saintdecky

The Post is, in most ways (I'm not going to go into any controversies this movie may bring up) an average movie. Everything about it was just, okay. Acting: Tom Hanks was definitely not the perfect actor for the role. Ben Bradlee was a meaner, cigar-smoking guy, yet whenever Hanks appears on screen, I see Tom Hanks. He does try to fit the character more, but in the end, he's still Tom Hanks. Miscellaneous: The thing about this movie is that Spielberg obviously had to make 2 hours of talking interesting. Hence why most of the scenes in this movie involve choreography. In nearly every scene, people are circling each other or moving around in some way, to give the scenes energy that they would lack if they were just talking about newspapers. This makes it feel all the more unrealistic and even makes it feel like a play. Characters will often speak in perfect order, starting right after the last one stops. The whole movie is so Hollywood and polished that it feels completely unrealistic. I also felt it lacked complete emotional investment. Sure, seeing Meryl Streep shut down the men in charge who dislike her is great and all, but otherwise I never felt much tension, even with the intense movements. I did not love The Post, but it killed 2 hours and I don't feel they were wasted. It's worth watching just because it'll probably get a few nominations, and it is Spielberg after all. It's probably one of the most average, passable movies I've seen in a while.

Battle of the Sexes is a break-neck paced, long, basic movie, with great casting and some good performances. But I couldn't help but feel disappointed, despite not even having any expectations for this movie in the first place. It's nowhere near a terrible movie, just nothing special or anything that grabbed my attention. Acting: The casting was perfect, as Emma Stone and Steve Carell look exactly like Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. They brought some good charm to the otherwise confusing bag of emotions throughout the film, which I will get into. Carell and his portrayal of Riggs is the best thing to come out of this movie. Every time he steps into a scene, he brings so much charm and joy. The movie wasn't funny to me overall, and Riggs wasn't especially hilarious, but he did bring the only laugh I had during the entire movie. Pacing: The pacing is very fast paced. I don't have a problem with this, but the issue arose when it came to emotions. Things would happen so fast that I just started feeling sad in a scene, and two minutes later it's happy again and feels like a completely different movie. The scenes were too quick to completely comprehend the emotion most of the time. There were also times when I had no idea who a character was. Margaret Court just shows up, and I didn't even realize it was her until she was about to play. The movie is also very long despite its fast pacing, reaching 2 hours. I never thought such a fast paced movie could bore me, but this movie certainly did. Humor: Towards the beginning, the movie is clearly trying to be funny, but does die down a bit and relies more on charm as the movie drones on. However, I didn't find it funny. The way the jokes were written were subtle, which is fine, but subtle to a point where it would only be funny if you knew or were friends with the joke teller. Plot: This movie suffered from the same thing as Sully: the lack of a natural villain. Jack Kramer was the closest thing they had to a villain, so that was the best they could do, making nothing feel at stake or intense. Another big thing is that this whole story doesn't make for a great movie in the first place. The whole final match versus the two (which was the best part of the movie) was just a publicity stunt basically. So to make this into a movie, there is a lack of stakes, of intensity, and even of meaning, besides, obviously, the powerful statement of feminism and women's equality, of course. But otherwise, nothing was really at stake, as most audience members know this whole thing was just a joke. If everything else about King's and Riggs' lives that were going on at the same time were engaging and interesting, then it would be better, but the problem was that it wasn't. We get one short scene at the dinner table with Riggs' wife, who we don't see until another short scene later on, then she disappears and comes back at the end, and we're supposed to care about their marriage or whatever. We don't get to sympathize much with a man who is doing this whole thing as a joke. What I'm trying to say is, the main idea of the plot, the final game, doesn't make for a good movie, as there were no stakes and we know there are none. If the two players' stories outside of the game were more interesting, then it would be okay, but they weren't, because the movie was too fast paced to sympathize or feel for the characters, as there were too many emotions to feel in such short scenes. Overall, Battle of the Sexes isn't necessarily a bad film, just not one that kept my attention or was interesting, no thanks to the whole idea not making a good film in the first place. Great casting and good acting, but simply too rushed in the end. And as I said, the final tennis match was the best part of the movie, mostly because I play tennis myself.

Mother! is a creepy, thrilling, well-executed, for the most part, movie... for the first hour. For me, the second hour, which includes the orgy of random violence and senseless destruction, destroyed most of the things I liked about the whole first half. Acting: Jennifer Lawrence is good, except her character doesn't have much to do or even an arc. She spends nearly the entire movie looking confused or disapproving. Javier Bardem is perfect for the role and shines in it, with his booming voice and appearance. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are also amazing. Overall the casting and acting is great, and everyone fits their roles perfectly. Characters: Again, Lawrence's character doesn't have much of an arc, intentionally, I assume, but still, and spends the entirety of the movie asking questions and sounding worried and confused. Plot: I loved the first half of this movie. I love the kind of movies that keep you guessing and trying to figure everything out. Get Out and even It Comes at Night are good examples of this, both of which I also loved. The first hour makes you so tense, scared even, and creeped out, but in a good way. Every creak of the house, every time she is in the basement, it instills fear, even if nothing happens. I appreciated the camera angles, moving along with Lawrence to give it from her perspective, which made the house seem bigger and made you scared every time she even turned a corner, not sure what's behind it at times. But this does get repetitive throughout the movie, as it is mainly just a shot following her, a shot in front of her, and so forth. I would have appreciated more wider and further away shots of her, creating the feeling that something or someone is watching her, giving off even more creepiness. This first half of the movie was well-done, paced well, and tense, creepy, and mysterious. However, the second half ruined most of it for me. I walked into the theater expecting it to be violent from the start, as some critics have coined the movie "torture porn," so when the first hour rolled by and there was none, I was confused. But soon after, I saw what they meant. It is pure chaos, senseless violence that was hard to watch, and not in a good way. It was completely unbelievable, and I know that was intentional, but it took away from the surreal-yet-somewhat-real feel of the first half. It went completely bonkers and crazy, and just felt like I was watching Aronofsky string random violence and things together to make some kind of allegory. Which brings me to another point, the imagery. This is the first Aronofsky film I have seen, and it doesn't make me think he's a genius. Some say this movie is a movie you won't forget, and I won't forget it any time soon, but in a really bad way. I will remember this movie because of the shock-value feel over actual story-telling in the second half. I will remember it because of the senseless and random violence that ruined a movie I was enjoying. I remember a good movie, like Get Out, because of how good the story-telling, script, characters, and plot was, and I remember It Comes at Night because of the twist it put on horror movies and psychological dramas. Mother! isn't innovative just because it was a Biblical allegory, which it seems it is, because it has been done before, multiple times. Also, the twist at the end was predictable within the last 30 minutes or so, and seems smart at first, but doesn't really make sense when you think about it. It raises questions, but not good, thought-provoking questions like It Comes at Night, but rather ones that question what just happened, because it makes no sense. The story is obviously not grounded in reality, but when the entire first half of the movie can be seen as somewhat realistic at times and the second half completely ditches it, I don't know what to think of the twist. Also, I feel Aronofsky did this multiple times throughout. There were scenes and things in the first half that looked cool at the time, but when looking back on it served no purpose and was seemingly there just to look cool. I don't have a huge problem with that as long as it has at least some significance or isn't used countless times throughout the movie. Violence: Over-the-top for no reason, crazy, random, and doesn't make for a good movie. I think Aronofsky needs to see a therapist. Overall, Mother! started off well with a well-executed first hour that invoked fear from the lack of knowledge of the story and where it could go, but ended on a bad note with senseless, random violence that ruined my enjoyment. Every fragment of the 4, more a 4.5 in my head, was purely from the first hour. Don't take your grandma to see this movie.

Good Time is an engaging, gritty movie with excellent acting. I think Josh and Ben Safdie could potentially be a future Coen brothers in terms of working together. Acting: The acting is stellar overall. Robert Pattinson was amazing, stepping way out of his romantic roles. Ben Safdie also had an excellent performance for the scenes he was in, and is a promising actor and director. Buddy Duress was good, Jennifer Jason Leigh was amazing in her two scenes, and Barkhad Abdi was good in his one scene. Overall, the casting was great and all the performances were amazing. Characters: The movie had an abundance of characters, all very good especially because of the performances. However, I wished they would have focused more on Ben Safdie, Pattinson's brother in the movie. He was really good and they somewhat ditched him only a third into the movie for a completely different story-line. Music: I've seen many reviewers say that the soundtrack was bad and intrusive. I found it to fit in with the movie's feel and style most of the time, but there were plenty of scenes where it did get a bit too loud and distracting. There were a few scenes where it works really well, spreading a feeling of uneasiness. Cinematography: I don't like sitting in the front rows of movies. My neck hurts and I have to look around to see what's happening instead of seeing the entirety of the screen. However, in this movie I had no choice but to sit in the second row, as they were the only available seats. But, it worked very well with this movie, as since the movie pretty much consists of intense close-ups and constant shaky-cam, I felt completely immersed in the movie. I did get a headache by the end, but it was worth it. The movie has a distinct style that I liked, making he movie gritty, grimy, and engaging throughout. The lighting was also done really well, and I really liked some of the set pieces (Adventureland, etc.). Script: The script wasn't necessarily really special, but considering this is pretty much his first movie with a larger budget, I think he did fine. Again, can't wait to see these two's movies in the future. Plot: I didn't have a problem with the plot, though the pacing is off sometimes. It remains very fast-paced throughout, but it does slow down somewhat unnecessarily sometimes. It was also hard to tell what happened in a few scenes. There were a few parts where it took me a while to figure out what happened, partly because of the dark lighting, which I'll excuse because it was still done well, and partly because it was fast-paced in scenes where it actually would have helped to slow down just a bit. Overall, Good Time was exciting, fast-paced, and fun to watch. It may give you a headache, but I think it is pretty worth it. I am looking forward to the Safdies' movies in the future, however I do hope they can end up being flexible enough with their style. Though I do like their intense, up close, intimate camerawork, it could get old after a while. I know their 2014 movie, Heaven Knows What, is basically the same style, so I hope they are open to switching it up if they have to.

Logan Lucky is an enjoyable, fun summer movie for if you want to sit back, relax, and have some good laughs. Acting: Tatum and Driver are fine in their roles, but Daniel Craig is definitely the stand-out, of course. It was nice to see him play a wild, unpredictable, enjoyable character, taking a step away from the countless cool and laid-back roles during his career. He was one of the best parts of the movie, as his performance was spectacular and was enjoyable to watch. Hilary Swank easily earned the worst performance. During the last 20 or so minutes, which I will talk about later, she was terrible, speaking in a monotone voice, being completely stiff, and having an annoying smirk. Seth MacFarlane, who I don't find terribly funny in the first place, didn't really make an impact on me. He was borderline annoying, and I didn't care for the whole subplot that he was involved in. Characters: Again, Daniel Craig as Joe Bang was easily the best performance and best character, just because he was interesting and cast well. All the other characters are fine. Nearly all of them are over-the-top or stereotypes, which I see many people dislike, but I think it worked with the sort of wacky style of the movie. Plot: The story was fine, despite there being a few plot holes here and there. The heist was intriguing to watch and easy to follow. The last 20 or so minutes drag on for way too long, however. In the final act of the movie, Hilary Swank plays a detective, looking into what happened during the heist. It isn't interesting, and feels completely disconnected from the movie, as only 1 of the (sort of) main characters is actually in it. It could have been scrapped from the movie and made it a bit better. Another subplot that wasn't too interesting was the racing one with Seth MacFarlane's character. It never really went anywhere or added anything to the main story, and again MacFarlane was a bit annoying. The story also would have been fine without this whole part. Also, this movie is different from Oceans 11 or other Soderbergh heist movies because it focuses more on the characters and their motivations. Tatum's character and others have a reason to be doing it, and there is more of a plot outside of the heist itself. I didn't mind this, as it was different than Oceans 11 and not just following the same path. This might have been why he put in the last 20 minutes, so the movie wouldn't just end right after the heist. Nevertheless, it could have been removed and been fine. Humor: Now, just because I found this movie to be particularly funny, especially in a few scenes that were hilarious, it doesn't mean you will. I found it to be consistently funny throughout, but others apparently didn't laugh once. Unless it's an Adam Sandler movie, I usually don't take people's words for it when they say it was or wasn't funny. But with other movies, I try to give them a chance. If someone else found it funny, good for them, but it doesn't mean me or the guy next to me in the theater will. I've also seen some reviews saying it was trying too hard to be a Coen brothers movie, but that's not the case at all. The Coens' movies are quirky while maintaining a dark element and incorporating dark humor. Logan Lucky is just wacky and not supposed to be taken extremely seriously. Script: Not the best, but I don't think it was trying to be. Was charming and pretty funny throughout (to me). Rebecca Blunt, who made her debut writing this movie, may or not be real, but whoever it was who wrote it did fine. Logan Lucky is a movie that you can expect to sit back and at least somewhat enjoy. Even if the jokes don't make you laugh or even chuckle, at the very least it is a somewhat respectable heist movie that isn't supposed to be too serious, at least in my eyes.

Atomic Blonde? More like Atomic Bland!!!! hahahaha. Anyways, Atomic Blonde is a slow-moving, borderline boring movie with okay action for the most part (besides the staircase fight) and dull plot. Characters: The characters aren't too bad: their motives are sort of there, but I don't really feel connected to any of the main characters besides Lorraine, as Theron portrayed her well and I actually felt like she was more of a real person. One problem I have with the movie is that Theron and McAvoy's characters don't really spend enough time together, and the time they do spend together they spend not liking each other. They didn't have chemistry whatsoever, so when the twists and turns at the end rolled out, I didn't feel satisfied. Acting: As I said, Theron was pretty good, but everyone else was okay. I really like James McAvoy, as he was very good in Split, and he was fine in this I guess. I wasn't too interested in his character throughout, though. Plot: The story was not particularly interesting to me, and somewhat boring. The worst scenes were the ones in the interrogation room, simply because they seemed neverending and were only there to describe the sometimes confusing plot. It was pretty predictable throughout, and the twists weren't particularly great. Twists like this movie pulled off should have the audience like "woooah!! (blank) was actually (blank) all along! I can't believe it!" but this movie just made me feel like "oh. Cool." The plot is a typical spy thriller movie, and it would have an excuse if it had good action, but it doesn't enough of that either. Action: Considering the director, David Leitch, was one of the two directors of both John Wick movies, and I consider the first one to be one of the most realistic if not one of the best action movies, this movie didn't quite capture the same action. It's not even that the action was different; the action remains relatively similar to the action in John Wick. Longer takes with little cutting for the most part, realistic gun mechanics and fighting. The action is still a bit similar, but doesn't capture the same feel as it did in John Wick. There also wasn't enough to me. The movie is only 1 hour and 54 minutes, but still didn't have enough to interest me in the story and movie. Don't get me wrong, most of the action was shot and choreographed very well, and is much better than a lot of modern action movies, but I wished there was more of it. I also didn't really feel attached to the characters and plot anyways, taking away from the experience. I didn't even know who I was rooting for in a few scenes. In John Wick, you know his motivations, and you sympathize for him, making you cheer for him when he takes down multiple men. But when a character you don't really know or care for fights, it takes away from some, not all, the experience. Some action movies can pull this off, but this one didn't. But I especially want to talk about the staircase fight scene, which was all one take and was nearly perfect. It was choreographed so well and immersed me into the fighting, something the rest of the action lacked, I felt. It was realistic and violent, and all I really wanted out of this movie: awesome fighting and action, without need of much of a story. John Wick's story is basically some guys killed his dog and destroyed his car that his wife, who died, gave to him. He gets mad and seeks revenge, killing hundreds of men, making for great action. But this movie paid more attention to the plot, with a few action scenes. Of course, just because John Wick didn't have much of a plot and was still good, it doesn't mean this movie had to, but since this movie focused so much on the plot that wasn't interesting, it takes away from the experience. Also, there is one really good scene with umbrellas halfway through before the staircase fight, which also resembled the cool action movie that probably would have been better. Music: The music is very techno-electronic and loud. I didn't really have a problem with it, except for the scenes where the music is forced in. For example, there are scenes where Theron is just walking down the street, and techno music is blaring. Baby Driver got away with playing music over mundane tasks, but it worked because it was choreographed and the music still went with the tone of the scene and movie, and was played constantly throughout. When the only time this music is played is pretty much when someone is walking or not doing much, it doesn't really fit. Atomic Blonde was a relatively boring movie with pretty good action, though not too much of it. Also, just because a movie is an action movie, I know that doesn't mean it has to have constant action and no story, but countless times a year, action movies are released, some with good, some with bad action, that have bad or boring stories. This movie, is one of those, with good action. All I'm going to say is, you should probably James McAvoid this movie. hehehehe

Wonder Woman, though not a perfect movie in many ways, is still better than the preceding DCEU movies. The movie was fun in some scenes, boring and repetitive in others, and some were average and progressed the plot like it had to. Acting: Gal Gadot is a great fit for Wonder Woman, and has a good range of emotions. Chris Pine was also good and pretty charming throughout. Chris Pine and Gal Gadot had great chemistry together, and exchanged nice, charming dialogue and sometimes even meaningful conversations about mankind and war. Every other actor and actress do what they have to, but aren't anything special. Characters: The only people with the most characters throughout are Gadot and Pine. They spent good time developing a bond between them, and didn't force a love connection, which I thought worked out perfectly fine. However, many other characters fall flat. I didn't care for Diana's mother or her sister that much, and even got them confused constantly. They were just characters that existed to move the plot forward and weren't necessarily good or bad. Just, characters that exist. The three guys that tag along with Gadot and Pine have virtually no characters, and I don't even recall any of them actually killing anyone. They are one of the most extreme examples of supporting characters I have ever seen. They exchange some lines and have a hint of a backstory here and there, and can be a tad charming at times, but really only existed so the plot could utilize them to benefit Wonder Woman or Chris Pine. The villains are okay and have their motives, but in the end, are still superhero villains, who usually end up being forgettable or nothing special. In this case, they are forgettable, as I will probably forget the villains by the end of this year. Plot: Of the three acts in the movie (Diana growing up and leaving the island with Pine and strolling through London, the crew fighting their way through the war to get to the Germans, and the final fight scenes and conclusion), the second act was the best. The first act didn't necessarily do anything wrong; they introduced Diana, had the basic exposition scene, had the aunt/trainer get shot and try to tell Diana something before she dramatically dies, and she leaves the island. It did everything it had to do, and wasn't necessarily boring, but just struck me as pretty basic storytelling. The third act was probably the worst for me. The twist was introduced and was okay, but then the final fight between Wonder Woman and Ares was boring and repetitive and done badly. They punch back and forth and fly through the air and throw big objects at each other, kind of like Man of Steel. It goes on for what seems like forever, and though the effects are good, feels boring and like it doesn't progress. Just the same thing over and over. The second act was the best for me because it had the best action. There were some good fight scenes that would've made the movie much better if there were more of them. It also introduced a good look at war and mankind. Since this is Diana's first time experiencing war, it is a fresh take on the horrors of warfare from the perspective of someone who is seeing it for the first time. She says stuff like "why are they fighting?" or "this is horrible." It is a good reminder that war is hell and it adds to the sinister tone of war because it is from the perspective of someone who is just now seeing it. Imagine you lived in peace for your whole life, learning to fight but never actually having to use it. Then, you jump into a world where men are shooting each other's heads off, you would most likely be disgusted or confused about why they do it. The movie did a good job of putting us behind Diana's eyes and feeling what she feels when she sees a whole village of innocents get wiped out. This made the second act the best part of the whole movie, and where most of the 5 rating comes from. Script: The script is nothing special except for the scenes where Diana and Pine share deep insights and dialogue about the behaviors of man. It is charming at times, but otherwise is nothing special. Zack Snyder stuff: Though Snyder only produced the movie, he still slapped his signatures all over it. The signature dark, gritty, dirty color scheme is very apparent in this movie. Dark tones and imagery can, of course, be used very well. I always felt Snyder overuses this dark tone that doesn't always work with some superhero movies. However I did like the choice of making the island very bright and happy, and then, when entering the cruel world of war, is plunged into a darker color palette. Although it still feels over-the-top at times. Wonder Woman is an okay superhero movie with good leading characters, an otherwise forgettable cast, good action scenes, but fails to entertain through most of the movie. It was a bit predictable, but it mainly gets a low rating because of the whole last act, which I thought was done very poorly.

Baby Driver is a fun, action-packed movie with amazing music and choreography. It doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the table, but what it already has on its plate is very enjoyable to watch. Acting: Considering the only real acting role I'd seen Ansel Elgort in was his music video for his song "Thief", I wasn't sure if he was the right fit for this role. I just couldn't see the lovable lover from "The Fault in Our Stars" being a getaway driver. But he definitely proved that he can act, and is not bland or acts the same all the time. The rest of the acting is done very well, however Kevin Spacey was kind of bland and just behaved like a bored Frank Underwood from "House of Cards" since that seems like the only role he can get these days. Characters: The characters are done perfectly fine; you can understand their motives easily, and they aren't too over-the-top for the most part. They do a great job presenting the moral dilemmas Baby faces, considering he's a good kid with a good heart who's now caught in debt with Kevin "Frank Underwood" Spacey. And like I said, Spacey's character is a bit bland and doesn't add much to the story; he just has to be in it because he's the boss. Plot: Like I said, the plot isn't necessarily spectacular, nor is it supposed to be. The movie really focuses on the music and choreography, which I'll get into. Despite the plot not being anything mind-blowing, it doesn't have to be. If a movie allows the plot to take a backseat overall and still be a good movie, it's a great movie, for the most part. This movie doesn't rely on its plot to drive the audience, but rather the well-choreographed action sequences and music. This movie is also not very predictable, adding to the suspense. There are countless scenes where I have absolutely no idea what could happen, and while it's not necessarily "edge-of-your-seat" suspense, it's still intense and exciting to watch. Action: The opening chase scene is done nearly perfectly. It's the complete opposite of the car chase in the movie "Bullitt". Instead of complete silence, music is blaring, and the chase is synced along with the music. It was edited and shot perfectly. Another great thing about the action scenes in this movie is that it doesn't rely on shaky-cam. You can pretty much always tell what is going on on-screen during the chase scenes. It also had to be edited perfectly so it would sync with the music. I can't help but appreciate all the work put into clearing the music for use, incorporating it into the script, choreographing it, and then filming it, and resulting in a really fun movie. That's all this movie is supposed to be. A fun, wild ride of a movie with added suspense so you don't get bored, and plenty of good action. It doesn't boast a good plot or even too many memorable characters, but I absolutely loved pretty much every minute just because it was so fun to watch. Overall, Baby Driver is a great summer movie to watch with friends and have a good time. I can't imagine how hard it was to put all this together, and I applaud Edgar Wright for putting it together so perfectly. If this movie didn't have the choreographed music, it wouldn't be the same. Of course, then the movie may try to compensate for the lack of fun in the action scenes, and expand on the plot, which may or may not have worked, but I loved the movie just the way it was. It gets a 9 and not a 10 simply because it doesn't really introduce anything new besides the action and music.

It Comes at Night is a suspenseful, intense, thrilling movie. It isn't sensational, but it was worth a watch. It may have been marketed incorrectly and trailers and screenshots made it out to be a horror, jump-scare filled adventure, it is completely different; not too cliched, and creepy and unsettling rather than utterly scary. Acting: The acting is amazing. Though the movie has a very small cast, every actor and actress performed outstandingly well. They really showed how scared and/or paranoid they were at times, making you feel the more submersed in the events taking place. Characters: Though the actors portray their characters very well, the characters are not developed as well as they could have been. The movie is rather short, and focuses more on the "It" rather than the development of characters. We are not as emotionally attached as we could have been, especially for the ending. Just a few more minutes with the characters and their backstories, for example, would really make the audience feel for them and be attached to them. Instead, the only emotions we have for the main characters are the basic ones in these types of movies (I hope they don't die/I want a happy ending for them, etc.) Cinematography: The cinematography has got to be one of the highlights of the film. Lighting is used perfectly to set the dark tone. Every corner feels like it may contain a spooky skeleton or other beast. The camera angles and lighting are used to their best effect to make nearly every shot haunting or suspenseful. Many of the shots at night are up-close or are made to feel claustrophobic because it feels like the characters are trapped in the house, and there's nowhere to go. The cinematography creates an eerie and chilling atmosphere that's hard to shake off the entire film, and will even have you thinking about it after the movie is over. Plot: In terms of plot, it is nothing special. Of course, it is more about how the plot plays out and how it's executed, which many don't seem to see. Many negative reviews say that the plot is boring and cliched, but fail to see deeper into the timing of events, and how they are placed very well. This isn't the best movie I've seen, but it should receive a lot of credit for what it pulls off. Another variable many fans are angry about is the misleading marketing. Trailers and even screenshots go out of their way to find the "scariest" parts of the film, with jump-scares and loud noises. However, these shots make up very little of the movie. The movie is more about paranoia and trustworthiness, and what someone will do to protect their family. The way I see it, that's the "It". Many viewers seem to not give this movie a second chance, purely because it was marketed incorrectly. In this case, blame the marketing team, not the creators of the film. The creators rarely play a part in the editing and forming of the trailers. Other viewers don't seem to see what I see (that the "It" is paranoia, etc.), and just see it as a boring movie that never shows the actual monster. This movie was marketed as more of a typical "monster movie", but this is not the case. The monster is never even shown. Many see this as a plot hole, or that it is not terrifying because it's never shown, but I find it more unsettling. Because I don't know what it is, it makes it more creepy. The film gets so close to showing the "It" at times, but doesn't quite, which adds a hint of mystery, but I can still picture the "It" as something terrifying. It leaves more to the imagination, but some people apparently don't have that. Many say that the ending is disappointing, and I can see why, but again, it's how the ending is executed, not what the ending is. And I feel like it was executed well. Not perfectly, but well. There may be a few things I would change, but I feel like the movie and ending was nearly as good as it could be. Overall, It Comes at Night is a creepy, atmospheric movie that will have you asking questions, but good, healthy ones that can spark conversations and leave it open for theories. There's a difference between a plot hole and leaving it up to interpretation. It Comes at Night leaves the audience guessing, not just about what happened, but why something caused that what to happen, or at least it should. And I don't mean to generalize, but I feel this movie attracted horror movie fans, who can't quite appreciate a movie with more compelling, thought-provoking situations that are up for interpretation. That doesn't mean it's true, but that's just how I feel reading the amount of negative reviews this movie should not receive due to being different and pulling it off well. It makes you ask questions, but doesn't leave you clueless, just curious. And I feel like if a movie can pull that off, that movie has succeeded in doing what it meant to do. In this case, It Comes at Night pulled this off well, and I believe it deserves plenty of praise, but not too much.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has a sub-par storyline and plot, simple storytelling, and overall, not a whole lot to it compared to other Marvel movies. I won't be comparing this movie to the first one much because I hardly have any recollection of the events that took place. Characters: The acting is nothing special, but the characters are just okay. Drax is probably one of the best parts, as he is funny in a weird way. But there are parts where they attempt to make him say meaningful dialogue that just comes across as sort of awkward because the entire movie sets him up to be a near clueless, unmannerly beast, then attempts to make him deliver good insight on decisions towards the end. It's like if the Hulk gave a heart-warming, poetic, lovely speech at the end of The Avengers; it wouldn't be terrible and go to waste, but it seems out of place and out of character. The other characters are okay, and a lot of them hardly do anything besides Chris Pratt. Plot: The story is basic, though not completely bland. I spotted the "twist" right from the beginning, and even makes me wonder if it was supposed to be a huge twist (probably not). One problem with the whole movie is that the Guardians spend the majority of the movie split up (Groot and Rocket with Yondu, and Drax, Starlord, and Gonorrhea, or whatever Zoe Saldana's name is in this). So they never really live up to their name in this movie. In fact, the whole plot is centered on one of the characters stealing something in a job they were doing, which is very un-Guardian-like. I get that they're not supposed to be taken super seriously as heroes, but at least let them work together and keep the chemistry they had in the first one. Humor: I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and a pretty filled theater. My experience was that you either laughed a lot, or only got a few chuckles here and there. A lot of the humor is kind of absurd and just a kind of "oh, ok. I guess I could laugh at that." Effects: The effects are pretty well done except for a few scenes here and there where they were a bit poor, but considering the amount of work that must have been put in, it was still well done. Overall, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is nothing to get too hyped about, but is definitely worth a watch. It's entertaining enough to compensate for the simple storyline and characters (except for Yondu) and enough action to hold you over. If you liked the first one, I guess you'd like this one. It did have a good ending, however.

Logan, I feel, is a tad overrated and not as good as everyone is making it to be. Sure, it's not bad, but I feel it doesn't deserve all the praise. I couldn't help but be disappointed when the credits rolled. Characters: I honestly didn't get the whole "he's so pained and tortured, and it's easy to forget this is a superhero movie because of the character development." Superhero movies still have character development. Maybe some don't have the best, but it's still there. And while I do admire this movie for focusing more on the characters and their problems, I didn't feel for Logan a whole lot all the time. Sure, I know he was sad and could tell the pain he was in that he'd accumulated throughout his life. But he was just kind of grumpy and sad and acted the same. One thing I did like about the movie was that Wolverine and most characters didn't need some long monologue or anything describing how sad they are. You know the pain they're going through. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think this movie deserved AS much praise for its character substance. Sure, the movie pulled it off pretty well, and for a superhero movie it's good I guess, but it didn't blow me away. Acting: The acting is very good. Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart both do an excellent job portraying the older, more pained versions of themselves. You could really tell the difference between them in older movies and them in this movie. They really showed that they are pain and are suffering. Dafne Keen was also good, though she didn't get to do much in terms of acting range until the end. Action: I was never a huge fan of Wolverine's action, as it gets kind of repetitive. Pretty much all of his killing sprees are "stab stab stab stab stab stab, get shot, stab stab, get shot again, stab stab stab, cut off arm, stab stab stab, slit throat, stab stab stab." I'm not saying it wasn't well done, as the action scenes were sort of cool and darker than the past. However, it got kind of boring as it does with most of his action scenes. The best parts of the action scenes were the parts with choreography, like Laura running and jumping off his back and landing on a guy, or Laura using her foot blade and becomes more acrobatic when fighting, like Black Widow. Stuff like that added more diversity to the otherwise repetitive action. Plot: It's basically just a 2 hour and 20 minute chase scene. This doesn't mean it's a bad movie, but I was hoping for a bit more, and it wasn't even a super exciting chase plotline. At least a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road, which was basically a long chase scene, just had non-stop, well-done and perfectly executed action sequences, where this movie has inconsistent parts throughout, slowing down the movie. When he meets the family halfway through, the entire momentum of the story just stops for 20 minutes. There also wasn't really a definitive bad guy. I'm guessing this was because they wanted to focus on Logan and the characters more, which I don't have a problem with, but then I didn't really have anyone to go against. I wanted more motivation for Logan to escort Laura. Sure, he wants to do something good and she's his daughter of course, but if there was a more defined bad guy, even just a few more minutes distinguishing a villain, I would feel more like "yeah Logan! Go get Laura to wherever they're going! I want you to beat that guy!" or something. Instead I just feel like "ah, just kill this guy that looks like Ryan Gosling who's supposed to be a villain and get to wherever you're going" instead. Overall, Logan is a bit slow at times with not much to compensate for. I must say I had high expectations from the pretty high ratings from critics and very positive reviews from fans and friends. Unfortunately, Logan did not live up to those expectations. I guess I would recommend it because a basic fan of superhero movies would probably like it since so many did. It wasn't a complete waste of time, and I may have given it a 7 if I didn't have such high expectations.

Kong: Skull Island is an enjoyable, fun, thrilling movie that by no means has good characters or screenplay. Acting: The acting is just fine. There are so many actors and characters that most people barely even get to say anything. Some of the lines are kind of phoned-in, but that's also a problem with the script. Characters: There are way too many characters. The movie attempted to develop each one multiple times by giving them two lines describing their backstory or something significant that happened once. They did little to nothing to develop anyone and just ate up time that could have been spent for action sequences. Halfway through, I just hoped that they didn't focus on the characters and just on the action, and it seems they almost gave up as well. Towards the last 40 minutes, they just kind of give up and don't give anymore background. John C. Reiley's character is really the only one who has any development, and the only one that really feels like a character. Brie Larson's character does little to nothing besides annoyingly take pictures throughout and say exclamations when something happens. I would give an example, but I don't even remember some things she said. And I saw the movie 5 hours ago. That's how forgettable she was I completely forgot some characters existed halfway through the movie. John Goodman just kind of disappears after being in the first 20 minutes. Tom Hiddleston just acts cool and kills stuff when he gets the chance. I think the few minutes they spent trying to develop him should've been spent on him killing stuff, because it was great seeing him in action. Sammy Jackson's character just kind of stares murderously at stuff through fire during the whole movie. There are some characters that literally have a few lines and then just kind of die. Plot: There are some problems with the movie throughout (example: why didn't they see any of Kong's destruction when they first flew over the island, then they walk around for a few minutes and see footprints and stuff everywhere), and I don't think anyone should've survived the initial helicopter crashes. I admire the fact that they didn't spend 30 minutes building up going to the island; it still took 20 something minutes, but it wasn't boring or anything. The Magnificent Seven is a good example of this. In that movie, they spent nearly half the film just gathering the seven, even though it was next to useless because you know they're going to join. In this movie, you know they're going to go to the island, so they didn't take their time building up to the expedition, they just gave some background information and went. Some things happen very conveniently, that can be expected in a movie like this. I also walked into this movie expecting to be able to predict twists and turns, but I wasn't necessarily able to. This may have been because the movie didn't attempt to throw any curveballs; they just made the movie with no ambition in mind. Screenplay: Most of the lines are cheesy and not necessarily necessary. Most attempts to develop the characters further fall flat and just end up as a waste of time. Action: The action was great, fun, and well-shot. It was well-done, and I wanted more by the end. As I said, many of the minutes spent attempting to develop should've been spent on action, as it was the best part. It was smart and engaging, with scenes that were pretty intense. They were nowhere near the most intense scenes I've seen in a movie, but it definitely comes close. Effects: The effects were absolutely gorgeous. Kong looked great, the skullcrawlers looked scary and awesome, and every other animal looked realistic and convincing. The fights between Kong and the skullcrawlers looked amazing, and didn't feel like I was watching two CGI animals fighting. Another thing I want to bring up are the creatures. The creatures were creative and cool, and I wish there were more of them. Some of the best parts and best scenes were when they discovered a new species and had to fight it off. Even just seeing a new creature was cool and enjoyable. Unfortunately they spent time with the characters, as I've said. Overall, Kong: Skull Island has bland, bleak characters, but is compensated for with truly amazing effects and great action. Still think 10-15 minutes could have been shaved off, though.

John Wick, is in no way, an amazing, thought-out, well-told narrative with a good plot. But it does have amazing action sequences and realistic shooting (for the most part). Acting: Don't walk into the theater expecting amazing Oscar-worthy performances, or even great performances. Keanu Reeves is not a good actor, but he gets away with it in this movie. He doesn't really say much, which is probably a good thing, and his line deliveries are usually ****. But it does add to the feeling of him being an every-day average Joe who got caught up in a mess. Laurence Fishburne doesn't really do anything; his scenes in the trailer were basically his only scenes in the whole movie. Common was also pretty good in his scenes. Plot: Let's face it: there is not really a plot. Any hint of a plot is just a pretty basic story-line. However it gets an excuse by making up for it with amazing, well-shot action. I think it could've been at least 20 minutes shorter, those 20 minutes being scenes that barely add to the little plot there is, but aren't too necessary. The first John Wick also had a basic plot, but still felt original and new nonetheless. This one is really nothing new, but still has great action. Script: I've seen plenty of people saying the script is terrible, and it sort of is. The movie doesn't rely on the script and works fine without it. I just sat back and enjoyed the action, which was great, so I didn't look too hard into it or criticize it too much when watching; instead I just enjoyed. Action: The attention to detail in this movie is astounding. Of course, the enemies still can't hit him from 5 feet away, but it makes up for that by having him actually run out of ammo and have to reload realistically among other things. The gunshots actually sound like real guns. They crackle and pop and ricochet and don't sound like paintball guns. The fight scenes don't rely on quick cuts and multiple angles; most cuts go on a long time before switching angles during fight scenes. You can actually somewhat see what is going on during the fight scenes. There's not as much shaky cam and quick cutting, so you can see what's what. This movie is also significantly more violent than the first. A larger budget equaled a lot more blood squibbs and headshots. Overall, John Wick is an enjoyable, action-packed flick with a forgettable plot that is excused by the pure amazingness of its action sequences.

Split is the latest movie from M. Night Shyamalymalmaylmalmalmya, and though it is not his worst work, it is just...okay. Acting: James McAvoy was fantastic, delivering a memorable performance. It takes a lot to pull off multiple different characters, and he pulled it off amazingly. Otherwise the acting was just okay. The main girl was fine, but one of the two girls wasn't very good, and other almost felt like she was over-acting a bit. Characters: I wish that either we spent more time with all 23 personalities, or there were less of them, because we only got to spend a lot of time with about 5 of them. Otherwise, there's not much development going on besides the main girl and a little bit of McAvoy's character(s). The other two girls have nothing to do besides wearing nearly nothing and freaking out. Plot: The plot is pretty basic, but I thought the movie did a great job of building up suspense at times, mostly towards the beginning as it started wearing off towards the end. Even the few jumpscares that were spoiled by the trailers still got my heart beating. Even the initial capture of the girls got my pulse to speed up, even though I know what's going to happen. Script: Meh. Probably should have had an actual scriptwriter write the film. But it doesn't drag the movie down completely. It's passable at the least. Directing: I think it is better for Shyamalan to be working on lower budgets in his recent films, as he becomes a bit less ambitious and doesn't try and show off. Of course, a twist is still present though not too satisfying, but it feels like Shyamalan is trying to take a step back. All the money can go to your head, especially after his initial successes. Overall, Split is successful at creating suspense and tension, but is otherwise not terribly memorable, and I know some people who are upset at the way they portray mental illnesses as bad and dangerous, especially DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder).

Hidden Figures is a pretty by-the-numbers drama that I probably will forget existed in a few years, but it is worth a watch. Acting: Taraji P. Hensen was very good, but I'm not disappointed she didn't receive a best actress nomination. Janelle Monae was fine, but I still want her in more movies to see if she has a bit more range. I'm surprised Octavia Spencer was nominated for supporting actress, and she didn't even really do anything. She didn't have much of an Oscar scene and a very limited role in the entire film. I wouldn't say Monae deserves the nomination over her though, as Hensen was the main focus and had the largest role. Kevin Costner was a good pick for his role, and Jim Parsons was good. He basically acted like a calmer, less-funny, racist Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, but he was convincing enough. Plot: The movie is pretty by-the-numbers, not doing much to stand out. A movie like Jackie would definitely stay in my head longer than Hidden Figures. The cinematography is fine, the screenplay is fine; almost everything in this movie is simply "fine." They didn't do anything wrong throughout, but nothing really new happened. I was afraid it would feel like a TV movie, as the trailers depicted it. At times it felt a bit reminiscent of a TV movie, but it definitely felt like a real, best-picture nomination deserving movie. Overall, Hidden Figures is a relatively simple movie that is worth your time, but don't expect it to be talked about or remembered too clearly in a few years.

Jackie is a beautifully shot, well-acted movie that is perfectly executed. Acting: Natalie Portman was phenomenal, and a great fit for the role. She may have only made a few different faces throughout the entirety of the film, but she portrayed Jackie perfectly. The entire cast was amazing as well. Peter Sarsgaard was very good especially in a few scenes where he had breakdowns. John Hurt was in some of my favorite scenes in the entire movie as the priest. Natalie Portman definitely deserves the Oscar (more than Black Swan) but there are plenty of other deserving actresses that I would be okay with if they won instead. Cinematography: Jackie is beautifully shot, and the cinematography is one of my favorite aspects of the entire film. It is up-close and personal throughout, making it more intimate and like you're actually there. There are plenty of scenes where there are very little cuts, making it feel all the more natural and realistic. I've seen plenty of people say that the camerawork felt claustrophobic, but I got a more intimate feeling that blended perfectly with the tone of the film. Plot: Many people were expecting a basic biopic of Jackie's life, but it basically takes place during the few days after JFK is assassinated. So don't walk in the theater expecting it to be a typical biopic on her life. I enjoyed the way the story unfolded as well; there are about three things going on basically. One is an interview with Jackie, one is her touring the White House, and one in the "present time," and there are other smaller ones like her talking to the priest. They all blend perfectly together, and don't feel convoluted or confusing at all. I also enjoyed how the movie didn't focus on making the viewer feel as sad as possible and in tears by the end, like Manchester by the Sea. The point of Jackie was not be in tears about how sad the event was, but to focus on how it specifically effected Jackie, which is executed perfectly. Screenplay: The screenplay is well-written and at times deep. To make an hour and a half movie that's mainly talking is always hard to do, and this movie pulled it off great. Score: The score is haunting, though at times a bit repetitive. There's one signature sound that plays over and over throughout the movie. However, every time it comes back it is still as haunting as the last time. The score is beautiful and atmospheric, and sets up a perfect tone for the movie. Overall, Jackie is a good movie that, in my opinion, flew just a bit under the radar, since it did not receive a best picture nomination. In my opinion, this movie deserved to be nominated over Hell or High Water.

Doctor Strange would have most likely earned a solid 7 from me, if it weren't for the breath-taking visual effects. Characters: One problem I had with Dr. Strange's character is that we never really get to sympathize for him. He starts out as a jerk (a rather charming jerk that is, since he is portrayed by Cumberbatch) and suddenly becomes a relatively good person within a few scenes. There wasn't even a real scene where Strange has a breakthrough moment and suddenly masters sorcery, he just kind of masters it somewhat off camera. Rachel McAdams' character was underwritten and basically just there for some love interest since they needed one. Otherwise, the characters are as good as most Marvel superheroes are; just good, not amazing or completely original or anything. Acting: Benny Batch was a great pick for Dr. Strange, but they might as well have just let him keep his British accent. His American accent still needs some tweaking, though it is a major improvement from Black Mass. He over-enunciates a few words like "New yORk", and it took a little time to adjust to his throaty American accent because I've matched his voice and accent with his face for so long. McAdams didn't really do anything, but she was fine for what she did do. Chewy Ejiofor and Tilda Swinton were also very good. Plot: It's basically a basic Marvel plot. Blah blah, some bad thing happens and now they need to heal and accidentally get a new superpower, whoops now he has to save the world, and yay he saves it in the end against all odds. But once you look past the predictable plot, the movie is enjoyable and fun. Humor: Lots of the humor fell flat in this movie, but there are a few scenes here and there that can generate a good laugh. Action: The action is very well done, among some of the best Marvel fight scenes I've ever seen. Effects: The effects have got to be some of the best I've seen in a while. How they managed to generate mind-bending effects that aren't headache-inducing I have no idea. I understand that it must have taken days if not months to make the animations and everything, but there were really only about two full scenes that used these amazing effects to their fullest. I would've liked more scenes like the two, but I do respect the time it most likely took just to make those two scenes. Overall, I would recommend Doctor Strange, as it is a fun, enjoyable movie. I was anticipating a bit more action, and left the theater wanting a bit more considering how well-done the fight scenes were. It's a very Marvel movie that doesn't break the basic Marvel formula, but is still enjoyable in the end.

Hacksaw Ridge is a 50/50 movie for me. I didn't particularly enjoy the first hour of the movie, but boy, did the second hour make up for it. Plot: As I mentioned, the first hour of the movie was very melodramatic as well as cliched and borderline boring. It's a typical love story, everything works out conveniently, and some of the line delivery and scenes are cheesy. However, the second hour is pure brutality and war violence, that is so well done and filmed excellently. It was like watching two completely different movies (like Full Metal Jacket but not executed quite as well). But, the advantage of having the first half so happy and dandy, it makes the second half so much more brutal, which I'm not sure is intentional or not. Otherwise, the second half was done well; shot perfectly, great sound editing and mixing, good enough story. It's just the first half that brings the score down a bit. Characters/Acting: Andrew Garfield did an excellent job, earning the Oscar nomination. Do I think he should win? No, but he deserves the recognition. Otherwise, the acting from the supporting cast was good, but it was mainly a showcase of Garfield's character and acting. I didn't like Vince Vaughn's portrayal of an army sergeant. I didn't think he was fit at all for the role, and didn't seem menacing enough to be a drill sergeant. The problem is, when he insults all the privates when prepping them, it feels very Hollywood and doesn't match the lighthearted tone the first half of the movie had. Full Metal Jacket actually had a matching tone and, although funny, it made you feel uncertain about whether or not you should laugh. Vince Vaughn just looks like too funny or nice **** to be seriously shouting insults as a sergeant. Cinematography: The cinematography was great in Hacksaw Ridge. It captured the sheer brutality of war, and the action was amazingly directed. As controversial as Mel Gibson may be, he knows how to direct action and warfare. Other: The movie was a bit heavy-handed; there were plenty of Jesus allegories throughout the run-time of the film that can be seen as propaganda. For example, there's a scene of Garfield having water poured onto him as he looks up at the sky, arms at his side, being cleansed of the blood that cakes his skin, all in slow-motion, while emotional music plays. I also didn't enjoy the depiction of the Japanese. They are portrayed as absolutely ferocious, disgusting, ugly creatures that MURICA must defeat. Their caricatures are exaggerated and Gibson really tries to get the point across that the Japanese are the bad guys, and you should be rooting for MURICA. Overall, Hacksaw Ridge is half cheesy-cliche, half brutal, well done, action. This is not a movie for the squeamish.

Green Room is an enjoyable, violent, gory, and suspenseful movie. It may not be one of the greatest movies of 2016, but it deserves some recognition. Characters/Acting: Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots are amazing, and the rest of the cast, especially Patrick Stewart, definitely chip in to make this movie great. The characters are maybe a tad underwritten, as I've seen some people complain about it. Only a few of the characters really get an ark, and the others don't. But I felt the movie still did an okay job with the characters and their development overall. Plot: One major complaint I have is that sometimes it was a bit hard to figure out what was going on. There were a few scenes where a bunch of new information was introduced, and it took me time to figure it out, taking away from the movie. The movie is still relatively slow paced throughout, but it didn't bore me. It also starts out a bit slow, before the band gets to the green room. I almost thought I had rented the wrong movie, since it starts out with a more quiet, slow tone and goes by very slowly. Luckily the tension builds up through the movie, ending in pure violence and intensity. Violence: It's not constant blood and gore, but Green Room definitely has its scenes of brutal violence and gore. One of the only movies that I can remember in recent times that made me cringe at the realistic brutality and blood. The film doesn't exaggerate though, making it feel all the more realistic. For example: when someone gets a machete to the neck, half their head or their whole head doesn't come off; the blade only makes a shallow cut, deep enough to kill though. This made it feel more realistic and not laughable like other horror movies that try too hard to make the audience flinch at the violence. Tone: The tone is incredibly dark as you can imagine, and the set design as well as the lighting really adds to the dark, violent, murky mood. Overall, don't watch Green Room if you are squeamish of violence and brutality, because there's plenty of this in Green Room.

Arrival is a creative, fresh, and new film that is beautifully shot, acted, and written. The trailers and the first few minutes may seem cheesy, but don't be fooled. Once the plot is unfolded it is so much more. Characters/Acting: One of the only complaints I have about the movie was that Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker didn't get to do much. It's more of a showcase of Amy Adams' character. It still worked out fine, but I would have liked to see more of the co-stars. Otherwise, it is well-acted and the characters are strong enough to care for. Cinematography: The direction of this movie is beautiful; beautiful shots, beautiful angles, and so many beautiful little things that made the atmosphere eerie and creepy. Music: The score is one of the best ones I've heard in a long time. It's suspenseful, eerie, and sends chills down your spine. How it was not recognized with an Oscar, I have no idea. The score was more ambient and abstract, rather than a traditional score with normal music, and it pulled it off well. Plot: The plot twist in the end was not predictable, chilling, and amazing, reminding me of The Sixth Sense. It wasn't a "hah, you thought this but it was actually this, get rekt" kind of twist, it makes you think more and figure it out. Like Sixth Sense, you may recall certain scenes after finding out the twist and think, "huh, that does make sense with the twist applied." Some say that the plot is paced badly, and I can see where they're coming from. There were some slower moments, and the movie is in no rush to complete itself. There are a few scenes that even I agree went on for just a minute or two long, but did set up good tension. Visual Effects: Despite a moderately-sized budget, the effects were not the greatest I've seen in a while. There are a few scenes where the effects were obviously not prioritized, but almost everything looks convincing enough so it doesn't take you out of the movie. Overall, Arrival is an excellently-crafted, thought-out movie. Do I think it deserves many of the nominations it received? Definitely.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I went into this movie with very high expectations. I have just seen it even though it had been out for nearly half a year, and have gotten countless recommendations for this movie, as well as seeing lots of positive reviews for it. The movie had also gotten an Oscar nomination for best picture, increasing my expectations. Sadly, I was left unsatisfied. Characters/Acting: The acting was well done; Chris Pine did an excellent job of portraying his character, better than I had expected. I'm looking forward to hopefully seeing him in more dramatic, Oscar-worthy performances in the future. Ben Foster did a good job as well, but Jeff Bridges, in my mind, seemed a bit overrated. He played a very Jeff Bridges character, and though he did have a good range of emotions in a few scenes, he didn't do much throughout the movie. I also didn't feel like there was enough of a connection or comparison between the two pairs of characters (Pine and Foster as brothers and Bridges and Gil Birmingham as the 2 cops). They barely even met, and I didn't feel a good comparison between the two kinds, if that's what the movie was going for. Cinematography: Throughout the duration of the movie, there are countless, and I mean perpetual, endless shots of the small, depressed lands of Texas that the movie takes place in. Eventually I found the shots boring and repetitive, to the point where I was almost saying "if I see another shot of a barren wasteland in Texas, I'm going to throw my remote into the television." Overall, the movie isn't necessarily bad; it's an okay way to kill two hours. If I didn't have such high expectations from what I had read and other people suggesting it for me, I may have knocked the rating up to a 7. Also, whenever you see it, stick around for the T-bone restaurant scene, it's the best and funniest scene of the whole movie.