Change Your Image
jonsefcik
10: Basically Perfect
9: Outstanding; Fantastic
8: Great; Excellent
7: Good
6: Above Average; Decent
5: Average/Forgettable or A Totally Mixed Bag
4: Below Average; Mediocre
3: Bad
2: Awful
1: Horrendous
0: This Movie Should Not Exist
A 10 means the film is basically perfect. I personally cannot think of any way I would change it that could objectively make it better. Any tiny flaws it may have are very minor and are negligible in the big picture. A film must fulfill at least 2 of the 3 following requirements for me to consider giving it a 10:
1. I have to walk out of it going "holy sh#$, that was f&^%ing awesome!". Not just great or excellent, but absolutely mind blowing. A lot of movies that do this tend to be ones where my expectations are subverted in the best possible way, not just doing something different to be different.
2. It must get better on subsequent watches. Most films I enjoy best on first viewing, but their flaws become more apparent on subsequent watches. The difference between a good film and a great one is when you find more to appreciate on subsequent rather than things that break my immersion.
3. Similarly to the last one, if a film doesn't totally wow me on first watch, and I think about it over the following days, everything has to make more sense the more I think about it.
A 5 is either forgettable or average. In the case of a mixed bag, any good aspects I like are about equally cancelled out by the bad.
A 0 means this movie is an absolute abomination of cinema that should not exist. I save this score for only the most detestable, pointless, and just plain incompetent pieces of garbage I've ever seen. There are no redeeming qualities. There is no possible way I can conceive of anyone enjoying this. A movie has to be either particularly insulting to its audience or especially unpleasant and morally reprehensible for me to give it this score. My 0/10s are in a list below.
All other ratings fit appropriately between these three benchmarks.
Since a 5 is average, I use a 5 as my baseline. A film's achievements will raise the score and any flaws or missed opportunities to objectively improve the film will lower it. For example, a film can be technically perfect with no flaws on the filmmaking level but if nothing noteworthy is done with the story, characters, or presentation of said story and characters, I'd give it a 5 since nothing was done with those tools. A good example to illustrate this idea is one from Adam Johnston from YMS: If you make a film called Paint Drying where the camera is turned on right after a fresh coat of paint is applied to a wall and lasts two hours, the only way you could technically screw it up is if for some reason the camera wasn't pointed directly at the wall and it wasn't two hours. While the movie technically didn't do anything wrong, I'd still give it a 5/10 since it didn't do anything clever or noteworthy with the idea. An example would be the Disney film The Rescuers Down Under, where everything is perfect on a technical level but the plot, tropes, and characters are very standard. Conversely, I allow some tiny flaws for a 10/10 film since the achievements of a film with an incredible story, characters, and presentation will greatly outweigh any tiny flaws it does have. If I were absolutely strict with the definition of what a 10/10 movie was, where it would have to be absolutely perfect, then almost nothing would get it.
Another big factor I consider is a film's timelessness. How well will this hold up 5, 20, 50 years from now? There are films like Rosemary's Baby which still feels fresh half a decade later and the Aaron Seltzer parodies which were dated before they even came out.
I try to be objective, but my personal enjoyment may factor into the score by as much as one entire point. I've seen 1/10 movies I've loved and 9/10 movies I've hated. Movies I give a 6/10 or lower that I personally love go in my Guilty Pleasures list.
I'm also a little more lenient on TV shows, shorts, and internet series than regular films. My mentality for shorts is that because they're more concise, they're easier to digest, and make for a more enjoyable viewing experience. TV and internet series I give a little extra credit simply because of all the additional effort needed. Making a single 2 hour film is one thing, but it's quite another to create the equivalent of dozens of films worth of runtime over the course of several years where the actors age with their characters and the writing evolves with that too. A show that keeps building upon and exploring everthing in satisfying and interesting ways is worthy or some extra credit in my book.
Right now my average rating is between a 6 and 7 but that's because I usually only go out of my way to see things I think will be good. If I saw every single thing I possibly could, my average rating would be closer to a 5.
Update: I'm thinking of adopting a letter grading system instead of a numerical one. The system translates to something like:
A+: 10
A: 9
A-: 8
B+: strong 7
B: generous 7
B-: 6
C+: 5
C: 4
C-: strong 3
D+: generous 3
D: strong 2
D-: generous 2
F: 1, 0
I like using both since there can be multiple numerical scores associated with a letter grade and multiple letter scores associated with a numerical grade.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Substance (2024)
"The Monkey's Paw" As Told By Lynch And Cronenberg
The Substance is a powerful, highly stylized sci-fi horror film, if not a bit derivative and illogical. A beautifully made film that's pleasing to the eye when not focusing on some of the most disgusting subject matter to recieve a wide release.
Demi Moore gives a career-best performance. Margaret Qualley was pretty darn good, too. The practical effects are amazing. The direction and set design create an eerie, cold, isolated world that perfectly epitomizes Elisabeth's insecure head space. The score compliments the tone perfectly. Themes of ageism, body insecurity, and sexism come to a bloody satisfying climax when society is forced to face the monster they helped create. If only they were burned alive like in Carrie, too. Addiction is also explored, and made all the more tragic by the fact Elisabeth was very good looking for her age to start with. Just not quite as perfect as her 20-year-old self. Both characters' dependence on the cooperative and unforgiving drug system kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time.
The film wearing its influences on its sleeve hold it back from a higher rating for me. David Lynch and Cronenberg's fingerprints are all over this. There's some Stanley Kubrick in there with shots, hallways, and bathrooms out of The Shining and the inclusion of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from 2001 in the soundtrack. Needles going in diseased wounds, nauseating elevator scene, and Dennis Quaid's character giving Tappy Timmons vibes are straight out of Requiem For A Dream. The creatively grotesque body horror stuff is obviously Cronenberg, though I'd argue even better than anything Cronenberg himself has actually done.
David Lynch's influence is especially apparent in other characters' reactions and the logistics of this world. A morning exercise program seems like a niche market. Characters sometimes act in exaggerated manners which, like many Lynch films, was probably intended to reflect the main characters world view or mental state more than what would work logically. I also would've found a little more exploration of the drug peddler and others affected interesting.
I highly recommend this film, especially to sci-fi and body horror fans. Just don't eat while watching.
P. S. - Can we get an F in the chat for my boy Fred?
P. P. S. - This movie is like 11% butt shots.
James Blunt: You're Beautiful (2005)
Creepy Stalker Anthem
I just thought about this song for the first time in like 15 years. Upon revisit, I now realize how bad, whiny, and creepy this song is. The basic lyrical premise is the protagonist sees his ex on a subway for like 3 seconds and obsesses over how she's moved on and he'll never be with her again. At best, it's a pathetic, whiny song sung by a guy with a whiny voice. At worst, it's a stalker anthem akin to "Every Breath You Take". The "I've got a plan" line at the end of the first verse makes me think he's either going to make her his again, or off himself.
Unfortunate implications of the song aside, the video itself isn't much better. The decision to keep the accidentally repeated first line in the video is strange to say the least. The video is shot in slow motion on James undressing then jumping in the ocean. Is this supposed to be the protagonist offing himself, or is it symbolic of leaping into the pits of depression or something? I don't know, nor do I really care to dig any deeper.
I've seen YouTube comments saying people had this played at their wedding. Why?! This does NOT sound like wedding song material at all! It's not romantic, it's at best pathetic and at worst creepy. Only reason I'm not giving it a 1 is the instrumentation is nice, if a bit basic.
After Last Season (2009)
One of the top 3 worst movies I've seen. Literally nothing works.
Literally everything in this movie is incompetent: Plot/story structure, pacing, lighting, editing, sound, acting, animation, music, prop/set design, basic coherence and logic. The list goes on. Literally nothing is done well. In my opinion, this movie isn't even so bad it's good. There's so much wasted time, the pacing is so glacial, it's so boring to sit through. The production is so cheap, I REFUSE to believe this took $5 million to make. My personal theory is this movie was a money laundering scheme and the director is a fugitive who has since fled to Costa Rica. This is one of the very rare films I'd award a 0/10 if possible, as I cannot fathom how anyone could gain anything positive from it, intended or ironically. Rather than endure it yourself, I feel the below YouTube comment I found perfectly summarizes the experience:
"It's like an independently wealthy, s!/&$* filmmaker from 1980's Soviet Russia time travelled to the late 2000's, watched a ton of eclectic movies, and tried his d@mndest to make some weird, Inception-esque movie with the knowledge he felt he had gained. Unfortunately, his ideas and creativity were constrained by his actual life knowledge of having grown up in small town 1960's Soviet Russia. Or something."
Elvis (2022)
Potentially great film ruined by the obnoxious editing
This movie gave me a headache. The editing is so frantic and the direction and CGI so over-stylized, it's exhausting to sit through. There's so many cuts, I don't think there's a single shot in the whole film longer than 5 seconds! Letting shots linger immerses the audience in the scene. The ADHD editing does the opposite for me.
Besides the fluff and questionable creative decisions (why put a trap song in the soundtrack to your Elvis movie?!) this already over-long film has no story momentum. The first 2 hours try to cram in every little detail of Elvis' career, only to have some forced conflict between him and his wife and Colonel Parker. They show him having a romance in the Army. Why not show him with different girls every once in a while to justify the argument about his disloyalty? They should've built up the Colonel taking all of Elvis'money as well. That felt like it just came put of nowhere, too.
Austin Butler did a great job as Elvis. Like Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody, it's a shame the performance wasn't in a better film. Tom Hanks did an...interesting take on the Colonel; his accent was crazy and sounded nothing like the real guy.
I also thought it was funny when Elvis stormed off in his car and kept changing the radio stations and hearing his own songs. I just saw the Weird Al biopic, which, spoilers, I guess, is a biopic parody, and has a very similar scene where Weird Al angrily drives off and hears all his songs on the radio. That scene in Elvis is the exact cliche moment the Weird Al movie was parodying.
If you want a headache, watch this movie. If the obnoxious editing doesn't give you one, the aimless story and forced conflicts that go nowhere will.
Follow That Bird (1985)
A wholesome, innocent little movie Sesame Street fans will enjoy.
Full disclosure, I did NOT grow up with Sesame Street, so I went into this movie without any nostalgic baggage. I've seen bits and pieces of the show here and there, but I'm by no means a fan.
It's a simple story aimed at ages 5 and under, but the performers sell it with earnest, heartfelt performances. Big Bird saying goodbye to Snuffy, singing the blue bird song, and getting rescued got me more emotionally involved than I would've bargained for. There's some decent throwaway gags only keen-eyed adults will pick up on as well.
It helps that Big Bird is the main character. Based on my limited exposure, he's the only Sesame Street character I really like. Carroll Spinney was the OG BB IMO. His replacement VA nowadays sounds...off; too deep and nasally and doesn't emote enough. Elmo is annoying, and I roll my eyes at how he's taken center stage over the years. He's thankfully not in this movie. I think the earnestness and emotion put into these voice performances are what really sell the movie.
The film definitely feels stretched out and padded with songs, desperate to hit 90 minutes. Miss Finch's change of heart was hilariously abrupt, and the carnies are clearly only there for a paycheck. Despite some annoyances, parents can sit through this movie just fine, and I'm sure the target audience will enjoy it, too. It's a squeaky clean movie that makes the viewer feel warm inside, and frankly that's all I think the filmmakers were really trying to accomplish here.
Jingle All the Way (1996)
A guilty pleasure christmas classic
I never watched this movie as a kid, only seeing it for the first time a few years ago. Even without nostalgia bringing me back, I've revisited Jingle All The Way every year since. That's gotta count for something, right?
What sets this movie apart for me is that it's basically a Christmas movie for adults. Not in the sense that there's a lot of inappropriate material, but in the sense that it's one adults will relate to more than kids. It's basically the anti-Christmas movie. Most Christmas movies are about that whimsical child-like imagination and Santa giving you what you want just because you were a good boy or girl. This movie isn't about any of that. It's about a frustrated, overworked parent who procrastinated on buying his son the hottest toy of the year, and desperately scrambles to find one. We've all gone through December as adults; work is super busy wrapping up before the year-end, you gotta plan your family get-together, and of course, buy the right gifts.
I can't rate the movie super high though, since there's a lot of goofy stuff that doesnt work. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a hilarious casting choice; there's literally no reason for him to be here, Tim Allen literally could've had the lead in this movie and it would've played out the exact same. Jake Lloyd is okay (better than in Phantom Menace, lol), but Sinbad is pretty insufferable. Speaking of Tim Allen, the reindeer seems like a gag straight out of a Santa Clause movie. I can forgive the bomb at the radio station, as I often half jokingly dismiss poor security in movies pre-9-11. But then there's the climax, which given the fairly grounded tone of the first 2 acts, is just plain crazy.
While my favorite "normal" Christmas movie is probably Elf (2003), Jingle All The Way is already a close runner up for me. Yeah it's beyond silly at points, but super fun nonetheless. If you're not a big Christmas fan, I'd recommend it. It's a great movie for people who DON'T look forward to the holiday season.
Walking with Dinosaurs (1999)
Why WWD (1999) is STILL the best dino doc 23 years later:
Walking With Dinosaurs was the beginning of an era. There were dinosaur documentaries beforehand, but mostly just 1-hour TV specials with rough animation, stop motion or puppetry. Even if they had the science down for the time, the recreations were rough and the Dinosaurs never felt alive.
WWD was a daring production, more expensive per minute than any other documentary. Accuracy for the time blended with artistic competence so perfectly, nothing has matched it since. So many copycats have tried to emulate its success. Some came pretty close, like When Dinosaurs Roamed America, Prehistoric Planet, and even Dinosaur Planet, some okay like March of The Dinosaurs, and some embarrassingly failed like Tarbosaurus: The Mightiest Ever and (IMO) Dinosaur Revolution and Monsters Resurrected.
Let's break down those two components, shall we?
1. WWD came out in a time where dinosaurs were best known for being movie monsters like in King Kong (1933), or kids stuff like Land Before Time (1988). Jurassic Park (1993) treated its dinos respectfully for the time, but at the end of the day their role as movie monsters took center stage. WWD was a game changer in that it seriously tried portraying dinosaurs as living animals with animal behaviors. Not every interaction between dinos results in chaos. Sure they eat, but they must also sleep, migrate, form social bonds, build nests, etc. Take for example the shot of the Allosaurus laying in the shade, watching the diplodocus herd walk by. In any Hollywood movie. And even many documentaries, the vicious, bloodthirsty carnivore wouldn't be able to restrain itself from killing anything in sight. Instead it watches them walk by, like a lion watching zebras or wildebeest walk by, interested to see what they do, but still digesting their last meal and too busy sleeping 20 hours a day to do anything us humans would perceive as "cool" or "epic". Another example is these animals' hesitancy to fight. Look at the two Eustreptospondylus fighting over a dead turtle, and the "polar Allosaur" infiltrating the Muttaburrasaurus herd. They don't fight to the death like in the laughable "Jurassic Fight Club". Real animals only fight as a last resort. Fighting means risking injury. If you get injured, you can't hunt, therefore you can't eat, and therefore you'll die. One Eustreptospondylus simply intimates the other into backing down, and they carry on with their lives. The Allosaur and Muttaburrasaurus keep an uneasy distance. When it can't find any young, old, weak, or sick among the healthy Muttaburrasaurus, it gives up and backs off. The only "awesomebro" scene in the whole series is the Liopleurodon grabbing the dinosaur from the sea cliff, in water too shallow for it to fit. Subsequent dino docs made their subjects more anthropomorphic and monsterfied with each passing year, focusing on what will draw viewers and stimulate their short attention spans. WWD treats these creatures with not just the respect, but I dare say, reverence they deserve. I say reverence because dinosaurs hold a special place in pop culture. Literally every 6 year old on the planet loves dinosaurs. Most adults find dinosaurs cool too, even if they may not be willing to admit it. We owe them our respect because they were once alive. They breathed the same air and drank the same water we do. To portray them as bloodthirsty monsters, especially in a "documentary" setting, is insulting to me. I'm looking at you, Jurassic Fight Club and Monsters Resurrected. Thankfully shows like Prehistoric Planet and March of The Dinosaurs treat their subjects with respect, though I still think WWD is superior because of my second point:
2. Presentation. The filmmaking behind WWD sets it apart from other dino docs. Let's start with music. The score is phenomenal, remining me of motific and melodic pieces from John Williams and Howard Shore at points. Take for example the "Giant of The Skies" theme in the Ornithocheirus episode. It starts epic, almost intimidating. As the subject grows old and starts dying, the theme returns sounding dismal and melancholic. After a crossfade, the camera pans to reveal the animal's dead body, the theme returning but with a connotation of sadness rather than strength. The music alone makes this scene so powerful, I fight back tears every time I watch it. The opening theme is killer too, and who doesn't love the triumphant "Time of The Titans" theme? The filmmakers use a mix of CGI and puppetry to bring these animals to life. I'll admit the effects can be a bit wonky at times watching in high def, but they looked fine back when it aired on my tube TV, or on a low-res VHS. Prehistoric Planet may have had the most photorealistic CGI, and a decent score, but their music doesn't hold a candle to WWD, and the live action backgrounds in WWD really help ground the CGI models, even if they're not amazing by today's standards. So many other documentaries, such as March of The Dinosaurs, are let down by their ugly CGI backgrounds that break the immersion. Another thing I think WWD does better is storytelling. Prehistoric Planet is framed like Planet Earth, only showing a few minutes here and there to show as many animals as possible. I prefer WWD's episodic structure where we spend a whole episode with the same subjects, making the payoffs more satisfying. The camerawork is fairly conservative. No doubt a limitation of the time, but I think it works in the documentary's favor. It gives us time to let the atmosphere of each episode sink in, unlike the unholy handheld cinematography of Planet Dinosaur (not to be confused with Dinosaur Planet). I also especially like the extinction scene, as it shows a rare dino POV perspective of the asteroid strike.
No dino doc is perfect though. Of course info will become outdated as we discover new things, but there's certain things where they should've known better, even at the time. The Ornithocheirus and Liopleurodon are double the size they should be. Many dinos that should have prorated wrists are unpronated. None of the raptors are feathered. The T-Rex model looks wonky to me, like the dimensions are off, especially the tail. It looks lopsided with such a short tail balancing such a top heavy animal. But you know what? I consider these issues negligible in the grand scheme of things. So much is done so well, treating its subjects with the respect they deserve, and sporting great stories, awesome music, and great effects for the time and budget. The fact Walking With Dinosaurs went above and beyond with both its subjects and presentation means no other dino doc has surpassed it since, and probably won't for a long time.
10/10.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
A truly special film
This is the type of film that only comes out every couple years or so. Imagine Charlie Kaufman meets The Matrix. It's ambitious in scope and complex, yet somehow easy enough to understand on first viewing and unpretentious (unlike a lot of Christopher Nolan's work, which is complex for the sake of it, without much payoff). All this while being fun, funny, and emotionally captivating. There are even callbacks to humorous moments, both comedic and dramatic, that still manage to heighten the stakes. The scope of the story is ultimately small; at the end of the day it's about a family dealing with financial difficulties, a possible divorce, and a distant daughter. How the rest of the events unfold is up to the viewer's interpretation, but I like how it works on multiple levels like that. I really don't want to say much else, just go see it. There's something for everyone and it's hard for me to think of another recent movie that works so well on essentially every level. It may sound clichéd, but I laughed, I cried, it got me thinking, this is what cinema was made for. That's saying something coming from me. I bounced back and forth between a 9 and 10, but with the last couple years being pretty meh for movies, we need something like this right now.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)
Sanic The Hoghedge
I'll preface this by saying I never played any of the Sonic games, and have only seen bits and pieces of the TV shows here and there. I'm reviewing this as a film alone, with no other point of reference.
The movie has two big problems: the editing and the script. The story feels like a first draft that needed a rewrite or 3. Tails mostly serves as an exposition dump and his friendship with Sonic is very rushed and forced. Really none of the characters do anything more than just being servicable. The rushed editing makes emotional beats and "cool" or "epic" scenes fall flat, as they're not given the appropriate time to linger and add weight to a scene. Without getting into spoilers, there's literally dozens of moments where the plot makes literally no sense. Sonic's powers and ability to control them are inconsistent. There are situations Sonic could easily get out of if he just ran super quick, but for some reason refuses to. And the whole Hawaii nonsense probably could've been written out entirely.
As far as positives go, Knuckles was probably the funniest character. His deadpan fish-out-of water reactions reminded me of Drax from Guardians of The Galaxy. Rachel was very funny like the last movie, and got a lot of laughs out of the audience I saw it with. Jim Carrey is basically a live action cartoon character, and as usual its a blast watching him ham it up.
Overall it's a fine kids film that hits all the beats you'd expect it to, but don't expect anything mind blowing.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Technical marvel, otherwise boring torture porn.
I give Passion of The Christ a lot of credit for its ambition. Its troubled production is fascinating. The production value, and the decision to have the dialogue in Amaraic are very impressive (even though the Romans are shown speaking Latin, which though they did speak in Italy, everywhere else they spoke Greek). It's very impressive. Unfortunately the experience lacks depth.
The Passion without context is just torture porn. Every biblical film focuses the majority of the time on Jesus's life, with the crucifixion taking no more than 10 minutes. This film tries to give context with brief 30-second flashbacks of Jesus giving the Seemon on the Mount, but in a vacuum this isn't enough time for us to care about why this guy is being tortured and executed.
The film tries to make up for this and make you sympathize with Jesus with extremely brutal abuse, but they go so far no man could ever survive it. Jesus may have been the Son of God, but he was given a physical human body with Earthly limitations. As he's being arrested, he's knocked off a bridge and caught in the chain restraints. That would've killed him already. The whipping scene drags on over 10 minutes, and I lost count of how many times he was hit after 130. The scene is so bloody, he would've died of blood loss before they could do anything else.
His suffering is prolonged as much as possible. Every time he falls its in 30 seconds of slow motion, grinding the already slow pacing to a hault. After dogpaddling it's way to the 126-minute mark, we can't even be rewarded with an epilogue of the impact he had on his apostles and other followers.
This is the fundamental problem, not just with the movie, but the extreme sects of Christianity who use the Passion as a scare/guilt tactic and make that the focus of the Gospel rather than Jesus's teachings and the events of his life leading up to it. Greater biblical films inspire you to be a selfless, better person, not force you to follow teachings because you're afraid of punishment.
God's Not Dead (2014)
Who was this movie even made for?
God's Not Dead is trying to be affirming to Christians, irrefutable to atheists, and make those of other religions convert, but winds up being embarrassing to Christians, laughable to atheists, and insulting to those of other religions.
There are far too many stupid things to list off, but the films fundamental problem is the childish level of simplicity with which it explores its argument. Literally everyone who isn't a Christian is unrealistically selfish, gets cancer, abused, or dies. You can't make a compelling arguement or even create investment with such simple character motivations and arcs. The Muslim and liberal have terrible things happen to them simply because they're a Muslim and liberal. When they convert, their lives instantly become perfect. This is a stupid movie for stupid people. There are literally only 2 scenes I remember where anyone makes any real good Christian point on the matter. The rest is so watered down and basic.
I could at least partially forgive the script if the presentation was good, but the movie looks like a TV movie you'd see on Hallmark. This was one of the most frustrating cinematic experiences I've had in a long time, and is really only good for laughing at.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
"You're not a writer, you're a killer!"
Full Metal Jacket is a strange film in that it doesn't really follow a traditional narrative. It's sort of just a day in the life of a soldier during the Vietnam War. We spend the first 45 minutes getting to know Private Pyle (after Gomer Pyle) and his relationship with drill sergeant Hartman. Suddenly, they're taken completely out of the picture, and the film spends the remaining hour on Joker, one of the supporting characters up to this point. Themes and ideas are carried over to the second half, but the second half could easily be re-edited to be it's own film.
It's a film that requires multiple watches to get the nuances of the ideas it's trying to explore. It's critical of the war machine and how governments prepare their soldiers for war. In addition to it driving an innocent, mentally unfit recruit like Pyle to something unstable, Hartman uses Lee Harvey Oswald and a school shooter as examples of great shots in the firing range scene. You'd think he'd give examples of great military snipers who killed enemies from far away, or make a point how this power can be mishandled in the wrong hands and therefore you must be mentally fit and have a good moral compass to use it properly, but no, all he cares about is making killers. Joker just wants to be a military journalist, and the whole "born to kill" shtick is just an act. His only kill isn't really necessary, he just euthanized someone another soldier shot. He had the opportunity for the first shot, but since he still has a moral compass, hesitated at the moment of truth as Hartman warned. It brings a new meaning to the "I'm still alive" speech. He did it as validation, nothing more.
This is one is Kubrick's weaker films in my opinion. Obviously it's still great, coming from one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, but I have my own gripes with it. The unorthodox structure fails to keep investment and suspense for me. There was some fake looking blood, which suprised me considering all the effort Kubrick put into getting all that Kensington Gore for The Shining elevator scene. The only way I can make sense of the murder/suicide scene is if it was a dream. Unless the policies were different back in the day, why is Pyle allowed to take ammunition off the firing range? Why is no one else running when they hear the gunshot? Why is Joker still his normal self at the beginning of the Vietnam sequence, with no PTSD?
Despite my gripes it's still a very well made and enjoyable film, and is definitely worth a watch.
Reaction & Review (2011)
One of the better YouTube movie reaction channels
3 and a half years ago Emer Prevost passed away from surgery complications. It's a shame since movie reaction channels have skyrocketed in popularity lately. Unfortunately many of these channels feel disingenuous to me; everyone only says nice things, has no real criticisms, and seem so easily emotionally manipulated, like its the first movie they've ever seen.
What I appreciate about Emer is that he's never afraid to say if something sucks. Something simultaneously interesting and frustrating about him is his unpredictable tastes. I've correctly predicted his reaction less often than not; a lot of the time he'll hate something I thought he'd love, or love something I thought he'd hate. This builds anticipation for the next review, as I'd be genuinely interested in his first time reaction. Will he love it or hate it or something inbetween?
The only aspect of his film analysis I don't agree with is he places way too much emphasis on the story. I get the script is the foundation on which you build your movie and its arguably the most important part, but how those ideas are presented can be just as important. However, if he thinks the premise or script is dumb, it tarnishes his opinions on everything else.
If you're reading this and have a movie reaction channel, please take a few notes from Emer. Don't think every single film you see is amazing just because it's something popular and fun. Dont be afraid to go against the grain if you have a differing opinion. Don't make the majority of your video just clips of the movie playing out with you sitting there doing nothing. Make every frame count, like the movies you're reacting to.
Schindler's List (1993)
Great
There's not much to say about this one other than its pretty great. Many shots are framed so beautifully, they look like a painting you could hang on your wall. The 3 hours fly by, and the Spielberg camp isn't too distracting.
This is my second viewing; on my first watch, I thought the ending was kind of cheesy, reminding me of Hacksaw Ridge, and the use of color and black and white was a bit on the nose. On my last watch though, it really affected me emotionally.
There is one issue I had with the scene where the workers are forced to run in a circle naked, but I can't talk about it since my old review was automatically deleted, I think because certain words got flagged.
Halloween (1978)
Not perfect, but a classic nonetheless.
Halloween is a film I watch every October. Its not perfect but there's still plenty to appreciate. My biggest annoyances are that the acting overall is not very good, the pacing often drags, and nitpicky stuff like Myers looking at his stabbing hand in the opening shot and how its deceptively filmed at an adult's eye level, even though its actually a child. Despite the obvious budget limitations, you can tell a lot of care went into the crafting of this film. I love the cinematography, you can tell they had a lot of fun playing with the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in some scenes. Plus I appreciate the stoic, mature tone the movie mostly successfully employs, and makes the most of its minimal soundtrack which pretty much consists of 2 piano motifs.
The Lighthouse (2019)
The Lighthouse: A Religious Hot Take
Robert Eggers is quickly becoming one of my favorite filmmakers. His unorthodox style is as entrancing as it is unsettling. Some may write this movie off as pretentious garbage, others call it a masterpiece of psychological horror. If you haven't guessed yet, I fall in line with the latter, and have my own off-the-wall literary hot take on The Lighthouse:
Winslow is Tom Howard, a man who murdered his coworker and later died while he was still a logger by the Hudson Bay. He really did die by drowning or hypothermia like Tom Wake hypothesizes. Since Wake and Howard have the same first name, a lot of people like to interpret the film as all happening in the subconscious of the main character. I like to think Tom Howard is dead from the very start, and this film is the afterlife.
My interpretation makes a lot more sense if you've read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. I don't think the filmmakers had this intention in mind, but for me so much adds up. The novel is basically an analogy for the afterlife, where "purgatory" is this expansive grey plain next to mountains, which you must climb to attain a higher state of being or "heaven". Everyone starts off on the grey plain. If you are able to continue climbing the mountain to the point where your state of being would make it uncondicive to turn back, you'll find you had started off in purgatory but ascended to heaven, or at least the first level of it. If you stay on the grey plain, you'll find you were in hell all along.
The island and lighthouse are purgatory, and if he can attend to his duties and not kill a seabird for four weeks, he earns the right to heaven. How appropriate this "grey plain" is filmed in black and white. Coincidence? I think not! Anyways, not killing a seabird is one of the rules because if he has the capacity to achieve the objective good despite the temptation, he proves he at the very least has the capacity for further reform. When he kills the gull, Tom has sealed his fate. He is now in hell, and his Promethean fate is inevitable. I'm undecided as to whether Wake is an angel or demon. I like to believe angel since Dafoe portrays a hint of fear and regret when reciting the sea curse to resign Tom to his fate. Either way, he is an agent sent to test Tom by being his annoying farting coworker, while at the same time playing a fair game and laying down the ground rules to give him a chance. The rules are you can't kill a seabird, you can't go into the top of the lighthouse, the weather and food are terrible, and every time you pleasure yourself it will always be to a shrieking freaky mermaid. After he kills the bird, the weather keeps getting worse, and the boat (a substitute for the bus in The Great Divorce) will never return.
The lighthouse represents, in the broadest sense, the truth. They say no mortal can experience God without completely losing their sanity. A lighthouse is usually a beacon of hope and offers a course of guidance. Now that Winslow is damned, he will never be worthy, and the light simply serves as an inevitable temptation. When he does look at it, he is so overwhelmed he cannot function anymore. Its also worth noting that in The Great Divorce, none of characters can die since they're already dead. You can get gravely injured though, and you just have to lie there in agony for weeks while your "body" heals. In that respect, the Promethean fate is a brilliantly twisted form of torture for him.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
LOL
There's not much I can add about this movie critically that hasn't already been said by thousands of other reviews. Instead, I'm just using this review as an excuse to tell an amusing story. This movie came out when I was very little and my mom took me to see it in the theater. There's one thing I remember from that screening back in '99: When Qui-Gon was fighting Darth Maul as Obi-Wan was behind the blast shield, my mom leaned in and said something like "he's a good fighter" referring to Liam Neeson and how he wasn't known for action roles at the time. Literally seconds later Qui-Gon got stabbed and I thought it was funny. LOL.
The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)
Unconventional but very effective horror film
This is my second review I'm posting for this film. My original review from 4 years ago was a long winded comparison between this and Rosemary's Baby. The films do share many similarities I'll get into later, but don't think about that going into the movie.
This paragraph is my spoiler-free review, and everything after that will be more in-depth. All I'm going to say is The Witch is the last horror film I ever saw that legitimately scared me. I've seen a lot of horror movies, and its not like I was a kid when I watched this either. This movie came out when I was 20, it still unsettled me to the point where I had trouble falling asleep for the next 2 nights. No movie has done that to me since. I even saw it in the theater twice. It takes a lot for me to see a movie in the theater twice. I think the reason it affected me so much is because its a very unconventional horror film. After seeing so many scary movies, you get an idea of the formula. Chris Stuckmann said it best when he described The Witch as "almost perversely designed to make you feel uneasy". When I first watched the film, there were several points where I expected something to happen, and instead of that thing happening, it would do something else, and that thing was always way more disturbing than what I imagined. The isolation and tension the supernatural happenings drive into the family's life adds another layer of conflict, and it works very well. The 1.66:1 aspect ratio makes the protagonists feel small and the trees imposing and ominous. The score of slow strings and choirs creates a haunting, monolithic soundscape. The atmosphere is so effective, even in a scene where you can tell the sun's going down, you're put on edge in anticipation of what might happen at night. If the mere time of day in a film can instill suspense, that's good tension building if I've ever seen it. Overall the acting is strong, but the actors who played William and Thomasin were the real standouts. The young twins were annoying, but I think they were supposed to be.
Most of my problems with the film are minor, but the elephant in the room for me was how similar it is to Rosemary's Baby. The dominant male figure in our female protagonist's life seeking professional or spiritual fulfillment is the reason they're in a new environment in the first place. They are isolated (socially in Rosemary's Baby, physically in The Witch). In both endings, the female protagonist joins a coven due to their waning faith and because they are left with nowhere left to go. Their respective decisions to join a coven takes them from the submissive female roles of their respective cultures to positions of relative power, albeit in a perverse way.
I love both these movies, but Rosemary's Baby is undeniably the stronger film. The Witch is a great movie, but if you didn't like it, I would recommend Rosemary's Baby since its a similar premise but more timeless and overall better crafted. It's an amazing first film nevertheless. Since the release of The Lighthouse, Robert Eggers is quickly becoming on of my favorite directors, and I eagerly anticipate his future projects.
The Grand Tour (2016)
On par with golden age Top Gear, except for two annoyances...
Not long ago on a television network not far away called the BBC, Top Gear was revamped from its old informative editorial format into a weird comedy/talk show/reality/documentary. By season 2 the show settled on their starring lineup: Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond, three very British and somewhat incompetent automotive journalists who reviewed the latest models, revisited classics, discussed automotive news, and interviewed celebrities in their own unique way, Most amusing of all were their challenges, road trips, and hair-brained schemes to apply their automotive knowledge and passion to make life easier and the world a better place (often with disastrous results).
Top Gear worked so well in this format because of the chemistry between the three presenters. They were genuinely organic and funny, contrasted with the cringe-inducing subsequent hosts. When Jeremy was fired in 2015, James and Richard stuck to their guns and resigned as well, knowing all three of them are what contributed to the show's success. We will never see Top Gear in this format again, but The Grand Tour is just about the best replacement we could've realistically asked for.
It follows the same general format as the old show: reviews, interviews, discussions, challenges, and adventures. It's the same 3 presenters, but this time (for the first 3 seasons anyway) each episode is filmed at a different location in the world. My first annoyance with this, is that because they're following the old format so closely, and they can't use the same titles and lingo from Top Gear, the replacements are so transparent. Instead of The Stig they had The American who was soon replaced with Abby. The Stig was a huge part of Top Gear's identity. Granted he was more of a prop than a character, but his anonymity and socially removed behavior allowed for some great gags. Jeremy now says "terrible disappointment" and "back to the tent" instead of "bombshell" and "back to the studio". Conversation street is clearly just the news, but at least Richard gives a unique intro every time and the animated shorts are hilarious.
My second, bigger gripe with the Grand Tour is how some parts are a lot more obviously staged than in Top Gear. TG had many staged scenes, but the show somehow managed to make all the dialogue, actions, and body language feel natural. It's hard to explain without spoiling many scenes in GT, but the dialogue feels noticeably more scripted and the events more convoluted.
Many fans are sad that the show (for the time being) will not be continuing in its old format with the tent. I however look forward to season 4 since it will be entirely adventures, which were always the high point of any season of TG or GT. The Grand Tour is not really about the cars anyway. Everything Top Gear has done season 23 and on is proof of that. Jeremy, Hamster, and Captain Slow are the heart of GT, specifically their humor, unbreakable optimism, and sense of adventure. Though there are minor annoyances with the shows presentation, I love how the spirit of Top Gear was still successfully carried over.
Kickboxer (1989)
Extremely cliched, full of stereotypes, but enjoyable
I like how the movie's called Kickboxer, but it's about Muay Thai, and Van Damne resorts to karate and taekwondo techniques in the ring. That leads me to a big problem with this movie: Van Damme's character doesn't really have arc. He starts off as an accomplished karate practitioner (like Van Damme himself) and doesn't seem like he needs any more training to beat Tong Po. The movie tries to make it seem like he's not flexible and has to work his way up to a complete split, but earlier in the movie he practiced his form in various types of kicks, and at one point not only throws a side kick above his head, but chambers it up and down in a slow and controlled manner. As someone who's trained in various martial arts for years, I know from experience that throwing a side kick that high requires a lot of flexibility and control, and Van Damme's technique is impeccable from the start.
But this is Muay Thai, not karate. For the sake of the story, Van Damme should have to learn clinching, elbows, and roundhouse kicks to the thighs to beat Tong Po. Instead, we have two scenes of Van Damme in the ring, a warm up round where he annihilates the dude, and the final match between him and Tong Po. Both times he wins with hook kicks, side kicks, traditional punches, and other karate/tkd techniques.
Beyond that, an even bigger problem with the film is how shallow the writing is. Tong Po is written to be literally the most unlikable bad guy ever; he's unfair in the ring, collects protection from the townspeople, and rapes our generic love interest. I keep calling Van Damme Van Damme because, while he's an impressive martial artist, the dude can't act his way out of a wet paper bag and lacks the screen presence of someone like Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, or Michael Jai White. At least he's better than Steven Segal. The only memorable character is our Mr. Miyagi stand in Xian Chow, who's genuinely charming and likable. I'd say Kickboxer has more competent story structure and technical aspects than his previous vehicle Bloodsport. Bloodsport at least knew it's story wasn't it's strong point, and made a good third of the runtime tournament matches. It still has issues like a thin plot and lots of bad dubbing, but it's more enjoyable to sit though than Kickboxer. Whichever you think is better will ultimately come down to personal preference.
Vampire's Kiss (1988)
A film where Nick Cage's crazy antics serve an artistic purpose
I wouldn't go so far as to say this movie is nothing without Nicolas Cage, but I would say his performance makes the movie. The internet makes fun of Cage's overacting and unhinged personality, but in this movie I think it really works. Cage plays a guy who's already a bit off the wall, and a vampire chick bites him which leads to uncontrollable bouts of crazier and crazier behavior. The way she chameleons herself, the way Cage responds, it works with the metaphors it implies such as cycles of abuse and hollow relationships. Cage's increasing desperation unironically works emotionally, and you feel sorry for the guy. His performance carries the whole movie. I don't think this film would be fondly remembered if there was a different actor in the leading role, since everything else about the presentation is pretty forgettable. While nothing about it is outright bad, Nick Cage is the only truly standout part to me.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Another Objective 5/10, 7 For Nostalgia
A few months ago, I wrote a review of Dinosaur (2000) saying it has lots of problems and is an objective 5/10, but I still kept my rating a 7 because of my enjoyment. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith holds a similar place in my heart.
As a kid, I was a huge Star Wars nerd, and ROTS was my most anticipated movie of 2005. If I sit down and watch the movie, I can point out the countless plot holes and logical inconsistencies, and make fun of the bad dialogue and stilted acting and direction the whole way through. However, it's so thoroughly entertaining, I've seen it dozens of times and I never get tired of it. While the other 2 prequels are mostly boring and skippable, I have so much fun with Episode 3, both ironically and unironically.
Pretty much every other film critic on the internet has pointed out the good and bad about this film. All I'm going to say is if you're new to Star Wars and are reluctant to watch the prequels because of their reputation, at least watch ROTS for Ian McDiarmid's performance as Palpatine/The Emperor. He's so deliciously over the top, his character just LOVES being evil, it's glorious. Admittedly, I'm very biased toward this film because of nostalgia, but if you don't go in with high expectations, you'll have a good time.
Malcolm in the Middle (2000)
A fascinating worldview from a delusional, sadomasochistic perspective
Malcolm In The Middle is a show I've always had a love/hate relationship with. The creators, cast, and crew are clearly all very talented and know how to do comedy. The show is consistently funny, well shot, well edited, has good comedic timing, there's not a single weak performance the whole 6 seasons, and there's something about the lighting in 2000s shows that really butters my croissant. However, what kept me coming back to the show was not necessarily the fact that I enjoyed watching it. Rather, I kept coming back out of morbid curiosity.
I know nothing of the behind-the-scenes workings of this show, but I genuinely believe that the creator or writers have a warped, mean-spirited world view that's blatantly translated to how our characters behave. Every character on the show thinks the whole world is out to get them, and everyone is either a delusional and manipulative POS, or perfectly knows how to circumvent or exploit the actions of such people. The grandma played by Cloris Leachman is literally the embodiment of pure evil, vanity, and selfishness. Lois is the mother with no faith in humanity and doesn't trust any of her sons. Eldest son Francis blames Lois' manipulation and unfair parenting as the reason for his shortcomings and delinquency, though he does seem to find some contentment settling down on the ranch with his new wife a couple seasons in. Reese is dumber than a sack of diapers, only proficient in pulling pranks, being the school bully, and wiggling his way out of Lois' punishments. Malcolm is a literal genius with a 165 IQ, but his academic accomplishments are only rivaled by his ability to get into trouble. Dewey is probably the most normal, relatable, and innocent child, and his active imagination and quirky adventures were always amusing to me. The fact he's low key a virtuoso pianist is also quite funny. Hal is probably the most traditionally comedic character of the family, with his subplots often being the silliest and his facial expressions the most exaggerated. Bryan Cranston is one of my favorite actors solely for the fact he could play Hal and Walter White in the same lifetime.
Its not just the main family either, whose last names we never hear onscreen. Literally almost every single supporting and background character in the show is blatantly and unapologetically trying to make everyone else in their lives miserable. Even if doing the right or nice thing would save an entire episode of trouble, they're so committed to their delusion that they must be in control and prevent everyone around them from self-actualizing just to justify their own warped worldview that their only option is suffering, and everyone else must suffer with them. Its fascinating to me that the writers think this is the only way our horrible main characters can interact with the world. With the exception of Craig or Abe, it doesn't work because there's rarely a foil for out characters to play off of. Did they do it just to make our main cast seem less reprehensible by comparison? Or do they legitimately believe there's no honest way out for any of them? Is this entire show just a character study of a self-hating Hollywood writer with no faith in humanity left, and this show was his cathartic way of getting his thoughts out there?
Its possible to pull off scumbag characters in an enjoyable way, Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia is a great example of this. I give the show an 8/10 because it IS funny and well made, but I struggle to give it anything higher out of frustration. Frustration over the fact that everyone's lives would be much easier if they weren't constantly backstabbing each other.
Scary Movie 3 (2003)
Turn your brain off and have a good time.
Objectively, this is a terrible movie, and the sense of humor is really dumb. However, I cannot deny it's really really funny. This movie was a laugh riot when I was a kid, and believe it or not I actually found it even funnier on rewatch as an adult. I laughed really hard, way harder than I should have at a lot of the old jokes I remembered and new ones I never noticed before. It's hard to get a real involuntary laugh out of me, and I involuntarily burst out laughing 10 or 15 times, which is a lot for me. Assigning a numerical score is hard; it's a 3 in terms of objective quality, but an 8 or 9 in terms of entertainment value, so I'll meet somewhere in the middle and give it a 5/10. If you're a fan of stupid humor and just want to turn your brain off and have a good time alone or with friends, this movie'll do the job.
Hostel (2005)
Decent buildup, silly final act...
Last night was Halloween, so I knew I needed to watch a horror movie. I went with Hostel, one of the films infamous for helping start the torture porn craze of the 2000s. I guess I'm satisfied, but I have no desire to watch it again, either.
Two Americans are backpacking across Europe with an Icelandic guy they pick up along the way. On a train from The Netherlands to Slovakia, they meet a man who tells them about a hostel with lots of hot girls. Slovakia in this movie is painted as some battered post-communist wasteland. Even in 2005 I doubt literally everyone was driving 80s Eastern block beaters. The first half hour of this film is somewhat meandering and plodding, with a subplot of the shy guy not wanting to get laid that goes nowhere. At least the Icelandic guy is funny.
Unfortunately, the Icelandic guy goes missing, so the other two try to find him. Every fishy character they meet is the most obviously evil looking guy and the ominous music plays, but besides a little cheesiness they build up the mystery pretty well. The cinematography/direction is particularly on point here. When one of the Americans is captured, the first torture scene is surprisingly held back and effective, and that quick shot of the Achilles heels always makes me cringe. The acting is good across the board, with the exception of the final guy/main character Jay Hernandez, who wasn't very convincing IMO. He convinces one of the sketchy girls from the hostel to take him where his friends have gone. He gets captured and tortured, and this is where the film goes off the rails.
In the final act of this movie, the torture scenes are so grotesque and over the top, it crosses the line of being scary or disturbing and starts becoming comical. I'm sure there was some intentional really dark comedy in there, but stuff like the German guy slipping on the ball gag and chainsawing his own leg, and the Japanese girl with her eye hanging out of its socket made me laugh. The implausible stuff our hero does from killing a dozen people to fitting a leather glove over his hand with 2 missing fingers without screaming in pain was also funny to me. On top of that, during his escape, he coincidentally boards the same train the Slovak man from earlier just happens to be on. The revenge deaths are satisfying, I'll give the movie that, but it's all just so, so silly.
Though an enjoyable watch, I don't feel the need to ever see this movie ever again. It has a plodding beginning, decent rising actions, and crazy ending that I found both genuinely and ironically entertaining. Feel free to give it a watch if it seems like your kind of thing, but there are much better slashers and torture porn movies out there.