BobbyLikesMovie

So I saw Split in January and it was good. It is your typical bewildering thriller. The only reason this gained so much attention is because Add to dictionary directed it. It is not a bad movie, but it is not Shyamalan’s best. This is his return to form, but this is not his best. Shyamalan directs with subtlety and it does not fail in this movie. There are so many subtle moments in this movie that could really benefit from a second viewing. The the performances are top-notch especially James McAvoy. It is heart-pounding and intriguing like any other thriller and in fact more bewildering than normal thrillers. However, the plot may be too loose for some and the movie lacks focus on certain ideas. The movie really wants the dark tone to be added with comical levity which at times work but at other times do not work. There are some really awkward moments both in a good way and in a bad way, but I really do not want to give anything away because I think people should watch it. It is not perfect, but it is definitely worth a watch. I really like it to the point of 8/10, but I decided to give this movie a 7/10 just for some minor inconsistencies. Overall it is a good movie.

This is one of the greatest films of all time. The action is perfectly shot and everything is beautiful about this film. The score by Ennio Morricone is the greatest score in cinema history. The only problems I have is that there are moments that prolong the movie making it unnecessarily three hours and Clint Eastwood in this movie needed more character development, but that’s it. And those critiques are only nitpicks. This is a gorgeous and engaging movie experience that must be seen. Now stop reading reviews and go watch it now. But if you have seen the movie and want to see the public opinion, my opinion in that the movie is close to becoming a masterpiece and is one of the greatest American classics of all time while still being the best Western of all time. If you like cinema, watch it. If you like action, watch it. If you like history, watch it. If you like a well-bodied drama about cowboys, watch it. If you like a good western, watch it. Go see now!

Earlier in 2016, I saw Midnight Special and it was okay. This movie was considered as a heart-warming science fiction tale about a father protecting his son who has strange powers. I feel like the heart in this movie was handled well. The performances were pretty well acted and added a lot of depth especially Michael Shannon’s. And it is told pretty nicely through well-handled cinematography. Almost everything is well-handled in this movie but the plot and the film editing ****. Let me explain: The Film Editing: There is one action scene in particular that is cut with too many takes. That scene felt very loose and very poorly edited. Most likely the director is not familiar on how to shoot action scenes. Jeff Nichols, the director, has had his fair share of interesting more dramatic movies (i.e Loving) proof that he is not familiar with action scenes. Film editing is an integral part of a science fiction film and having this quality screwed up is very poor for the movie. A lot of the CGI scenes look poorly edited and laughable. The scenes with the son are more laughable. But all in all, the film editing was pretty bad but basically: it did not look real. The Plot!!!!: The plot is does not ground itself as something very important or serious. There is a substantial amount of scenes that show heart and love, but nothing really grounds itself as something significant or impactful. Everything feels very low in scale. It lacks significance. This plot needs more enlightening or more seriousness. The scope or the lengths that the story wants to take does not match how drab the plot is. It makes the whole concept of the movie unimportant. In addition, the whole theme about love seems dull and unimportant. It makes the film pointless when you have a dull theme and a drab plot. It cannot manage to grab the audience’s attention. It wants to be something powerful, but it falls flat on its face. In actuality, it makes the movie seem very T.V movie-ish. However, the scope and the performances are all well-handled. I think the problem is that although Jeff Nichols has a passion for the subject, he does not have the talent to create competent movie on this subject. It is very well-handled, but the director cannot manage to create an experience that is memorable and powerful as much as he wants to. I really wanted to give this movie a 7/10, but there were just a lot of problems. So I gave it a 5/10 meaning it was an okay experience or a mediocre experience. This is a very polarizing movie so you can probably enjoy it or not. But this movie is smack dab in the middle for me.

I saw Daddy’s Home and it was really stupid and yet had a reasonable heart and ambition. But it seriously was one of the worst movies of 2015. The only reason I am reviewing this is because a sequel is releasing in 2017. This needs to stop. So let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about the things I like. The Heart and Ambition: It had a good heart and ambition. Someone wanted this to be something heartwarming and memorable. And there are some memorable moments. Despite the end product, you can tell that there was someone in the cast and crew that cared about this movie. Someone wanted to make a good heartwarming movie. In fact, there are even some laughable moments probably from coming this someone. But these good aspects got shrouded through terrible ideas possibly created from a superior other. Now here is the list of the things I did not like. The Humor: Humor in movies are fine. If a joke or gag in not funny, it is fine; it does not affect my opinion of the movie. If a joke or gag is funny, then I appreciate the movie. However, if a joke or gag is terribly executed to the point where it becomes annoying, then I do not like it; I despise it. This movie had a lot of jokes and gags that were annoying. It was head achingly annoying. Running gags and annoying jokes take up a majority of this movie and really take away the fun in comical moments in the minority of this movie. This aspect is the main reason why I do not want another movie like this. You are probably reading this because you want to know how was this movie and how will the next movie be. This movie was annoying and for next: do not expect anything funny; just pointless annoying scenes. The Acting: Mark Walberg really tried to bring life to this movie, but he comes off as trying too hard for a movie that is too is annoying and lifeless already. Will Ferrell adds to the infuriating annoyance. The other performances do not add anything. They do things that are at times against their character and do not make any sense. The other characters are usually tied to running gags and pointless scenes. They are basically plot devices. Characters can be plot devices, but this prevents important characters from being fleshed out into interesting and well-bodied characters. In a comedy, all characters don’t need to be fleshed out; a comedy just needs to make people laugh in order to be acceptable. If the movie fails at making people laugh for a majority of the movie (like this one), then there needs to be other redeeming qualities. But no redeeming qualities are in sight since the acting is flat as a 1-year old can of soda. However, I mainly blame the writer for the poor acting. The Writing: This is a poorly written comedy. The writer does not show his talent in writing. He cannot pace the story well. He writes in pointless annoying scenes that do nothing but merely attempt to make the audience laugh. He appears not to know how to write a good comedy. There is fake and forced conflict. All conflicts are forced in a movie, but if it is obvious to the people that movie’s universe is forced, then the writer failed at bringing something engaging. He only appears to know how to write a meaningless dribble-filled comedy. I may not be a writer; I am just a random person on the internet but the writing is obviously flat. You can still enjoy a movie if it does not have perfect writing. But this movie is not enjoyable in any other medium. Product Placement: The meaning of this movie is too shove as many products down the viewers’ throats. Now, there is blatant commercial advertising for Ford and other companies. Movies can have product placement. But, if it is very blatantly obvious, then it becomes annoying. And this movie is annoying Conclusion: This movie was annoying, but there were some laughs and there was some heart. I feel like this was only used to make money and place as many advertisements as they can. Their plan goes like this: It does not matter if there is any good writing, acting, or humor: all that matters is to place as many movie stars and celebrities to create enough money and place enough products. Now, a movie can be used to make money. But I believe it is that desire that caused this movie to be so transparent of its flaws and to become evidently annoying. That ideology is killing good movies; maybe Daddy’s Home could have been something special. But Daddy’ Home is flat, uninspired and pointless. You can still enjoy it. But as a random person on the internet: I despise this movie. I only hope that the Daddy’s Home 2 will be slightly better, but I would say do not expect much.

So I saw Alien and Alien is a very solid science fiction movie. It is a wholly entertaining and quite the bewildering experience. Alien, taking place in a spaceship called Nostromo away from Earth in the future, is mainly about the survival of a crew from an intruding alien. Ridley Scott, the director, takes in elements from the genres of suspense, thriller, and horror. I find this movie as something darkly satisfying probably because of the over-bearing loneliness that the movie holds. There is something so serenely and creepily alluring that Scott manages to pull off. Certain aspects such as the cinematography, production design, and costume design make this movie dark and beautiful despite it’s adventurous tone. Basically, Scott is a practical master at creating a feeling of desolation for the audience while managing the audience to be thoroughly entertained. Today, thrillers and horror movies rely on other entities (i.e monsters) to create conflict and thrills. In Alien, it does rely on a certain monster to make the plot well-paced but there is a substantial amount of character conflict. Different characters have different ideologies and emotions. Emotions, feelings, and rationales conflict with each other. The human drama in this movie about an alien makes this movie the more realistic. It makes sure that the movie is not confined by a singular conflict only caused by the alien. I think that the human drama adds more depth to the movie and it is something that a lot of modern-day thrillers have a problem with. More on the characters, Ripley is a milestone of a protagonist. She is evidently the protagonist of this movie. She has great characteristics (i.e bold, daring, brave) and she is not one-dimensional. Through Sigourney Weaver’s monumental acting, she is perfectly fleshed out and well bodied as a character. During the 70s and before, women were not playing prominent roles. Certainly there were some movies that had a woman as a prominent role, but the notion was not popularized. This movie popularized the notion that women can play daring and brave roles. There may be more appreciation for what this movie did than what the movie is: and that is completely fine. Movies that revolutionize the film industry deserve credit. All the other cast members also do admirable acting. In actuality, all the characters are fleshed out perfectly told. However what I think makes this movie such a classic is mainly Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott manages to balance a very venturous and daring plot while making undertones that are grimly gory and chilling. Mainly, I believe that thrillers and science fiction movies during that time had to either be eerie and disturbing or fun and daring. Ridley Scott makes sure you feel that sense of loneliness and desolation that crew felt which thrillers and suspense movies (i.e The Conversation) had whilst maintaining a competent adventure which science fiction movies had (i.e Star Wars). Scott balance both ideas effortlessly and flawlessly. He proves that horror/thriller movies can have a huge scope and have adventure and proves that adventurous movies can have a twinge of horror and creepiness. He revolutionizes the genre of science-fiction, horror, and thrillers with this movie and he deserves credit for doing something largely monumental. Now, the question is: is this the greatest movie of all time? Lately I think it has been getting praise and has gained some type of monumental status. I do not think it is the greatest film of all time, but is an entertaining and visceral experience that manages to be revolutionary. The whole point of movies is to entertain people. And this movie entertains me a lot while being revolutionary and having a beautiful scope. Isn’t that an achievement?