CalvinCrack

Fun movie, recommended for genre fans. It makes the most of a small cast and few locations. It wears its influences very clearly but still shows a lot of creativity in how it blends horror tropes together. While it's easy to compare this movie to The Shining or 1408 (Stephen King hotel films) the most striking similarities for me were with Silent Hill (2 in particular). Fuzzy radio static, checking a map, solving a puzzle involving a clock, reaching into a dark crevice, cult symbols, all done by a traumatized man of dubious morality in a trench coat. Even more that I won't mention for spoilers. So fans of Silent Hill and survivor horror games should definitely check this one out.

An entertaining biopic that focuses mainly on the music and family elements of the first half of Michael’s life. It’s a bit surface level and on the nose, pun intended, but it has the unenviable job of condensing a lot of information into two hours. If you can accept this movie on its own terms, it’s a fun ride; casual Michael fans will learn a thing or two and enjoy the music. Big fans will learn less but bask in the opportunity to be a fly on the wall during these (often) glorious recreations of pivotal moments— and also smaller character focused scenes where we get a chance to sympathize with Michael and his crazy ass bizarre life. Bubbles is in the movie. It all works due to one man, and his name is Jaafar Jackson, and he is brilliant in the film. He’s given us something really special with his performance.

I really liked it. One of the best video game adaptations I've seen because it obeys game logic. I had never played the game but could tell exactly what it must be like by watching the film; and it is (I played it later)! This makes the case that mystery puzzle and high concept 'indie' games are the best vehicles for film adaptation because they leave enough open to the imagination that a filmmaker can work with. I'd recommend this movie to people who enjoy unusual games and films. 8.5/10

No offense to the animators because they did their thing, but this movie ****. It starts out nice but they forgot to turn on the oven. There's no stakes, no drama, and too few laughs. It makes 85 minutes feel like four hours. It's worse than part one, and that was already on the edge with its basic ass non-story. I would recommend adults skip it, but I will say that the kids in my theater seemed to dig it. So if you have kids who are Mario fans, you should take them. I've been a Mario fan since I was their age but this level of storytelling isn't cutting it.

I would love to give this movie a higher score, but the messy final stretch leaves a sour taste in the mouth. For most of the movie it's enjoyably bizarre, funny and romantic. This movie takes flight thanks largely to its two outstanding lead performances. Jessie Buckley is phenomenal, crafting a character unlike any we've quite seen before. Christian Bale also totally anchors the film with his portrayal of Frankenstein. He's sympathetic, funny, at times fierce and.... human. There is a musical element to the film which worked for me and I appreciated the surreal POV aspects of the film. What would two reanimated people do on a date? Movie, dancing, police stand off; they're not so different from us. One thing this movie has going for it is the awe dropping visuals. There are period scenes in New York etc that were transporting enough to make my heart soar. All on a super tall IMAX screen.

A step down from 28 Years Later, with a fair few gruesome scenes that had me asking WHY. Even the setup of the story had me asking WHY. But if you saddle up for the journey, there are a remarkable number of pleasures to be had also. The acting, for one, is uniformly great, with two incredible anchors of Ralph Fiennes and Jack O’Connell. The art design, locations and cinematography are well considered. Licensed music is (mostly) used to interesting effect. But there are also some negative aspects worth mentioning. There is an, at times, aggressive cruelty to the film which I see as a superficial bandaid for where deeper themes might have been presented. In other words, dwelling on such macabre things fills the run time, makes you squirm, and makes you loathe the villain, but is still somewhat empty calories in an otherwise thoughtful sci-fi/zombie film. Some of it is unpleasant enough that it could be a barrier to recommendation, and certainly rewatches (though fast forwarding is an option). Another major complaint is that the protagonist child from last time gets a bit lost in the shuffle here (as a POV anchor). That may be part of the point, but it was a non-traditional approach to this story that distanced me in areas I may have otherwise leaned in. Then there’s the scope of the story; it is by no means epic though it does contain several great individual sequences. It leaves a residual impression of unevenness, even though the individual sequences are carried out with aplomb. I think that this story in lesser hands could’ve been something I would *really* not like. But for the solid direction, great performances, and clever writing (“story problem solving”) by Alex Garland, the movie emerges as a survivor by the skin of its teeth. Interestingly, I’ve noticed that reviewers who were more middling on 28YL say TBT is better, but someone like me who thought 28YL was one of the best movies of last year, likes part two less. We need a bigger sample size, but there could be something there. Nevertheless it’s a well done movie worth seeing, but not for the faint of heart.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Can’t give this movie less than a 10. It delivers on all fronts. This is the work of a master storyteller. Best of the three Knives Out films for me. Craig has never felt more at home in this role, and he’s again surrounded by a great cast of familiar faces. The standout here is Josh O’Conner who delivers an (unexpected) tour de force performance at the center of the film. See this in theaters while you can!

An exciting story that kept me intrigued. Well acted, shot, scored and directed. Darkly comic and very tense at times. I think there's enough here to keep most people entertained. It's an easy recommend, though your enjoyment of the film will easily range from 6.5 to 9.5. Averaging those out, the movie is an 8.

How do I score this movie?!!?!?!?!?!? It's not a great movie in terms of its formulaic story and characters, but the visuals and score are fantastic. I saw it in IMAX 3D and got more than my money's worth. It's not unlike Tron Legacy where the presentation is the star of the show. If you want a passable B-movie with some AAA effects, then this is your ticket. IMAX 3D.

This Naked Gun reboot doesn't have a clear enough target for its satire. The original Naked Gun movie is a parody of the film noir genre, and it plays out as if it's an actual TV detective movie turned sideways. It has everything you would expect from the genre. What this movie does not have is a compelling structure to hang its jokes on. I just watched the movie and I can barely tell you what the P.L.O.T. was all about. That's a problem, and no, making it a joke (funny as it may be) is not a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to actually telling a film story. Liam Neeson is unfortunately miscast here. He tries his hardest, but I can feel the effort beneath his grimacing, eyebrow-raised deadpan. It all screams “laugh at this,” in ways that Leslie Nielsen made feel effortless (miraculously so and an impossible act to follow). There's a scene toward the end of the movie where an actor briefly steps in for Liam Neeson as a joke, and it left me very disappointed they didn't cast that actor to do the entire film. This movie takes some big swings, and unfortunately, they don't all pan out. The main problem with the movie is that it's not very funny. It does have some great laughs, but the hit ratio is minuscule. I could see they were putting funny ideas on screen, but they didn't translate into a visceral reaction in my body called laughter. I probably laughed 20 times out of 200 ****'s too bad this didn't turn out, because I know the creators are big fans of the original. It's a nice homage but not one I'll be compelled to watch again anytime soon. The Naked Gun is sacred ground, so to step up and make a reboot called The Naked Gun, you have to come so correct. The reboot highlights what an impossible tightrope the original and its sequel walked. They are the masters of the parody genre. This is a poor imitation.

The movie was not good. It failed to engage me for most of its runtime. Phoenix is a great actor with a weird vibe; with him I often feel a hole at the center of a film where I ought to be engaging. Aster and Phoenix together (for the second time) conjure a dissociative chaos that makes me feel like the artists are unwell. It’s not a buoyant watch and doesn’t leave you with enough catharsis to make up for the drag. There is some haunted wisdom in the film, and a smattering of good scenes… and I’ll grant that it gets way more entertaining in its final stretch, but it’s too little too late. Aster needs to find a better balance between structure and surrealism (tone & tempo) like the best weird directors have managed to do (Lynch, Kubrick, etc).

I loved it. The film is totally entertaining for all if its runtime with little drag. I saw it in IMAX 3D and would highly recommend.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Makes Jurassic Park 3 look like...Jurassic Park 1. This movie is dull. Terrible story, sub-video game level storytelling. It's walk-outable.

An immaculately clever production from script to screen. It’s hard to find, throughout history, directors who will take a budget this size and deliver a movie this avant garde. All while still somehow delivering the expected (see: necessary) genre thrills. The best filmmakers have always found a way to get their money and then make the movie they want to make. Danny injects so much life into this picture that his joy as a filmmaker is contagious. Garland’s clinical (by which I mean precise, skillful) approach to building out the emotional beats of a story and then Danny just going to town on that script… just works. The acting is phenomenal, the cinematography is gorgeous (even considering the cameras they used), the editing is incredible; visceral while maintaining continuity. If film academies are so bold as to honor a film like this I could see consideration for Best Supporting Actress, Cinematography, Editing, Production Design and maybe even Director.

[TLDR: Reminded me of waiting in a 2 hour line at six flags for a 3 minute ride.] The Final Reckoning, while not all bad, has some significant issues. It’s brain dead for a sci-fi film. It’s slow for an action film. It’s predictable for a spy thriller. It’s long for a movie with only two major stunt sequences. It’s overly repetitive and expository for a sequel to something that came out just two years ago (not to mention, one with a relatively simple premise of: AI wants to destroy mankind — and without much subtlety to the reasoning). The whole thing is messy. It feels like an assembly cut of reshoots wrapped around a few already finished sequences. They’ve made clear publicly, to my surprise, that the first thing they come up with are action set pieces and then work them into a story. For any fan of great storytelling this is a red flag, granted they have managed to make exceptional films using this technique. So Final Reckoning (mirroring its troubled production) seems like more a case of bad luck that it didn’t all cut together the way they hoped this time. I’ve toyed around with how to fix the film structurally. Obviously the sub sequence needs to come sooner. But that doesn’t fix everything and it displaces other story elements that also need to come early. I think they got written (and backed…) into a corner and suddenly had to please three masters: 1. Dead Reckoning Part One. 2. Mission Impossible franchise tropes. 3. Series Finale. Item two implies they need to start the movie with a “this tape will self destruct in five seconds” situation— but that’s at odds with item #1 right off the bat. We’re already mid mission! Why has there even been a passage of time? This movie is saddled with so much, it forgets to do the only thing truly desired of it by an audience: be a good Mission movie. And it fails to offer the expected pleasures. The group dynamics are off. The fun tone is lost. There isn’t much mystery or complexity (their idea of a twist here is re-inserting a minor character from MI1). And frankly the action pieces aren’t as exciting as usual because they lack the complex team based infiltration mechanic the series is known for. The big set pieces in the last 90 minutes are good, but honestly, they are reduced in effectiveness by the slog it takes to get there. The sub thing is a bit tense… the first time you see it…. But hardly exciting enough to be the centerpiece of a 3 hour film finale to a franchise. So then we have the biplane sequence, which is cool, but also ludicrous from a story perspective. [minor spoilers next 1-2 lines] Getting to minimum safe distance makes sense but bringing two shiny, open cockpit, red and yellow biplanes for that purpose? “I brought two planes just in case, Ethan!!” proclaims the villain. [END SPOILERS] It’s fun but illogical. And in a stronger film I’d be willing to go there with them, but no. As it is, this is more akin to waiting in a 2 hour line at six flags for a 3 minute ride.

A good story well told. Fantastic editing that kept the pace humming along. From the writer to the director to the stars, everyone’s focus was on making this an entertaining story and their efforts paid off.

Awesome flick. I had some issues with the beginning and end but everything in between was great.

An exceptional film by talented filmmakers. It is NOT what I expected, which was what the trailer sells, which is a more out and out action packed politically intriguing thrill ride. It's more a meditation on the experience of having your homeland torn apart, and the distrust that is sewn so easily between neighbors. All told through the eyes of photojournalists, which is a great way into the story. And it really is about those characters doing that job. This is a movie about photojournalism, and it could have been set anywhere at any time, but Garland had the arresting idea to do it in America, now. I think it's a fresh take, and could help people in (somewhat) stable countries be more sympathetic to people in places that are having their homeland torn apart, including from the inside. I think the bait and switch of the trailers, and even the title CIVIL WAR, could be off putting to people expecting a more political or action packed film. This is not that film. This is an artistic war film more concerned with the experience of it in snap shots than a complete tale about a war (like what caused it, what happens, who wins, and a resolution). That stuff is outside the scope of this movie, and I think that's a cool take! 8.5/10

I am giving this movie a 1 out of 10. And that one point is earned by Kumail Nanjjiani's character who is hilarious. Every line he delivers made me laugh. Everything else is what we fear when it comes to legacy cash-ins. This is MST3K worthy, which is a bizarre result for a film so determinedly self aware. Frozen Empire is a bad sequel to Afterlife (which I liked) and a bad sequel to Ghostbusters 2. Felt like a bad sitcom episode at times. If you want to see a bad script terribly directed, this is what that looks like. But I give the edge to "direction" as the biggest problem here. As joke after joke went by that didn't get a laugh I began to replay the scenes in my head to see if different camera framing and staging could have helped and I believe that, in some cases, it may have. And pushing the actors toward a more grounded (less ~ha~ha~ wink for the camera) approach might have balanced out some of these stinkers. There are good actors here all getting terrible mileage out of this script. The biggest victim may be poor Paul Rudd, who we know is capable of greatness. He's trapped here in an unfunny character trying hard to get something to work, and the effort shows. It does not work, but I can't blame him for it. I can't blame anyone in the cast, it's just a doomed script. There is not any discernible act structure other than to say it has a 1st act that goes on forever, maybe 20 minutes of a middle, and then we are in the endgame, which feels totally unearned. Half way through the movie it feels like it's still trying to introduce the story and it's like...what story?! At a certain point, if the story hasn't started, you don't have a story. The fact they got Ernie, Bill and Dan to suit up for this script after all the many years I heard about false starts and rejected offers, is surprising. You can cash-in and still make a good movie in the process.

I've seen it twice in IMAX now and may have even liked it more the second time now knowing how rewatchable it is. It's a gorgeous film that gives you just enough detail to fill in the world with your imagination. What's filmed is so solid and well realized that the world extends beyond the borders of the screen. That's masterful filmmaking by every department.

It’s a cute movie. A bit slight in the plot department but that’s part of the breezy charm when at its best. It’s a bit darker than expected based on ads, but it is a “horror comedy” so it’s got to have some bite to it to fit the bill. I think this movie could improve on repeat viewings. I think some people will really dig it. I’m more middle leaning positive. One thing I do love is seeing a film that is female written, female directed and starring. It’s all too rare, even in this day and age. Spoken as a man, I appreciate seeing films imbued with a female perspective and I wish studios would back more movies like this.

It’s a masterful film. Precise yet extremely humanistic. Every character is relatable in their own way and each has a unique perspective in the story. Most importantly, it’s entertaining from start to finish.

So many awkward moments, distracting camera maneuvers and obnoxious needle drops. AND YET, I can recommend this film for entertainment value. It gets better as it goes along and I was hooked on the story.

A pleasant viewing experience. Too slow for kids I bet, but then again, if this is all they knew they might find it pleasant too. To appreciate it I think you have to allow yourself to get into a zen state and it seemed to work with the audience I saw it with, as the entire theater was respectfully quiet the whole movie apart from a few laughs or gasps. The movie just meanders along doing its thing while giving us a million beautiful works of visual art to take in.

I can’t give this movie a review in the green despite its many strengths. I felt held hostage by “Poor Things,” and like someone was sticking a probe in my brain to wiggle it around until I made an involuntary movement. It’s a cinematic experiment on the audience held by a director who dares to stick your face right in it, shocking you again and again like electrodes to the brain while taking perhaps a maniacal joy in making the characters and audience uncomfortable. It felt all too appropriate that as I left the theater there was someone handing out surveys to see what we thought of the film. My opinion is that the experiment could have lost about 30 minutes. However I’d be remiss to say there is not a medicinal quality to having one’s brain repeatedly shocked with electricity. I just can’t recommend it to the whole family.

Forget the awards buzz, just watch this because it’s an incredibly entertaining film.

Often funny, usually interesting. Perhaps overstays its welcome a tad by the end and is not particularly strong in the ending. But there’s a lot here to appreciate. And it’s one of the best examinations of cancel culture / social media I’ve seen. It achieves this all through metaphor, like art is supposed to.

Pure cinematic nostalgia. I was reminded of a time in life; my version of these events. Payne makes coming-of-age stories about grown ups. As if there were an important basic childhood lesson that was missed, which creates a hole that needs to get smoothed over. Since this movie is set over the holidays, we have our Scrooge character and then we have various archetypes, or values, presented by other characters. Do we have more in common with others that we thought? Are we missing out on friendships right under our nose? Is life about adjusting to certain discomforts or radically rejecting them until we achieve satisfaction? There are some profound moments in the film, and they are all deftly handled with a lot of organic breathing room given to the actors to feel out the scene. The beautiful production design (including the choices of camera, film (?), color) sets the stage for the actors to really step into the shoes of the characters. All the performances are good and memorable down to the smallest part. That’s all I would need to say about the direction. The script is fantastic. I haven’t read it, but it feels brought to life accurately. I can feel the script in the film but not in a stuffy way. It has structure, pathos and great little moments that are brought to life through creative interpretation. It feels like a well considered film, neither too far a drama or a comedy; as Dramedies go I’d say it’s 50/50. Many moments are fun and poignant at the same time. I expect The Holdovers to be even more poignant on second viewing now knowing the characters’ full arcs. What impresses me so much about the characters is that they arrive fully formed, they are fully formed throughout, and it ends with them fully formed. Yes there is character growth, but it’s that character growing, not being re-written into someone they weren’t already to begin with. The actors are given a lot of bandwidth to continually bring out different aspects of their characters so nothing feels out of place later whether it’s an aggression or a kindness. Someone can be harsh in one moment, and nice to someone in the next. That’s what life is like. There’s not a firm line between “hero” and “villain” like in many works of fiction. Everyone is the “hero” of their own journey, but sometimes they took an arrow without realizing it. And not until they stop blindly moving forward (or half blind?) for a holiday break can they realize where damage was done, pull out the arrow, and make the necessary adjustments to turn the next page of their hero’s journey. The Holdovers is a beautifully story, well told, and a reminder that the scope of a film can be epic even in small moments as long as we understand who the characters are and their choices have weight. 9.5/10

Great flick. I haven’t played the games, and know nothing about the franchise outside of seeing clips over the years so I have no bias. I’m a big fan of campy horror though and the trailers appealed to me. I thought the movie delivered beautifully on its surreal premise. Feels like a feature length Goosebumps episode. There’s a lot of 90s energy. The movie is well shot, well acted, and it must be well written because I was always intrigued. It’s simply better than it has any right to be. I’d recommend this to gamers, 90s kids and fans of campy children’s horror like AYAOTD. I think this movie could be a lot of fun for an 11 or 12-year-old, even though it’s a bit gruesome at times.

Absolutely great flick. Top notch cinematography with clever direction by Branagh. He's great in the film also (his best appearance yet) surrounded by a solid cast. The story is a bit old hat, but is told with such stylish verve it's easy to go with. I'm most blown away by this film in terms of the raw film making talent on display. This is honest to god, old-school hollywood movie making, and it's a pleasure to watch.

It's a kids movie, and a pretty boring one at that. I would have walked out, but I was at one of those theaters with recliners and I didn't want to disturb 17 people. Plus I figured, MAYBE the end will have more action. Which it did. But I still regret not leaving. This is now my least favorite movie of the summer. Some reasons why: 1. not funny 2. thinks it's very funny 3. annoying main characters 4. not nearly enough action for a movie with "NINJA" in the title 5. overuse of bland old-school hip hop, felt like listening to the boring popular Tribe songs I never actually play 6. terrible structure, reminded me of Super Mario movie where it introduces the heroes, introduces the villain, 1 or 2 things happen to them, and then the film starts climaxing. Badly paced; maybe this is just how it is when the studio insists on a 90 minute kid film, but I seem to recall better pacing of films when I was a kid in the 90's. The animation is cool, but does it really matter with a story this boring?

Haunted Mansion is refreshingly adept at what it wants to be: nostalgia tinted fan service which creatively checks all the boxes of a theme park attraction. It offers solid chuckle-worthy humor throughout with the occasional belly laugh; a good level of spooks, which are fun to behold but safe for the family; and a great cast who bring dedication to their parts, no matter how silly. The art direction is fantastic, the editing is swift, and the score offers many creative uses of the ride theme. Most importantly the filmmakers have captured the vibe of the ride, which is all a fan could ask for. That they manage to do it so stylishly in a way that doesn’t make eyes roll is miraculous. The negatives of the movie are that it doesn’t start out great and takes a bit to get interesting; there are a couple too many “heart warming” scenes that throw off the pace, however necessary they may be to story payoffs; and the humor borders on cheeky at times, which doesn’t always translate to high rewatchability. All that stands in the way of Haunted Mansion becoming a perennial holiday classic is testing its rewatchability. If these jokes are still chuckle-worthy after two or three viewings, then it could enter a rare pantheon of movies that a certain demographic of film fans are compelled to watch every year. Granted “A Christmas Story” is a holiday favorite that, were I to watch it every week, would become increasingly impotent at delivering the holiday spirit it’s called to deliver on time every year. Haunted Mansion isn’t on the same level of brilliance as the most celebrated seasonal fare but it’s nevertheless a welcome contribution to a lovable niche I call “spooky but safe.” This lives at the edge of ‘camp’ and generally includes halloween episodes of your favorite tv shows and youth oriented horror— much of it made by Disney. There is something that makes us inherently giddy about the supernatural, and when mixed with light comedy, it creates an extremely entertaining confection. This is Haunted Mansion’s mission statement and in my book, it succeeds.

While I must begrudgingly admit Barbie is better than it has any right to be, that doesn't mean it's great. This is a tolerable comedy with far too few laughs (about 5 in the whole film by my count).

It pains me to report that this movie was not good. Nolan made my favorite movie ever, Memento, and some of my other favorites as well. But somehow this one got away from him. He tried his darnedest to make this good by adding loud music and cutting all over the place between multiple time periods, but we're nevertheless left with a story where very few interesting things happen. Maybe 5 interesting things in 3 hours, and you already know one of them. The other 4? I've already forgotten. Some of the acting is good here, including Cillian in the lead. He deserves a better movie for his commitment to the role. A lot of actors feel miscast here, from the well known to the less well known. Downy? Miscast. Damon? Miscast. Both key supporting roles I was keenly aware were being played by those actors doing a schtick. The best thing I can say about this film is that some of the cinematography is nice. Were you to pause it and just enjoy the scene on a visual level, it works. As for the script, the dialogue was quite poor apart from a few great lines. Not enough subtlety. Characters will just say things to Oppenheimer like: "You *are* the great improvisor." or "You *are* the man who brought Quantum Physics to the United States." Uhhhhhhhh, ok. He's "the great improvisor," I'm told. Because that's something a real person would say to their boss. I promise you, whoever's reading this, I'm not an angry internet troll, I'm not a bot, and this is not a stunt score. Oppenheimer is a colossal misfire.

I have problems with this movie but it's tough to criticize since it's apparently half a story. Maybe if I watched Part 1 and 2 back to back I'd think it's a masterpiece. As things are, with only Part 1 to judge, they have traded intrigue for action in a way that did not satisfy me. But it's so damn entertaining, I can't give it lower than a 7.

I liked this movie. Hoping to love it on rewatch if I can come to terms with what I perceived as flaws. The strengths are strong though. I think the first hour+ is great, and the last 30 minutes are great, but it had a bit of a soggy mid-section. I say soggy, in particular, because some of it took place over water. Setting aside some pacing issues, I was often entertained by this film which **** I go to the movies, and why I watch certain ones again and again. I think this fits nicely into the pantheon of Harrison Ford's career, with a great performance as "old Indy" that is equal parts tough, humorous and brave (Indy's character traits). I found it inspiring how well he stepped back into this role. He might have done this for a million reasons, and maybe even $20million reasons, but at the end of the day I like to think he did this for himself and for the fans. One last Indiana Jones adventure. How can anyone hold that against him, or the filmmakers? It's always a convoluted situation when a Studio gets behind a big tentpole franchise to put out a movie costing hundreds of millions of **** as movie fans I think it's important to not look a gift horse in the mouth. Is Dial of Destiny perfect? Of course not! Most Indy movies are not (except Last Crusade, which is just about a perfect sequel). But what we have here is a good movie with great moments, punctuated by some -- at worst -- decent, but watchable passages.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is like a 5/10 story. Wrapped in 10/10 animation. With 10/10 fan service & callbacks. I give it a C+ on its own terms. I think it has the makings of an A, if only they fleshed out the characters more and had an actual second act. It kind of **** ends. Where's the middle? Where's the beef? Where's the twist? Where's the character motivation? What IS the Mushroom Kingdom? Why does Peach immediately trust Mario? The answers don't have to be perfect, but we NEED answers in order to stay with a movie. The creators of the movie decided not to go deep on story at all, but instead decide on a bunch of cool sequences and lazily string them together. To their credit, the sequences are all very cool and well done, which is why this movie gets a C+ and not an F. I am optimistic this movie will grow on me with the next viewing, now I fully comprehend what it is and isn't.

The first and third hour are very good. The middle hour is good but a bit slow. But it’s a magical movie. And I suspect on repeat viewings it will grow on me.

Great great movie. Brendan and all the other actors brought their A-game to this. Aranofsky and Libatique do a wonderful job of telling this story emotionally and visually, especially given the limited scope of setting. Most importantly I thought the film (/play) was well conceived and written. It’s a very human tale about grief and addiction that I think anyone can relate to, even if they aren’t 600lbs.

After first viewing in the theater I’m feeling a hard 7 or soft 8 on this one. Superior production design, clever script and good performances. On the negatives it’s a little sluggish in the beginning and there are a lot of jokes that didn’t hit. I have a feeling that this movie will improve on repeat viewings though.

Yet another reminder how difficult it is to make a good movie. Whoever wrote this needs a 12 step program.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

She Said is a sturdy journalism drama that gets a lot of the genre’s broad stokes correct while missing some elements that elevate the best ones. But its story is well told and it was fascinating to see the stages of how a story gets broken at the New York Times. I am much more respectful of journalists after seeing the movie; you have to be passionate, relentless, fearless, and intelligent to do the job well and the characters in this movie (and real life) are all of those things. They truly started a movement with this story and I think it’s a worthy thing to document with film.

Decent but thin execution of an interesting premise. A black comedy that left me wanting more comedy and drama. But I think some people will like it. The main reason to watch is Ralph Fiennes, who does not disappoint.

A very good movie. I loved it. Was a touch bored at times, but always invested. Extreme difficulty project that they landed beautifully. Better than the first one in my opinion, but I’m sure opinions will vary on that. This was very well directed. Coogler and the camera team imbued this film with a lot of artistry. As huge studio pictures go this movie was a visual marvel. The 3D was worth it too. It didn’t feel like “just another marvel movie” and that’s the most important compliment at this point. Black Panther as a series has its own vibe more than the others and I appreciate that at this point in the marvel anthology. Acting was all very good. There’s a lot of heavy lifting to be done here and everyone showed up. Music is a little in your face at times but it worked. Everything felt of a tone. The plot here is better than the actual nuts and bolts of the story but I like the characters and the worlds they played with. It’s a visceral experience with compelling emotionality. I also enjoyed the folklore elements that were woven into the tale. On its own terms, I’d give it an 8.5/10. Out of all marvel movies I’d rank it as B+ tier.

It’s too boring. It was a chore to get through by the end. I liked a lot of it, so credit where credit is due. I’d give it a soft recommendation but it’s a long sit. Cate Blanchett was great in an icy, sometimes lukewarm performance as this borderline sociopath whom we end up admiring despite her faults. If this sounds interesting to you, then this is your movie.

A moving film that is easy enough to follow but not always easy to figure out. The characters are all extremely honest with each other at the surface level, which is refreshing, and yet there is a pervasive melancholy to the whole affair. Why the bitterness, why the sadness in this idyllic seaside village? I think everyone will find something in the film they can relate to in both a positive or negative way. It's a real work of art. The lighting, which seems mostly natural, is exquisite. Many scenes have a painterly quality to them. The claustrophobia in someone's small home, contrasted against the sweeping endless vistas of the coast create the impression of a world waiting to be explored...just out of reach. An attempt has been made with this story to lift up an unusual rock and see what's underneath. It's brave, assured storytelling by a filmmaker in command of the craft and the actors are up to the task. The lead performances are masterful. It's an exceptional film though highly unusual, so I can imagine it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But I say see it for the amazing offbeat humor, fine performances, beautiful scenery, and you may walk away as I did with some rather profound questions about human nature. Score: 9.25

This is a movie where the jokes aren't very funny but there's a lot of them.