Change Your Image
MovieManChuck
Reviews
Goodfellas (1990)
A Quintessential Movie
4/4 ESSENTIAL
It's rare that a movie treats it's audience the way Goodfellas does. The film leaves a powerful mark from the first viewing, but also lends itself beautifully to reviewing. Goodfellas did what The Godfather didn't. Scorsese's film is in stark contrast to Coppola's. It shows the glamour and the grit of life in the mafia, and spares itself on romanticism. Goodfellas is not only a genre defining film and the greatest film of the 1990's, but one of the greatest movies of all time, in addition to my personal favorite film ever.
Scorsese carries out his vision beautifully through intricate sequences laced with a slew of classic 60's music. Of course, the performances, one of which was recognized with an Oscar, are crucial to the success of the movie. There's a brilliant shot that zooms in on Jimmy Conway (De Niro) smoking in a bar as the needle drops and "Sunshine of Your Love" starts playing. This roughly 20 seconds of the movies is the absolute height of tension in the film, as Jimmy is about to descend into a state of paranoia in which he will preserve himself at all costs. A young and hungry Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) is very convincing as an eager gangster who hasn't quite compromised on all of his morals, and Joe Pesci is excellent in his portrayal
as a man who's (sometimes fatal) mood swings push him to the brink of insanity.
Goodfellas was able to tell a story honestly, and manage to keep it highly energetic and fast-paced. For such an ambitious movie, there never is a dull moment, neither is there a shot, cut, or song that seems out of place. Scorsese successfully crafted a perfect film that defines a genre and stands the test of time.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
One of the greatest movies of all time.
4/4 ESSENTIAL
I recently bought a movie ticket to see 2001: A Space Odyssey to celebrate it's 50th birthday. It was quite an experience, and it was my first time seeing the movie in IMAX. To say the very least, this viewing definitely incentivized me to review the movie. There is no other movie quite like Stanley Kubrick's 2001, and I can guarantee that there never will be.
This is one of the few movies that deserves a viewing even if you have no remote interest in the plot. Kubrick directs a film that has a significant emphasis on the visuals and musical score, and it does so with his signature deliberation. The movie succeeds in being like a moving painting, you feel like you're in the presence of a movie that transcends the screen. This is somewhat of a lost art in modern day films.
As far as the story, it's fairly simple: Astronauts find a monolith on the lunar surface of one of Jupiter's moons. Assisted by a super-computer by the name of HAL-9000, they set off on a space odyssey. While the plot doesn't present itself as anything remotely complex, this movie has a deeper message. The plot is simply the surface-level gateway to a metaphor that digs far below the surface. That's all I feel obligated to say about that.
To say that I thoroughly enjoyed myself screening 2001: A Space Odyssey would be an understatement. It is a treat both in an visual and intellectual way, and none short of a true masterpiece.
Incredibles 2 (2018)
Well worth seeing, but short of "Incredible".
3.5/4
After 14 years, the highly anticipated "Incredibles 2" waltzes into theatres. Based on the trailer, and the fact that Pixar has (in recent years) started to become more hit-or-miss with their efforts, I had very low expectations set for this movie. Of course, I watch it opening night, and while it doesn't quite match the first one, it's still a great movie.
Incredibles 2 picks up right where it's predecessor left off, at the track meet with The Underminer making his debut. It's general theme is concerning the Parr family's attempt to bring supers back into legality and legitimacy. This movie takes a shift in its primary focus and puts the spotlight on Elastagirl, as she takes her turn in saving the day.
The Parrs were perfected upon, and the action was one tough act to follow. Some of the powers really make for some great sequences. The kinky romance between Violet and Tony was fun to view, and Jack Jack was incontrovertibly awesome. On the flip side of things, some of the "new heroes" introduced were simply downright annoying to me, and the villain was predictable (and maybe a bit ineffective if you ask me). However, a few unlikable characters aren't going to kill the fun.
While this movie didn't quite resonate with me in the way the original did, the original set some pretty mean standards. The Incredibles one of the greatest family movies ever made. Incredibles 2 is great as well, just don't go in expecting a repeat of the first one.
Naked (2017)
A fun Marlon Wayans Netflix Original
3/4
A Netflix original comedy starring none other than Scary Movie guy Marlon Wayans... scared yet? From looking at this movie, it will strike as something that doesn't look good off paper. However, I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed myself.
The plot is simple: A man-child is about to get married when he and his buddies get wasted the night before. Cut to him waking up naked in an elevator, making it to his wedding before a time loop takes him back into the elevator naked. This happens until he can pull of his marriage perfectly (he screws up a lot, hence the conflict).
Not only does it provide laughs, but over the course of an hour (repeated dozens of times) you get to see Wayan's character truly mature and grow. He gets to see hear those at the wedding reprimand him (which turned out to be giving him advice) so he could know how to improve circa next shot of redemption. Although it strives to be a little more than a popcorn flick, it's harder to take its message more seriously in it's context.
It's a fun movie for some laughs on Friday night, that also has (very little) depth if you look hard enough. However, don't subscribe to Netflix just to watch this: it can be missed.
The Incredibles (2004)
Pixar's greatest movie.
4/4
The Incredibles feels as if it goes out of it's way to go against every superhero movie stereotype in the books. It's a completely original world with great characters, dialogue, and animated action. It stands out against so many other family films because it is one of the few that actually appeals to the whole family. It won't leave little kids bored half-way through, but it's smart enough to keep the teens and adults satisfied.
The movie centers around the Parr family. The common love or dismissal of superheroes is replaced with a society that hates their guts. After an attempted suicide was foiled by Mr. Incredible, superheroes were outlawed. Then it cuts to him as a family man. His kids and wife (former super "Elasta-Girl) have superpowers, and after 15 years of leading a "normal life", he has a compulsive need to sneak out at night to preform heroics.
Instead of studying only one superhero, it gives adequate screen time and attention to each member of the Parr family. Each member of the family has their own powers and balances each other out in the action. The chemistry between the characters alternates between trying to preform heroics, and well... typical family squabbling. The way The Incredibles depicts the ultimate family super-team side as well as the typical American family side is very clever.
Pixar made a movie that will shake the foundations of its rival studios. Their keaner eye for quality and tried-and-true conflict style has carried them for more than 20 years. They have had their downs, and they have had their greats, but The Incredibles is one for the ages.
Molly's Game (2017)
Highly entertaining. Very well directed and acted.
3.5/4
Aaron Sorkin has officially proven he can write screenplays AND direct! His directoral debut "Molly's Game" is surprisingly one of 2017's best movies. With only one Oscar nomination (Best Adapted Screenplay) this movie goes unnoticed in the midst of movies like "Dunkirk" and "The Shape of Water". However, it definitely deserves its spot as one of the year's greats.
"Molly's Game" centers around Molly Bloom, a woman who fails to become an Olympic skier after an injury. She moves to LA, where she works as an assistant to a man involved in a very exclusive poker game. She learns all of the tricks of the trade from him, quits her job, and goes on to start her own game-the most exclusive table in the world.
The screenplay is very well written and Jessica Chastain gives a phenomenal female lead. To say the least, it is a very entertaining story, especially for those who throughly enjoy playing poker. The one flaw with this movie is the heavy-handed portrayal and narration. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but at times it fails to provoke the proper amount of empathy. He best example of Chastain's narration would be found in the opening skiing sequence of the movie, while learning about her addiction to narcotics was (in my opinion) a little bit rushed or glazed over.
The use of color and lighting in Molly's Game was definitely a highlight. Every color really stuck out from the screen while there was gambling, but in the more serious moments of the movie, everything was toned down including the atmosphere. The adept use of the camera and angles compliments the film all the more.
Molly's Game emerges as a great movie, and definitely one of 2017's biggest legacys to movie-lovers. Everything falls into place so well, and I'm excited to see Sorkin's next effort!
The Emoji Movie (2017)
The AWFUL movie...
0.5/4
...And yes I saw it...well, kind of. Half of it at least. This could very well be the worst movie of 2017. It is a movie that only exists due to being in a state of obvious parody. It possesses no merit of its own, it's highly chichéd, and it lacks any kind of originality.
The flaws of this movie are so incredibly abundant, that it would take forever to jot them all down. Among the first that come to mind: the bad apple is obvious from the start. It feels political (just look at the emojis confirmed to their communist-like society). There is no emotional connection to any character whatsoever...only whimsical spikes of interest here and there. The script is bland and at times cringy. There is no emotional connection BETWEEN the characters (this is a problem because emojis represent...ah-hem...emotions) and to top it off, it feels second-hand in a very sour way.
This movie is a BOMB as far as quality, but I think a 0.5/4 will suffice due to the fun I had laughing at it. It really makes you wonder how stinkers like this makes it past the drawing board.
Trouble with the Curve (2012)
A very entertaining Clint Eastwood baseball drama.
3/4
The Trouble with the Curve tackles issues in the sport of baseball untouched in film up to this point, even in similar movies such as Moneyball (2011). It gives a more desperate feel to the corporate and scouting life in the MLB. The struggle at hand is the top job in the scouting office, parallel with the open bench on the Atlanta Braves.
One thing I really like is the title: The Trouble with the Curve. It is a double-entendre of sorts: an aspiring MLB player having trouble hitting curve balls, and the protagonist losing his periforals. It centers around Braves top-scout Gus Lobel, who knows the dynamics of baseball in-and-out. They want to replace him with a youngblood yuppie scout because he knows his way around modern technology and baseball databases, all due to his waning eyesight. The story is an emotional ride about reclaiming his normal life, as well as his relationship with his estranged daughter (played by Amy Adams).
While the script is creative, there are moments where it drifts lazily. While it never fails to pick itself back up, this movie has its own troubke with the curve. It makes for a very finely preformed, entertaining, movie that feels a bit predictable.
I would recommend this movie to fans of true-story sports movies. It sheds light on some topics other movies in the genre have passed over, and it captivated you in the process.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
The most unnecessary sequel I've ever seen.
1/4
After Jurassic World (2015), I was lead to believe that it was meant to provide clarity and closure to a series desperate for some rest. Unfortunately for people (like myself) who are a little weary of the dinos' antics at this point, it turns out that they never closed the gape. After deciding to give it a fair chance, I buy my ticket.
The plot of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is simple: we need to come to the dinos' aids. Their natural habitat is imploding, and America steps up to save them. They pull the rug out from under it's predecessors as far as action, and shatter the vase of originality. The "pod dangling" sequence was taken straight from Lost World, and the ending shot was used in Jurassic World. Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt give good preformances, but it can't save a falling kingdom.
For me, the ending (and it's respective "twist") is when Fallen Kingdom goes from bad to awful. Given the examples Jurassic Park set for all proceeding franchise installments, there is only SO MUCH of reality that the series will let you suspend. Fallen Kingdom sprints past it's limitations so guiltlessly. When the dinos are turned into war machines of mass destruction and auctioned off at the end, and then you find out that a character is a machine (Too obviously like Ash from Alien (1979)), you want to jump out of your seat. Every sci-fi cliché, no matter how unfitting, is touched upon here.
This was a total cash-out on the series, which stinks for fans of the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. Then, there's always the fact that (another) sequel is implied at the end. Clutch tight to your wallets in 2021!
Quiz Show (1994)
A good legal drama based on real events
3/4
Back in 1957, there was a scandal concerning a game-show called "21". The producers of the show were working with the contestants to rig the show by providing the favored players with the answers to the questions. "After all, it's a show."
Robert Redford's account of the downfall of game-shows is very intellectually stimulating. It provides an all-encompassing glimpse at each individual character leading up to the trial. Every characters motive is reconciled with the audience as it builds up to the conclusion (It's rare that you see this in movies similar to Quiz Show). In my perspective, no character was either a protagonist or antagonist. This is a rare example of where the dilemma is arguable to both sides. Kudos to Redford.
Most of the preformances are good, with Morrow giving the undisputed standout. The producers' efforts seemed lacking in authenticity at times, but they did their roles fine. I found the characters to be little developed past their time on screen, which slightly marred the movie for me.
There are quite a few questions left un-answered for me. Most of them involve the final court case, because it felt slightly sped through in the midst of the rest of the movie. A bit more resolution and clarity in general would suffice, without being redundant.
Quiz Show is entertaining, informative, and historical. They take fewer liberties than most true-story movie renditions, which is a plus in my book. It also never feels to keep you engaged.
The Truman Show (1998)
An engrossing look at an exploited man...
4/4
What if your entire existence on this Earth was one big lie? What if you were a business, and you didn't even know it? The Truman Show seems to tackle the answers, and your emotions definitely play a part in making the experience great.
A baby named Truman Burbank was adopted by a TV corporation, and everyone who would EVER enter his life was a mere actor. When things go awry, he has a sensation that "the world revolves around him". Then, he "goes rogue" (as far as the TV producers and directors are concerned) as he tries to find the truth at all costs.
Jim Carrey gives a very emotional preformance as Truman. His life is one to die for: no controversy or chaos, but he feels empty and unfulfilled. There are many moments of Truman is overjoyed, but on the other side of the curtain are actors, simply paid to manipulate his emotions. On the other side of "Sea Haven" is a sick man controlling the strings.
It's an excellent movie about a person who has been robbed of their life, and their dreams. Once he takes matters into his own hands, he makes it all happen for himself. Accompanied by a great musical score, The Truman Show stands as a winner, and your pity will not be spared!
The Godfather Part II (1974)
The best movie sequel of all time.
4/4 ESSENTIAL
In typical follow-up movies, there is a certain element from the original that ages, corrodes, or just evaporates. After watching The Godfather, one of the best movies ever made, I found it hard to believe that Part II would improve upon its predecessor despite the critical acclaim. However, The Godfather Part II is truly a phenomenal movie (just as good if not better than the original), and in addition to continuing the story, it compliments The Godfather perfectly.
If The Godfather was taught you to respect the Corleone family's power, then The Godfather Part II gives a broader scope to that power. It alternates the journeys of a younger Don Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro), and Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino). This is to chronicle the rise and fall of the Corleone family. Vito rose to prominence through gaining the favor of the people, and liberating them from Don Fanucci. Michael operates out of self-interest, which causes chaos within the family, and ultimately burns bridges. By the end of the movie, you know full well that the Corleone family dynasty is crumbling, they won't even be legit too much longer. The Corleones are like the Roman Empire.
This movie also features two amazing lead actors. De Niro and Pacino both gave bold performances which both influenced the flow of the movie, and the perception of reality. It was possible to capture the wisdom and of Vito, and the greed of Michael in a way that truly sticks with you. This was also in part to a very well conceived soundtrack, great location shots alive with colors, a very intricate screenplay, and Coppola, a great director who knows how to conduct beautiful cinema.
If there is any statement that The Godfather Part II successfully makes, its that the complexity of the Corleones could not be realized with only one feature film. This movie casts new light on the family you've come to love, and the portrayal gives the movie a darker tone. The Godfather Part II is a winner in all categories: entertaining, brilliant, deep, it flawlessly parallels two stories, and it's brutally realistic in it's demonstration of power.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
A great movie about a troubled introvert develops beautifully.
3.5/4
I must admit up front, I was very surprised that I liked The Perks Of Being A Wallflower as much as I did. I walked in with pre-set expectations, and while most of them were indeed met, this movie soared high above them in many ways. It's more than a typical, plastic, and fake teen movie. While some may praise The Perks for its image of rebellion, it's raw, unflinching truth and depth would make it appeal to a wider audience of teens and adults as well.
The director, Stephen Chbosky, also wrote the screenplay for this movie, AND the book that the movie is adapting. John Hughes was originally slated to direct this, but when he died, Chbosky assumes full creative control. I am glad this happened, because the story is his vision, and he's getting to realize it through a whole new medium. He evidently knows how to work a character, and they all seem worked to perfection.
The story follows a wallflower named Charlie who has trouble connecting with peers, as well as a traumatic event from his childhood (revealed at the end of the movie) hold him back. This movie chronicles his freshman year of high-school, which entails gaining and losing relationships, and ultimately finding his place I The middle of teenage angst. The Perks Of Being A Wallflower never fails to be brutally honest about Charlie's emotions and problems in his life.
Everyone of Charlie's friends is a senior in high-school. While they have problems in their own minds, there is a separating factor between theirs and Charlie's. Charlie's problems are purely based on unfortunate circumstances, while his friends problems are for the most part brought on by themselves. The way it's subtlely conveyed: Charlie is from middle-class roots while his friends are from the elite wealthy. They offer Charlie support, and they think they can relate to his feelings. It turns out that they have was each other's solutions. Charlie needs someone to take interest in him, and his good friends need someone who's willing to listen to them. This rings true to a teen culture, that everyone experiences at some point, which is filled with both self-indulged and personal real-life issues. Everything is so confusing, especially when depression, love, and need-for-acceptance all want to take the front seat.
As far as the acting, Charlie (Logan Lerman) and Patrick (Ezra Miller) totally steal the show. Patrick is the class-clown and helps keep the heavy-handed plot fairly light-hearted and fun, while Charlie is just a great all-around guy, just with a past that was horrible to him and a boatload of anxiety. The actors keep the characters relatable for the full effect of their preformances.
If you haven't had the pleasure of getting to see this gem, take advantage. It will resonate with anyone who is currently in, or who has ever been through adolescence. All in all, it's a great coming-of-age tale and phenomenal among the ranks of "teen movies".
Children of the Corn (1984)
King's rural Nebraska thriller does entertain.
2/4
Even though it doesn't live up to its marketing as a scary movie, it still has it moments of suspense, and was also quite entertaining. The light-hearted treatment of quite disturbing material proved to actually be quite engaging, and the fact that not ALL of its characters took their fanaticism seriously proved to help sedate the movie. If all of the Gatlinian children were more than just blind followers of their leader, Children Of The Corn would probably go from it's current state to overbearing.
The fact that the plot can suspend itself with barely any character development is (in its own unique way) pretty remarkable. It's just two parties colliding in one of the most screwed up situations. An aspiring doctor and his tag-a-long girlfriend are driving through Nebraska trying to make it to Seattle when they run over a dead body in he street. When they enter the town of Gatlin to report the corpse, they run into two orphans. There, they learn that the town is run by a child "zealot" and his accomplices, who have killed off all of the town's resident adults (smart people). Minimal character development packs the biggest punch here, as the tactic is to try and not get the audience too attached to the characters. After all, this is a horror film, right?
Well, I've just set you up for my biggest problem with Children Of The Corn.... it misses so many opportunities. The lack of depth in the characters makes them vulnerable to a sick or sadistic plot twist. The characters in Children Of The Corn should have been let fall prey to even greater evils. This movie takes no chances, and in result has only half of the scares you'd want it to.
The movie grabbed your attention, and excersized it HARD. It doesn't give many places for breathers, but at the same time, it's an easy run. In other words, this movie won't scare you into a heart-attack, but it has a sufficient amount of suspense. It'll do it's job, you'll have your fun, and it'll stay it's welcome.
The Blind Side (2009)
Entertaining, but irritatingly soft-to-the-touch
2.5/4
There is something so undeniably inept about the way The Blind Side is presented. It's an entertaining movie, but it seems to dispel any hard facts, and glide thoughtlessly over big issues. This gives way to a movie that feels like it was carried by its many embellishments and heavily watered-down.
This is based on the true story is of a 17-year-old names Michael Oher. He lives a life devoid of any opportunities. One day, a family takes him in, sends him to a prestigious private school, teaches him how to play football, and ultimately lands him on the Baltimore Ravens. It's a truly great story, but it was told in a very glib manner. It was also told in an arguably degrading way towards its real-life counterpart. In case you didn't know, Michael Oher himself has been vocal about that.
The acting and character interactions were quality, and probably the best aspect of this movie. Sandra Bullock gives a powerful, if not over-acted, female lead. When the characters don't feel like they're putting on an act, they're actually quite charming.
What is left of the movie runs together much in the manner of a train crash for me. The story seems to rushed to give its own merits any attention. The movie glides in-and-out of focus of what it needs to do: shed light on the issues it introduced. While it told a story well, it didn't leave you thinking about the movie.
Overall, The Blind Side is extraordinarily average. It's neither memorable for its football, nor its drama, and it doesn't give a true story a good movie-screen experience. Remember The Titans? I wish.
The Hunger Games (2012)
It's a good book-adaption with a great female lead.
3/4
After reading The Hunger Games books, I immeadiately HAD to watch the movies. I knew the odds were in their favor in a subjective sense. While I can't say I liked either the book or the movie better, I'd say the book tells the story in a more complete and emotional manor, while the movie makes the same story more accessible. (The Hunger Games movies pay homage to their source material, unlike some other re-makes).
The 12 districts of Panem, who are under a dictatorship that requires a teenaged boy and girl from each district every year. The selected people are put into an arena where they will fight to the death on live TV. The story centers around Katniss Everdeen, (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers for the games in her sister's place. Jennifer Lawrence gives a great Everdeen, and Josh Hutcherson gives a great Peet's, but most of the non-leads (with some exceptions) felt lacking. Example: when a certain highly likable character is killed, it fails to wrench your guts.
If I had to pick one thing I was very disappointed about in this film, it would definitely be the CGI. Some of the action (ESPECIALLY a certain scene toward the end of the film....no spoilers) looks incredibly fake to the point where you aren't in the movie anymore. While it's definitely no Battlefield Earth in terms of poor CGI, it should be kicked up a notch considering the high demand for this movie.
Despite some flaws, this movie is probably my favorite "YA" movie (if not one of it's sequels) and one definitely worth a watch. It takes great care to give you the same experience you had when yo read the novel, and it's a ton of fun as well.
The Invasion (2007)
Starts off good, then it's pretty bad, and it steadily gets worse....
1/4
I recently saw The Invasion with Nicole Kidman on Netflix. I had two hours to kill one night and, well.... I slaughtered them! The Invasion irritated me more than the typical bad movie-it had the potential to be something great. It's shear lack of imagination rendered me thoughtless and underwhelmed.
The one instantly recognizable good quality this movie possesses is a great preformance from Nicole Kidman, who is a great actress. However, her talent alone couldn't save the movie. Daniel Craig gives his typical: a very boring preformance (I've never liked him as an actor). It takes manpower to run a film, one preformance simply couldn't hold the weight of The Invasion.
The first 30 minutes of The Invasion was a great set-up for what could have been a fun thriller. Kidman's character's ex-husband is coming to town/Her son is trick-or-treating on Halloween/an epidemic is coming- but the point of interest in The Invasion is never really clear to the audience. There's a lot of sciency dialogue and "studies" that don't make sense to try and justify the "boring-face" epidemic as I like to call it. If a movie calls into question that which it is about, can it be good?
In some of the films final lines, Daniel Craig says that individuality is wrong and that a new world order could finally rise due to the "boring-face" disease. The fact that this sorry excuse for a thriller, which has kicked its viewers' faces in the mud with boredom, is (possibly unknowingly) subliminally satiring communism, really makes one wonder what the studio's agenda was.
Overall, I would have to say that The Invasion is a very choppy ride, and that the biggest "adrenaline rush" you'll find here is in the very first scene of the movie (really not kidding folks, enjoy!) Kidman proves that she believed in this project, too bad she didn't get paired up with a crew or cast that shared her vision.
Explorers (1985)
A below-average movie that ends on a horrible note
0.5/4
It should be noted by everyone: 1 year after Joe Dante's big hit Gremlins, his stupid-funny Christmas monster movie, he comes back again with a HUGE failure. This piece of cinematic sin is known as "Explorers". Explorers is also the acting debut of now mainstream Ethan Hawke.
It starts off centering around three outcast kids who are obsessed with science fiction. These kind of kids are not the kind that drive you to pity out of their shear social incompetence (sort of like Ronald Miller in "Can't Buy Me Love"), they simply don't fit into a niche and you're not poked at enough to care. They find a mystery blueprint and build a spaceship, and when they find the source of the blueprint....
Well, I'm not going to spoil the ending. If you are able to stand the pointlessness that comes beforehand, you will be able to know the outcome. I will tell you this, it is the simple most sorry excuse for a climax in film history. I stand by everything I have just said. In the final 20 minutes, the lead boy (what's his name?) says "this is....not what I was expecting" in kind of a dismal tone. If the dang character is upset with the outcome, you ought to be too.
The reason this is not one of my all time least-favorite movies (the ONLY reason) is because Joe Dante does have a sense of direction in this film....or maybe it should make me more scared to know he was present.
Signs (2002)
It's great if you know what to expect.
3.5/4
M. Night Shyamalan, The Sixth Sense director, returns to the big screen again in 2002 with his new movie, Signs. This film is truly great, if poorly marketed all the way down to the opening credits. The selling point of a Shyamalan movie had become his suspense (which was here) as well as his signature twist (which took a backseat in this movie).
After the success of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, he decided to market Signs as a bit more than it actually was. If you watch Signs expecting big thrills and some truly terrifying sequences, you may walk out disappointed. This movie shows that Shyamalan can, in fact, direct more than one genre.
The story centers around a widower named Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), his younger adult brother (Joaquin Phoenix), and his two children Morgan and Bo (Rory Culkin and Abagail Breslin). Graham and his two children are grieving the loss of his wife (their mother) and his live-in brother is caught up in the family drama. When they are conflicted with the precursors to an alien invasion, it drives the family into isolation, which makes them closer. It's a very smart and engaging movie that touches on the subjects of despair and fear in a more mature manner than you might expect. The plot is driven by the characters more so than any action, and I found the "alien invasion" to be a mere plot device to propel what is really a drama.
The acting is what makes this great. The four main characters have to carry the movie for well over half of the total run time, and they do a good job of keeping the audience involved. In my opinion, this is one of Mel Gibson's better preformances, and as far as a conflicted man mourning the death of his wife, he brings a lot to the table. Joaquin Phoenix gives his standard average effort, and Rory Culkin is great as the son. M. Night Shyamalan has proven to be good at working with kids, first Cole in Sixth Sense, then Joseph in Unbreakable, and now Morgan in Signs.
Due to the fact that this is not the thriller you probably thought it was, there seems to be very easy Easter eggs scattered throughout this movie, and a much lesser end twist. There is only one way in which this movie doesn't succeed: the "end twist" seems to answer the question you didn't have, and wouldn't have had. While it truly doesn't compare to his twist in The Sixth Sense, it's easy to forgive, again, considering the joy of Signs are the characters.
This is a truly excellent movie from Shyamalan, although it's a shame some people didn't receive it too well. It had a good build-up with great momentum, but as far as chills go, it delivers fairly little. If this were marketed as a Shyamalan crossover drama, I guarantee it would be a blockbuster.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
A perfect suspense thriller and a force to be reckoned with...
4/4 ESSENTIAL
If you've talked with anyone who's anyone about The Sixth Sense, chances are you've heard "I see dead people". I encourage people who have not viewed he film to walk in to their first viewing as blind as possible, because the less you know the better. If you're farmiliar with M. Night Shyamalan's work, you'll know that he's famous for a twist at the end of his movies. This is not only Shyamalan's best twist, but one of my favorite thrillers, and a modern classic.
The Sixth Sense is not a movie that is characterized by constant jump-scares and over-the-top violence, but instead it is a very smart, well preformed, and well directed movie. It slowly reveals new information over the course of the movie, and the suspense is waiting for the next answer. However, the two main characters (played by Haley Joel Osment and Bruce Willis) are always on the same phase of he journey as you are, providing a more genuine emotion to their preformances. It is a very well-constructed, well-orchestrated film and never gives way to it's own complex plot.
As for the acting, Osment is able to play the very troubled kid, Cole, alive with raw fear. To capture such a mature preformance out of a child his age is truly incredible. Willis gives a very earnest preformance as Dr. Malcolm Crowe as well, and it'll be hard or forget as well... I was genuinely surprised at how convincing both the leads and the supporting cast was. It doesn't get more authentic than this.
The instant success of this movie prompted Shyamalan to churn out more movies made in its image. Next was Unbreakable, a fantastic movie, and quite possibly an equal to The Sixth Sense. In 2002 came Signs, which was a great drama but little for suspense. In 2004, Shyamalan returned again with his signature "plot twist" with The Village, which fails to impress me. There is no doubt that Shyamalan hit hard with this movie, as he has been trying desperately to re-create the amazing experience found here. It just goes to show a formula is only good for so long, and he nails it in The Sixth Sense.
M. Night Shyamalan has since been branded as a one-trick pony. While I disagree, I can understand those who think that. His films are similar... some are great, others aren't all that good. Even if it's true, The Sixth Sense is a pretty amazing trick and undoubtedly the movie that started it all for Shyamalan.
Ant-Man (2015)
Fun and phenomenal.
4/4
The first time I ever saw this movie was in the theatres on my birthday. This movie has held up over time amazingly, as I have had multiple screening of it since. Marvel's smash-hit "fun sized" hero, the Ant-Man has an original and hilarious take on heroism that really can't be missed.
Paul Rudd really brings a comic-book honoring preformance and accessibility to mass-audiences in his role as Scott Lang. He's an every-man disguised in an ant suit. He's the criminal, hero, father, and bro combo package working with the "old-man-with-a-past" Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) against the "evil-capitalist" Darren Cross. Along for the ride is Pym's "hot daughter" Hope (Evangeline Lilly, nice to see her in more than LOST and The Hobbit) and Scott's unwitting pals Luis, Dave and Kirt (Michael Peña, T.I., David Dastmalchian). Every character (and their actor) is truly great and compliments the others well.
What makes Ant-Man better in the ranks of Marvel's many movies to date is its balanced sense of genre. The action is smooth, the emotion is real, and the humor is, well... very funny to say the least. It will definetely be interesting to see how this characters ages in the MCU.
Most superheroes don't have as much going on as poor Scotty. He is juggling trying to be a father, a life of small-time crime, and getting tangled in the aftermath of one of Pym's soiled relationships with a former pupil. He can still pack one hell of a punch when he downsizes, and that's why he's great.
To say that this is one of Marvel's best yet is more than fair. Not many heroes (in Marvel's wonderful universe, DC's not-so-wonderful universe, or anywhere else) capture both the depth of a man and his arguably shallow antics. Ant-Man is a true winner.
The Birds (1963)
A showcase of Hitchcock's mastered technique
3/4
The Birds is the subject of an age-old debate that cinephiles often engage in: is The Birds a good or an overrated film? I am one of a neutral party that agrees with both. To me, The Birds is everything that it promised to be, nothing more.
There is no debating this: it's not Hitchcock's masterpiece. The plot is this: A woman works a pet shop, she gets an order for love birds, she travels to a coastal town to get the love birds...Birds go wild and ravage the place while she falls in love with the town hunk. Why do these birds go mad? This is one of the many questions the movie will not answer. If you care enough to analyze it, be my guest. This movie does not challenge you to find answers, as it works perfectly fine if you suspend your disbelief.
However, the plot is not where the movie earns its merits at all. The film is very surreal, intense, and mildly frightening as Hitch's signature spice. If anything is to be said about this movie at all, the way Hitch shot the Birds was flawless as far as camera work. The way he captured their spirit of destruction through the rule of thirds is truly cinematography in Hitchcock tradition. To me, his portrayal and control of the Birds is what makes the film.
The cast (especially Tippi Hedren) are very vibrant characters full of life and genuine emotion. He was able to convey these characters without the use of a musical score was very adept, although it should not go unnoticed that in the school scene the children sing a rhyme to build up suspense. Every component compliments one another in The Birds. There is truly no wasted talent.
In conclusion, I find The Birds to be a good movie. Most of all, I find it to be an important milestone in cinematic history simply for the way the birds were captured on-screen. This does not have my vote for Hitchcock's best, or even his second or third best, but it's great for what it is: a landmark movie and a fun thriller.
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
A lesser, rushed Marvel movie becomes downright predictable.
2/4
After a great original with so much room for good development, Ant Man and The Wasp felt like such a misfire. It's a fine superhero movie, but bad in comparison of what we've grown to love from the Marvel Universe. Peyton Reed may have been a mistake in the directors seat, much in the same way the Russo brothers took over Captain America: Winter Soldier from Joe Jonston, the director of the first Captain America.
The spontaneous wit of the first is traded for dull, played for laughs monologuing. (especially when Mrs. Pym takes the place of Scott Lang)
In most Marvel movies (notice I said MOST) here is a fair balance of drama and comedy. The screenplay fails to take itself seriously, and that in turn means it's harder to take the characters seriously when necessary. Also, when many new characters are introduced, they all seem to fall flat due to the rushed perspective that's obvious behind (and in front of) the camera. Unless your expecting an Adam Sandler laugher, this isn't too good...
A good quality plot becomes reduced to mere action sequences. It's more often in Ant-Man and the Wasp that plot propels the action instead of vice versa. It's possible that the over-abundance of action, new characters, and non-memorable humor all work against this movie, contrary to how it should boost the fun.
It's unfortunate that this one isn't one of the better projects by Marvel, because comic-book and movie-buffs alike have been waiting for this could-have-been-great sequel. Instead, the drawing board was too cluttered and the precision absent. This is Marvel's biggest disappointment in years.
Pilgrim's Progress (1978)
Astonishing, just for the wrong reasons.
0/4 BOMB
Not many people know about Liam Neeson's acting debut for the big-screen. I didn't at first either. As a matter of fact, I wasn't engaged enough to realize Neeson was in this garbage until the credits rolled... It was so bad that its just too hard to give this review a nice intro.
The movie is an inept reimagining on John Bunyan's classic of the same name. It chronicles Pilgrim's journey of righteousness. If Pilgrim's Progress (the book) had a plot that could do well on screen, that's one thing. This is another.
The acting was more tedious than any other aspect of this movie. It was as dry as firewood and about as convincing. The cinematography is in dire need of experimentation. Scenes are either shot in the standard 30's style and no imagination. Then it hit me: There was probably only one person in the room passionate about making this film... the poor investor.
I'm not going to go on criticizing every little detail of this movie. It's not that I don't want to, it's that this movie has a profound lack of attention to detail, among its heaping pile of problems. This movie is a true stinker in every sense of the word, and somehow, Neeson made it big time in spite of it.
Jamaica Inn (1939)
More Laughton than Hitchcock in this OK effort.
2/4
"You can't direct a Laughton picture. The best you can hope for is to referee."
-Alfred Hitchcock
This certainly rings true for this picture. Laughton owned the production company, funded the movie, and started as the villain. Hitchcock, at this stage, was just an on-call director who only got to carry out his visions to a certain extent.
Due to Laughton having all of the power behind the scenes, he over acted as a silly antagonist and inconsistent with the mood of the story. While this played out very tounge-in-cheek, it turned our to be fairly entertaining.
Laughton was reportedly so uncooperative with Hitchcock, that he eventually just gave up on the movie. This soiled the movie, as the twist was obvious after 10 minutes and some of the top-billed cast got next to no screen time in the midst of Laughton.
After production was finished, Hitchcock left England for Hollywood, making Jamaica Inn his last British film. Whether this was purely coincidental or directly in retaliation to this movie is still unknown. While for Hitchcock, this is a pretty terrible movie, Laughton still entertains as one of early cinema's most memorable villains.