Reviews

"Margin Call" reminds me of two movies that I've seen, one much more than the other. I think of "Wall Street" and "Glengarry Glen Ross". Sure you may think of one on the surface (the former), but as far as how it plays out in terms of it being an acting exercise, I think of the latter. I think more of "Glengarry Glen Ross" because there are times where not much is happening, but there is plenty of dialogue. Because while the performances from everyone in here are excellent, I kind of wasn't entirely sure about what was going on, and wanted a little more than what you were actually getting from the script in terms of the situation at hand. I guess that wasn't really supposed to be the main focus, rather than how the people in the middle of the crisis were handling it at the time. And that's ok. It can be about the drama of it all. That's entertaining too. It just felt a little too vague sometimes to where when they attempted to discuss it, it got kind of repetitive for me. I'm like "ok so I guess that's bad". So I gave up. The most I really got to understand was that there was a really dire situation at hand because of some equation that the guy worked out, and presented to the firm. Overall, I thought it was fine. The acting, casting and production is what really elevated it for me. Those are the most positive aspects, with the standout performances for me being from Simon Baker (who was just cold in this in his scenes), and Paul Bettany, Demi Moore and Stanley Tucci. I don't take issue with Penn Badgley in the movie, but his character seemed to be the most unnecessary other than perhaps to represent how one can become a casualty of those circumstances simply by working there while that stuff is going on. Sort of a "wrong place at the wrong time" type deal. At least that's what I think based off of something that Paul Bettany's character says to him late in the film. But prior to that, I didn't see why he needed to be included in the story, whereas Zachary Quinto's character was highly important. I also don't really think that the ending works too well. And someone who is billed on the poster doesn't show up until the ending. Great actress too, but she's there for like 2 minutes. And also, this is just me maybe. I won't act as if profanity always bothers me, especially when it's in an R-rated movie where it's most expected. That being said, the writing at times seemed as if it was written just to place emphasis on the profanity itself, rather than what was actually being said. I hate writing like that. Other than that, the movie is ok. I will say that I do like it more than the movie "Wall Street". I saw that a while back, and I don't get why it was a big deal.

So I watched this movie today for the first time and I certainly did like the first maybe 30 to 40 minutes or so, but after somewhat past the hour mark I just lost a ton of interest. I don't have a problem with a movie's pacing being slow but I care about how you use your movie's pacing. I found it to be kind of uneven. As far as the romantic relationship between Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh, that felt, dare I say, "rushed", in of itself. They were good together, and believable, but their relationship just kind of happens. But what also felt kind of rushed was the actual supposed main focus of the film, which was the fact that these two cops had succumbed to drug addiction while working undercover. I didn't really believe it, as they just hadn't looked like they hadn't even been through what they were going through. I bought the performances, but they just still looked a little too neat and tidy after using such harsh stuff. Not to mention, there just didn't seem to be enough of it before the movie went back into having them go back into their investigation. And yet, while I found the drug issues to be rushed during the second act, the second act in of itself is also kind of slow at the same time. There's a line that the great Sam Elliott has that he says to Jennifer Jason Leigh about the case she's on, where he tells her that she's given them nothing lately, and that's how I felt about the movie as I was watching it at that time. And this is more of a nitpick than anything else, but there are two scenes in here with two separate drug dealers that kind of aren't all that believable to me, especially the one that occurs earlier in the film. I don't know what it is about some of these movies where the drug dealers basically are portrayed in this "performance art" sort of way, and they're all eccentric and everything instead of just being shown to be ordinary low-life people who are just trying to make money by doing something that they shouldn't be doing at all. They're scum. Yet they get these characterizations and drawn out scenes and monologues to make them seem like it'd be great to do business with them. Putting the moral aspect aside, I just don't think it works well in movies to do this. Not only that, they didn't come across as dealers. Both of the guys I'm referring to felt like they were out of different movies. One felt like a pimp, and the other like a serial rapist/killer. I watched the movie "One False Move" a while ago and the dealers in that were far more credible, and not made out to be these larger-than-life people. And then, the third act is just frankly a mess in my opinion. And also, "rushed". The movie had a pretty decent start to it, and Jason Patric is really good in it, and so is Jennifer Jason Leigh. But it's pretty routine and I wound up not liking it very much in the end.

This wasn't a terrible movie by any means. It was definitely kind of underwhelming though, and didn't do anything to convince me that this franchise, that I do like (only like the first 3 to be honest; I hate 4 and never saw all of "TF: The Last Knight" or any of "Bumblebee"), needs to continue still. This is the now seventh movie. Even with me actually really liking the third act, and thinking that Anthony Ramos did a really good job as the lead, I don't desire more of them. ESPECIALLY not with the way that it ends, setting up a crossover with another franchise. To reiterate, I enjoyed Anthony Ramos very much in this. I liked his character and actually cared about him, and his relationship with his little brother. I enjoyed their dynamic together. And the young actor who plays the kid brother also was very good. And it was great to see Lauren Velez again, even though she appears very briefly in it as their mom. I thought the voice cast for the Transformers was mostly fine also. Some of the movie also was shot in Peru, where most of the back half of the movie takes place (The beginning takes place in New York). The location of Peru is just beautiful. There are some wonderful shots in here. Steven Caple Jr., who directed "Creed 2", did a very good directing job here as well. Where I'm honestly mixed is the performance by Dominique Fishback. She's decent in the movie, but some of her acting isn't great. I don't know if that's because of her trying to act against what are essentially VFX characters and trying to sell that, which I imagine isn't easy to do. But I wouldn't call her great against actual actors either. She's not like on the level on Rosie Huntington-Whiteley in the 3rd film, who was not good. Megan Fox wasn't great in the first 2 either. Nicola Peltz in Age of Extinction wasn't good either. Same thing. She's trying though. In regards to her character, I like that she is smart and is knowledgeable about artifacts and things. And she was used within the main story. But if you take her out of the movie, and rework a few things, I'm not totally sure I'd miss her that much. Not that she was a bad character. I just found Ramos's character more appealing. She was fine. Something was just kind of missing with her character, though. Also, although I again liked the Ramos character and his performance, I still don't understand why human characters have to be in these movies. The Transformers should be the exclusive focus. The beginning of this movie and the battle sequences at the end (taking exception to the intercut parts with the humans) paint a really cool picture of what an entire TF movie could be with just them, or at least could've been. I would have loved a Transformers film to have that sense of scale and ambition. Nothing against human actors, but make this about the Autobots and Decepticons alone. Another thing that I didn't know about this was that it takes place in the 1990s, specifically 1994. Had it not been for the year itself coming up on the screen, and some movie posters, a clip from "Juice", and the most obvious thing being the songs on the soundtrack, I wouldn't have even guessed that it was supposed to take place in the 90s. There is no real sense of time or place here in this. The decade is not really relevant at all. There's even a modern song that plays during the third act and another modern song during the end credits. They don't even stick with the 90s theme, lol. As far as the VFX go, they are still mostly good but inconsistent at times. There were one or two close-up shots on Optimus Prime transforming that did not look all that good to me, and another close up on Optimus Primal later in the film that didn't look too good. Lastly on what I'm mixed on, the action is just really more of the same but even less impressive than it used to be. These are giant robots, so it makes sense that they don't always go down easy, but I got a little tired of all the shooting and hitting, and nothing was really happening. I was like "Ok, can somebody get damaged?". The best portion of this movie for me though in regards to action, visuals and even somewhat character was the third act. I could see myself rewatching just this section of the movie alone for how much it engaged me. It isn't better than the finales in the earlier Bay films to me, but it was fun and well done, I thought. Now my biggest gripes come from two things in particular. One is a character, who while they mercifully have very little screen time in the film, the time that they had was enough. There's a character who is a friend of the Ramos character. He's basically a lowlife criminal. I haven't seen this actor before, so maybe it's just what they gave him, but his character was the most annoying character in the entire film. He's our comic relief human. Pete Davidson voices "Mirage", who serves as our comic relief Autobot. Pete was here and there in terms of effectiveness, but the friend was not funny at all. I think back to him yelling out of the window of his car, and I laughed but now I really wanna know why I did that. That wasn't even funny. Was it a pity laugh? I guess. They tried way too hard to make this guy funny and likable, and failed at both. When he leaves, so does the thorn in my side. He is briefly seen again before the end, and during a mid-credits scene (which is lame). Also, the plot is basically the same as all the others. They have to get something before the bad guys do, and they fight over it for 2 hours. This time, it's a "key". Some things I honestly don't even remember (not that I want to tell you everything to ruin it for you), but its just super-basic anyway. The movie's ok. But I don't think I need to see it again.

I don't hate this movie by any means. I thought it was still better than most action movies made today, and I am a fan of this franchise. But I only found myself really into the action most of the time in this particular movie. I much preferred the more grounded feel to John Wick before. It makes sense that the story went international to expand on things, and to incorporate more characters, but the bigger everything got, the less interested I became. 3 was good, but I think that's where they should've stopped. As far as what I loved in the film, it was undoubtedly the action. These movies have such great action and stunt choreography, and this one is no exception. They certainly stepped things up here. I enjoyed the cast as well, with Donnie Yen being my favorite new addition. What I probably loved even more than the action in this was honestly the art direction. It was phenomenal. There was not a single wasted shot in the movie. Every artpiece, furnishing, building and interiors all around were wonderfully framed and set a great mood for each scene. There's one scene where Ian McShane's character was in a room with the villain, and it's a big wide shot as he's walking in, showing all the artwork on the wall. It looked amazing. As far as what I didn't like, I found the villain to be kind of weak. Never bought him as a threat. I felt like he was more or less trying to act like a bad guy. There was one scene where he came across as somewhat menacing, but other than that, he wasn't great. Also, I have to admit that I was pretty bored throughout when there wasn't much action onscreen. I wasn't hating the movie, but it was just slow to me. I'm not saying those parts were pointless or anything, because some other plot threads are set up, but I didn't think this needed to be nearly 3 hours. I'm good with long movies, but it just depends on the movie. Would I prefer 3 hours of non-stop action? No, I wouldn't. The last hour or so is pretty much action till the end, though. Overall, I think the movie is good, but the running time kind of hurts it for me. And I'll admit also that I honestly just think that this franchise is being milked now. I wasn't sure about a fourth film. And now they've confirmed a 5th film, a spin-off movie, and a spin-off TV show on Peacock. I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with me, but if it were any other franchise, like the MCU, Fast & Furious, Terminator, or whatever, they'd call it out for doing so. It's fine if you wanna see John Wick 5 and everything else they'll do, but I think things can come to an end.

I am a fan of Paul Schrader. I think he is an immensely talented writer and filmmaker. There's much of his filmography that I've yet to see, but I do want to see more. But this is the first of his films that I've seen that I did not enjoy very much at all. I may watch it again someday, but the impression of it that I have right now isn't great. The best thing about this movie is Oscar Isaac's performance. He's amazing in this. He fits right in with the mood of Schrader. Perfect casting. Tye Sheridan is okay in this, I guess. Not bad, not great. As far as Tiffany Haddish is concerned, I will say that I felt that she was trying in this, but I still had this nagging feeling that she was miscast. I felt like something was missing with her. She had the look of a woman who does what her character does, but didn't really sell it in my opinion. In all fairness, she's toned down from her usual comedic persona so I guess I just needed to adjust. There's also just not a whole lot to that character. Now going into where I found myself completely frustrated with this movie, this movie essentially feels like two movies vying for attention. For me, the first movie which concerned poker, never seemed to recover after a subplot is introduced. It's like it barely got into that before all this other stuff began. There's a subplot that is in the film concerning events of torture and abuse in a prison camp, and I'll leave it at that. It may not be fair to even suggest that it's a subplot, provided how much dominance it has in the film. But it was less interesting to me than the actual poker elements. It just felt uneven in its execution. I just watched this today not knowing a ton about it other than who was in it, who made it, and that it had something to do with playing cards. Didn't do a deep dive into it beforehand, but enough to know that I may have wanted to see it at some point. So I was thinking that this was going to be typical to Schrader's work, somewhat introspective with its lead character, but within the world of poker. The poker aspect just felt like window dressing for the prison abuse plotline. There are these flashback sequences set inside the prison camp that are thrown in, and although they are very well done, they feel way out of another movie. And I'm sure that if Mr. Schrader were to make a film solely dealing with that subject matter independently, it'd be great. I'm not against multiple storylines in a film, but structure and execution is key. The movie also tends to drag at times, too. It's not even a full 2 hours and it feels longer than it is at times. I would have preferred getting to understand more about the Oscar Isaac character, and have a conflict that didn't contrast so sharply with everything else.

By all means, "One False Move" is an amazing, tough, and suspensefully nuanced thriller that I have wanted to see for some time now. I have finally had the pleasure, and I am certainly glad that I did. Prior to watching the whole film, I saw the opening scene online a while ago, and it is intense. I recall on an episode of "Siskel and Ebert" that Gene Siskel mentioned that they had gotten letters from viewers, suggesting that they should inform people about the level of violence in the beginning. Gene said that the violence at the beginning was extreme, but that it would not be repeated throughout the film. Having seen it for myself, I personally found it strong to be certain, but not extreme. Disturbing, yes. And Gene, I love and miss you man, but I actually would argue that the movie does get more violent as it progresses. You won't see non-stop violence or anything like that, but when it happens, it is brutal. But apart from that, this film is just a brilliant marvel of acting, writing and directing. This was directed by Carl Franklin, who has directed films such as "Devil in a Blue Dress", "High Crimes", and "Out of Time". He is immensely talented. This isn't his entire filmography though, just to clarify. I've seen "Out of Time" and "High Crimes" in the past, but out of what I have seen, this is easily his best film. The performances are uniformly excellent across the board. The late Bill Paxton is terrific in the lead, Billy Bob Thornton (who he would later co-star with in Sam Raimi's "A Simple Plan"), and Cynda Williams give amazing performances here. And Michael Beach in particular gives the most frightening performance in the whole film. I have seen him in other films, but never like this. This should have gotten him a Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor in my mind. I don't care about the Oscars too much these days, but I'm just saying he should have gotten recognition. The screenplay itself, co-written by Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson, is worthy of the same. I don't want to reveal too much of anything, but a certain revelation really did surprise me later on and it was quite gutsy. In conclusion, it is a fantastic movie that I highly recommend. I'm happy to hear that the Criterion Collection is also finally releasing this film on both 4K UHD Blu-ray and Blu-ray, so that's exciting news. However you see this though, see it.

Saw it a few weeks ago. One thing that I wasn't expecting about this movie was how surprisingly funny it actually was. Sure, it's a serious neo-noir type of film which I love, but it's got a surprisingly relaxed tone that is refreshing for this type of film. The actual plot seems not to even be the main focus all the time, but that's kind of why the movie works so well. They take the time to establish the characters that Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin play and create the tension and chemistry within their relationship. There is a story here though, and it is good. I wouldn't say it was anything you haven't seen before, but it held my attention. I even really like all the other cops as well. They actually had a lot of personality themselves, and weren't just the same bland suit-and-tie types. My favorite amongst them was the one played by Lisa Jane Persky. She did a really good job. They all did. One of those cops also might stick out to you like a sore thumb given his popularity. Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin really do an excellent job in this movie. This might be the best role I've seen Dennis Quaid play. And I've seen very few Ellen Barkin movies, but I'd love to see more. Really enjoyed it.

I didn't really know what to expect from this movie except that I certainly didn't think that it was going to be amazing. But I will say that it's not a terrible movie actually. I kind of like it a little. I think it was a wise decision to make it into a bit of a road movie and have them traveling to go and recruit the team members because part of the fun was seeing not only who the team members were, but who were playing the actual characters each time you met someone. So I appreciate the novelty of that as well as them all being portrayed by actual former, and current in the case of Kyrie Irving, NBA players. And one WNBA player that I didn't even know was in this, but I was happy to see her. You could tell that everybody in here had a lot of fun making this. And I like the way that they did try to apply some heart to the story, even if it is predictable. I felt that it still worked. And although I think the movie's okay, unfortunately I feel like it could have been a lot funnier than it is. I did laugh at some of the banter and one liners, so I didn't go entirely without laughing. And I enjoyed the opening of the movie as well. But some of it was almost dead air. There's a character in here played by Nick Kroll, who is a rival of the protagonist played by Lil Rel Howery. I couldn't stand him. His character was appropriately obnoxious, but the character was not funny. I'm not at liberty to say whether or not Nick Kroll's a bad actor because I haven't seen him in a lot of stuff, but he really overplayed his role. Sometimes he had the right note with it, but other times he was just trying to force unfunny material to be funny, and it wasn't working. But even worse in this movie is Tiffany Haddish. Basically all she does in this movie is just say things in a loud, shrill way. Again, that could be the material for her as well, but she has also been that way in other things. I did like her on "The Carmichael Show" though, which she co-starred on with Lil Rel Howery. Something else that I kind of take issue with in this movie though, especially since it is a movie about basketball, is how the basketball scenes are filmed. The basketball scenes are shot in this sped up frame rate, and one scene uses a lot of slow-mo. There's only one that actually is filmed naturally without any of that editing in it and it looks good. These people were and are professional athletes. Are they older? Yes, but they're not the actual ages of their characters. You do not have to do all of these visual tricks to help them look better at it. Not to mention, it is harder to see. Let me see them play. The D. P. goes by Crash, which is ironic given that a car chase in the movie is better shot than some of the basketball action. And I'm not nitpicking about the makeup in this movie because you already know these are younger people playing older people, but I'm just saying that I think it looks better on some of the characters and not that good on some of the other characters. It's not an issue though. It served its purpose. At the end of the day, "Uncle Drew" is decent.

When it comes down to movies about con artists or caper films in general, it can be kind of hard for me to try not to mentally outpace the natural progression of the narrative itself. You already know there's going to be a "gotcha" moment at some point. Sometimes you can be hotly anticipating that so much that you can miss what's going on right in front of you. But this movie makes it easy for me at least to appreciate everything leading up to the film's inevitable conclusion, without me having any idea of what that's going to look like in my mind. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. While I have no interest in trying to con people, I enjoyed learning about how these unfortunately lowlife people did what they did. It's not even the most plot-heavy film, really. It doesn't meander. Things do happen though. Just don't go in expecting Ocean's 11 or anything. This is a movie that is best to just let it happen to you as you're watching it. It's far more rewarding that way, especially when that amazing twist happens.

Well, I'll begin with what I think is certainly the best thing about this movie that would be most of the acting. Particularly, I think Lara Flynn Boyle and Nick Nolte give the two best performances in the film and play the two most interesting characters. Julie Christie, who received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress for her role in this is good, but I thought her character was actually the least interesting in this. Jonny Lee Miller's performance left me kind of unimpressed at first. I actually thought it was kind of bad to be honest. But after thinking on it, I think his performance is fine. It's my least favorite out of the four, but I think his acting fits his character's buttoned-up demeanor. I also enjoyed the music in this film. I enjoy jazz, so I found it very pleasant. I even searched for the soundtrack online. But as for the movie itself, I feel like it wants to be straightforward and unconventional at the same time, and I lost track of which movie it was supposed to be. On the surface, it's about two couples who end up unknowingly switching partners via infidelity. And yet two of the for people I don't really care that much about. Lara Flynn Boyle's character is the most interesting to me out of everyone, and I felt the most for her. While I don't condone what she does about her situation, hers seems the easiest to understand. Nick Nolte's character is my second favorite character in the film, and that's largely also in part of him just being a great actor. I don't condone his actions, and yet his unfaithfulness even has some slight reasoning behind it. But in the case of the characters played by Christie and Miller, not only are they not that interesting separately, but I don't even know what they saw in each other when they began their little fling other than the most obvious thing they had in common, which were unfaithful partners. I understood what led to each couple sort of going about doing things the way they did, however one couple's problems were shown and the others seems to just get explained. And yet, something was still off to me about a character. It seems like a movie where you have to try to make the most of what's here when it's not all spelled out. I don't mind movies like that, but when half of the characters/material are uninteresting and then you have to try to fill in gaps too, I just don't care at the end of the day. It's not a terrible movie, and it has good scenes, but I was kind of underwhelmed by it.

When I first watched this movie, I enjoyed it but I did not get the high that most people got when they watched it. My very first rating was actually a 7. But then I later changed my rating to an 8 because I started to feel as if the movie was just better than that as I reflected on it more. So I recently just watched it for the second time. Part of me isn't 100% sure if all of my thoughts are totally different, but my enjoyment of the film has increased. I still have some mixed feelings about some of the cinematography. Overall , I think this movie looks great but there are times where the film is shot as if they want the subject to be focused on while everything around the subject is kind of obscured. I just found that to be a little distracting at times. But other than that, I think the movie looks great. And in regards to the reveal about who Selina Kyle's father is, I don't have a huge problem with it but part of me felt like it was a little contrived for it to be who it was. I guess it was done to sort of make Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne seem like they are both kind of misunderstood and come from really messed up circumstances while definitely not being the same. Maybe I'm overthinking it. I don't know. Just me. And I originally thought that the film kind of lost its way in the third act, but now I don't mind the third act at all. I rather enjoyed it this time. One thing I took notice of this time even more so was the sound in this movie. I don't recall all of the movies that were nominated for Best Sound this year at the Oscars, but if "Top Gun: Maverick" had been released any other year, I think this movie would have won (not that "Top Gun: Maverick" didn't deserve to win). I was quite impressed with it. I also love the mood of this film. I love the hazy atmosphere of Gotham City at night, and the gritty crime thriller tone that it has. Every performance in this movie is top notch and while Robert Pattinson is excellent in this movie as Bruce Wayne/Batman, my favorite in this film is from that of Paul Dano as the Riddler. I like everyone in this, but he was just a really effective creep in this. And Colin Ferrell... WOW. And while I enjoy the whole movie, the strongest portion of this is pretty much the first hour. Everything to me is at its best here. And I think that's even before the insane Batmobile sequence. Matt Reeves directed this movie as well as any superhero movie I've seen and better in many aspects, especially many recent ones. And how can I not address the musical score by Michael Giacchino? It's spectacular work. There have been so many great themes for Batman that are different, yet they fit the character really well and this is no exception. Is this my favorite Batman movie? No, that one still goes to "Batman and Robin". KIDDING. My favorite is "The Dark Knight", and right behind it, as hard as it is to have in second place is "Batman Begins". So "The Batman" rounds out my top 3. Job well done.

I've never seen the original 1987 film or read the novel that both these movies are based on, and I'd like to someday. But one thing is for certain. This movie is a very good movie. I wouldn't even argue that Denzel Washington is the only reason why, but without him you essentially don't have a movie. I don't say that because he's the protagonist. I say that because his performance in this in my opinion is one of the best performances of his entire career, and of the year 2004. Often when people talk about this movie, one of the most widespread sentiments shared about it is that it is one of those movies where the performance elevates the movie itself. I find that to be completely true. Because the plot is very simple. A former CIA agent turned bodyguard is assigned to protect a couple's daughter, and she gets kidnapped and held for ransom. He exacts revenge against them. If that's not exactly right, close enough. That's all I'll say in case you haven't seen this by chance. Another performance in this movie that doesn't get the recognition it deserves is also a central performance in the movie. That would be Dakota Fanning's performance. I haven't seen her in a lot of movies but to me she gives one of the most natural performances that a child actress has given in a movie. I don't think this movie would have worked as well without either her or Denzel Washington. There are some other very talented actors in this movie including Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke, Giancarlo Giannini, and Radha Mitchell to name a few. I don't really have a ton of issues with this movie but after seeing it recently I have one major issue that actually hinders my enjoyment of it a bit. I don't necessarily consider style over substance a bad thing in a lot of movies, but the editing is particularly frustrating at times here. I don't know what was going on, but it's actually kind of absurd. There were occasional freeze frames and slowed down frames that I felt complimented certain scenes nicely, but most of the choices made with the editing felt really excessive. This movie is just really flashy for no reason at all. I just wish there was less of it. I'm not saying that I would want it all gone but it just visually obscured what is a nice looking film by the late Tony Scott. All in all though, I highly recommend it.

I did not see this movie in theaters, and having just seen it I think that was perfectly fine. It was an entertaining watch. I just watched it on Peacock and they have the unrated version. If you saw it in theaters and you wanna know what's different, there's basically more F-bombs than what would be allowed in a PG-13 film, and some bloody scenes that wouldn't get by with that rating. Nothing extreme though compared to much more gruesome horror films. That's the most I could tell you having only seen the unrated cut. But as far as the movie itself, it benefits from the fact that it doesn't take itself that seriously. That's not to say that there are no serious moments, given that the protagonist is now the temporary guardian of her niece after the loss of her parents. That even ties into things as they relate to M3GAN as well, and it's actually pretty effective how the bonding between the young girl and the doll becomes a threat in of itself. And M3GAN herself is a riot. The actress that plays her does a great job, and her voice actress also. I feel like the acting from everyone was mostly decent to good. Perhaps the actor who played the boss overdid it a little, but I mean I kind of get it. You could say it fit with what they were trying to do given the tone of the movie and that he was the head of a tech company. This movie is very silly, but I can say that I thought it was all right. I hear there's a sequel coming. I don't need one personally, but I guess...

I knew this movie was not going to be as enjoyable as the first given the loss of the late Chadwick Boseman. Every movie that he's not a part of from here on out will suffer because of his untimely death. However, this movie, despite being watchable, is not a movie that I think I would want to watch through its entire run time again. I didn't hate the movie, and I have good things to say about it, but it also falls into some of the exact same Marvel trappings that they've been stuck in for a while that have had me kind of jaded with them. First, I feel that everyone gave mostly great performances in this film. A lot of attention is obviously on Angela Bassett right now (who won a Golden Globe for her performance and has received her second Oscar nomination and is expected to win) and she's fantastic, but I feel that the main standout in this movie in my opinion when she wasn't on-screen was Danai Gurira as Okoye. I thought she had the best humor in the movie and I thought she had the best individual action scenes. Letitia Wright is very good as Shuri once again, and Winston Duke as M'Baku is great to see again. Lupita Nyong'o was also wonderful in her small doses. Tenoch Huerta was fine as Namor. I had no issue with him. While I'm still on the positives of things, I also thought that this movie once again had terrific production design, and I enjoyed a lot of the exterior shots. I don't know if they actually shot all of these shots on location when they were in different parts of the world (probably not) but those parts looked nice. Great costumes as well once again. And now, I'm going to get on to the things that I don't like so much. There are two characters in this movie that I don't think really needed to be in it: Riri Williams and even less so, whoever the character was that Julia Louis-Dreyfus played. I thought the actress that played Riri Williams did a fine job but her inclusion in this film was literally for nothing except to say "Hey, welcome to the MCU" because she's getting a Disney+ show sometime this year. It's just a vehicle for her. The Julia Louis-Dreyfus character was in "Black Widow" (didn't see it) from what I've heard and even with the few scenes she had here, I found her kind of annoying and not funny. She just felt like she was written into this movie just to crowd Martin Freeman's character, despite what her job is. In Martin Freeman's introductory scene, he's out running and he's swatting a bug out of his face or what he thinks is a bug. That's how I felt about JLD's character in this. Their inclusions overall is an issue I guess you could say is why I'm tired of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because they won't just let the movie be contained enough to focus on what they're doing. They just have to remind you that "Hey, this is someone else that Marvel made and you're going to see them again later. It's all connected." I don't care. Focus on what you're doing right now. Namor as a villain is honestly kind of boring and Talokan does not look nearly as cool as Wakanda. You really don't even need the comparison. It just doesn't look all that great by itself to me. And also the music in my opinion by Ludwig Goransson was a disappointment this time around. There's hardly anything that I'd want to go back and listen to later. Also, I've become aware of how awful Marvel tends to treat their visual effects artists, and it's a real shame. And I mean that for their sakes, not the films. I don't endorse it whatsoever, but I'm simply talking about the work here as it is in the finished film. I feel like once you seen one big Marvel set piece, you've seen them all now. The scene when Namor is in Wakanda felt to me like I was watching any other Marvel movie, from a visual effects standpoint. It's like it's just automatically boring now to watch some of these scenes. And they for some reason in this movie incorporated the use of slow-mo a few times. No need for that. And the battle at the end has some of the same issues too, aforementioned and these to follow. Instead of showing one main scene go on, they have to cut back and forth between two other things going on at the same time. Granted, Marvel movies are not the first to do that, but I'm honestly getting really sick of this because I just feel like I can see it coming from a mile away now. Let me see what is happening. Also, the movie like a lot of movies these days isn't long because it knows what to do with the length, but rather it's just long just to be long. I don't have a problem with long movies as long as you use your runtime well. "The Batman" in my mind used its runtime well. But I wasn't really into this that much, especially when Shuri was in Talokan. There are good scenes in this, and I particularly like the ending of this movie as well as the mid-credits scene. But at the end of the day this movie to me is at its best, just good to decent moments instead of "I can't wait to see this movie again". Watching clips online or something is a better way of experiencing it. I'm not holding the passing of Chadwick Boseman against this movie and I knew I wasn't going to like this movie as much without him being a part of it, but also I'm not so sure about the direction they went in either. They should've recast him.

I don't think this movie is a perfect movie, but I overall did enjoy it. I liked the coziness of this small town, and the locals there. It felt like a place I'd like to visit. All of the performances are great. Nick Nolte is excellent in this movie and the late James Coburn was nasty as his father. Coburn won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and I get why. Even though his performance is a supporting one I actually did think he would have a bigger role in the film. But he's in it enough, I suppose. He does appear in some flashback sequences also, and they did a good job making him look younger. Sissy Spacek was very good as Nolte's girlfriend in the film, and Willem Dafoe also as his brother. The movie is essentially focused on Nolte's character, who is still reeling from the cycle of abuse that he and his brother were subjected to as kids, and how it's still with him as an adult. He's a police officer who is tasked with investigating an accidental shooting that took place while two people were hunting. (I'm being somewhat vague because I don't want to give anything up.) The investigation element really isn't a huge part of this movie and is actually kind of intermittent, because Nolte's characters and the other characters are moreso the focus. It's basically a human story above all else. I won't pretend as if I wasn't somewhat frustrated with the ending even though I understand how it could be that way. It actually agitated me a bit. There was a buildup, but the buildup didn't seem to be all that complete. I guess it wouldn't have been that easy to fool anyone if it had been more to see but I did feel there were one or two scenes that were missing, especially in relation to a decision made by Sissy Spacek's character. I guess this is one of those movies where you have to entertain the unseen enough to strengthen the impact of it. The ending is tragic, I will say, based on what you do understand about the protagonist. A good film with really strong performances.

This was definitely a fascinating movie to me in regards to see what lengths some people will go in order to achieve fame, and perhaps to make any dreams that they have come true. Some of which were admirable, whereas others I seriously have to draw the line and would hope others would too. I thought De Niro was excellent as Rupert Pupkin, as this struggling comedian desperate for fame. His character Rupert is friends with a woman named Masha, played by comedienne Sandra Bernhard. I didn't know she was actually acting this far back, but that being said I thought she was really good in this, and kind of creepy to be honest. Truthfully, I found her to be much creepier than Rupert. Rupert wants desperately to appear on The Jerry Langford Show as a guest and Masha is a super-obsessed fan that loves Jerry. It kind of makes sense that they're friends, given their narrow-focused obsessions towards the same person, albeit for different reasons. Jerry Langford is played by none other than the late Jerry Lewis. I'm very young, so I haven't seen any Jerry Lewis movies but I thought he was fantastic in this one. There's also a woman that Rupert is involved with played by Diahnne Abbott who does a fine job as well. I do feel like this movie is well directed by Martin Scorsese, and it looks really good too. I even like the set design of the reception area of Jerry Langford's office. There's another scene where Rupert is standing with his back turned in front of a huge blown-up black-and-white picture of a crowd and the camera pans out while a soundtrack of laughter is playing over the scene that I thought was mesmerizing to look at. I'll say that the themes in this movie are relevant today in a lot of ways, and all the more perhaps with the advent of social media. But it's real easy to see where the movie is going based upon its set-up. And the ending to me does compromise because it doesn't commit to what I thought was going to be the ending. Don't get me wrong. It's a movie and I can live with the ending they chose but at the same time I was like "yeah, right". But it was definitely an interesting character piece by Scorsese for sure.

I decided to check out this movie, and I knew that it was certainly going to be different from the types of movies that I usually watch. That's not to say that I watch a ton of mind-numbing things, albeit I'll go on the record and say that I do sometimes as well. It's basically about relationships. A 42-year-old man is dating a 17-year old girl, and then falls for a woman that his best friend is cheating on his wife with. Bruh, really? Lol. I would definitely say I found it more interesting than funny, although I did laugh at a few lines. It's kind of like you're just observing these characters grappling with their conflicts. I would say that perhaps one of the parts of this movie that wasn't really needed was the subplot regarding Meryl Streep's character who was one of Woody Allen's ex-wives (he mentions that he has two ex-wives but her character is the only ex-wife in the movie that you see) who was writing a tell-all book about their marriage. The jokes that were produced from their bickering weren't really all that funny to me, nor did it seem to have a ton of consequence altogether. That's very minor stuff, but it still wasn't needed. Streep's character is the only throwaway character in the movie in my opinion because of how she's used. I don't watch a lot of movies in black-and-white, and that's not for a particular reason. I just watch more films shot in color. But this movie looks amazing in black and white. There are many terrific shots. The opening montage at the beginning of the film is a great example. Some of my other favorites took place inside of a museum between Woody Allen and Diane Keaton while they were walking through an art exhibit of the planets and stars, and some driving sequences as well. The cast does a great job as well. Other than that, it's not the most rewatchable movie to me. Perhaps certain scenes are, but I don't know about the whole thing. I would like to see some of his other films though based on seeing "Manhattan".

I watched this movie about a week and a half ago kind of having an idea of what it was about and then not really at the same time. I did know that it was based on a play though. I thoroughly enjoyed it, I will say. I thought all of the performances from all of the actors in this film were uniformly excellent. I do want to highlight Alec Baldwin though, because he gets one scene early on in this and it is used to tremendous effect. It packs a wallop. It really is an "Actors' movie" where actors truly get a chance to shine and perform at length. This movie is entirely 100% dialogue, so if that's not your thing then you may not like this movie but I honestly did not have an issue with that. It's described as kind of a black comedy but it's mostly serious. I can definitely say that I would not want to be in this business at all. The pressure these guys were under to close deals is just too much.

I don't necessarily like to do the whole "Marvel versus DC" thing because a lot of people get really carried away with that, and you can enjoy what you want. But just in my honest opinion, this and "The Batman" are better than the two Marvel films that I've seen this year hands down, which were "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" and "Thor: Love and Thunder". It's also much better than "Samaritan" with Stallone, which I was rooting for as an solid alternative. Even reading their titles back to myself, I'm disappointed at the lack of excitement that I feel for those movies having now seen them. I don't think this movie is perfect, but it was a fun time to be had. One thing that I thought it did really well without it being overworked to the point of nausea was the humor. It never felt forced to me. There's a gag in here concerning Black Adam busting through walls that if Taika Waititi directed this movie, you would have seen it about 5 or 6 times (refer to "the goats" in Thor 4). They know when to put that away. Also, this movie certainly has action. There is a lot of it. Crashes, and booms, and slams, and just... well, yeah. The special effects are very well done and the movie looks very good too. I enjoyed all of the cast. The Rock brings just the right amount of iron-jawed naiveté to Black Adam to make him both humorous and awesome to watch. He played off of everyone really well. Sarah Shahi did a fine job, as did Mohammed Amer and so did Aldis Hodge (Hardison from "Leverage"!). I liked Qwintessa Swindell as Cyclone as well (doesn't seem like she got as much to do as every one else though), and I enjoyed Noah Centineo quite a bit as Atom Smasher. Lastly, of course... Pierce Brosnan (my favorite Bond by the way) was very good as Doctor Fate. Now in the case of the young man who played the kid (Bodhi Sabongui), I'm not going to give him a hard time on his acting even though I thought it was neither the best nor the worst. I had a bigger problem with his character though. And that's where my overall problems with the movie begin. In my opinion, here we have another annoying kid in a superhero movie that just won't shut up. I had the exact same problem with the kid in the Sylvester Stallone movie "Samaritan". I think this kid is more tolerable because he does tend to make himself slightly more useful, and overall this movie is much better than that garbage movie was. I don't mind there being kids in movies, or movies like this even but just don't make them annoying. This movie actually made me think of "Samaritan" in another way too, in regards to the people preferring the heroics of one over the other. It's a little different here though. That's not a negative, but I just wanted to mention that observation. I probably didn't even articulate it that well given that I have forgotten so much of that other movie already. Also, the villain in this movie is absolute garbage. I don't know why they threw all their chips in on that, but it was absolutely pathetic. You still get to see them fight something that is seemingly unstoppable, but why couldn't it just be something else? And something that I feel kind of mixed on is the use of slow-mo. Some shots look really cool in this movie when using it, almost like an interactive graphic novel or something, but I still feel like it was used more than necessary. If people will give Zack Snyder crap for it, then this movie can get criticism for it too. Overall, I enjoyed watching this and I'd watch it again.

Growing up, I watched this movie nonstop. I was born the year that the first Mortal Kombat game was released. So obviously, I was too young to play it and all the other games to follow throughout the 90s. I knew as I got older that this was not high art of any kind. So it may seem pointless to criticize it, but I want to anyway. The best things about this easily are the theme song, and the actual fight scenes themselves. They're not the greatest, but you can at least follow them because they aren't terribly edited, and are decently shot. There are some cheesy camera tricks, but they aren't a huge deal. The VFX are obviously very dated, and they didn't look that good then. But they served their purpose. And for what it's worth, this is still one of the more faithful "video game to movie" adaptations that has been made, even with it getting a PG-13 rating instead an R , which would have been more appropriate. But unfortunately, what doesn't work about the movie is the script. The acting is also atrocious. No one in this movie is trying to get an Oscar, but some performances are worse than others to me. But the absolute worst ones in the movie are without a doubt Bridgette Wilson and Christopher Lambert. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa is having some scene-chewing fun as Shang Tsung, and Robin Shou and Linden Ashby are okay as Liu Kang and Johnny Cage, but Wilson and Lambert are terrible as Sonya Blade and Raiden (not "Rayden" like it's spelled in the credits of this film). Sonya just has this serious mug on her face throughout like she smells something bad everywhere she goes. It's evident in one scene where Raiden tells the team what their weaknesses are. And Lambert just whispers loudly throughout the entire movie. I do not believe him as Raiden at all. The actor who plays Kano (Trevor Goddard) is also one of the better ones in the movie too. I don't really object to any of the other actors in the movie either. They did fine also. I just read online that Sean Connery was offered the role of Raiden but he turned it down. GOOD. He was a better actor, but he would've stuck out like a sore thumb. I've yet to see the animated MK films, the notoriously awful 1997 "MK: Annihilation", or the 2021 film but this one I am greatly familiar with. It was great seeing it again recently, but the issues that it has are far more glaring to me than when I was a child. Far from a flawless victory, and yet it's still regarded as Paul W. S. Anderson's best work.

I don't mind there being humor in these movies, but this just felt kind of looney, and not in a good way. I laughed at a couple of things but I didn't laugh that much at all throughout the movie really. And that makes the approach taken with it that much worse. And let me just say that the running gag with the goats was not that funny at all. I don't think there was one time where I was actually laughing at it, but I was amused by it once and then every time after that I was just like "okay it's old now". I liked the performances, and I think the movie mostly looks good for the most part (although I do think these movies are starting to look the same now). You got Christian Bale, one of the greatest actors in the world to be the villain. I don't like how he was used here. Bale was great, but Gorr the Butcher was a disappointment. Taiki Watiti said he was going to be the best MCU villain ever. I know that's the kind of thing that directors say about their own movies, but I at least thought he was going to be one of them. I understood his motivations, but as a villain, he didn't really do anything. He was hardly in it. The "god-butchering" took place off screen. And Russell Crowe was a cartoon as Zeus. Honestly, as much as I love the Guardians of the Galaxy, they didn't need to be in this either. They were used to be part of the set up concerning what Thor was going through but I'm not sure if they really had to be. I feel like they just did it so that fans can get a whole hype train going before the movie comes out and say "oh the Guardians of the Galaxy are going to be in too!" and then they're in it for like 5 minutes or so. Speaking of them, let the Guardians of the Galaxy be the Guardians of the Galaxy. What I mean by that is I feel like the direction that the Thor movies are taking are because they want to emulate the success of the GotG franchise. That franchise deals with humor better though because it feels baked into the personalities, whereas with this movie it brought things to a halt at times. This movie needed more balance and nuance. If this is what we can come to expect out of Thor movies going forward then I'm not really looking forward to any solo outings with the character, even with what the mid credit scene suggests. I did like some of the action in the third act though.

Right off the bat, I can say that I wasn't expecting a super amazing movie based on the previews for the film. However, due to the film having Idris Elba in it, that immediately did get my attention because I do admire him as an actor. I also admire Sharlto Copley from his work in films such as "District 9". Having mentioned them, I feel that they are the best part of this movie for me. I like them individually as actors but I do feel they make for a good duo on screen (even though they weren't on screen together all the time), so much in fact that they feel let down by an underwhelming chase movie. They give it conviction with their presence amongst the situation that their characters are in. I also liked the actresses that portrayed the daughters of Elba's character. His oldest daughter, however tended to annoy me at times, and I knew she would in a single line of dialogue early on in the movie when Copley's character said her first name. She replied to him by telling him that her name is basically now a shortened version of her first name. There's nothing wrong with that and that's really just a nitpick, but I knew she was going to be one of those angsty teenage girls that got on my nerves. She's also upset with Elba because of how things went between he and their late mother, and that was annoying too. I wanted the lion to eat her, lol. Honestly, she wasn't the worst but she was annoying enough. The movie also looks pretty nice as well. I can say that the movie held my attention to a modest extent, but it really is kind of just a one-track movie. The lion isn't seen doing as much as you might think, at least not on screen. Much of this movie is the main characters trying to survive against this lion ruthlessly coming after them, and that gets old. The actors make it watchable and some decent production design helps its case a little, but this isn't anything you have to watch. As I said earlier, Elba and Copley are the two best things in the movie.

I wasn't really trying to watch this movie just so that I could come up with a bunch of different theories and all of that to discuss with people (at least not on the first watch). If I ended up picking up some things while I was watching it, then fine, but I cared more about just watching the movie rather than investigating the screen looking for something to the point where I wasn't even paying attention to the movie itself. I think it's a very well shot and directed film, with great performances and a great musical score. This is the first film by Jordan Peele that I've actually seen, but I knew that there was going to be more beneath the surface than what it appeared to be. I do feel as if I have some thoughts on what he may have been trying to convey, and I'm not totally sure if I'm right or wrong. I just don't really care that much because most of the movie is just kind of boring in my opinion. I don't require a huge moment every few minutes or so, but what is on screen at all times matters, and particularly how you use it. I'm already not much of a horror film fan as it is, but even ones that I've liked in the past have scared me to some extent. The most frightening moment in the movie had nothing to do with the main plot, but a tragedy that occurred on an old television sitcom. That's all I'll say with that. But other than that, there's like a few jump scares. There just wasn't much happening. I wouldn't call it forgettable by any means, because I still keep trying to figure out what the events in the movie possibly could have meant. Even as I'm writing this, I keep feeling like I'm possibly getting even more things. I'm like "Oh, that might be something to consider". That's the most I can say for it, I guess. But personally that isn't enough. In the moment of watching the film, I was hoping to enjoy it more and I personally didn't.

So this actually aired on BET last night, and I didn't have to have BET Plus in order to watch it, which I was very happy about because I was very angry about the fact that the reunion was exclusively made for BET Plus. I found that extremely pointless given the fact that they air Martin just about every day on the network itself. But the reunion was wonderful. I love the way they recreated the set. It looks almost exactly like it did on the show. It was great seeing Tisha Campbell, Tichina Arnold, Carl Anthony Payne, and of course the man himself, Martin Lawrence. I thought Affion Crockett did a good job hosting it also. He held it down well. It was such a treat hearing all of the inside details of what was like working on the show and seeing all of the guests that came through. And I absolutely love and respect how they honored the late Thomas Mikal Ford. I'm still thinking about it. I don't think much of BET these days at all. I only watch them when they're showing reruns of old shows that I like. But this was a real quality production.