reid-hawk Reviews

Game of Thrones: The Iron Throne (2019) Season 8, Episode 6

Bruh moment

[2/10 · 20 May 2019]

If last season was like being punched in the balls this season was like falling over from that punch and face planting into a pile of dookie

First Reformed (2017)

Less of an homage and more of a rip-off of 'Taxi Driver'

[8/10 · 2 August 2018]

'First Reformed' is written and directed by th same man who wrote 'Taxi Driver', one of my favorite films of all time and probably one of the greatest character studies in cinema history. This film seems to follow in its footsteps as a film that looks into a dark man who becomes increasingly disillusioned and angry with society, but goes from blurring to eventually crossing the line of an homage into a sort of rip off. This begins with a scene where our main character, played masterfully by Ethan Hawke, pours pepto bismol into his drink. So far the film has consisted of still, wider shots with little to no camera movement, but in this scene that all changes. It focuses in on the dissolving pepto bismol in a scene that is all too similar to the famous dissolving alka seltzer scene in 'Taxi Driver'. "No problem though", I thought, because I loved the scene in 'Taxi Driver' and I like that the film is diverging from the set style it has going on. But then it gets towards the ending, and man I just saw it coming from a mile away. The main character plans to attack somebody powerful, much like Travis Bickle did. The main character is thwarted at the last second, again like the protagonist of 'Taxi Driver'. And finally the movie ends in an ambiguous possible dream sequence where the main character's fantasy comes true. Sound familiar? It's frustrating too, because besides a bad "fake body" used at the end as Ethan Hawke's character mutilates himself and some luls in the plot, I really don't have many other complaints. I love the cinimatography and weird aspect ratio, i loved the minimalistic use of a score, where it is really only played at all in the latter 3rd half of the film for tension, and above all I loved the acting from everyone in the film. It's a shame that it refused to branch out and be its own thing in the end, when it could have been so much more unique and unexpected, or at the very least exciting, like the hallucinatory sequence that takes place towards the end of the second act of the film. Overall though I definitely recommend it to anyone willing to sit through a dark and depressing look at a lonely human who struggles and succumbs to the darkness and dispair from a real issue that plagues modern day society.

Hereditary (2018)

Disturbing, painful, and absolutely terrifying

[10/10 · 19 June 2018]

About halfway through Hereditary I remember debating whether I knew I needed to see this movie again to decipher and appreciate its themes and details more, or whether this was a film I never in my life want to view again. At this moment I'm leaning toward needing a rewatch, but I'll definitely need to be in a certain mood for it. This is because Hereditary is absolutely one of the most emotionally painful and horrifying movies I have ever seen, and maybe ever made. The scenes of family drama are so gut-wrenching and powerful that they gave me chills, while the rest of the movie scared me worse than I have been scared since I first watched "The Sixth Sense" when I was around 12 years old and basically pooped my pants. In fact, after being scared poopless by that movie as well as "Insidious" and the second Paranormal Activity movie at a young age, I really thought I was immune to horror movies, as if they scared me so bad that nothing would compare to the fear I felt while watching them. Sure, movies like "the Shining", "Mulholland Drive", and "Lost Highway" definitely had me shaken up at times, but I have not truly felt as terrified as I did while watching "Hereditary" in a long long time. My IMDB account says I have watched and rated 248 horror movies and TV shows, and only rated 6 perfect 10/10s. I enjoy the horror genre, but I also know that I am very hard on it as well. When done right horror movies can be the among the most entertaining forms of cinema to watch, but more often than not they are done very poorly. I bring this up because I think it makes it mean more when I say "Hereditary" is truly a 10/10 horror film to me. Yet to just label it a mere horror film is a major disservice. The scenes of family drama are so painful and lifelike that the only movie I can really compare it to is "In The Bedroom", one of my favorite movies, yet I think even then Hereditary is a far more painful and heartbreaking watch. It is not paced like a traditional scare-fest horror film either. It gives out little pieces of information throughout its runtime to keep the audience engaged, but it never forces scares or even seems to feel like it has to be scary all the time. It would much rather keep you on edge by making you ask: "who/what was that little ghost boy in the corner? What was in the mother's drink that got on her lips at her friend's house? Why does the little girl cut up birds? What does the grandmother's final note mean?" and much more. Some of these questions are answered soon after, some much later in the film, and some not directly at all. These little morsels of mystery, plus a commanding and edgy score will keep you on your toes throughout all of "Hereditary's" runtime. And then when it feels like maybe you have pinned down the direction it is going in it hits you with one of the most shocking and unexpected movies scenes I have ever watched. I'm of course talking about the decapitation scene. The trailers do a great job of making this scene feel even more like a misdirection, because the creepy little girl is the focal-point of all of them. Never in my life would I have thought that the film would kill her off in such a gruesome fashion less than 45 minutes into its runtime. When this happens you really think poop is about to hit the fan, but instead the film rakes you over the coals by making you a fly on the wall of a truly broken and destroyed family for nearly the next hour. And then the séance scene happens, and at this point I had come to accept this movie as a masterpiece. I remember my eyes literally watering due to me be so afraid during that sequence. What makes it so scary is what makes the rest of the movie so scary as well: camera movement, the score, and incredible lighting. This movie did not have a single true jumpscare in it, because it knew how to use the threat of a jumpscare to keep you nervous instead. Most of the film's scarier scenes consisted of long takes where the camera moves in and out of close-ups. Usually in horror films, these close-ups build up tension which is released through a jumpscare when the camera moves back out to a wide-shot. "Hereditary" knows this, and instead decides that it is not going to use a cheap jumpscare to release the tension, and instead let the tension linger... and linger... and linger until you feel like your heart is going to bust. All the while, the score drones on and pushes you and the scene forward much like the score in last year's "Dunkirk". I'm also not an expert by any means in lighting, but this film's darkness and shadows feel so natural and realistic. You are constantly questioning the shadowy backgrounds thinking "did I see something back there or is my mind playing tricks on me" much like you would do in real life. I have no idea how the lighting was done, but this along with the other two aspects I just mentioned are truly innovative and make this movie quiet possibly the scariest movie ever made. Yeah I'll just go right out and say it. Don't forget that this movie is a hard R rating as well due to the imagery in it being so disgusting and disturbing at times. I truly think the scene of the daughter's decapitated head being devoured by ants as it melts into the side of the road, or where the mother bangs her head on the attic door like the demons in "Jacobs Ladder" do will stay with me for the rest of my life, and those are only two of many absolutely screwed up parts throughout the movie's runtime. I know I'm just gushing about "Hereditary" at this point, but I honestly have no problems with it except the ending is a bit anticlimactic, but it's hard to live up to the rest of the film's utterly brilliant writing so I don't really blame it too much. I mean the foreshadowing and layers upon layers of details in this movie could be dissected for hours upon end, and honestly after I see it a second and third time (if I can stomach it) that is exactly what I will do. This movie has the potential to be a future classic in my opinion, and I don't see how any other movie is going to beat it as my favorite film of 2018.

A Quiet Place (2018)

I wish I had loved it like most other people seemed to

[5/10 · 17 April 2018]

I was very excited when I walked into my college town's decrepit movie theater to see 'A Quiet Place'. The first trailer really sparked my interest in this movie, and although the next couple of trailers and teasers definitely decreased my hype in this film, its great scores from critics as well as the word of mouth reviews for it really helped raise my enthusiasm for it to high levels. Maybe it was unfair to be so hyped for this movie. Maybe it couldn't ever live up to my pretty lofty expectations. At the same time though, there is no way in the world that this movie deserves an 80+ rating on Metacritic and a near 100% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. The biggest problem for me is that for a thriller/horror film, this movie does very little to establish and use tension. It doesn't have an effective score like last year's incredible 'It Comes At Night' does to keep its audience on their toes. In fact, lots of the movie has no score whatsoever, which can also be used to really ratchet up the tension. Unfortunately, this film does almost nothing with sound design and background noise to try to be scary either. Think about the droning of the whooshing winds in many Lynch films like 'Eraserhead', or the sounds of the aliens breaking into and rummaging around in the house during the (far superior) invasion film 'Signs'. These movies know how to be suspenseful without even showing anything scary on screen, but 'A Quiet Place' has no clue how to do this. It prefers to just be completely silent at points instead of being nerve-racking. I like that the movie isn't scared to be nearly silent and dialogue free, but it shouldn't come at the expensive of removing the audience's fear and suspense. It also screws up by fully displaying the creatures early on and throughout much of the film. I know this is about as cliched as can be, but look at how effective Ridley Scott's classic 'Alien' is at disguising the titular Xenomorph. Never, throughout pretty much the entire movie, is the alien unobscured or fully seen. It hides in the shadows and lets us use our imagination, which is far scarier than anyone (even the brilliant mind of H.R Giger, who essentially inspired most of Alien's design) can come up with. Imagination is and always will be scarier than anything that can be shown on a movie screen.

This movie is also poorly written and cliched as (bad word that imdb won't let me say). It has the typical dumb kid at the start who honest to God is just the worst. It has a bratty little girl who is pretty much a (bad word for female dog) because it's convenient for the plot (even though the movie tries to use a very generic excuse as to why she's allowed to be an angry little brat). At one point the monsters kill a character right next to a car, and instead of just being silent in the car the characters just (bad word) drive away in it, and somehow these inconsistent as (bad word) monsters don't hear them. I'm sorry, but no matter how much (bad word) sand you put on the ground, or how hard you try to muffle your stupid baby's screams two feet away from these things, they should be able to hear you with their supersonic sound detection that can hear a freaking metal object hit the ground a billion miles away. It's just so inconsistent that I just could not suspend my sense of disbelief any longer. Also, this movie has the most generic, cliched, and cringeworthy movie ending I've ever seen in a so-called "masterpiece of horror". It has an overdramatic zoom into a character's face, a cringe inducing one liner, and a fade to black. I'm not exaggerating when I say me and about 7 of my friends (who all actually really enjoyed the movie) all busted out laughing at this garbage of an ending. And this isn't even mentioning how (bad word) cliched the monster's weakness is. Like seriously, watch the trailer, take what you know from that, and guess the most generic and cliched weakness the monster could have. You more than likely guessed correctly. I honestly do not think that Jim from the office could have had a more generic take on this concept if he tried. I don't hate everything. The movie is pretty well/competently acted by everyone involved (although the kids are not really asked to do much here). There are a few genuinely squeamish and 'nail' biting scenes scattered throughout this movie. It is boringly yet competently made from a purely directorial aspect. The CGI monsters actually look pretty amazing for the most part. But man oh man, this movie could have just been so much more. Overall I think "disappointingly average" is the best term I could use to describe this film.

The Post (2017)

The best movie about ethical journalism since ' All The President's Men'

[9/10 · 12 January 2018]

Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest American filmmakers ever, and if people have forgotten this then this film will surely remind them of it. it should be stated first and foremost that 'The Post' is directed to near perfection. The cinematography, color grading, set designs, and even costumes are all incredible. Spielberg's camerawork in this film is absolutely incredible, and he absolutely deserves to be at least nominated for best director (not that the Oscars really mean anything). The camera seemingly has omnipotence in this film, panning and moving throughout each and every scene until it decides to stop and rest on whatever Spielberg feels like focusing on. His scenes either seem to consist of short close ups, or long takes where the camera subtly but effectively moves throughout the set. His camerawork is matched by the skill of the actors and actresses working together for this movie, as 'The Post' undoubted has the most impressive cast of any film this year, with each and every role being played masterfully. Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, as always, are perfect. The story of this film starts off confusing, filled with strange jargon and mentions of people who I personally did not know, but eventually it settles down into somewhat of a thriller mixed with a very compelling drama. If it isn't obvious yet, I love this movie to death. It does have issues: one that is the worst offender is the terrible photoshopped pictures shown throughout the movie. The worst being one with Streep's character hanging out with the Kennedys. The fact that 'Forrest Gump', which came out over 20 years ago, can make it seem like Forrest was in archival footage flawlessly yet this film can't even correctly photoshop pictures is pretty embarrassing. The only other technical problem I have is a scene that takes place in a courtroom uses some really bad CGI and CGI lighting that reminded me of the Star Wars prequels. Besides these issues, I think the film gets a little cheesy near the end, and this cheesiness is eccentuated by an even cheesier score. Still, this is without a doubt my favorite Spielberg movie since 'Munich'. It's compelling, funny, and overall gives you a sense of faith in the principals and heroes of this country, even to a cynic like myself, which is an entire accomplishment all on its own.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Very solid but somewhat overrated and held back by some bad choices

[7/10 · 27 December 2017]

Overall I love Martin McDonagh's filmography, and i really enjoy Three Billboards. It's funny, well acted, and (at times) quite compelling and well written. The character development of Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson's characters in particular are honestly one of the best aspects of any movie this year.The way McDonagh chose to film some of the action scenes (the best one being a long single take) is also very well done. Francis McDormand is also a lock for an oscar nomination as is Sam Rockwell. But this film has some glaring, ugly ugly ugly flaws that I'll go through.

1. The CGI deer scene. My. F***ing. God. This scene is so cheesy and awful. The deer looks awful. McDormand's dialogue is awful. The entire scene is just cringe worthy, and, in case you did't guess it, awful. It's easily my least favorite scene of the year in any of the movies in my 2017 top films list. 2. Lucas Hedge is a terrible actor in this film, and I don't understand how. He was pretty amazing in Manchester by the Sea, but here in this movie he just seems so uninterested in even being in the film, even though his dialogue is quite well written and should be easy to portray. The scene where he attacks his father and threatens him with a knife is probably the most unenthusiatic and just plain terrible Lucas could have been in that scene. Every moment the film asks him to do anything he seems unable to convincingly portrait his character. 3. The Ex-husband's comic relief girlfriend is just so unfunny it's unbearable. The rest of the comedy in this movie is solid and feels Coen Brothers' ask, but she just seems like such a generic overly dumb character. I really don't understand what they were going for with her but it never once works 4. There is a scene I enjoy in the movie, where McDormand's daughter's supposed rapist confronts McDormand, and while the scene itself is quite good, I find it pointless within the overall context of the film. I think it easily could have been taken out and the movie and plot would remain unaffected.

Although these critiques might sound harsh, I want to point out I still really liked this film. I think it takes a while for it to really get started, but the complexity of the characters and the sheer talent of the filmmaking and writing in general make this a must see of 2017

Wind River (2017)

A grief stricken thriller

[7/10 · 3 October 2017]

I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to say that "Wind River" director/writer Taylor Sheridan likes creating neo-westerns. His screenplays for "Sicario" and "Hell or High Water" both encompass lots of the themes and settings of westerns and sets it to modern times, and this film is not so different. It is centered around a white tracker/hunter, played by Jeremy Renner, who is living on the titular Indian Reserve in Wyoming. Early on we learn that he is still recovering from the unexpected death of his daughter from three years prior, so when he finds a body of a dead girl he immediately is interested. Luckily for him, the new wet-behind-the-ears FBI agent, played by Elizabeth Olsen. who shows up to take the case is in need of someone to help her navigate the unforgiving physical and social terrain of the reservation. This film does not play out like a buddy cop movie though, The characters and inhabitants of Wind River are all in pain in some way or another.

I think this film is compelling due to its characters, setting, and story (I'm a sucker for a good police procedural thriller), but is let down in the way of direction and some acting. This film is bleak and character driven. It isn't until around 20 minutes into the movie that Jeremy Renner's character, Cory, finds the body and sets the events of the film into motion. The time up until then is spent developing his character and the pain he is going through of losing his daughter. Here some of the dialogue is kind of weak and too on the nose, like "is that how sissy died", but overall it's still a welcome change of pace to movies that immediately drop you in on the action. Unfortunately what holds this film back the most is the directing. It's so f**king bland it's incredible. There's so much unnecessary hand-held, and so many weak cuts where scenes jump from one to another prematurely it is honestly quite frustrating. Yet by the time the tension filled third act of this film starts really heating up all my complaints for the film go right out the window. It's exciting, tense, and well shot. There's a style to be found in the action sequences that is just missing throughout the rest of this movie, which is a real shame as this could have been a 9/10 for me if the direction was just up to par. But that and some of Jeremy Renner's acting are the only things that really hold this film back at me. Yes there are some nit picks I have with it as well: like how nobody ever breathes out cold air even though it's supposed to be below freezing, and how sometimes the score ruins some of the tension (although for the most part I would have to say the score for this movie is pretty great) but these are minor issues and slight inconveniences at most. Overall this is an excellent film that explores a part of Modern America that is too often forgotten about or brushed aside.

First They Killed My Father (2017)

A story that needed to be told... but not like this

[5/10 · 16 September 2017]

'First they Killed My Father' is a film that never should have been directed by Angelina Jolie. She's a very mediocre director and this movie makes that ever so apparent. I'll start with the good first. She makes an excellent use of what seems to be a pretty decent budget. The scenery, set designs, and CGI are all really good. In fact I could never tell what was or was not CG, just that many scenes had so much going on and so many moving parts that CGI must have been involved. This is something that I think goes very unrecognized and under-appreciated in modern movies, which is a real shame. The villages they built for this film look fantastic and must have taken a while to design and build. The locations are beautiful and well show off in establishing shots. The child actors are, for the most part, quite passable which is rare for foreign language films. Finally, the mother in this film is quite a fantastic actress. She really does a great job show casing the pain in her character through just her eyes.

Now, the bad. Oh boy where to begin. The first fifteen minutes are absolute garbage. I was seriously considering turning the film off. The editing and shot composition just seems to be throw together randomly, which also destroys any and all pacing. Everything is just so disorienting due to the awful editing it is quite ridiculous. This film tries its hardest to let you know everything is from the point of view of a little girl, but unfortunately it does not know how to do this very well. It consistently overuses PoV shots and the story jumps around like it would when our main character is remembering these moments from her childhood. The only good thing it does to show this is by making the camera angels appear as if they come from lower angles, like how a child would see things. Again this hurts the pacing, and due to the overly quick editing it also fails to give many scenes time to breathe and develop any sense of tension or emotion. The editing does get better as the film goes on, probably due to a more varied shot composition, but it still remains below average for the majority of the film. The dream sequences, which there are many, are terrible. The use some strange color correction and just literally f**k the screen up with as much lens flair as possible. It is very very very obnoxious. Also Jolie has no idea how to direct a scene where somebody is getting punched. Due to the awkward camera angles and quick cuts it becomes very apparent that "hey these motherf**kers really are not even coming close to being hit!". Overall I think that this is the epitome of an average film and should probably be skipped unless you are really interested in Cambodia. While it does a good job showing the dangers of real life communism, it fails to deliver an interesting and compelling story due to average writing and poor direction and editing.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Above average but definitely not the send off this franchise was going for

[5/10 · 2 August 2017]

(This is going to be a short little review and nothing too in depth) First off I'll say that I enjoyed this movie, or at least certain bits and pieces of it. The open action sequence is downright incredible and the ending battle is not too bad either. However the middle section of this movie can be downright dreadful. The trailers, marketing, and title for this movie have altogether been very misleading. There really is no 'war' in this movie. The Apes never have a big battle with the humans or anything of the sort. Instead they are sent to a concentration camp and escape from it. If you were expecting lots of action you wont be in luck here. The action is very sparse for a nearly 2 and a half hour film. The pacing for most of it is actually terrible, and I even found myself bored a few times throughout the middle of the film. The army of "special forces soldiers" in opposition to the apes is downright autistic. They literally let a girl walk right through the door into their base completely unseen even though they are literally at war with another group of humans. They also completely fail to notice the apes escaping and they never really notice that they are gone. On top of this, their base was somehow built over like a foot of snow that somehow never collapsed in even though the apes literally dig through it in like 20 seconds. Woody Harrelson's character, who is simply called 'The Colonel" was a pretty decent (if somewhat by the numbers) villain that was only made interesting due to Woody's pretty fantastic performance. Unfortunately pretty much every other human actor in this movie is completely terrible and most characters in this movie are just stupid in general, like the soldier who locks himself in with all the apes to try and pick a fight instead of just shooting them from his watch tower.The motion capture work in this film is also incredible. Like "Dawn" it can truly feel like you are watching real apes on screens and not actors in motion-capture suits.

There is a much needed comic relief character named "Badape" who is introduced during the second act of the film who really breaks up the monotony that had begun to set in. The characters meeting and interacting with him is probably the only part of the middle section of this film I actually enjoy. I don't really hate any of it (except for the worst scene in the entire franchise. In it, an ape puts a flower in a little girl's hair that has been traveling with them to create some bullsh*t bond with her, only to get killed in the VERY NEXT SCENE. Like, they tried to create some sort of character for this ape who hadn't said a single word yet and relationship between him and the girl but they don't even give it an entire scene to develop before they kill him and expect the audience to care about his death. It's so cheesy combined with the fact that the girl breaks out crying when this ape dies even though she didn't even cry when this ape and Caesar literally SHOT AND KILLED HER REAL DAD!!!) but I don't really like any of it either. It's just so Uninterestingly and not even shot all that well either. Once they actually get to the Colonel's base and get captured the movie picks up somewhat, and while I don't like a lot of it, there are definitely more moments I like than dislike during this section of the film. The real saving grace of this movie overall, besides the few spectacular action scenes and amazing CG work is the score, which is downright fantastic for a clichéd big budget film like this one.

Overall I don't hate this film as much as I might seem, I just think it's overlong and mismarketed. If anything this film should have been called "Rise" and the previous film should have instead been called "war".

The Emoji Movie (2017)

The worst thing to happen since the Rwandan Genocide

[1/10 · 30 July 2017]

After seeing 'The Emoji Movie' I can effectively say that our veterans have it easy when it comes to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and yes that is a joke. If you think that joke is bad then you'd be right in thinking that I have about as much talent as everyone that worked on this movie. If your child comes and asks you to see this movie don't panic, just follow these simple steps: 1. Retrieve your shotgun 2. Put your child down. There's nothing else that can be done for them. I'm not going to write a real in depth review because this movie does not deserve it, so I'll just paste my notes here:

The Good: nothing. Im serious, nothing is good in this movie. Some things are average or done somewhat-competently, like the overall animation, but nothing is actually above average or good.

The Bad:

-It's soulless

-Has no pacing

-Has no character development but still tries to force some anyways

-Hates millennials, thinks we are dumb and self centered and callous. It also stereotypes us while preaching about not stereotyping women

-literally forces feminism into the plot worse than any other film I have ever seen and tries to make princess emojis seem anti-women

• "I don't need a man to save me"

• a character says #truth

• literally beats you over the f*cking head about any and everything

• the boy wins the girl in the end by sending an emoji. This is not a joke or over simplification. This movie literally thinks we communicate solely through emojis

-dialogue breaks down into 4 very obvious categories: 1. Sh*tty jokes 2. Forced social commentary 3. Forced and obvious character development 4. Forced and obvious statements meant to move the plot forward

• it plays the joke about the 'meh emojis saying emotional dialogue without emotions' throughout the whole f*cking film

• there is seriously no pacing in this film. Scenes just randomly end and go to other scenes for no rhyme or reason. This film basically has the bare minimum when it comes to plot, characters, and jokes

• This movie was made just for product placement and nothing else

-THE BOY LITERALLY WRITES THE LYRICS TO "shine bright like a diamond" AS A LOVE NOTE CAUSE DON'T F*CKING FORGET US MILLENNIALS ARE ACTUALLY MENTALLY IMPAIRED

• they go into Spotify just to plug in certain songs into the f*cking movie. There's absolutely no reason it needed to be in the movie other than that

• btw guess what the hacker is actually the princess WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED? ITS LITERALLY THE PLOT TO WRECK-IT-RALPH

• I actually empathized with the villain. Not because I was supposed to, cause you're not, but because the other characters are just so awful. The villain was almost kind of funny at moments, and in truth killing our main emoji dude would have been the only way to save the phone world. Overall she has more of a purpose and more defined goals than any other character in this film.

• also can we talk about the mid-credits scene. Cause yeah I was so disturbed by what I had seen that I couldn't move from my chair so I sat there until this scene rolled up

• wait first let me say that Anna Faris or whatever her name is might be the worst voice actress I've ever heard. And by might be, I mean it's not even close

• OK so the end credits scene directly contradicts the end of the movie. The movie ending has all the characters being accepted into the COOL EMOJIS CLUB I HONESTLY WISH I WAS MAKING THIS SH*T UP. But in the credits scene we see a bunch of the lame emojis and the evil smiley lady in the basement for loser emojis. Like the emoji movie even failed at its message that everyone should be liked/equal or some corny sh*t like that.

• FINAL MESSAGE: this movie makes the angry birds movie look like a masterpiece. If this movie came out during the cold war, the USSR would show it to its civilians as anti-American propaganda to show how stupid and consumer obsessed we are. If an alien race was to decide the fate of this planet based solely on watching this film, they would no doubt decide to exterminate humanity.

Dunkirk (2017)

An exciting thrill ride that does justice to the real event

[9/10 · 24 July 2017]

There is a great gap between the opinion of general movie goers and more experienced film watchers when it comes to Christopher Nolan. Some people think he is a genius, while others believe him to be above average at best. I fall somewhat in- between those categories, but I think that anyone who loves movies can appreciate and enjoy his newest film 'Dunkirk". I'm sure there is already a movement on the internet and on reddit to begin calling this film an "instant classic", and although I won't go that far I will say that I loved this movie. If I had to put it into numbers, I'd say it's around a 9.5/10 for me. I'll start by discussing what drives the film. It's not characters, as they mainly serve as vessels for the audience to view this film through. In truth the characters are not super fleshed out, but this isn't due to them being shallow, but instead due to the fact that the film is sparse on dialogue. No, the score is what powers this film. More so than even films like 'Baby Driver', I think the score is the most important element of 'Dunkirk'. It is constantly going throughout the film, never stopping to let the audience catch their breath until the very end. It is sometimes more quiet and subtle, taking form as the sound of a ticking clock or light string instruments, and other times it ramps up its intensity to draw us into the action unfolding in front of us. If this movie isn't nominated for best original score as well as best sound mixing it will be a real shame. From the first gun shot on you know this film is going to blow out some eardrums. It's viscerally loud. SO loud that some people complain they could not hear the dialogue, but even though the British accents could be hard to understand I would never say it was too hard to hear them. Sounds instead of dialogue move this movie's story along, and seeing as Nolan is a pretty crappy writer when it comes to dialogue (for the most part) this is a good thing.

Another thing I loved about this movie is just how real it felt, and I'm not just talking about the action. All the boats and planes seemed to be real and not CGI. Even as they crashed, exploded, and sunk into water. It all seemed so natural that I have no idea how he could have honestly filmed it without CGI, yet at the same time if the movie did use computer generated effects they were so top notch that I could not detect them. Due to this and the way they were shot (very up-close for the most part, almost to the point of them being POV shots) I'd have to say that 'Dunkirk' has the best aerial combat and dogfights of any movie I have ever seen by a long margin. But it's not just that either, but the uniforms and the beach and surrounding city itself just looked so amazing and authentic. It truly feels like you're just a bystander watching the chaos take place sometimes. The amount of actual planes, ships, uniforms, and extras Nolan must have gotten for this movie is just insane to think about. And overall it's all filmed so well too. The scenes of characters barely escaping drowning as their ship goes down is so pulse poundingly exciting and the camera is there up close to steadily film it all as it takes place.

This film feels very lean to me. By that I mean not a single shot is wasted, nor held too long, and there is very little downtime for inner reflection or lulls in the action. When there are lulls, the movie tries to force in some seemingly bogus drama, like a character going blind and another character accusing someone of being a spy. I don't love these elements of the film as much, but by the end I do think they lead to some proper story-arcs and actually helped develop our characters. My only real problem with this film to be honest is a continuity error towards the beginning. The camera puts us right up close to a character as bombs are being dropped, slowly but surely edging towards him but stopping just in the nick of time. Then, the film cuts to a wide angle, and here we see no dead bodies or craters from the bombs' impacts. This is such an obvious and frustrating error that it confounds me as to why it was even included in the film. But as I said, I love this movie. The ending for Tom Hardy's character might just be one of my favorite moments in any film. I recommend 'Dunkirk' to anybody and everybody, even if you absolutely despise Nolan I think this film exemplifies his best traits and his ambitiousness as a big budget director while downplaying his flaws.

Raw (2016)

The paradoxical nature of disgusting beauty: a film review of "Raw"

[9/10 · 14 June 2017]

"Raw" is a 2017 French film and the first feature length film directed by Julia Ducournau. "Raw" is also absolutely NOT a horror film. This is something I feel like needs to be addressed immediately in this review and semi-analysis seeing as the film has been labeled and marketed as such. The film never really tries to scare or purposefully frighten you, although the subject matter is sure to disgust and horrify some. This film serves as more of a breaking down and mutation of the traditional coming-of-age tale rather than a fright fest, as well as the "occasional" fetishization of cannibalism. A very brief synopsis of the film is that our main character, Justine, is making the big step that many of us make in our lives by attending her first year of college, although instead of college she's following in her parent's footsteps by going to vet school, where her older sister already attends. Through a somewhat rigorous and brutal hazing ritual that forces her to forgo her vegetarianism and try raw meat, she learns that she has quite the taste for human meat. This is where the beautiful yet disgusting nature of the film arises. See, this film is beautiful in the conventional sense. It is wonderfully shot: filled with striking and beautiful visuals made more hypnotic and stunning due to the films quite gorgeous color-palette, where the sky and scenery remains quite gray and grim yet the people all seem bright and lively. It's refreshing in today's day and age where a film centered around millennials does not feel the need to be flashy with quick cut editing and overly charming and unrealistic dialogue. No scenes seem more evident to the director's talents than the party scenes. They are very fun to watch on screen with their flashing strobe lights and upbeat dance music, yet they never teeter on the edge of being unrealistic or over extravagant. They remind me of just about any frat party I have ever been to. What makes these scenes great, however, are the simplicity of the camera movements. There is no "shaky cam" or rapid editing. Instead the director chose to just follow Justine around in one-shot takes and simply observe her at the party. This unobtrusive camera-work is impressive, not only because of the amount of people in each shot and the number of things that could obstruct the camera, but also due to the fact Ducournau seems to understand that sometimes less truly is more, which is an idea I think a lot of modern directors could learn from. Now why do I say this is a paradoxical coming of age film? Well if what I just mentioned was the "beauty", then the raw (no pun intended) nature of cannibalism, bodily harm, and animal dissection shown is the "disgusting". Throughout the film human flesh becomes like a drug to our main character. She first tries it by eating pieces of her sister's finger that she just accidentally chopped off. At first she is repulsed by this nature, and tries to stop herself from repeating her actions. This causes her to go through what I interpreted to be withdrawal symptoms. During this time her sister also confesses to being a cannibal, and by confess I mean she runs into the road in front of an oncoming car, causing it to crash into a tree and kill its passengers, who she then begins to eat. Reading this without seeing the film makes it sound so stupid, but it really is not just about cannibalism. During and between these moments our main character is also learning about things we all must eventually learn in our lives. Things like sexual desires, genital hygiene, and learning who you truly are and who you want to become. Justine starts out the film as an awkward, goody-goody outcast, even going as far as to tell as doctor she'd rather keep her head down and just be average than have attention be brought on her. As the movie progresses she begins to somewhat come out of her shell, and as she does this her cannibalism progresses as well. Every leap she makes towards self-discovery also coincides with a leap towards cannibalism. In one scene she is making friends with her "gay" male roommate who really turns out to be at least bisexual, in the next they are eating sandwiches filled with meat. In another scene she is seductively dancing in front if a mirror as she listens to a song about "fucking dead bodies", seemingly accepting and embracing her sexual desires that she covered up earlier in the film. Later on we see her cannibalism is directly related to sex, in that while kissing during sex she also likes to bites her partner and taste his blood. To me I think the film means to show cannibalism as a sign that being who you really are can hurt other people, but covering it up will always hurt yourself. The very end of the film involves her talking to her dad. Her sister has just been arrested for killing Justine's roommate by eating him. Justine's mother is forcing her to become a vegan again, much to the chagrin of Justine. Her father tells her she will figure this thing out just like her mother did" and he pulls down his shirt to reveal bite marks and chunks of flesh missing. This says a lot. Again it reinforces the theme of unintentionally hurting others to please yourself, and also shows how her mother wants to shield her daughter's from that part of their lives by forcing them to not eat meat. But like all coming of age tales the child must resist the confines of the parent and become the person they truly are.

Casting JonBenet (2017)

meta-film done right

[9/10 · 10 May 2017]

Out of the recent trend of documentaries of actual films that portray real stories, which are not as confusing as they sound (like "Katie Plays Christine"), "Casting JonBenet" is the best. I think I should say that before this movie I had never heard of the JonBenet murder and subsequent case; maybe I've been living under a rock or something. I say this due to the fact that it may have enhanced my experience with this film, and that people who are not entering it blindly might not enjoy it as much. After I watched the film I went online to judge the reactions of people, and far and away most general audience members seemed to dismiss this film as garbage. Many people stated that it added no new information to the case or that it was boring. To those people I would say that they missed the point, as pretentious as it sounds. This was a seemingly world famous case, what new information could they provide? What makes movies like "The Thin Blue Line" or "The Jinx" so good is that they actual had some real impact on the world by adding evidence not previously seen. Other movies/miniseries, like "The Imposter" or "Making a Murderer" show us cases that we otherwise never would have heard of. This movie has neither of those luxuries, so instead it does something different. It films the people in the community that Jonbenet Ramsey lived in and tasks them with playing the parts of members of the Ramsey family. All the while, the camera crew is filming these people and gleaning their insight into what they think about the murder. Their opinions range from insightful to off-the- wall batsh*t insane (think movies like "Room 237), and I enjoyed every second of it. Parts of this movie had me and my friends rolling on the floor with laughter due to just how peculiar and funny these characters playing characters really were. Other moments, like the ending montage I wont spoil, had me sitting in silence completely engrossed at what was on screen. Being able to have moments like that within the film make this movie truly special, as well as the first amazing film of the year. My only issue with it is that it lulls at some points towards the final 3rd, but even then it is still a very watchable film. Don't let negative reviews online discourage you from watching this movie. Watch it for yourself and make your own mind up

Get Out (I) (2017)

A great first film from Jordan Peele

[8/10 · 20 March 2017]

Get Out is a new horror comedy from one of the minds behind the hit series "Key and Peele", although this movie is less of a comedy and more of a straight up suspense film. I thought this film was fantastic. It was always apparent from the direction of "Key and Peele" that Both Jordan and Keegan-Michael understood directing very well and could easily satirize bad directing, but I never knew how that would translate over onto a serious attempt at making a film. That is until this movie. From the moment Childish Gambino's "redbone" began playing I knew I was in for something special. This is the best first film from a director I have seen since last years "The Witch". It knows how to create suspense through things like mood and score rather than overused constant jump scares and other weak techniques. This film utilizes a foreboding string score to ratchet up the tension and it never really lets up. The acting is also amazing. Each actor does a perfect job of either portraying fear or lynchian esque creepiness. Just watch the "conversation" that takes place between the movies main character and the house maid. Listen to the score. Notice the low , up-close camera angle. "Get Out" knows what it is doing and how to put its audience on edge. In fact, both people I watched this film with were grabbing onto me and refusing to let go pretty much the entire time. It does have issues that hold it back. There is a scene of horrible CGI fire that made me and my girlfriend both say out loud something along the lines of "wow that looks like dogsh@t". There is another scene that makes no sense, and without spoiling I'll just say it has to do with an open door leading to a bunch of photographs that have no reason of ever being so blatantly left around. Finally, the ending happens too fast and while it is oh so satisfying, it blows its load too soon and quickly. Don't let any of that deter you from seeing this movie though, whether you are a horror fan or not. Whether you are black or white. Liberal or Conservative. This film is for anybody who can appreciate film or at least loves being scared. I give it an 8.5/10 and it currently stands as the best film of 2017

Tower (2016)

powerful and moving

[9/10 · 4 January 2017]

The decision in "Tower" to stylistically recreate the actions of the heroes and heroines that took place during August 1st, 1966 is the best single design choice I have ever seen in a documentary. This movie, while still being a compelling true story, would lose lots of its tension and dehumanize many of its victims without the animated sections. "Tower" emotionally moved me, both through its depressing moments and its moments of heroics. Never before has a documentary connected with me on such an emotional level before. However, this movie also frustrated me, particularly towards the third act. some moments of voice acting are weak, but that is only a minor grip. My main issue is with the closing monologue with which the film ends, a monologue that blames violence in media, television, movies, and every other buzzword as an excuse for why the killer did what he did. It does not mention his malignant tumor that had been unknowingly destroying his mind and controlling his actions which is the popular theory as to why he did what he did that day. No, instead the movie seems to blame modern society as a whole for the actions of a single mentally ill man who was given no treatment. This flawed ending does not ruin or even too badly damage the movie for me. In fact I loved it so much I'm going to rate it a 9/10 and say that it is, as of this moment, by far my favorite documentary of the year.

The Handmaiden (2016)

Graphically Beautiful

[9/10 · 25 December 2016]

Chan Woo Park's "The Handmaiden" is a fantastic film that borders on being a masterpiece. From a film making perspective alone, both its cinematography and editing are incredible (and I don't use that word lightly). As of this moment this is the best shot film of the year. The shots are gorgeous and the camera work is fantastic; the camera always seems to move to the perfect angle at the perfect time to maximize the quality of each and every scene. Lots of times the movie jumps out of chronological order rapidly between scenes. These scenes never feel hard to follow and they always transition into each other beautifully. By showing moments of the film out of order (as well as some scenes multiple times from different viewpoints), the movie allows the viewer to glean new information about the characters and the story. And yes, the story is also very good and filled with deep characters and twists at every turn. "The Handmaiden" is definitely not a good first rated-R movie to show your kids, however. In fact, maybe only "The Wolf of Wallstreet" rivals this movie when it comes to the sheer graphicness of nudity and sex scenes (besides NC-17 films of course and much of Lars Von Triers work). What I love about the sex scenes besides the fact that they're, you know, hot sex scenes, is that they aren't there just help somebody feel the blood flow down low. They actually serve a purpose; both to the story and to the development of the film's major characters (They do have some nasty and loud a** licking sounds going on in them that I can't say I'm a fan of however). The other graphic aspect of this movie is its violence. This movie isn't overly violent, and in fact there are only a handful (this is a pretty good pun if you've seen the movie) of scenes with any brutality in them whatsoever, but trust me when I say those scenes aren't for the faint of heart. The movie's blackly comical nature helps negate lots of the more disturbing aspects of these moments as well. Park has made his best movie to date in my opinion, and it goes without saying that I love "The Handmaiden".

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

clichéd as hell, cheesy as hell, good as hell

[6/10 · 17 December 2016]

So yeah I really liked rogue one, even though it somehow manages to hit almost all the things I hate in big budget action movies today. This film has some sh**ty characters and cheesy speeches about heroics and yadda yadda yadda. It has jokes that fall flat. It has so many moments that just are not good at all. But if you can get through all of that, this is a really great movie, especially visually. The action scenes are all well shot and exciting, preferring to use practical effects mixed with CGI rather than solely using CG. Honestly, besides one of those "bad guy gets caught monologuing for no reason and dies because of it" and the over the top and sappy character deaths, I pretty much love all the battle scenes/fight scenes from this movie. The costume and alien designs also work really well , just like every other Star Wars movie.

The characters in this movie I found overall more compelling and funny than in episode 7 (although many of them are still very underdeveloped, I personally enjoyed them), and many of them even existed in a morally gray area, which is unexplored territory for this franchise. In fact, this movie does a good job showing that not ever rebel is good, as well as the civilian casualties that are usually cast aside in movies of this nature. "Rogue One" is also very funny at times, where only a few jokes fell flat. Compare that to "The Force Awakens", where I think I actually laughed only a single time throughout the entire movie no matter how hard they forced jokes into it. The "easter eggs" and callbacks in this movie are pretty obviously thrown in your face, but I still enjoyed them and am sure other fans of the series will spend hours jerking off to them, unlike me who only pleasures myself to the soft tears of orphans. The ending of this movie is also very good, and without spoilers I'll just say is a fantastic lead in to "A New Hope". Heck, even the CGI characters this movie "resurrects" from the original trilogy look amazing (although not perfect just yet). Overall I actually love Rogue One, but its glaring flaws hold it back from being anything other than a solidly good movie. Oh, and this is probably a given at this point considering even the prequels did this right, but the movie's score is pretty phenomenal I'll give it an 8/10 or maybe a 7.5/10 I'm not sure yet why am I so indecisive.

Under the Shadow (2016)

More than scares, but still scary as hell

[8/10 · 1 December 2016]

Let me first state that horror movies don't really scare me. This isn't to brag or anything of the sort; I just think it gives more weight to the fact that this movie had me on edge from about halfway through till the very end. Seriously this movie is legitimately scary, and not like "artsy scary" like the Babadook, where besides a few scenes the movie has little to no fear factor. Oh no, trust me, this movie will scare you. But it's more than that too, it's about family and the bond between a mother and her daughter. It's about internal fears, like: "does he really love me? Am I my child's least favorite parent? Am I even a good parent?". This movie uses those concepts to accentuate the already near-palpable tension already within the film. But still, it's even more than that. It's about an oppressive regime that treats women like animals, and is constantly looming overhead and holding our main character back throughout the film . So where does this movie misstep? The acting is good, both by the mother and the young child actress. The movie uses little to no score, relying on the constant sound of moving wind to create tension. No, this movie struggles on a technical level and with being a horror movie in general. It overuses jump scares, and towards the end they just feel cheap and unwarranted. There is also an embarrassingly bad scene where the main character and her daughter get in a fight. The mother slaps the daughter in what might be the worst edited fake slap I've ever seen in a really good movie. Then, after her less than 50 pound daughter pins her to the floor, she can't even push her off. How could she carry her around throughout the movie but not have the strength to push her off of her? SO yeah, that's bad. But besides those few moments and a rushed ending this movie is probably my second favorite horror movie of the decade besides The Witch. it's either an 8 and 8.5 for me and anybody brave enough should definitely go see it.

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

beautiful movie let down by bad storytelling

[6/10 · 26 November 2016]

I'll come right out and say it, Kubo and the Two Strings is the best looking movie of the year. In fact, it might be the most visually impressive animated film ever made. The action scenes are exciting, the character designs are unique, and overall the scale and scope of the stop-motion is insane. Considering this movie was a box office flop we will probably never see stop-motion animation of this caliber ever again. The story though is just garbage. It tries way too hard to be funny. Way way way too hard. I can't lie, I didn't laugh a single time throughout this whole movie, and I'm not exactly the hardest person to make laugh. I can't imagine I am the only person who felt this way either. Beetle might be the worst comedic relief character I have seen in a film in a long time, and him being voiced by alright alright alright Matthew Mcconaughey, whose voice doesn't match the character he is voicing at all. Monkey is also a really weak character, and her relationship with beetle is one of the most unbelievable and forced friendships in an animated film this year. It's sad really, because this movie starts out with such a harsh and depressing tone rarely seen in kids movies, yet it slowly devolves into pure clichéd and unfunny (for lack of a better word) crap. Still, the action scenes as well as the quality of the animation and excellent sound design make this movie worth the watch. 7/10

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Like two completely separate movies mixed together

[4/10 · 25 November 2016]

This movie is a painfully average picture filled with great battle scenes. The acting is fine. Hugo Weaving does a great job as the drunk a**hole dad and everyone else is passable (except maybe those cringy child actors who cant fake a hit to save their lives). The lighting is horrible. It's painfully obvious that every non-battle scene has a sh*tty looking bright filter put on top of them all, which really makes no sense. Why would you make the film seem so fake when all the battlefield scenes are made to seem extremely realistic? Let's not forget how cheesy the story is too. It's the clichéd awkward boy meets cute girl, they fall in love, and then their plot is completely dropped from the story just like every single other subplot in the film. The film makes a huge jump from our hero surviving the threat of getting court martialed by the meany military men to straight into battle. I mean I was thankful that we got to finally leave the godawful bootcamp sequence(which basically is a much worse version of Full Metal Jacket's bootcamp complete with Vince Vaugn doing the most unconvincing job of a drill instructor I think I have ever seen in a big budget movie) but the jump completely slices out every part of the story that it had just created and never reintroduces them back into the movie. Now compare the clichéd beginning of this movie (as well as the clichéd "super patriot" ending) to the visceral and brutal battle scenes. It's as if this movie has two different directors. One is the real Mel Gibson, who basically sh*ts blood, guts, and mutilation on the screen for an incredible hour, and the other is Mel Gibson who lost his testicles and uses cable. Basically the film boils down to this (if I haven't already made this blatantly obvious). Battle scenes (besides the terrible CGI boats and cannons)= good. Dialogue, characters, and the beginning and end of the film = bad. Overall the film isn't as terrible as I am making it sound, but lets end this circle jerk of calling this the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan. This movie isn't even the best war movie of the past few years. If you want to see what this movie should have been go watch The Pacific. 6/10 don't waste your money unless you just really love war movies.

Maniac (2012)

gore gore gore and more gore. Also this movie is bad.

[4/10 · 6 November 2016]

I feel like I only do reviews for movies I dislike, or at least feel really strongly about. Maniac is definitely one of those movies. This movie just rubbed me the wrong way. It was too gory. Like way way way WAY too gory. I know gore is an art form and it takes talent to make it look good, but there is no way that you can possibly justify showing me three gruesome and detailed scalpings and a a scene of a man puking up what looks like dogfood and expect me to enjoy that. There's no reason for it to be in the film. It's pretty gross but mainly its just obnoxious. The first person view this movie goes for is cool and pretty well done, but it definitely leads to some issues. This movie has some terrible voiceovers, like when Frank is at a date the girl says multiple things without her mouth ever moving. There's also a scene where Frank punches somebody (complete with the generic thwack sound) without his arm ever moving. These problems with the first person don't completely ruin the effect, and it even has some nice transitions into third person. However, this movies sh!t acting by nearly all characters, weak story, overused and pornographized use of gore, all make this movie not worth watching. It's not even fun to watch as just as a straight up murder spree type film cause of the sh!tty forced story between Elijah Wood and the random @ss girl he falls in love with that takes up too much time. Don't watch this movie

Hard Candy (2005)

pretty much trash

[4/10 · 6 November 2016]

Hard Candy is a movie supposedly about the empowerment of rape victims and the metaphorical (as well as somewhat literal) neutering of rapists. But, all this movie really does is glorify a psychopath and show off some good ole-fashion torture. The movie's first flaws come immediately at the start of the film. Ellen Page's character is typing on a computer, except there are moments where the computer keys make noises even while she is not typing them, and the hand-held camera shakes and bobs up and down for no reason.This exemplifies two reoccurring flaws with the film: a lack of attention to detail as well as stylistic failure. The movie has many, goofs in it... very many. And its stylistic choices usually have little to no reason for being included other than the fact that to the director they probably "look cool". Some do, like the change from bright and exciting colors when Ellen Page's character first comes to her "new friend's" house to dull and grey after she drugs him and ties him up. The film also does a good job with accentuating tension by showing the beads of sweat across Patrick Wilson's character's face accumulate as he gets more and more nervous. However, these minor victories pale in comparison to the overall failure of its mistaken style choices. Things like randomly sped up shots,hand held usage, close ups, and so on and so forth only seem to be in the film to make it seem artistic without actually having any real purpose. While the movie is a tour-de-force for Ellen and Patrick's acting abilities, the character Ellen plays is garbage. Is she really any better than the rapist she tortures? I mean the movie seems to believe so, but in reality she's a complete psychopath. She literally calls her friend in the middle of a torturing session and acts completely calm and relaxed. She never once shows sympathy for any of her actions. Not even for causing the questionable death of the man she believes to be a rapist. She shows all the hallmark characteristics of a sadist and a sociopath, yet the film ends on a high-note seemingly signifying her as a hero. There is nothing heroic about her actions in the slightest. She is as much of a villain as the rapist is, yet the film claims that she is a hero. overall this movie is below average and doesn't deserve your time

The Birth of a Nation (2016)

The most mediocre way to possibly tell Nat Turner's story

[5/10 · 3 November 2016]

The Birth of a Nation was one of my most anticipated movies of this year. It won the Grand Jury prize in Sundance, and it tells the story of the failed slave rebellion led by Nat Turner. Everything about this movie that could have been interesting was instead constrained to convention. The score, which was fantastically simple yet powerful in the trailers leading up to the film was instead boring, and it overpowered many of the film's scenes. It came off as very clichéd when it instead could have been excellent. The characters in this movie were bland and uninteresting. In fact, I didn't care about a single one of them, which is a huge insult to a movie about slaves and the struggles they went through. The movie took a character as interesting and complex as Nat Turner, a man who was probably both insane and inspiring, and turned him into an everyday, bland man who just got a little too upset. The lead up to the movies climactic rebellion was decent. Nothing too interesting happened but, like the rest of the film, there wasn't too much to hate about it, The rebellion itself was also uninteresting and generic. Again the score was too loud and bombastic, and again Nate Parker's direction for these scenes showed his inexperience and his fear to break any convention and boundaries. Overall I was extremely disappointed by this film (more than maybe any other film this year) and I would say its one of the most average films of the year. Instead go watch the short film "Possession" for a better depiction of Nat and "Gangs of New York" if you want to see what this film's action scenes should have been like.

Blood Father (2016)

Simply not a good movie

[4/10 · 29 August 2016]

How does a Mel Gibson movie that is essentially an homage to old Mel Gibson movies end up being as unsatisfying as "Blood Father"? I mean this movie features references to the mad max series and a crazy Mel Gibson performance (think Riggs but less funny). The movie is also pretty well shot. The action scenes are good, and the only really poor moments camera wise are two horribly distracting hand-held "talking" scenes. This all sounds great right?! Well unfortunately between this movies fun scenes are moments that make you want to claw your eyes out. Like Mel Gibson's character's daughter.

This "16 year old" who is really probably close to 23 is so fu%*ing stupid she makes my girlfriend look smart, and trust me she isn't. In fact I don't even have a girlfriend, so thanks for reminding me of how lonely I am "Blood Father". Anyways, in the last third of this movie Mel's daughter makes a decision so stupid that it made me completely hate her character and stop caring about her at all. It doesn't help that her actress isn't that great. For most of the movie the father/daughter relationship just feels like an older actor/ younger actress relationship, which is bad to say the least. Don't worry though, this movie still throws in two clichéd " I'm sorry I was there for you" scenes filled with dramatic music just in case the director wasn't sure if you noticed how sad he wanted you to feel.

Other problems in this movie include really weak editing, especially in the beginning. This movie makes some really awkward cuts and transitions, and even a 1 second scene where Mel is obviously sped up. This, plus the fact that the stereotypical "b@d@ss" antagonist is probably the worst hit-man in the world who can't shoot the broadside of the barn and who has a shotgun that only leaves a single bullet hole whenever it is shot really really make me dislike this film. This plus the bad CGI blood and really horrible sound mixing all culminate together for a weak and bad 5/10 wouldn't recommend movie.

Heart of a Dog (2015)

A guilty pleasure

[6/10 · 27 August 2016]

I don't really know how describe how I feel about this movie. At the risk of sounding like a basic white girl, I'd say this movie is just so random. It's an art film that seems to try too hard to be artistic, with nearly everything about every shot seemingly randomly selected out of a hat. Is this shot gonna be hand held? Maybe we will reverse an image from a street camera for about three seconds then loop it for 30- seconds. How about a close up shot? Lets cover the camera lens with rain drops over these next three shots for no reason. The sound quality also cuts out many times, with parts of the speakers words seeming disjointed and stitched together. Yet I can't help but almost love this movie. It's narrative seems almost stream- of-conscious like; it rarely makes too much sense or flows well together, yet Laurie Anderson obviously wants to get a message across. This messages seems to mainly be about the important events in her life, her love for her deceased dog, and how her Buddhist beliefs and practices affected all of this. There truly is nothing like this film that I've ever seen, which is perhaps the best compliment I can give a movie. It's an avant garde and experimental documentary made for the modern era. Lots of it fails and comes of as pretentious, but what it lacks in artistic skill it makes up for with it many moving and thought provoking stories told by the immediately captivating voice of its narrator. It's a case of the visual aspect of a film failing the actual content of the film. I love it. I hate it. I recommend people to try it and decide how they feel about it for themselves.