cinemapersonified Reviews

Hit Man (2023)

Good Movie

[8/10 · 17 May 2024]

Rating: 8.2 Overall, a good romantic comedy that uses strong chemistry between Glen Powell and Richard Linklater to deliver an entertaining experience that tethers the line between humor and romance very well.

Direction: Good The direction on a macroscale feels very feel-good and comedic; the direction on a microscale is good as this is where the comedy and the romance comes out of the movie; the storytelling is pretty straightforward as it follows a simple story (but is still very entertaining to see how far it goes)

Story: Good The concept is very entertaining as it is an interesting premise about a fake hit-man and brings out the confidence in a character that is stuck; the plot structure is pretty simple; character writing is surprisingly good as the movie does a good job at tackling messages on identity and hiding behind a disguise to exude false confidence

Screenplay: Good The dialogue is good as it is both comedic, yet sexy; the humor is pretty strong and uses a decent amount of improv to build jokes up; the symbolism is surprisingly prevalent as it is about hiding behind disguises/masks to find the confidence you always had; the foreshadowing is pretty prevalent because the story is pretty simple (so you knew where the story was going)

Acting: Pretty Good Glen Powell: Good (Has a lot of charisma and comedic timing as he carries every scene he is in and builds strong chemistry with the cast (especially Arjona)) Adria Arjona: Pretty Good (Plays off of Powell very well as she develops a strong romantic connection with his character) Austin Amelio: Pretty Good (Plays his character well and acts as somewhat of a pseudo-antagonist) Retta: Pretty Good (Plays the comedic relief character well and works well with her castmates to build up the comedy) Sanjay Rao: Pretty Good (Plays his character well and has good chemistry in the police-unit scenes) Rest of the cast: Decent (The cast is relatively small, but there are some characters who are pretty good and do their job well and some who are over-the-top and inexperienced)

Score: Decent

Cinematography: Pretty Good For such a low budget, the movie felt very polished and well executed

Editing: Pretty Good For such a low-budget movie, the movie felt very polished and well-put together

Makeup: Pretty Good Acts a key symbol to help disguise Gary Johnson to be whoever he wants to be

Costumes: Pretty Good Acts a key simple to help disguise Gary Johnson to be whoever he wants to be

Pacing Pacing is good as it doesn't feel too fast or too slow

Climax Climax is well executed as it is really about the relationship between the two leads and building on it even when it is falling apart (though there are some questionable decisions they made to make this movie safe and predictable)

Tone Tone plays to what the scenes are trying to accomplish as it is comedic when it is trying to be funny and seductive when it is trying to be romantic

Final Notes Saw Austin Premiere.

The Big Short (2015)

Good Movie

[8/10 · 17 May 2024]

REDUX (05/12/2024) Rating: 8.1 Overall, a good movie that uses its very good cast and unique fourth-wall breaking, meta humor to explain the 2008 housing crisis, but its style makes it hard nauseating to watch at some points and the ending feels very forced and preachy.

Direction: Good The direction on a macroscale is very unique as it is this fast-paced, guerilla documentary style that aims to be informative and emulate wall street; the direction on a microscale is very good as every performance feels very elevated and the chemistry in the cast helps move the story forward and portray lessons and messages the movie is trying to get across; the storytelling is pretty unique as it uses the fourth-wall and non-sequitur lessons to help feel like the movie is informing us about what was going on during the house-crisis, and he splits the movie into three storylines that intersect at certain points

Story: Very Good The concept is great as the movie shows the housing crisis and how three firms were able to predict this, while being informative at the same time; the plot structure is great for the most part as it does a good job at balancing three parallel storylines, but the ending feels a bit forced and preachy; the character writing is very good as you see how nobody is a hero as everyone thinks they are empathetic for this struggle yet are trying to profit off the situation

Screenplay: Very Good The dialogue is very fast-paced and helps give the movie a very unique feel; the fourth-wall breaking and meta-comedy helps make this movie feel informative and like they are talking to us; the symbolism is very forced and overt because of the comedic techniques, and even though it is preachy, it does do a good job explaining the situation and the greed of everyone; the foreshadowing is very overt and uses your knowledge of the true events

Acting: Very Good to Great Christian Bale: Great (Really emulates the real-life Michael Burry and does a good job showing his inability to connect with others) Steve Carell: Very Good (Carries his scenes as he is the leader of his hedge-fun/scenes and does a good job showing his disgust at the system) Ryan Gosling: Very Good (Brings his signature over-the-top charm that helps make this movie entertaining, yet informative (he is literally me)) Brad Pitt: Very Good (Acts as a mentor for the younger investors and shows his disdain and separation for the banking industry) Rest of the cast: Very Good (Everyone plays their part really well and the chemistry helps make this a very cohesive cast)

Score: Good Helps complement the tone

Soundtrack: Good Helped establish the time period and set the mood (but was a little over-done in some places)

Cinematography: Decent I did enjoy the guerilla, documentary style at points, but I felt like it was a little too much by the end

Editing: Bad I understood what they were going for with this guerilla documentary style, but it just was a lot by the end as it was pretty chaotic and incoherent

Pacing Pacing is pretty fast to the point where it is hard to follow (but this helps set the fast-paced nature of Wall Street)

Climax Climax is pretty forced and incredibly preachy (though each of the storylines does have a concrete ending)

Tone Tone is very comedy-drama (a strong departure for McKay); It does have a very unique feel with its informative fourth-wall breaking nature

ORIGINAL: (05/12/2024) Rating: 7.9 Very good acting from core members, very good story, good screenplay, very entertaining, Tries to be very educational but falls at times it needs to be, only after a while do u understand what's going on.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 11 May 2024]

Rating: 7.5 Overall, an entertaining installment that continues to show why the 'Planet of the Apes' reboot franchise is a pioneer in motion-capture and visual effects, but its mismanaged ending and what they are building towards for future sequels make you wonder if this movie was really necessary. .

Direction: Pretty Good The direction on a macroscale is very good as the action sequences are well choreographed and the world is built very well; the direction on a microscale is pretty good as the interpersonal scenes bring out a lot of the messages in the movie; the direction of actors is pretty good as the performances were entertaining (but it did not feel on the same level as the previous two movies); the storytelling is a rough as the movie does do a pretty good job at continuing the story from the previous movies, but what they are trying to build/show from the human's perspective was poorly displayed; they build tension well in the action sequences

Story: Decent The concept as a whole is pretty interesting as the movie tackles how people misconstrue and abuse the words of a prophet the longer time decays their philosophies, but I think what they are building towards at the end/for future movies is very stupid; the plot structure is laid out pretty well as most of the scenes felt necessary to tell the story, but the ideas in the climax/ending feel very forced; the character writing is pretty shallow (especially for the humans)

Screenplay: Decent The dialogue is pretty emblematic of apes and how they would talk; the symbolism is decently profound as it tackles concepts of power, the decay of ideas over time, and the belief of dominant species; the foreshadowing is there (it is just not set up well)

Acting: Pretty Good Owen Teague: Pretty Good to Good (Does a pretty good job holding his own as the lead and helping move the story forward, but it's hard to follow up Andy Serkis as the leader of this franchise)) Freya Allan: Decent to Pretty Good (A bit one-dimensional in the more interpersonal scenes, but she holds her own for the most part) Kevin Durand: Pretty Good to Good (An extravagant performance that really commands the scenes he is in (but there are some moments that truly hold this performance from being very good)) Peter Macon: Pretty Good (Does a good job at being the elderly/father figure to Noa) William H. Macy: Pretty Good (Basically just pulled from experience in playing a 'Frank Gallagher' type character) Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (Everyone plays their role well and does a good job at portraying intelligent apes)

Score: Very Good Many beautiful themes that do a good job at bringing out the emotions in the scenes and building tension

Cinematography: Very Good Helps build the world and tension in the action scenes (especially how it supports the apes climbing)

Editing: Good Felt very polished

Sound: Great Helps bring to life this world and the apes

Visual Effects: Great to Incredible Continues to show how this franchise is a pioneer in motion-capture and visual effects as everything looks stunning and realistic; CGI is an important tool in building the world as it shows the natural overgrowth in the collapsed human society

Production Design: Very Good Even though it was most likely CGI, they built the world beautifully to show this overgrown nature on a collapsed humanity

Pacing Pacing is pretty slow in the interpersonal moments because it is very slice-of-life for the apes (so there is nothing you could do); I still think they could have cut like 10 minutes of this movie by making the movie be a bit faster

Climax Climax is executed very well as the action and CGI feel polished, but the ideas they were trying to portray from the human perspective feel very forced; the actual ending of the movie is bad as it forcefully tries to build to something that is very stupid (and it leaves many things unsettled)

Tone Tone is very similar to the other 'Planet of the Apes' movies as it feels like a dystopian Sci-Fi movie

Final Notes This movie just does not feel necessary (they should have just ended after 'War for the Planet of the Apes'

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Decent Movie

[6/10 · 5 May 2024]

REDUX (05/05/2024) Rating: 6.4 Overall, a Star Wars movie that is very emblematic of the prequel trilogy/George Lucas because it has some of the best and worst moments in the franchise.

Direction: Pretty Good The direction on a macroscale is great as he uses his experience and creative mind to provide backstory into this galaxy far-far away, and the grand scenes (climax, lightsaber duels, and Podracing) are some of the best in the franchise; the direction on a microscale is very bad as he does not know how to direct actors or get natural feelings out of them; the storytelling is great as he shows why he is the master of storytelling by crafting a backstory to this timeless franchise; he builds tension well in the action/fight scenes

Story: Incredible The concept is great as it provides the backstory for the original trilogy and sets up the character arc of Anakin Skywalker (while having very unique Prequel moments like Podracing and the Battle of Naboo); the plot structure is laid out well as Lucas shows why he is the master of story building; character writing is great as you see how all these characters fall into place for the Anakin to be the chosen one (building connections that will eventually impact him in next movies)

Screenplay: Very Bad The dialogue is atrocious and incredibly unnatural (which makes it very memeable); the humor misses way more than it tries to hit (making the movie unintentionally funny); the symbolism is pretty profound as it lays the groundwork for Anakin to be the chosen one; the foreshadowing is incredible as it helps lay the roots for the entire franchise (especially Anakin's story-arc)

Acting: Pretty Bad Liam Neeson: Good (The true leader of the movie as he uses his experience to act as a father to both Anakin and Obi-wan and guide the story forward) Ewan McGregor: Pretty Good (Shows promise as Obi-Wan and does as much as he can with the material he is given) Natalie Portman: Pretty Bad (Such a monotonous performance that is filled with unnatural inflections, but she does show promise in some scenes (meaning these issues have more to do with George Lucas than her)) Jake Lloyd: Decent (He's not as bad as people remember him to be as he carries out what is told from him (the issues from his performance are more from George Lucas)) Ian McDiarmid: Pretty Good (Uses his experience playing the character to fuel his performance) Anthony Daniels: Good (Feels more like a cameo but continues where he left off) Kenny Baker: Very Good (Still shows he is the best character and comedic relief in the movie) Pernilla August: Bad (Has no chemistry with her castmates and is pretty toneless) Frank Oz: Good (Feels more like a cameo and his puppeteering is replaced with out-of-place CGI in the re-release) Rest of the cast: Bad (Either the performances are too short to rate or they are just so poorly directed and out of place that they are hard to watch)

Score: Brilliant Some of the best themes in the franchise as he does a good job reusing classics from the original trilogy and creating iconic themes that represent the prequels (like 'Duel of the Fates')

Cinematography: Great Very polished and helps show this galaxy far far away (and all the incredible things in it)

Editing: Pretty Bad It's decent for the most part but the lazy Windows Movie Maker edits hurt this movie

Sound: Incredible Star Wars is built on its sounds and they do an incredible job continuing that tradition

Visual Effects: Great Would have been incredible if they used the original release as it is very groundbreaking for the time, but the re-release additions hurt this movie as it feels like there were too many additions

Production Design: Incredible Helps build the worlds inside Star Wars

Makeup: Incredible

Costumes: Incredible

Pacing Pacing is a bit on the faster side but fine for the most part

Climax Climax is executed very well as it had the best lightsaber duel to date and juggles 3 storylines at once

Tone Tone is very Sci-Fi and Prequel Star Wars (which helps make this movie memey and iconic)

Final Notes My retrospective review of this movie is higher than most because I grew up on these movies

ORIGINAL: (05/05/2024) Rating: 6.6 Acting by the veteran actors was good (Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor especially, Samuel L Jackson, and Yoda), the acting by those who are not experienced were either pretty bad or very bad, Direction was horrible, Story was great, Screenplay was terrible, Visuals were really good, Score was incredible, Production Design was great, Film aged better than most would have thought, Pacing was really off in the first half.

The Fall Guy (2024)

Good Movie

[8/10 · 4 May 2024]

Rating: 8.3 Overall, a fun watch that blends action and comedy very well as David Leitch creates a love letter to his careers as a stuntman and a filmmaker, with polished technicals, hilarious humor, and memorable performances from Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt bringing everything together.

Direction: Good The direction on a macroscale is well executed as the action sequences and stunts are very well choreographed and feel very personal to the direction (a former stuntman); the direction on a microscale is good as the interpersonal sequences bring out the humor and romance in the movie; direction of actors is good as it just felt like everyone had fun making this movie; storytelling is pretty similar to other action-comedies (with some 80s flavors); builds tension well

Story: Pretty Good The concept is good as it is an action-comedy that is an homage to stuntmen, filmmaking, and the 80s; the plot structure follows the action-comedy template; the character writing is decent as it is pretty formulaic (but I did like how they gave more personality to the forgotten stuntmen)

Screenplay: Good The dialogue is incredibly funny as it uses self-referential, dumb humor to make this movie a well-executed over-the-top comedy; the movie does a good job at incorporating meaningful romantic dialogue (even though it is a bit cliche); the foreshadowing is used very well to help tell the story (especially in the final hour)

Acting: Good Ryan Gosling: Good to Very Good (He shows that he is the master of over-the-top comedy as his charisma and timing is just perfect; his energy is infectious as he really brings out the best in everyone, and he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt) Emily Blunt: Good to Very Good (Commands every scene she is in and has an aura that is infectious; has very good comedic timing and great chemistry with Ryan Gosling) Aaron Taylor-Johnson: Good (Does a good job at playing the out-of-touch, empty-headed action star) Hannah Waddingham: Good (Has a lot of charisma and works well off of Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling) Stephanie Hsu: Pretty Good (Barely in the movie but plays her part well) Winston Duke: Pretty Good (Plays his part well and has good chemistry with Ryan Gosling) Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (Action-comedy templated characters that are performed well)

Score: Decent Helps with establishing the tone and providing flavor to the action sequences

Soundtrack: Good Makes up for the score as it helps give the movie an 80s vibe and set the tone of the sequences

Cinematography: Very Good Polished and helps create very well executed action sequences; given that Emily Blunt's character is a former camera operation, it is only fitting the cinematography creates synergy with the stunt/action choreography

Editing: Good Very polished

Sound: Good Helps bring out the action-sequences

Visual Effects: Good Enjoyed how they favored practical effects over CGI, even making the CGI in the fake movie look amateurish, but I think the CGI they used was fine in the actual sequences

Production Design: Pretty Good Enjoyed how they used Sydney and the sandy film set (the year of Sand is officially upon us)

Makeup: Pretty Good Helps show the grit and grime stuntmen have to endure

Costumes: Pretty Good Helps bring out the characters, and I enjoyed how complicated they made the alien suits

Pacing Pacing is good as it is fast in the action scenes and slow in the interpersonal and comedic scenes

Climax Climax is executed very well as you see grand, well-executed action sequences that show the strengths of stunt-choreography, practical visual effects, and polished cinematography (with comedy acting as a glue to bring this all together)

Tone Tone is very similar to other over-the-top action-comedies (but pays homage to 80s action movies)

Final Notes This movie was so much fun to watch (its movies like these where you are happy to go to the theaters); this is the perfect movie post-Barbenheimer because this was Kentty (Ken + Kitty); this movie is 'we are back' personified.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Decent Movie

[6/10 · 4 May 2024]

Rating: 6.7 Overall, a noticeable step back from the previous films as Sam Raimi tries to do much at once, but the film is still enjoyable with how campy and memey it is (like Bully Maguire).

Direction: Decent The direction on a macroscale is good as these are the highest budgeted action sequences, but it was very obvious this was a 3D movie (and it hasn't aged well); the direction on a microscale is a step back from the previous movie as the actors do not feel elevated, and the deeper concepts get muddled with the rest of the plot; the storytelling is a mess as the movie tries to tell so much in so little time; he builds tension well (but a step back from the previous movie as you know what is coming)

Story: Bad The plot is not that great because it introduces too many characters, it has 3 villains and a new love interest, and only increases the runtime by 10 minutes, so the structure is just mismanaged and breezes through plot points; the character writing is a step back because it introduces too many characters and does not provide any depth to them

Screenplay: Decent The dialogue is corny again as it is filled with many memeable lines (which also does make this movie iconic); the humor is unintentionally funny again because the movie reverted to being campy (enter Bully Maguire); the symbolism is there because the movie does tackle deep themes like arrogance, selfishness, and love, but not on a deeper level like the previous movie; the foreshadowing is pretty good

Acting: Decent to Pretty Good Tobey Maguire: Pretty Good (A step back from the previous movie as he goes back to being campy/memey since he can really only show arrogance and anger (Bully Maguire); his performance is still memorable because he still has an aura that represents what the Sam Raimi trilogy is) Kirsten Dunst: Good (The only improvement from the last film as she is given more to work with MJ's increased depth) James Franco: Pretty Good (Shows that he is a good actor, but he is given nothing to work with because Harry is nerfed and forced in this movie) Thomas Haden Church: Pretty Bad (A very monotonous performance, but he does show emotion when talking about his backstory) Topher Grace: Pretty Bad (Such a fun, over-the-top performance that emulates what this movie is; he is not a good Venom) Bryce Dallas Howard: Decent (Kinda forced into this movie and does not really have chemistry with Maguire) James Cromwell: Decent (Isn't really given much to work with) Rosemary Harris: Good (Still plays the motherly figure well and carries the interpersonal scenes with Maguire) J. K. Simmons: Very Good (Still shines in his scenes, but his screentime is shorter and he isn't given as much to work with) Bruce Campbell: Good (Appreciate he was given an actual role in this movie as his comedic relief makes the scene he is in) Rest of the cast: Decent (The performances as pretty campy, but they support the main cast)

Score: Good to Very Good A step back from the previous films but still incorporates very good themes throughout the movie

Soundtrack: Pretty Good Bully Maguire song

Cinematography: Decent The movie is shot well, but the forced 3D shots have not aged well

Editing: Good

Sound: Very Good Feel polished and help bring to life the comic book characters

Visual Effects: Very Good Some of the CGI are tacky as they tried to do forced 3D, but it is still leading for the time

Production Design: Pretty Good Feels more like New York rather than 'Spider-Man's New York'

Makeup: Good Helps show the scars and deformities in the characters

Costumes: Incredible The Spider-Man and Black Spider-Man suits are incredibly iconic and the best in the franchise

Pacing Pacing was incredibly fast as they breeze through so many plot points (If they cut out one of the villains and added depth in the scenes it would help slow the pace down)

Climax Climax is executed well but there is so much happening at once

Tone Tone is back to being campy and comic-book esque

Final Notes This movie is very enjoyable for how memey it is.

Alien (1979)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 2 May 2024]

Rating: 7.8 Overall, an iconic horror film that is a major influence for the sci-fi genre as the movie does a pretty good job playing hind-and-seek with this mysterious Alien, even though it can be slow at times.

Direction: Pretty Good The direction on a macroscale is good as he builds the overarching conflict well and uses tension to bring out the horror in the alien and the fear of dying; the direction on a microscale is pretty good as each performance has a part in how they reach to what is going on; the storytelling is good as it progresses through a pretty simple story, and uses tension to heighten the stakes as the conflict unravels

Story: Pretty Good The concept is pretty simple yet effective as the movie boils down to a hide-and-seek with the alien, and the movie does a good job at incorporating a twist to heighten the stakes; the plot structure is pretty simple, but the exposition feels very long; the character writing is pretty good as it fills all the archetypes of a "crew" movie, but also does a good job at providing some depth for Ripley as she tries to do the right thing and navigate through her fear

Screenplay: Pretty Good The dialogue is good and flows well; the symbolism is somewhat prominent as it tackles the concept of capitalism at the expense of human life; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a horror movie

Acting: Pretty Good to Good Tom Skerritt: Pretty Good (Plays the captain well) Sigourney Weaver: Good (Controls the movie and does a good job at showing her fear and anxiety for what is going on) Veronica Cartwright: Pretty Good Harry Dean Stanton: Pretty Good John Hurt: Pretty Good Ian Holm: Pretty Good Yaphet Kotto: Pretty Good Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (The cast as a whole is filled with different archetypes for a crew movie and do a good job at reacting differently to the conflict and the alien)

Score: Good Decent themes and helped establish tension and fear (but used more sparingly than I thought it would be)

Cinematography: Great Helps capture the world/ship and show the emotions and fear of the humans as they interact with the alien and conflict

Editing: Great Make the movie feel very polished and used well to elicit horror

Sound: Great Used well to show the fear in the environment and how scary the Alien is

Visual Effects: Incredible Did an incredible job creating the alien and this space world/ship

Production Design: Incredible The space-ship is iconic and they do an amazing job making this a futuristic sci-fi world

Makeup: Very Good Did a good job in showing the impact and byproduct of the aliens

Pacing Pacing is very slow in the first hour as it feels like the movie is dragging through exposition, but, even though they pick up the pace, the movie still feels somewhat slow in the second half

Climax Climax is executed well as it shows the true carnage from the Alien and how afraid the crewmates are (but still feels a bit slow)

Tone Tone is a mix of multiple genres (sci-fi, horror, and action)

Challengers (2024)

Great Movie

[9/10 · 28 April 2024]

Rating: 9.2 Overall, a great movie that is carried by incredible writing, an incredible score, great direction, and memorable performances (especially Zendaya's) as the film uses tennis as a metaphor to explain the relationships of this love triangle, but this movie is held back by its noticeable editing/continuity blunders and unrealistic tennis technique.

Direction: Great The direction on a macroscale is great as he sets the overarching love triangle conflict well and accurately portrays both the intensity/mine-games of Tennis and various aspects of the organized sport (including the ATP Tour, the US Open series, the challenger circuit, the collegiate level, and the amateur circuit); the direction on a microscale is great as you see the triangle of relationships between the three main characters; the storytelling is great as they do an amazing job jumping between the past and the present to holistically share the match between all three of these characters; he builds tension very well as it mimics the intensity of tennis (especially in the climax/final match)

Story: Incredible The concept is incredible as the movie is really about this love triangle between the three main characters, and tennis is merely a metaphor for how these characters interact with each other; the movie very accurately displays the various levels of organized tennis as well as the intensity/mental game of playing tennis; the plot structure is laid out very well as the movie does a good job in going between the current match and the past to holistically display the relationships between the three characters; character writing is great as you get a sense of the double-edged nature of Tashi's character, the fall from grace for Pat's character, the unreciprocated love for Art's character, and how Tashi is the net between these challengers

Screenplay: Incredible The dialogue is incredible as you see how conversations are a metaphorical tennis rally the way the characters recite lines back and forth to win each conversation, and the tennis vernacular is very accurate to the sport and the different time periods they move across; the symbolism is incredibly profound and prevalent as the movie is a metaphorical game of tennis the way Tashi is the net between these two characters; there is just so much symbolism that all my spoiler thoughts on the symbolism will be in the 'final notes' section; the foreshadowing is incredible as you the way the narrative is structured with it going between the present and the past because elements from the past come back to play a role in the present (especially in the climax)

Acting: Good to Very Good Zendaya: Great (Really carries the movie as she acts as the net between the two challengers and shows how she is the one really in control of the match of their lives) Josh O'Connor: Pretty Good (The weakest one out of the main three characters as he is not really on the other two's level, but does hold his own when it counts) Mike Faist: Very Good (Has a lot of charisma and shows genuine concern for Zendaya's character, even though it may not always be reciprocated; does a very good job at matching the levels of his castmates and showing how his character has changed over the years) Rest of the cast: Decent (The movie is really about the main three as everyone else is merely a cameo; the tennis form for the actors is not the best as some either have great footwork but bad technique and vise versa)

Score: Incredible Fits the mood incredibly well as it does an amazing job at establishing the intensity and tension of every scene; their best score since 'The Social Network'

Cinematography: Very Good Does an amazing job of showing all the different angles of tennis (even though the first-person POVs are a bit tacky)

Editing: Pretty Bad While the editing was decent for the most part, there were so many continuity errors/simple blunders that could have easily been fixed in post (like the score on the ticker was wrong many times and there were moments where someone who serving when they should be returning), and it is very baffling these errors made the final cut considering this movie got pushed back more than half a year; the slow motion shots were fine to build tension, but they were overused in the climax

Sound: Great Really good at getting the intensity of tennis and the crisp pop of hitting a tennis ball

Visual Effects: Pretty Bad It made the movie super obvious they were not hitting the tennis balls as the spin/trajectory of the balls never actually matched how they were hit; side note, but there is no way Pat could serve that fast on a half-serve

Production Design: Great Accurately portrays the different time periods of tennis and the US Open series

Pacing Pacing is perfect

Climax Climax is incredibly intense as it was the climax for both this close tennis match and the relationships between all of these characters; I enjoyed how the movie is left a bit open-ended as it brings different levels of interpretations on what happened

Tone Tone is really a romantic drama between these three characters and tennis acts as a background/setting

Final Notes This is one of the most accurate portrayals of tennis I have seen in media (minus how they actually played tennis); there is just so much symbolism for this movie (first: each convseration was a rally, second: Tashi was really the net between these two challengers (but on a more metaphorical level she is an obstacle between these two, so when the net is removed, these two challengers can finally embrace each other), third: the title itself is very symbolic (in the beginning, she adds the 's' to the title, so this is not an ATP Challenger, it is an ATP Challengers as she is trying to live her career vicariously through her husband (so when Art contemplates retirement, she does not know what she wants to do because this is all she knows (she thinks of herself as more than a ball and a racket, but in the end that all she is (and she doesn't know what she'll do with herself once her husband retires, She is clinging onto Pat because he still wants to play tennis and isn't giving up))), fourth: Tashi really is a homewrecker for these two challengers (there are a lot of homosexual undertones for this movie and Tashi is really the net/obstacle that got in the way betwen their friendship/relationship to where they feel free in the end when the obstacle is finally removed))

Hereditary (2018)

Very Good Movie

[8/10 · 28 April 2024]

REDUX (04/24/2024) Rating: 8.9 Overall, a very good horror movie that is carried by a brilliant performance from Toni Collete as she perfectly encapsulates a grieving mother and the lengths one would go to relieve her pain/trauma, but a poorly executed climax and a forced conflict hold this movie back from being truly great. While this film is better on a second watch, a movie should not require another viewing to fix major problems from an initial watch.

Direction: Very Good The direction on a macroscale is good as he builds this world well and shows the internal struggle for the protagonist, but it falters when he tries to establish the conflict; the direction on a microscale is great as you see how trauma is effecting these characters (especially the protagonist); the storytelling is good to an extent as you see how trauma is effecting Annie and how she is trying everything she can to try and relieve her pain/guilt, but the storytelling falls apart towards the end when they try to resolve the conflict; he builds tension incredibly well as it uses a lot of horror techniques plus the emotional weight of what is going on to

Story: Good The concept is very interesting as the movie boils down to a mother grieving the loss of her loved ones and going through every possible way to relieve her trauma/pain, but the supernatural concept is kinda forced in and not told well; the plot structure is a real mess as the conflict feels very forced and sudden, which leads to it being poorly executed (this movie would've really benefited from 20 minutes added to learn more about the backstory Annie's mother and how the overarching conflict has been effecting this family); character writing is very good for Annie as you get a sense of who she and how the deaths of everyone around her is effecting her psyche

Screenplay: Very Good The dialogue is very good and natural overall; the symbolism is pretty prominent and helps show what the overarching conflict is; the foreshadowing is very subtle and laced throughout the movie very well, but the main issue is that it is way too subtle that the ending just feels so forced (these are things that are picked up on a second watch but would make no sense on an initial watch)

Acting: Very Good Toni Collette: Brilliant (A perfect encapsulation of a mother grieving on all the loss in her life and how she is doing everything she can to relieve her trauma/pain; a performance that is multi-faceted as she steals the show in both solo shots and group settings) Alex Wolff: Good (Does a good job at playing a high-school teen filled with anxiety and guilt, and he does a good job in showing how the supernatural conflict is affecting him) Milly Shapiro: Good (Does exactly what is needed from her) Ann Dowd: Good (Shows her experience and acts as a conduit for Annie to help her grieve through her loss) Gabriel Byrne: Decent (Has a good number of scenes where his levels don't match the rest of the cast, but comes into his own by the end of the movie) Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (Most of these characters are minor, but they do what they are told)

Score: Pretty Good Used well to establish tension

Cinematography: Pretty Good Used well for the most part but falls apart towards the end as the motion-blurring/low-budget shooting shows here

Editing: Very Good There were many seamless shots that helped make this movie feel both polished and auter-esque

Sound: Very Good Used effectively to help build tension and illicit fear

Visual Effects: Pretty Good Does the most it can with a small budget

Production Design: Good Really enjoyed the Dollhouse feel for the house as it mimicked Annie's art pieces

Makeup: Good Typical horror makeup

Pacing Pacing is good for the most part, but the 45 minutes feel too rushed; 20-30 minutes could have been added leading up to climax

Climax Climax is poorly executed as it feels rushed and forced and feels like a big narrative jump from the rest of the movie

Tone Tone is pretty true to other Supernatural movies (but does a good job at fitting in dramatic/deeper tones throughout the movie)

Final Notes This movie is a lot better on a second watch when you know what the conflict is/how it is built up, but a movie should not require a second watch to fix all the problems from an initial watch

ORIGINAL: (04/24/2024) Rating: 8.5 The Movie was just incredible, The Ending was horrible, The movie was only scary because the director had to explain why it was scary.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Great Movie

[9/10 · 25 April 2024]

Rating: 9.2 Overall, a great super-hero movie that is a strong improvement over its predecessor with its acting, writing, and technicals as Sam Raimi pushes this film to the limit to make it one of the most groundbreaking comic-book adaptations of all time.

Direction: Great The direction on a macroscale is great as uses improved technology and experience from the last film to do a better job at building this comic-book version of New York and creating more grand action sequences; the direction on a microscale is very good as it is a lot less campy and 00s, with it doing a better job at tackling topics on purpose and duty; the direction of actors is good as all the performances are improved since last time and the movie is less campy; the storytelling is very good as it feels very focused and structured, and Raimi does a good job at showing how doubt and purpose effect Peter's decisions; he builds tension very well

Story: Great The concept is great as they built on everything they created in the first film and tackle deeper topics like balancing wants and obligations; the plot structure is laid out well; character writing is great as you really see the weight of the world affecting Peter and the dilemma to make decisions based on what he wants and what he has to do, and the villain writing is very good

Screenplay: Very Good The dialogue is a strong improvement as it is less campy and is more profound when it needs to be; the humor is very good as it is used effectively and gives the movie a more playful/comic-book feel, but there still are some campy moments that are still unintentionally funny; the symbolism is more prevalent as the whole movie is about Peter finding balance with so much weight put on him; the foreshadowing is good and helps tell the story

Acting: Good Tobey Maguire: Good (A strong improvement this time around as he is not campy and does a good job at showing his emotions and how they affect Spider-Man's decisions) Kirsten Dunst: Pretty Good (Develops chemistry with her castmates and does a good job at showing the love dynamic between MJ and Peter) James Franco: Pretty Good (The biggest improvement since the last film because he seems more controlled/comfortable and shows his acting ability; there still are some campy moments, but this adds to why this performance is memorable) Alfred Molina: Very Good (Does a very good job at showing the different sides of his character and the dichotomy between his real personality and the villain he is turned into) Rosemary Harris: Good (Does a good job at playing the motherly figure and is given more material to work with as she grieves over Ben's death) Donna Murphy: Pretty Good J. K. Simmons: Great (Still the best performance in the movie as he is given more to work with this time around and pushes the limits at how comedic his character can be) Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (The performances are less campy this time around and do a good job at supporting the main cast)

Score: Great Still Iconic

Soundtrack: Decent Super 2000s and kinda disrupts the flow

Cinematography: Very Good Uses improved technology and widescreen to make the movie feel more clear and polished

Editing: Very Good More polished and seamless (but there are still a lot of campy/00s edits that hold it back from being great)

Sound: Great Feel very polished and help bring to life the fight scenes/world (especially in regards to Spider-Man's web-shooting and Doc Oc's mechanical arms)

Visual Effects: Great Uses advanced technology very well to push the bounds of 00s visual effects to make this movie very iconic and groundbreaking (but it is still obvious where they used a blue screen and how far we've come in terms of VFX technology)

Production Design: Very Good Iconic and helps set this comic book version of New York

Makeup: Good Helps show the damage and scars Peter gets from how far he pushes Spider-Man

Costumes: Great The Spider-Man suit is still iconic and the Doc Oc costume is designed very well

Pacing Pacing is very good and there is nothing to cut

Climax Climax is executed very well as it is action-packed and gives big revelations about Spider-Man/gives closure to Peter's internal conflict throughout the movie

Tone Tone is less campy and more comic-book/dramatic this time around (but still has its fair share of comedic moments)

Final Notes One of the biggest improvements I have seen from the first to the second movie in a series/trilogy I have ever seen.

Shrek 2 (2004)

Great Movie

[9/10 · 22 April 2024]

Rating: 9.2 Overall, a great follow-up to 'Shrek' that is a classic in its own right as it does a great job in building where they left off and being a great satire on fairy-tales and pop-culture from the time.

Direction: Great The direction on a macroscale is great as it is once again a parody of the fairy-tale story (but from a different angle); the direction on a microscale is great as you see a sense of chemistry between the whole cast and the relationships/motivations the characters have; the storytelling is great as the whole movie is a parody/satire on the fairy-tale genre

Story: Great The concept is great as, on the surface, it is an animated take on the 'Meet the Parents' trope, but, on a deeper level, it is a satire on both the fair-tale genre and the 'Hollywood lifestyle'; the plot structure is great at it follows the same template as the last movie, but has a different spin on it; character writing is great as you get a deeper look at Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey and how they are willing to do anything for the people they love (even if it means sacrificing all they know)

Screenplay: Great The dialogue is very well written and is very topical to the time; the humor is very good and very topical to the time (there are many pop-culture references from the period); the symbolism is good as the movie is all about the sacrifices people make for love and commentary on the 'Hollywood lifestyle'; the foreshadowing is pretty prevalent and helps tie the movie together in the end

Acting: Great Mike Myers: Great (Continues where he left off in the first movie as he brings Shrek to life) Eddie Murphy: Great (Continues where he left off in the first movie as he brings Donkey to life and is the true comedic relief for the movie) Cameron Diaz: Good (Not given as much of a presence in this movie but continues where she left off and still has good chemistry with Myers) Julie Andrews: Good (Plays the regal, mother figure well) Antonio Banderas: Great (He's Puss in Boots; on a serious note, does a good job at parodying his 'Zorro' character) John Cleese: Very Good (Plays the father figure well and is very expressive in his emotions and motivations) Rupert Everett: Good Jennifer Saunders: Very Good (Brings out the character's strengths and does a good job at showing her motivation for what she wants) Rest of the cast: Good (Everyone does their job well as they help create the world of 'Far Far Away')

Score: Good Uses a lot of iconic themes from the last movie

Soundtrack: Incredible One of the best soundtracks in cinema history as it is filled with some many bangers and is used well in the story

Editing: Very Good

Sound: Good

Animation: Great Very groundbreaking for the time; but 20 years later, it is pretty evident we have come a long way in CGI and animation

Production Design: Very Good Iconic and did a good job at parodying Hollywood mixed with fairy-tale elements

Pacing Pacing is very good as it is short, sweet, and to the point

Climax Climax is executed very well and is a culmination of all the characters' journeys

Tone Tone is very satirical to fairy-tale, Grimms Brothers' movies.

Spider-Man (2002)

Very Good Movie

[8/10 · 22 April 2024]

REDUX (04/18/2024) Rating: 8.5 Overall, an iconic superhero movie that holds up well with its story and memeable moments as it ushered in the super-hero renaissance of the 21st century, even though it is very 00s and campy.

Direction: Good The direction on a macroscale is very good as builds this comic-book version of New York City and has memorable action sequences; the direction on a microscale is incredibly campy and 00s (but this helps make the movie enjoyable and memeable); the direction of actors is pretty bad as a lot of the performances feel overly campy and unnatural; the storytelling is very good as it feels very focused and structured, and Raimi does a good job in showing the origin of Spider-Man and how duty affects his decisions; he builds tension pretty well, as much as he can for a PG comic book movie

Story: Great The concept is great as they do an amazing job at creating Spider-Man's backstory and how he establishes his obligation to help others because of his power, and they do a good job at showing how the Green Goblin is tempting him to fight for evil; the plot structure is laid out very well as it feels like every scene is integral to moving both the movie and Spider-Man's backstory, but it is not perfect because there are issues with how they deal with the passage of time; flow between sequences is pretty standard for a campy comic book movie; character writing is very good as the whole movie is about Peter finding his purpose in life and fulfilling the obligations he has because of his powers, and the Green Goblin acts as a good foil to this because he shows the volatility in public opinions on their heroes (so why even bother)

Screenplay: Pretty Good The dialogue is incredibly campy and 00s, but I do love this because it is filled with iconic lines and is just funny to see how unnatural it is; the humor is pretty good, but the movie is more unintentionally funny than when it tries to be funny; the symbolism is pretty prevalent as the movie is about duty despite living in a corrupted world; the foreshadowing is as good as any other comic book movie, so it kinda makes the movie predictable

Acting: Decent to Pretty Good Tobey Maguire: Decent to Pretty Good (Incredibly campy and monotonous when he is Peter Parker, but he does hold his own well as Spider-Man; despite its surface-level flaws, his performance is just so memorable and iconic that it helps add to why people love this movie) Willem Dafoe: Good (I love how over-the-top and iconic this performance is as he does a good job at showing the two sides of Norman and how he can switch so seamlessly; has very good line delivery in the more iconic moments) Kirsten Dunst: Decent (A pretty shallow performance that does not have any chemistry with her castmates, but nothing is not a problem as she holds her own well)) James Franco: Pretty Bad (He does not connect with any of his classmates and his levels are just very off compared to the rest of the cast) Cliff Robertson: Pretty Good (Plays the fatherly figure well as he helps establish Peter's moral compass) Rosemary Harris: Decent to Pretty Good (Plays the motherly figure well and has some good comedic moments) J. K. Simmons: Very Good (By far the best performance of the movie as he is very true to the character and is the funniest character in the movie) Rest of the cast: Pretty Bad (So many campy, 2000s background performances)

Score: Great Very iconic

Cinematography: Good

Editing: Good Incredibly 00s and is very campy, but still enjoyable

Sound: Good Made the web-shooting and the Green Goblin sound iconic

Visual Effects: Good Very 2000s, but still good for the time

Production Design: Good Iconic and helped set this comic book version of New York

Costumes: Great The Spider-Man and Green Goblin suits are some of the most iconic costumes not only in comic book history but film history

Pacing Pacing is good as the movie does not feel too fast or too slow

Climax Climax is executed well because is action-packed and shows Spider-Man's decision making

Tone Tone is very 2000s and campy (but this helps make the movie iconic)

Final Notes This is a minor detail but why does everyone call her 'Aunt May' (like I get MJ, but like why does Norman call her 'Aunt May')

ORIGINAL: (04/18/2024) Rating: 8.5 Iconic, great story, Decent acting, plot holes in how he became a good fighter, a childhood movie favorite, good screenplay, plays emotions pretty well, good action.

Civil War (2024)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 15 April 2024]

Rating: 7.1 Overall, a symbolic film that uses cinematography, tension, and sound well to highlight the importance of wartime journalism in such a divided country, but the movie's potential for a profound message is hindered by its bland writing and interpersonal scenes making it difficult to care for these characters.

Pretty Good Direction (Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as it shows how divided the country is and how horrifying the Civil War is on the country and its victims; the direction on a microscale is pretty bad as it is very monotonous and does not do a good job at showing how the conflict is personally effecting the characters, does not do a good job at providing any depth or growing the relationships between these characters; direction of actors is not good because none of the performances feel elevated; storytelling is good as it mimics the hero's journey in how these characters have to travel to reach a goal, it is during this trip that we see how impacted this country is from the Civil War; builds tension very well as it is a major mechanism in driving the story forward, there are many scenes that truly have you on the edge of your seat with how tense and horrifying they are (like the Jesse Plemons scene))), Pretty Bad to Decent Acting (Decent (from Kirsten Dunst (Does as much as is possible given how her character is written because her monotonous performance mimics how desensitized her character is to war)), Decent (from Wagner Moura (A real hit or miss performance as he does a good job at showing a wide range of emotions and showing how traumatized he is from the war, but has a mismatch in levels with his castmates and never really builds chemistry)), Pretty Bad (from Cailee Spaeny (Not convincing as a naive photographer and does not do a good job at connecting with her castmates in the more interpersonal scenes; while there are some moments where she does go outside of her comfort zone (like the Jesse Plemons scene), she does not have that wide of a range of emotions)), Prett Good (from Stephen McKinley Henderson (Does a good job at showing his wisdom and being the elderly figure in the group)), Decent (from Sonoya Mizuno (Really just in the movie to fulfill her Alex Garland cameo)), Decent (from Nick Offerman (He's really in the movie for like 2 scenes)), Good (from Jesse Plemons (A real scene stealer as he does a great job in building tension through his menacing nature as he is a major factor in creating the best scene in the movie; he shows that he is one of the best pinch hitters in the business as he makes such a memorable impact despite always having little screentime)), Pretty Bad from the rest of the cast (from the rest of the cast (Just a lot of background, inexperienced actors who do not support or connect with the main cast))), Decent Story (Story (The concept is pretty good as the movie is really about wartime journalism and the lengths journalists will go to cover a story, and even though there are some political undertones, they do not overshadow the movie; the plot structure is pretty formulaic as it just follows the hero's journey and the quest to reach a goal; the flow between sequences is very off as there are many scenes that feel unnatural and rushed; character writing is pretty bad as they aren't provided with any interesting depth and the interpersonal scenes do not do a good job at making you care for any of the characters)), Decent Screenplay (Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and unnatural as there were many scenes where I scratched my head at how some of the lines made the final cut, and a major issue is the dialogue is just so to the point that it disrupts the flow and contributes to the conversations feeling unnatural; the humor is decent as there are some funny moments, but a lot of the jokes flew over the audiences heads; the overarching conflict is a symbol as the Civil War is an overt symbol for Trump having an authoritarian rule over the country, and there are many symbols for how the divided the country will become, but the main message of the movie is about the integrity of journalists and their fight for the story and the truth; the foreshadowing is kinda an issue because it makes the movie pretty predictable, especially in the climax)), Decent Score (Score (Helps provide tension and add to the tone); Pretty Good Soundtrack), Very Good to Great Cinematography (Cinematography (Filled with both beautiful and horrifying images as it helps show the true complexity in a divided nation; I really enjoyed when they interjected the movie with photography stills, but I would've liked to have seen it used more consistently)), Good Editing (Editing (Helps give the movie an auter feel in such a heavy blockbuster; helps show the response of these characters during traumatic scenes, with it sometimes having their point of view photo shots)), Great Sound (Sound (Used well and feels authentic to show the warfare in the country)), Decent Visual Effects (Visual Effects (Practical effects are used effectively, but the CGI is really obvious and kinda tacky at times)), Decent Animation (Visual Effects (Practical effects are used effectively, but the CGI is really obvious and kinda tacky at times)), Good Production Design (Production Design (Helps show the destruction of America, juxtaposed with the areas that are unaffected)), Good Makeup (Makeup (Shows the grit, grime, and blood of the Civil War)), Makeup (Shows the grit, grime, and blood of the Civil War), Pacing is good as the movie did not feel too slow or fast; Scenes in the second half of the movie could have been cut because this latter part feels a bit bloated (especially in the climax), Climax is the biggest spectacle in terms of warfare, but is incredibly predictable as you know what is going to happen within the first minute, Tone feels very similar to other war movies (like Saving Private Ryan) with how these characters are trying to get through this traumatic experience, The movie is less political than I thought it would be as it is more about the characters than the conflict (the only issue is, the characters are pretty poorly written because you don't care for any of them)

Jack and Jill (I) (2011)

Terrible Movie

[2/10 · 13 April 2024]

Rating: 2.5 Overall, this may not be the worst movie ever made because it does have some moments and a 'memorable' performance from Al Pacino, but a majority of this movie is unwatchable and needs to be burned from existence.

Terrible Direction (Direction (The direction on a macroscale is incredibly formulaic and low-effort (similar to other Adam Sandler movies from this time period); the direction on a microscale is formulaic and tries very hard to get the comedy out in the movie; storytelling is templated and formulaic (similar to other Adam Sandler movies))), Bad to Pretty Bad Acting (Bad (from Adam Sandler (Pretty Bad from Jack because he's just playing the typical straight-man Adam Sandler character (who has his over-the-top moments); Very Bad from Jill because it is just so obnoxious and hard to sit through (burn all references to Jill in his filmography))), Pretty Bad (from Katie Holmes (Has ok chemistry with Sandler, but she does not do anything to make this performance memorable)), Decent (from Al Pacino (Plays Al Pacino but he is acting his ass off in some moments; he did not take any direction because it was obvious he did not want to be there)), Bad from the rest of the cast (from the rest of the cast (Typical Adam Sandler background characters; this does not count any child actors))), Terrible Story (Story (The concept is incredibly stupid; the plot structure is very formulaic and forced; character writing is very forced and shallow)), Very Bad Screenplay (Screenplay (The dialogue is low effort and similar to other Adam Sandler movies; the humor is not terrible because I will admit I did laugh at some moments, but it is very bad because the hit rate is like 1/8; the symbolism is shallow because it's a formulaic family message; the foreshadowing is a problem because this movie is too predictable)), Decent Score (Score), Terrible Cinematography (Cinematography (The frame rate was like off at some moments, there were too many cuts, and some of the scenes felt like they were from a multi-cam sitcom)), Terrible Editing (Editing (The cut felt very amateur and low effort; there were so many unnecessary cuts that it was very confusing)), Decent Sound (Sound), Terrible Visual Effects (Visual Effects (Very obvious and unnatural; clearly evident where the 79 million dollar budget went)), Terrible Animation (Visual Effects (Very obvious and unnatural; clearly evident where the 79 million dollar budget went)), Bad Makeup (Makeup (They just put drugstore makeup on the Sandman and called him a woman)), Makeup (They just put drugstore makeup on the Sandman and called him a woman), Pacing was decent because the movie followed the Sandler template, Climax is very predictable, Tone is very similar to other Sandler movies (just obnoxious comedy), There is no way this movie cost 79 million dollars to make.

Monkey Man (2024)

Very Good Movie

[8/10 · 4 April 2024]

Rating: 8.6 Overall, Dev Patel uses an allegory to Hanuman to create a gritty and raw tour de force that is a political love letter to Indian Cinema and Martial Arts movies.

Good to Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very raw and gritty to show this underbelly of India, yet the stunt choreography is very sharp and polished as it feels like all the action sequences are part of a well-oiled machine; the direction on a microscale is great as the interpersonal scenes give you a sense of how the conflict affects the protagonist; the direction of actors is very good as all the performances feel elevated and true to Indian culture; the storytelling is very good as it uses Hanuman and Hinduism to serve as an allegory to lay the blueprint on, and the film uses the personal connection the protagonist has to his mother drive this story forward; the tension is built very well as the protagonist's emotional rage helps fuel the intensity of the fight scenes), Good to Very Good Acting (Great from Dev Patel (A true leading man as he displays a wide range of emotions to convey all the feelings he has towards his mother and his past trauma, and he seamlessly transitions between these emotions; his action/stunts are very well executed and show how meticulous and technical he is in his craft), Pretty Good from Sharlto Copley (Helps provide comedic relief and give a 'non-Indian' voice for the film), Pretty Good from Pitobash (Feels like a comedic Bollywood/Tollywood side-kick character and develops good chemistry with Dev Patel), Pretty Good from Sobhita Dhulipala (Develops good chemistry with Dev Patel and plays his character's role well in providing insight in working with the corrupted, elite world), Pretty Good from Sikandar Kher (Plays the stereotypical Indian villain well), Pretty Good to Good from Vipin Sharma (Develops good chemistry with Dev Patel and plays the oracle figure well as he helps show the protagonist his true potential), Pretty Good from Ashwini Kalsekar (Feels like an authentic performance for an Indian of Elite status), Pretty Good from Makarand Deshpande (Plays his role well and does a good job at creating tension when working with the rest of the cast), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone plays their role well because the whole cast feels like authentic Indian/Bollywood performances)), Very Good to Great Story (The concept is great as the overarching story is an allegory to Hanuman and Hinduism, but in the end, the story really boils down to Mother-Son relationship; the plot structure is laid out very well as each element felt like the right length and all the scenes built on each other to lead the movie to the climax; the character writing is great as the protagonist is an allegory for Hanuman and he is written holistically to show how his past trauma fuels his revenge, and the character writing for the rest of the cast is good as they fill in roles that are very stereotypical to films in Indian Cinema), Very Good to Great Screenplay (The dialogue is very authentic to Indian Cinema and is very engaging; the symbolism is incredibly profound as the movie on a macro-scale is an allegory for Hanuman, but on a microscale, the movie is really about a Mother-Son relationship and getting through trauma; the movie is surprisingly political as a good amount of the themes they bring up are anti-Indian Nationalist; the foreshadowing is great as it helps provide intrigue into the protagonist's past and his destiny, and these questions are answers very well as the movie transitions to its second act), Decent Score (Uses its themes well to help establish the mood, but was not used uniformly well); Decent Soundtrack(Some of the songs were used very well, but there were some songs that did not feel like they fit the tone), Pretty Bad Cinematography (The cinematography isn't necessarily bad, it is just very raw; there were many shots that I enjoyed and I felt like they used lighting very well to help establish the mood and emotions of the scene (giving a 'Blade Runner' esque feel at points), but it just felt like a lot of the shots felt very raw and took away from what was going on on-screen as it made it feel way more chaotic than intended), Bad Editing (Like the cinematography, the editing was not necessarily bad, it was just very raw, but unlike the cinematography, there are no redeeming factors about the editing because it made the movie way more choppy than it needed to be), Good Sound (Felt somewhat of an homage to both Indian Cinema and Martial Arts movies), Good Visual Effects (Good use of practical effects, helped make the fight scenes feel more detailed and gory), Great Production Design (Really brought to life India as it showed its urban sprawl, its beautiful jungles, and detailed temples), Good Makeup (Helped show the grit and grime of India, and the blood helped make the action sequences feel more realistic), Makeup (Helped show the grit and grime of India, and the blood helped make the action sequences feel more realistic), Good Costumes (Helped make the movie more authentically Indian), Costumes (Helped make the movie more authentically Indian), Pacing is very good as the movie feels like it is the right pace; the runtime is the right length as there was nothing that could have been cut or added, Climax is executed very well as the stunt choreography goes above and beyond and the action sequences feel so grand, yet raw, Tone is a mix of Indian Cinema, Martial Arts films, and high-octane action movies (while still leaving room for its dramatic moments), The stunt choreography for this movie needs to be studied as it feels so raw yet polished at the same time (and it is executed on such a high scale that it truly is a benchmark for action movies); This movie does an amazing job at representing multiple facets of India and bringing Indian representation to Hollywood.

Ricky Stanicky (2024)

Pretty Bad Movie

[5/10 · 4 April 2024]

Rating: 5.3 Overall, a pretty mindless comedy that has memorable performances from Zac Efron and John Cena as well as good humor for the most part, but has a poorly managed plot and a deflated climax.

Pretty Bad Direction (The direction on a macroscale is like every stereotypical comedy from the 2010s; the direction on a microscale is decent as the performances feel elevated, there is a good amount of comedy, and the interpersonal scenes help show the relationships within the cast; the storytelling feels like it runs out of breath towards the end because it feels like they just give up on trying to tell a coherent story towards the climax), Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good to Good from Zac Efron (Has good comedic timing and develops chemistry well with the rest of the cast; holds his own in the more dramatic moments), Decent from Jermaine Fowler (Has his ups and downs, but holds himself well), Decent to Pretty Good from Andrew Santino (Holds himself well and has pretty good comedic timing), Pretty Good from William H. Macy (An experienced actor that works well off of others; does a good job in elevating the rest of the cast), Good from John Cena (A real scene stealer as he has a lot of charisma and good comedic timing; does a good job at showing his vulnerable side in the more dramatic moments), Decent from the rest of the cast), Pretty Bad Story (The concept is incredibly fun and interesting (I love the idea of Ricky Stanicky); the plot structure is kinda a mess as the movie just feels like the first half is exposition and the climax feels incredibly forced and deflated; character writing is pretty good as you get a sense of who this friend group is and who 'Ricky Stanicky' is), Decent Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and formulaic; the humor is pretty good for the most part, but feels very forced in the climax; the symbolism is somewhat prevalent for this type of movie; the foreshadowing is incredibly forced and makes this movie feel very formulaic/feel-good), Decent Score (Pretty light-hearted, but uses the same theme throughout the whole movie); Pretty Good Soundtrack (Even though it's used sparingly, I did enjoy the songs they chose), Decent Cinematography, Decent Editing, Decent Sound, Pacing is a bit of a mess because the first half feels incredibly slow and the climax is incredibly fast; the movie could have cut 30 minutes of the exposition and it would've been the same movie, Climax is poorly executed as it is incredibly fast and feels very forced (and none of the jokes in this part hit either), Tone is very 2010s comedy, Ricky Stanicky is such a good title for this movie.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)

Pretty Bad Movie

[5/10 · 4 April 2024]

Rating: 5.5 Overall, a very stupid movie that has a dumb plot because the movie just feels like Kong ft Godzilla, but has some merit in watching with its visual effects, cinematography, and grand monster-filled fight scenes.

Pretty Bad Direction (The direction is only good on a macroscale because the movie is only about building this vast mythical world and the massive fight scenes; the direction on a microscale is pretty formulaic and bland as many of the performances just feel like they fill time; the storytelling is not good as the movie does not create a coherent story, it just feels like they force a bunch of plot points together), Decent Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Rebecca Hall (Plays the lead decently well and holds her own in getting the most out of the rest of the cast), Decent from Brian Tyree Henry (Really tries his best to be the comedic relief character, but he just isn't given good material to work with so he misses his jokes a lot), Decent from Dan Stevens (Has charisma that makes his character likable), Decent to Pretty Good from Kaylee Hottle (Does a pretty good job at being the emotional vulnerability in the movie and how she is a conduit between different groups), Pretty Bad from the rest of the cast (Just a bunch of formulaic, tent-pole performances)), Bad Story (The concept is so stupid because it just has dumb plot points, like the first 20 minutes of the movie is about how Kong has a toothache; the plot structure is a complete mess as they focus way too much on Kong that this movie feels like Kong ft Godzilla; the character writing for the humans is very shallow and formulaic, the character writing for Godzilla is very shallow as he's just there, the character writing for Kong and the apes is pretty good as its all about finding a home), Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is very stupid; the humor is pretty bad because it has a high miss rate; the symbolism is kinda forced, but surprising present despite how shallow it is; the foreshadowing makes the movie predictable), Decent Score, Good Cinematography (I don't know why they used IMAX cameras but they used it well and helped show this mythical world), Good Editing, Very Good Sound (Really helped bring to life the monsters and titans (especially Godzilla and Kong)), Good to Very Good Visual Effects (This movie is really about the visual effects as it helps bring to life the world, the monsters, and their fight scenes), Pacing is incredibly slow as this movie feels like it drags (the first hour just feels like exposition); the runtime could've been 20 minutes longer to help show the relationship between Godzilla and Kong because it is very forced, Climax is very short even though it is well executed (Godzilla and Kong are only in the movie for like 20 minutes together), Tone is just a stereotypical action monster movie (very Michael Bay-like), This movie is Kong ft Godzilla because the two are only on-screen together for like 20 minutes and their relationship is super forced.

Love Lies Bleeding (2024)

Pretty Bad Movie

[5/10 · 20 March 2024]

Rating: 5.3 Overall, a movie that tries to do a lot in terms of concepts but only successfully shows the relationship/chemistry between the two leads because the plot is incredibly mismanaged and the ending just feels like it's AI-generated.

Decent Direction (the direction on a macroscale is pretty good as the movie has an interesting style with its slow-motion edits and siloed cinematography; the direction on a microscale is good as the interpersonal scenes is really where you see the relationships between the characters and the internal struggles they go through; the direction of actors is pretty bad as the individual performances do not feel that strong, but as a cast the movie is pretty good as there is strong chemistry; the storytelling is incredibly convoluted as they intentionally make the conflict too mysterious and too far away that you do not know what these characters are fighting for; they do not do the best job at building tension as the thriller moments feel a bit forced), Decent to Pretty Good Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Kristen Stewart (She develops strong chemistry with O'Brian and shows her experience as a lead actress, but hits some noticeable limits in a good number of her scenes, especially towards the end), Decent to Pretty Good from Katy O'Brian (Has strong chemistry with Stewart and does a pretty good job at showing her roid-filled emotions, but her performance feels a bit one-sided outside of this), Decent from Dave Franco (Feels like he's just playing the same character he always plays), Pretty Good from Ed Harris (Shows off his experience playing characters like this), Decent from the rest of the cast (There is pretty strong chemistry within the cast, it's just individual performances feel siloed)), Bad to Pretty Bad Story (The concept is really convoluted as they try to force too many things to where none of the plot points are presented well (obsession of the artist/body-building mixed with a grounded relationship mixed with murder mixed with a crime-drama); the plot is not that well developed as the movie does not really feel like its building to anything, more like the characters are just 'running away' from their issues; the final arc of this movie is so bad because it genuinely feels like it's AI-generated with what happens and how it is executed; flow between sequences is a bit disjoint as they try to do so much; character writing is pretty good as you get a sense of who these characters are (especially the two leads)), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is decent; the symbolism is kinda nonexistent (but also somewhere there); the foreshadowing is there but is kinda an issue because it leads to a very poorly executed ending), Pretty Good Score (Sprinkled well throughout and helps with establishing the tone), Good Cinematography (Enjoyed the montage shots where they narrowed the focus and showed the obsession of the artist), Good Editing (Enjoyed how they slowed the movie down in some of the montage shots to emphasize what the subjects were doing), Bad Sound (Everything felt muffled and inaccurate), Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Everything felt tacky and out-of-place, especially towards the end), Pacing is a bit on the slower side (mainly cause the plot does not move), Climax is very poorly executed as the ending feels like it's AI-generated with what happens (and it did not help that they didn't do a good job of building this or closing out plot points), Tone is a mix of different concepts (but does not do a good job in anything except the relationship they portray)

Road House (2024)

Pretty Bad Movie

[5/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 5.6 Overall, a mindless action-remake that has an entertaining performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, well-choregraphed action sequences, and pretty good humor, but the movie is really held back by its formulaic story, bad over-the-top dialogue, and bad performances from some of the cast.

Pretty Bad to Decent Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good because the action sequences are well choreographed and have a unique/over-the-top style that makes the movie entertaining, and the worldbuilding/scene-setting helps highlight the Florida Keys; the direction on a microscale is bad because a lot of the performances felt off/inexperienced, and the interpersonal scenes feel so forced and rigid, but he does do a good job in setting up the comedy in the movie; the storytelling is very formulaic and emulates action movies from the 80s (so basically Road House); he builds tension somewhat well, but it definitely feels forced for the most part), Bad Acting (Pretty Good to Good from Jake Gyllenhaal (Has good comedic timing and is a good action star in the fighting sequences, but it feels like this performance is more propelled by his acting experience rather than the material), Bad from Daniela Melchior (A pretty Monotonous performance that does not play off of Gyllenhaal at all), Decent from Billy Magnussen (The character is really written for him because of his past roles (the rich arrogant prick)), Decent to Pretty Good from Jessica Williams (Has good scenes with Gyllenhaal), Very Bad to Bad from Joaquim de Almeida (Has no emotion and feels very off compared to the rest of the cast), Decent from Austin Post (He's in the movie for like 2 minutes), Very Bad to Bad from Conor McGregor (He just plays his persona, but his lack of acting experience shows as he misses a lot of his queues), Pretty Good from Arturo Castro (The comedic relief character as he does a good job with his meta interjections), Very Bad to Bad from the rest of the cast (Just a lot of inexperienced actors who do not develop chemistry in the cast or buttress Gyllenhaal; this does not include child actors)), Pretty Bad to Decent Story (The concept is super simple as it uses the same action-movie template as its predecessor (but the movie is really more about the action/fighting sequences that it really doesn't matter that much); the plot structure is very formulaic to the 80s action movie template; character writing is good for the protagonist as they provide some depth to his character and his trauma, but the rest of the characters are just cookie-cutter shallow characters from action movies), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is just so forced and bad overall because it tries super hard to emulate the over-the-top 80s, but this ends up making the movie feel unnatural; the humor is pretty good as they make an effort to inject comedy whenever they can, and it hits probably 3 out of 5 times; the symbolism is surprisingly prevalent for the protagonist as the movie touches on themes about trauma and duty, but beside that its pretty shallow; the foreshadowing is only prevalent because the movie is very formulaic/predictable), Pretty Good Score (Along with the soundtrack, it helps establish that 80s Road House, action-movie feel), Good to Very Good Cinematography (I really enjoyed how the action-scenes were filmed as the use of wide-angle, panning, and following shots really help give the fighting scenes a unique feeling), Good Editing (Really well executed in the action sequences to give it an over-the-top feel), Good to Very Good Sound (Helped make the fighting sequences/punches feel very crisp), Good Visual Effects (Very over-the-top, but still well executed and enjoyable), Pacing is fine as the movie just follows a template, Climax is decent as it's just over-the-top action on a massive scale (still very enjoyable), Tone is very over-the-top with its 80s action-style (but does a pretty good job at lightening the mood with humor), Saw an encore screening at SXSW.

It's What's Inside (2024)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 7.8 Overall, a very entertaining comedy thriller that is funny, has good chemistry within the cast, and is well directed/shot on a macro-scale, but the movie is very millennial and a bit messy in its presentation.

Pretty Good to Good Direction (The movie is good on a macroscale as they do a good job in building the world, setting the conflict, and integrating humor throughout (and the movie feels really unique on technical scale with its cinematography and editing); the direction on a microscale is pretty good as the interpersonal scenes are well executed and bring out the internal conflict in all the characters (and how these are pieces for the overarching issue); the direction of actors is good to very good as every performance feels elevated, and the cast has very good chemistry (especially when working with the conflict); the storytelling is very millennial (and this kinda makes the movie a bit convoluted and messy at times as they prioritize humor/influence over clarity); he builds tension very well to incorporate the horror elements of the film (especially towards the end)), Pretty Good to Good Acting (Good from Brittany O'Grady (Established herself as the true lead in the movie as she had a range of emotions and delivers some powerful scenes), Pretty Good to Good from Alycia Debnam-Carey (Does a good job at establishing status with the rest of the cast as she shows the real influence she has (and does a good job acting when working with the conflict)), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone does a pretty good job working with each other and establishing chemistry, and everyone does a pretty good job acting during the conflict)), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is very unique and handled well (though it does get a bit convoluted at times, especially in the ending); the plot structure is laid out pretty well, but the ending is a bit of a mess in how chaotic it is; character writing is very good as you really get a sense of who all these characters are, especially the protagonist, and their true relationships amongst each other), Pretty Good to Good Screenplay (The dialogue is forcibly millennial/gen-z, but it is pretty accurate in capturing the generation/target audience; the humor is pretty good as it lightens the mood and makes the movie more enjoyable; the symbolism is pretty prevalent as the movie deals with jealousy, relationships, and trust; the foreshadowing is somewhat prevalent (though it could be better at times because movie is really messy)), Pretty Good Score (Helped with establishing the tone), Good to Very Good Cinematography (A lot of unique shots that are very interesting; they use light very well to help tell the story), Good to Very Good Editing (Had a lot of cool edits that gave the movie a unique feel), Pretty Good Sound (Helps in more of the thriller moments), , Pretty Good to Good Production Design (They use the singular location well), Pacing is very fast (and this hurts the movie a bit because it makes the movie more convoluted and a bit messy), Climax is a bit hectic and messy (but still enjoyable), Tone is a Millennial/Gen-z Comedy-Thriller (and really plays to this throughout the movie as it does a pretty good job at tethering the line between comedy and thriller), Saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.

Cuckoo (2024)

Pretty Bad Movie

[5/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 5.7 Overall, a film that has the elements to be a good horror movie as everything begins to click by the climax, but the movie is held back by its convoluted concept/storytelling and mediocre performances.

Decent Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as the horror elements are laid out well (even though there are moments where he tries to do a lot); the direction on a microscale is Bad as a lot of the performances do not feel that elevated, and some of the interpersonal scenes feel kinda off/forced; the storytelling is not the best as the conflict is not really explained that well (even though they try to explain it); he builds tension well as the movie is pretty good on a horror/action scale), Pretty Bad to Decent Acting (Pretty Bad from Hunter Schafer (Shows she has some tools to make her a good actress, but it feels like she hits an acting limit in a lot of the interpersonal/emotional scenes because her energy is off from what is needed), Decent from Dan Stevens (Plays the antagonist well and holds his demeanor in a very sinister, yet calm way), Decent from Jessica Henwick (She's really just there in this movie), Pretty Bad to Decent from the rest of the cast (Some actors do have a significant impact on the movie, but some show inexperience and a lack of chemistry; the child actor does a pretty good job with what she is given)), Decent Story (The concept is interesting but a bit convoluted as they try to explain the conflict, but its not done is a coherent way; the plot structure is decent; flow between sequences is not the best in the beginning but gets better towards the halfway point; the character writing is good as they do a good job at showing the different conflicts the protagonist are going through, as well as giving different dimensions to the antagonist and minor characters)), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is a little off and not that natural, but overall is decent; the humor is a bit forced, but it is fine for the most part; the symbolism is somewhat there; the foreshadowing is somewhat there, but could be better), Decent Score (Used well to establish the tone and build tension in the horror moments), Decent Cinematography, Pretty Bad Editing (I was not really a fan of how they used the ripple effects to show supernatural powers because I felt it was pretty tacky), Pretty Good Sound (Helps emphasize the horror and supernatural elements), Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Feels kinda tacky and low-budget, especially during the supernatural moments), Pacing is a bit on the slower side for most of the movie (but the movie does find a good pace towards the end), Climax is executed well as it definitely was the scariest part (and it felt like all the elements were finally coming together), Tone was very similar to other supernatural horror movies, Saw the International Premiere at SXSW; This movie does have tools to be a good horror movie (but it just feels like this was a test run for a very new director, I would love to see him do a follow-up where he learns from this experience)

Dìdi (2024)

Very Good Movie

[8/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 8.7 Overall, a very good coming-of-age drama that accurately portrays the struggles of an Asian American adolescent trying to find himself, carried out by authentic, yet humorous writing and a powerful performance from Joan Chen.

Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very good as they set the area and time-period very well (2000s, Bay Area); the direction on a microscale is great as you see how the characters' emotions and relationships change in the interpersonal scenes, and this might be one of the most accurate portrayals of Asian American adolescence I have seen; the direction of actors is very good as it feels like everyone's performance is elevated; the storytelling is very good as it tells a coming-of-age story through both the Asian-American lens and the lens from someone who grew up in the 2000s), Good to Very Good Acting (Good to Very Good from Izaac Wang (Shows a wide range of emotions as you can see how he changes his personality to fit in, all while being incredibly anxious/feeling lost), Very Good to Great from Joan Chen (Delivers a very powerful performance as the matriarch in the family as she tries her best to hold the family together while also trying to pursue her own passions; her final monologue is truly Oscar worthy as it comes second to Ellen Burstyn's Red Dress monologue in how emotional and well executed it is), Good from the rest of the cast (Really emulates the time-period and adolescence)), Good to Very Good Story (The concept is simple and self-explanatory as it is an Asian-American, coming-of-age story set in 2000s Fremont; the plot structure is pretty simple (short and to the point); flow between sequences is very good; the character writing is great as you really get a grasp of what each character in the family is going through (especially the protagonist and the mother)), Great Screenplay (The dialogue is great as it mimics the time-period/location/age of the characters; the Cantonese dialogue is used very well as it helps show the identity of the family and show this dichotomy of being an Asian American in that time-period; the emotional dialogue is very powerful as it invokes a lot of strong emotions in both the cast and the audience; the humor is very true to the time and well written; the symbolism is very powerful as it realistically shows Asian-American Identity and adolescence; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a coming-of-age story), Pretty Good to Good Score (Helps with establishing the tone, especially in the more depressing scenes), Good Cinematography (Enjoyed the how they interweaved 2000s camcorder shots in with the standard shots, and I felt the more large scale shots did a good job at showing the emotions of the characters (especially the protagonist)), Very Good Editing (Feels very polished and interjects the message/social-media scenes very well), , Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Feels pretty tacky and out of place), Good Production Design (Did a good job in emulating 2000s Fremont, CA), Pacing is pretty fast as it tries to go through a decent amount in its short runtime (but there really could not have been any more runtime that could've been added), Climax is executed very well as it is the epiphany/lowest for the protagonist and displays an incredible monologue from the mother (showing her identity in relation to her family and personal ambitions), Tone feels like a coming-of-age movie set in 2000s Bay Area (and executes this very well), Saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.

Immaculate (2024)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 7.2 Overall, a pretty good catholic horror movie that is carried out by a pretty good performance from Sydneey Sweeney and a well-executed climax, but the movie heavily relies on jump-scares to illicit fear.

Pretty Good to Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as they set the setting well (especially in the covenant and the countryside) and illicit engaging horror; the direction on a microscale is pretty good as you see how the conflict is unraveling and how it affects the characters (though some of the direction of actors was a bit monotonous at times); storytelling is pretty good as they slowly unravel what is going wrong and why it is happening; he builds tension well as the horror moments are executed very well, especially towards the end, but the movie does heavily rely on jump scares), Decent to Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good from Sydney Sweeney (Even though she is pretty monotonous in the first half of the movie, clearly hitting an acting limit at times, she really comes into her own as a scream queen in the second half and opens up her toolbelt with the emotions she can convey (especially in the final sequence)), Decent to Pretty Good from Álvaro Morte (Has a good dynamic with Sweeney throughout the movie, even when their relationship is changing), Decent to Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone plays their role well as they really buttress Sweeney in showing her importance in the covenant)), Pretty Good Story (The concept is decent for a horror movie as it uses biblical tones to set up the conflict; the plot structure is laid out well; the flow between sequences is good; character writing is as good as it could get with its short runtime because it mainly focuses on Sweeney's character and how her opinion of the covenant is changing the longer she's in it, but the writing for Morte's character is decent even though it is formulaic), Decent Screenplay (The dialogue is decent; the symbolism is about as much as you're gonna get for the subject matter; the foreshadowing is decent (but kinda uses your knowledge that the movie is a horror movie to lay down these roots)), Pretty Good Score (Has both horror and catholic tones to help set the mood and drive the horror), Good Cinematography (Felt polished and used well in setting the scene and eliciting horror), Pretty Good Editing (Used well in the horror sequences), Good Sound (A key driving factor in helped illicit horror as the movie heavily relies on jump scares, and the absence of sound really helps amplify this effect), Pretty Good Visual Effects, Pretty Good Production Design (Helped establish the covenant), Pretty Good Costumes (Helped establish the covenant), Costumes (Helped establish the covenant), Pacing is pretty good as the movie does not go through that much plot in its short runtime, Climax is executed very well as the movie uses more horror techniques besides jump-scares to illicit fear from the audience (with the final sequence being very chilling), Tone is very similar to other catholic horror movies, Saw the World Premiere at SXSW.

Sew Torn (2024)

Pretty Good Movie

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 7.7 Overall, a very unique movie that uses sharp technicals, especially editing and cinematography, and fast-paced direction to create an engaging thriller as we see the same story told in three different perspectives.

Pretty Good to Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good to very good as he has a distinct fast-paced style that helps make this movie feel sharp and well executed (especially in the action-based scenes); the direction on a microscale is not the best as the performances felt a bit rigid, but you did get a sense of what the personal conflicts for the characters are; the storytelling is pretty unique as it is fast-paced, action-packed, and filled with a lot of action to make the movie feel like a thrill-ride; he builds tension well through the action-based scenes), Decent Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Eve Connolly (Not given a lot in terms of dialogue, but she carries out the character well through her mannerisms and holds her own in the action-packed scenes), Decent from Calum Worthy, Pretty Bad to Decent from John Lynch (Is fine as a villain but there are noticeable moments where there is a lack of chemistry between him and the rest of the cast), Pretty Bad to Decent from K Callan (Feels just a bit out of place), Decent from the rest of the cast (Just minor characters)), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is unique as it visits the conflict in three different scenarios, and it does a good job at making the scenes feel fast-paced and filled with action; the plot structure is very overt as the movie is structured out into three different vignettes; the flow between sequences is decent, but the flow between storylines is a bit forced; the character writing is pretty void), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and rigid as it doesn't feel natural, and it is pretty overt in some places; the symbolism is somewhat present (but not a key point for the movie); the foreshadowing is somewhat there (but the movie is just 3 vignettes from multiple angles)), Good to Very Good Cinematography (Really helped show how fast-paced the movie/editing was; used well in the action-based scenes (especially with the fast cuts)), Very Good Editing (The editing style is very fast-paced, borderline emulating Hip-Hop montages, as this helps build tension and make the thriller very engaging), Good Sound (Feels crisp and aids the action-scenes), Good Visual Effects, Pacing is pretty fast as it goes through 3 different scenarios (but this was intentional as the editing style helped make it more of a thriller), Climax in each of the three scenarios is carried out well and shows what would happen if the story played out that way, Tone is very similar to other action-thrillers (sometimes even feeling like a shootout movie like John Wick), Saw the world premiere at SXSW.

Sasquatch Sunset (2024)

Decent Movie

[6/10 · 19 March 2024]

Rating: 6.1 Overall, a decent film that mimics a nature documentary as we use to lens of the camera to look into the lives of sasquatches and how they parallel humans, but this movie was not really for me because of the excessive use of bodily fluids and grotesque comedy.

Decent to Pretty Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is pretty good as they set the scenic shots well and show the beauty in secluded nature; the direction on a microscale is decent as they get a lot out of their actors through action-based acting (because there's no dialogue); storytelling is very slice-of-life (making it feel somewhat like a documentary), but there are some moments where they try to move the story forward)), Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good from the cast (The whole cast acted as a unit to portray Sasquatches going about their day, and showed how they do have a good amount of humanity to them)), Decent to Pretty Good Story (The concept is interesting as it's a slice of life look into sasquatches (which helps give them humanity and show parallels to humans); the plot structure is not really present as the movie tries to be mostly slice of life, while also shoving in shock and grotesque humor; flow between sequences is pretty bad as lot of the movie feels disjointed; character writing is decent as it helps show the parallels between humans and sasquatches), Decent Screenplay (the humor is pretty overt as they try super hard to shock and show grotesque subjects (with this sometimes hitting and sometimes not); the symbolism is decent as it's about looking at humanity from the lens of Sasquatch; the foreshadowing is nonexistent), Pretty Good Score (Used well in the establishing shots), Pretty Good to Good Cinematography (Used well in the scenic/nature shots as it helped make the movie seem like a documentary), Pretty Good Editing (The way they cut the movie gave it a nature doc feel), Pretty Good Sound (Helped show the actions of the characters), Decent Visual Effects (Uses Practice effects well), Pretty Good Production Design (The nature setting is nice and helps show the wilderness), Very Good Makeup (Good use of full body makeup), Makeup (Good use of full body makeup), Very Good Costumes (Good use of costumes to make the actors look like sasquatches), Costumes (Good use of costumes to make the actors look like sasquatches), Pacing is very slow as a lot of the movie drags with its elongated/repetitive scenes, Climax is decent but just feels like a continuation of the rest of the movie, Tone is very similar to nature documentaries (with some comedic flavors), This movie was really not for me with the excessive bodily fluids and grotesque scenes; saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.