Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings830
ryanpersaud-59415's rating
Reviews506
ryanpersaud-59415's rating
You have to admire the audacity of a film that decides to completely rewrite the mythos of Santa Claus and do it with such characteristically 90s flair. It's a little sardonic and tongue-in-cheek, portraying Santa Claus as not a person, but essentially a legal title bestowed upon a person (apparently against their will and often as the result of murder, it seems - we'll just ignore that part). Yet, still brings it home with an appropriately sweet Christmas message that you can't help but make you feel a bit warm and fuzzy inside.
I cannot understate - in my humblest of opinions - how good Tim Allen is here. He manages to capture the "busy working Dad" archetype but is also genuinely funny. His line delivery is great, he seems like a really fun person to be around, and makes tons of snappy little one liners. But he can also be loving and caring as well and slips into the warm father figure role quite easily.
Even as a kid, I remember really liking the cosmic power (bear with me) "the Santa Clause" seems to have: Tim Allen's Scott Calvin gains a ton of weight in the matter of days, his beard regrows every day, children follow him around as if he's the Pied Piper. It's just so out there and weird that I honestly have to applaud it.
I cannot understate - in my humblest of opinions - how good Tim Allen is here. He manages to capture the "busy working Dad" archetype but is also genuinely funny. His line delivery is great, he seems like a really fun person to be around, and makes tons of snappy little one liners. But he can also be loving and caring as well and slips into the warm father figure role quite easily.
Even as a kid, I remember really liking the cosmic power (bear with me) "the Santa Clause" seems to have: Tim Allen's Scott Calvin gains a ton of weight in the matter of days, his beard regrows every day, children follow him around as if he's the Pied Piper. It's just so out there and weird that I honestly have to applaud it.
Civil War was immediately quite polarizing upon its release for good reason. For a movie dealing with the topic of a second U. S. civil war in a time of great political and social polarization, it was bound to upset someone. What's striking is how it seems to have upset MOST people because...it kind of comes off as spineless, unable to explore the world it creates out of fear of offending someone.
It's telling that the only scene anyone talks about is the brief appearance of Jesse Plemons, not only because it's a well put together scene and Plemons is great (as usual), but because it - very softly - explores an ideological dynamic about the conflict. That Plemons' bloodthirsty soldier executes any foreigner he comes across TELLS US SOMETHING about what is going on with this war and the factions fighting in it. The scene honestly made me wish the whole movie followed a bunch of foreign journalist as they travel around America and record their observations. It would not only be interesting and give reason for exposition, but reflect Alex Garland's own identity as a foreigner making a film in and about the United States.
Because as it stands, Garland seems to want to have it both ways. He wants to be completely apolitical (i.e. Pretending that California and Texas would somehow unite to fight the U. S. government) but also sprinkle in some stuff here and there to make the film feel socially relevant (i.e. Refer to something like the "Antifa Massacre"). In the end, I'd argue to make a film like this without world building does a disservice to the premise.
Despite the grandiose marketing and posters associated with the film, Civil War also feels bizarrely small scale for what - in reality - would be the most consequential conflict in the world if it were to ever happen. Aside from the lack of world building, the film just never truly gets the scale right. You're telling me that an assault on the White House isn't a massive, pitched battle and instead looks closer to a Call of Duty Team Deathmatch round involving like 20 people? REALLY?
Not to mention the movie is just plain boring for most of it. I don't use that word lightly; people often write great films off for having a slow pace but...man, is it ever appropriate here. The characters feel like cardboard cutouts, more impressions of the sort of people they're "supposed" to be than actual, fully fleshed out characters. I'd be a bit more positive with everything else if AT LEAST Civil War gave us interesting people to follow. Or, if it had a more compelling message than "war is bad and dehumanizes people."
It's a pretty movie to look at and as it typical for Alex Garland, well shot and composed. But, honestly, aside from that, it's a snooze fest that wastes an inherently interesting premise.
It's telling that the only scene anyone talks about is the brief appearance of Jesse Plemons, not only because it's a well put together scene and Plemons is great (as usual), but because it - very softly - explores an ideological dynamic about the conflict. That Plemons' bloodthirsty soldier executes any foreigner he comes across TELLS US SOMETHING about what is going on with this war and the factions fighting in it. The scene honestly made me wish the whole movie followed a bunch of foreign journalist as they travel around America and record their observations. It would not only be interesting and give reason for exposition, but reflect Alex Garland's own identity as a foreigner making a film in and about the United States.
Because as it stands, Garland seems to want to have it both ways. He wants to be completely apolitical (i.e. Pretending that California and Texas would somehow unite to fight the U. S. government) but also sprinkle in some stuff here and there to make the film feel socially relevant (i.e. Refer to something like the "Antifa Massacre"). In the end, I'd argue to make a film like this without world building does a disservice to the premise.
Despite the grandiose marketing and posters associated with the film, Civil War also feels bizarrely small scale for what - in reality - would be the most consequential conflict in the world if it were to ever happen. Aside from the lack of world building, the film just never truly gets the scale right. You're telling me that an assault on the White House isn't a massive, pitched battle and instead looks closer to a Call of Duty Team Deathmatch round involving like 20 people? REALLY?
Not to mention the movie is just plain boring for most of it. I don't use that word lightly; people often write great films off for having a slow pace but...man, is it ever appropriate here. The characters feel like cardboard cutouts, more impressions of the sort of people they're "supposed" to be than actual, fully fleshed out characters. I'd be a bit more positive with everything else if AT LEAST Civil War gave us interesting people to follow. Or, if it had a more compelling message than "war is bad and dehumanizes people."
It's a pretty movie to look at and as it typical for Alex Garland, well shot and composed. But, honestly, aside from that, it's a snooze fest that wastes an inherently interesting premise.
Honestly, this movie is fine. It's a sweet, sentimental coming of age story with some really good performances (particularly from Anna Chlumsky), some fun moments, and a generally breezy, well paced story that doesn't overstay its welcome.
Sure, I think the "incident" that this movie is mostly known for - despite leading to a great scene - feels a bit rushed and narratively, seems to happen a bit too late for my liking. But, it's nothing "movie ruining", you know?
No, what struck me the most about My Girl is how rare movies like these are today. Not that coming-of-age stories don't come out anymore, just that when they do, they're seen by relatively small audiences and are nowadays almost never wide releases. I actually watched the trailer on YouTube out of curiosity, because...in the age of franchises and sequels, selling a simple story about a little girl in the summer of 1972 to a large audience just wouldn't be possible today.
But, I definitely remember movies like this. And, even though I hadn't seen My Girl before, it felt nostalgic. I think there's a growing fatigue with the state of Hollywood today; 2024 will probably go down in history as the most sequel heavy box office yet. The "original premise" is a dying breed. It's a sad state of affairs, and hopefully, it changes. But, until then, at least movies like My Girl still exist.
Sure, I think the "incident" that this movie is mostly known for - despite leading to a great scene - feels a bit rushed and narratively, seems to happen a bit too late for my liking. But, it's nothing "movie ruining", you know?
No, what struck me the most about My Girl is how rare movies like these are today. Not that coming-of-age stories don't come out anymore, just that when they do, they're seen by relatively small audiences and are nowadays almost never wide releases. I actually watched the trailer on YouTube out of curiosity, because...in the age of franchises and sequels, selling a simple story about a little girl in the summer of 1972 to a large audience just wouldn't be possible today.
But, I definitely remember movies like this. And, even though I hadn't seen My Girl before, it felt nostalgic. I think there's a growing fatigue with the state of Hollywood today; 2024 will probably go down in history as the most sequel heavy box office yet. The "original premise" is a dying breed. It's a sad state of affairs, and hopefully, it changes. But, until then, at least movies like My Girl still exist.