey that raises the stakes the more the characters endure their torture; Tension is built very well, as it's the best part of the direction, you get invested in these characters' lives as they go through The Long Walk and fight for their way to be the last one, while overcoming personal stakes as well

Story - Pretty Good to Good: The concept is simple and interesting as it's a dystopian "Hunger Games"-like competition that shows the authoritarian regime providing hope for an oppressed people; the plot structure is very linear as it's literally just The Long Walk, with no exposition or resolution; character writing is pretty good as it paints the two leads' motives and gives reasons to root for certain characters in the competition, though it shallowly paints the villains

Screenplay - Bad to Pretty Bad: The dialogue is very bad, as it is so forced and basic that it makes you cringe, with the amount of times they say "The Long Walk" making you bang your head in your seat harder every time; the humor helps lighten the mood a little bit and makes you care for the characters as they endure this; the symbolism is a little too on the nose, but it is relevant and clear, as it talks about authoritarian governments and rebelling through suffering; the foreshadowing is not the best, as you kind of expect what is going to happen towards the end based on how the story is structured, though it does keep you on your toes in some moments

Acting - Decent to Pretty Good: Cooper Hoffman - Pretty Good (Plays the titular character well and has some range of emotion, though there are some limitations; Enjoyed his chemistry with Jonsson), David Jonsson - Pretty Good to Good (Has a strong screen presence and plays off Hoffman well), Ben Wang - Pretty Bad to Decent (Feels a bit one-dimensional, it's promising in the first half and then flat in the second), Judy Greer - Pretty Good (Plays the concerned mother character well), Mark Hamill - Pretty Good (Uses a Joker-esque voice for his character as he plays a live-action villain; Isn't really given too much to work with as his character is pretty one dimensional), Rest of the cast - Decent (Everyone plays these concerned characters, with a range of them being scared and fearful while some just feel a little inexperienced)

Score - Pretty Bad: Pretty basic, though it does set the tone; Horribly mixed, as it is just way too loud in moments

Cinematography - Pretty Good to Good: Helps make the movie feel grand as it helps build the world as you go on this long walk with the cast; Feels a little too high budget for what should have been more of a low budget film

Editing - Pretty Bad: There were many moments where the movie just had these awkward pauses, as it felt like the movie was not cut properly; other cuts just felt basic

Sound - Decent to Pretty Good: The sound effects were fine for the most part and helped add to the suspense; the score was not mixed into the movie well

Visual Effects - Pretty Good: Standard for an action horror movie; Helps show the gore in the killshots

Production Design - Pretty Good: Really minimal as it is more about the trail and journey you go on with these characters, and the world they do create has this sense of bliss in the rural environment

Makeup - Good: The gore and the killshots felt realistic and helped add to the tension and horror for the movie

Pacing - Pacing was definitely on the slower side, as the movie feels a little bloated at moments and is very repetitive at times; the movie could have been cut a little tighter to remove these awkward pauses and to cut some scenes to make it about fifteen minutes shorter

Climax - Climax is a little abrupt, but is where the movie should end

Tone - Tone is definitely a thriller, but it does touch on more dramatic themes as you watch these characters try to survive.