Reviews

If you have five minutes to spare and are in the mood for a short film, you should definitely check this one out. This film is very simple but perfectly executed. The viewer can enjoy this as both a horror film in the literal sense, or a horror film in the metaphorical sense in regards to what this film represents.

I went in completely blind to this short, and I was surprised by how it was so well shot. My level of surprise didn't last long, as I quickly checked the credits to see this was a Scorsese project. In true Scorsese fashion, the lighting, shot composition and editing were all top notch. It was cool to see a Scorsese horror film as that is not really a genre he works in.

I understand that avid fans of the books are not particularly fond of this film. Apparently, this film omits a large amount of detail from the original source material. Lucky for me, I never read the books and don't know what I'm missing.

This film does an excellent job of establishing a clear tonal shift from the prior entries, while still maintaining all of the charm of what "Harry Potter" is. It is amazing how this is the darkest entry, but it also the funniest. There are so many great laugh out loud moments that contrast very well with moments of true suspense and even some light horror.

The pacing, editing, and cinematography in this film are excellent. Despite such a long run time, this film keeps me engaged start to finish. The scenes are cut perfectly, and no single scene feels like it takes up too much focus. I think this film has some of the most underrated cinematography of the franchise. My favorite scene was when Bellatrix and Narcissa are cutting through back alleys to go and visit Snape. The framing, lighting, and color pallet are spectacular. I rewinded this scene a few times.

Why didn't I give this a 9 or a 10? Casting. In general, I am a huge fan of the casting for the Potter films. However, not everyone is always great. Personally, I think Bonnie Wright is a bit stiff as Ginny. Maybe this is just how Ginny is in the books? Wright doesn't put forth a bad performance, but compared to everyone else, she does come across as a weaker link.

This is a great film that I always enjoy coming back to!

I think this is a very average film. This film is constantly taking one step forward and then reversing its progress with one step backwards.

The humor is average. The laugh out loud moments get negated by some distractingly bad jokes and tropes.

I found the animation style to be very uninspired and boring, but was surprised by how great the abstract shape scene looked.

I think that a big draw on this film was the pacing. For a plot that revolves around a sense of urgency, I never felt like the clock was actually ticking.

Also for a film set in SF, where are the homeless people and needles? Sorry Pixar, but a few shopping carts ins't going to cut it.

This is another top 250 head scratcher for me.

These films are a ton of fun to watch. The humor is great, the special effects are solid, and every character is full of so much depth and richness no matter how big or small their part is. These films are perfectly casted. Each actor nails their role, and there is never a single bad performance.

This is probably the best put together film out of the franchise. The cinematography and editing are top notch. There are some truly stunning shots and some really cool POV shots as well. A scene that I really enjoyed was Harry's POV from underneath the invisibility cloak.

Time travel is a tricky subject to cover. I do not think that this film perfectly executes the concept, but I do think that this film makes a great effort. Although this isn't my favorite of the Harry Potter film of the series, it is still a very good film.

It's hard not to like this film! The story is great, the child acting is not cringe, and the soundtrack is superb. Wood Harris and Ryan Hurst have excellent chemistry and are a blast to watch. They both look 30, but thats ok, as aside from Gosling, pretty much no one looks like they are in high school.

Denzel is the best part of this film. He nails every single scene he is in and delivers some amazing monologues. He also does a fantastic job displaying emotion in the quieter scenes that required little to no dialogue.

I think that this film would have benefited from an R rating and a few scenes being reworked or removed all together. A film about race relations in the early 70's south should contain more profanity and racial slurs. Not having them allows for a PG rating and a broader reach, but having them would add to the authenticity and help with viewer immersion.

On the same note, I found the scene where Sunshine kisses Bertier to be unrealistic and immersion killing. I understand that this film isn't a documentary and that the kiss didn't happen in real life. I also understand that this was a comedic scene used to show Sunshine's edge and personality. However, with that being said, even as a joke, this scene does not make sense for the set and setting that the film takes place in.

This wasn't as good as I remember it to be, but still a good film and worth the watch!

Tinfoil hat jokes aside, this is an awful film. Billed as a comedy, this film made me laugh maybe 3 times? The scene of Blart prancing around on his Segway was the peak of comedy for this film. The rest of the humor is below remedial. The characters and writing are embarrassingly one dimensional. Blart is a weak, cowardly, pathetic, obese, shell of a man. He gets beaten up by a middle aged woman in a women's underwear store. He is constantly embarrassed and emasculated. He isn't even the hero at the end of the film, as he gets bailed out by another cop. His character sees no progression or growth.

Was this film a humiliation ritual for Kevin James? Maybe.

I guess this could be a fun watch if you are braindead or you are looking for a relatively short feature length film that serves as a time capsule from the mid 2000's. We get to see Blart playing an arcade version of the Rockband video game and there is plenty of parkour to go around.

The most impactful thing that came from this film was "Paul Blart" became the universal insult for fat cops.

I'm surprised at how polarizing this film is. I had a blast watching this!

The cinematography is excellent, the costumes are amazing, and the dialogue is natural and engaging. The vintage Porsche, the banging soundtrack, the Kurt Russell narration, what's not to love?! The driving sequences through the Hollywood hills were one of my favorite aspect of this film. I thought that those driving scenes were some of Tarantino's best work in his career.

Is this film a little heavy on the feet shots? Yes. Were there are a few minor performances that missed the mark? Yes. Bobby Axelrod wearing a bad wig pretending to be Steve McQueen wasn't great, but it was only a minor blip in the film.

Watch this film.

Does this film really deserve to be a 7.7/10? Some reviews are saying that this film is a masterpiece. I don't think that this film is a masterpiece. I actually don't think that this is a very good film at all.

Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio make the best out of a bad script and a directionless plot. Without them, this film would be a 1/10. No other actor stands out in this film. Everyone else is very flat and one dimensional.

I felt like this film didn't have a lot of direction. Was that intentional? Was the lack of direction to show the audience how aimless Gilbert is? If so, I think that was a poor choice. I think that Gilbert's hollow life could have easily been depicted in a more cohesive narrative, which would have made for a more enjoyable viewing experience.

From a film making point of view, How many times do we need to see a scene to fade to black? Is that the only possible scene transition?

I don't think this is a terrible film, I just think it is an overrated film.

Not every story needs to be turned into a film. This has to be one of the most boring screenplays I've ever sat through. Although the film is only 1hr 23, the pointless small talk that takes place leading up to the questioning feels endless. To make matters worse, this small talk continues throughout the film, and is often interjected during some of the more intense scenes. I get that they were going for authenticity, but I think that the script really dragged as a result of this choice.

Sweeney, Hamilton, and Davis all provided solid performances, but I felt zero connection to any of their characters. Why should I care about any of these characters? We barely know them! We get zero introduction to Reality or to the agents. Was I supposed to do my homework before watching this?

I also wasn't a fan of how they mixed real pictures of Reality with pictures of Sydney recreating Reality's pictures. I found this to be distracting. The two look nothing alike. I think they should have just stuck with one set of pictures, or cast Amy Schumer, as she would have been a better stand in.

Just read the wikipedia and save yourself 1hr 18 min.

There are a lot of good things about this film. The animation and art style are just as amazing as the first iteration. The attention to detail is superb. The music choices were great! I was a big fan of the James Blake track and thought that the Bobby Bland track was a perfect fit as well! My issue with this film was the plot. This film has essentially 3 plot lines, and I think it should have just focused on 1. All 3 of these plot lines would have been great on their own and could have been used for their own film. I could have watched an entire film about how Miles and Gwen are both struggling to balance being super heroes while maintaining a relationship with their families. I could have also watched an entire film about Spot starting off as a joke and ending up as a formidable force with themes of revenge and retribution. I also would have been happy with just a story about the conflict between Miles and Miguel. Unfortunately, I think that the choice to combine all 3 of these plot lines really weakened each individual plot and ultimately led to some pacing issues.

I don't get the hype on this one. I like sushi, I like Japan, and Jiro seems like an interesting guy. I found Jiro's dedication to his craft and his attention to detail to be both extremely admirable. Even with all that said, I wasn't a fan of this film. Maybe it was the structure, or maybe it was the the subject matter. The whole project just felt unnecessary and lacking purpose. Why does any of this matter? What is the deeper story here. Or is there no deeper story, and this is just about a man who loves to make sushi? The documentary touches on Jiro's obsessiveness and his relationship with his children, but it never really digs deep. I don't think that the story they decided to tell needed to be told in this format with an 1hr 21 minute runtime. I feel like this project could have worked better as an article or a 15 - 20 minute youtube video. Maybe it would have worked better if it was adapted into a drama.

I really wanted to like this film, but it lost me at multiple points. For starters, what's up with Keanu's southern accent? Why did they feel that was necessary to the plot? It was really distracting and he broke it multiple times. I think they could have found other ways to show that his character was a fish out of water in NYC without the classic accent trope. My next big issue with this film was that it felt like it was trying to be too many things at once. Is this a courtroom drama? Or a supernatural thriller? Is it rosemary's baby? Or is it a commentary on greed and morality? I think this film would have been significantly better if it was a bit more focused. I also was not a fan of the ending. The film did feel like a fever dream, but I thought it was a cop out for it to essentially be one.

I can appreciate this film as I am big fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm. With that being said, this isn't a good film. The overarching plot is a good idea, but the execution is poor. The story lacks cohesion and has a bunch of pointless scenes that aren't funny and don't advance the narrative. What is cool to see is that a lot of these scenes have either ended up in Curb or have had clear influence on Curb episodes.

Aside from the two quarters bit, the other running jokes unfortunately didn't land with me. The "you're a doctor" line, and the missing balls bits just weren't funny to me. The Danny Pepper character was awful from his very first scene. I would have cut his part entirely and reworked the script. Richie was ok, but he is pretty much just Larry David. The problem with that is only Larry David can play Larry David.

Evan was forgettable. I do think he would do a great Patrick Bateman impression though.

I enjoyed LD's cameo and Phillip Baker Hall's scene. The line "What are you Spanish? Because you're sounding a little Spanish" was one of the rare moments I actually laughed.

I think it would be cool to see LD take another crack at this via a remake.

This is a fantastic action film. If you want to watch a well written thought provoking drama, this isn't the film you should watch. If you want to watch a fun, action/adventure movie with good social commentary and well timed moments of levity, this is the film you should watch!

Stalone and Crenna both put on good performances. I thought that Dennehy overacted just a bit, but not to the degree where his performance heavily detracts from the film. The rest of the supporting cast was unmemorable. I think it was actually a good thing that the supporting cast was unmemorable, because they all came off a bit too comic-book-ish for my liking. Having their performances kind of lump together into one big antagonist role was probably for the best.

I was really impressed with how well this film was shot and edited. The flashbacks are presented really nicely, the beauty and harshness of British Columbia's wilderness is perfectly captured, and the runtime of 1hr 33 provides for a really concise and enjoyable viewing experience.

There are two reasons why I gave this film a 2/10 and not a 1/10. Reason #1 is that I found the monologues and single take shots to be impressive. My level of awe wore off after about 30 minutes, but for the first 30 minutes, I was impressed. Reason #2 is that this film likely paved the way for the "Before Trilogy". The before trilogy has a very similar style, but does everything better than this film. For starters, this film's plot makes no sense. Wallace Shawn is a broke struggling play-write, yet he chooses to go to a fancy dinner with a guy he is actively avoiding and doesn't know all that well. How can Wallace afford or justify this dinner when money is so tight for him? Does he just assume that Andre will pick up the tab? My next big issue with this film is with the writing. At the start, the individual monologues are good. However, as the dinner progresses, the film doesn't depict a conversation between Wallace and Andre. Instead, Andre just rambles on and practically lectures Wallace. Wallace sits there quietly, listens, and eats with his mouth open. There isn't any true back and forth conversation until the last 20 minutes or so. This is not natural. This is not how real people have a conversation. Conversation implies both parties are conversing, otherwise it is just a lecture. This lack of true conversation is further highlighted by the fact that these two actors have zero chemistry with each other. This movie would be so much better if Wallace got the check after 30 minutes and the film rolled credits.

Why isn't this film rated higher? Probably because it's not a very good film. This film has horrendous writing. The dialogue is comic-book-level corny. Nobody talked like that in the 1980s, and nobody talks like that now. Every single performance in this film fell flat. Pacino put me to sleep on my first watch-through, Karen Allen is practically nonexistent, and Paul Sorvino definitely didn't land Goodfellas based on his performance in this. Some particularly bad scenes were Pacino's surveillance scene and his dance scene in the club. The scene of him "dancing", which looked more like he was convulsing, was so poorly done that it was unintentionally hilarious. The only good thing about this film is getting to see 80's NYC in its full grimy glory.

This is not a good movie. It was impressive when it came out because there wasn't much to compare it against. Does this film deserve to be rated an 8/10 just because it was one of the first films ever made? Does that mean that anything that came out before 1902 should be a 9/10 or higher? There is nothing redeeming about this film. There isn't special camera work, the actors are indistinguishable from each other, and the music is drab. The best thing about this film was the small amount of time that we got to see the face on the moon. Giving this movie a high score would be the equivalent of giving out a participation award. Making a good film isn't a race. Having an earlier release date does not equate to having a better film. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it is good.

Let's start with the positives. Danny Aiello, Samuel Jackson, Rosie Perez, and Frank Vincent were all clear bright-spots in this film. Each of these actors put on a good performance and felt authentic in their role. With that being said, with the exception of Jackson, the other actors were likely behaving more than they were acting. Another positive was the camera work. There were some cool POV shots, a few cool tracking shots, and some excellent use of lighting and shadows. I thought that the ice cube scene in Tina's apartment was a particularly well shot scene. I was also a fan of the themes and messaging of this film. The themes and messages of this film were relevant when it came out, and are still relevant today. Unfortunately, there are many things about this film that I did not like, and they all detract and distract from the film's important messaging. For starters, the opening credit sequence is ridiculous. Rosie Perez dancing like Elaine Benes to Public Enemy would not be how I would want to start this film and set the tone. I probably wouldn't have thought twice about this opening if the the dancing happened within the story, but I think that the choice to break the fourth wall was a mistake. My next gripe with this film was the introduction of Spike Lee's sister. WTF was that?! I was so thrown off, I thought that was his girlfriend! Totally distracted from a cool character introduction of Mookie. My next issue has more to do with the script as a whole than any scene in particular. Why is everyone so cartoonish in this film? Everyone acts like a caricature and stereotype despite the serious and real world underlying subject matter. The acting often felt very "theater/play" like, which really killed any possibility of immersion. This film also suffers a lot from expositional dialogue. The worst example of this was when Mookie went home to take a shower. The conversation that took place only existed to inform the audience about upcoming plot lines. Why does Mookie turn on Sal at the end? It is implied that Sal and Mookie have known each other a long time and clearly get along. Sal frequently gives Mookie a pass for slacking off on the job. Mookie goes home during the middle of the day to take a shower, and Sal just laughs it off. Mookie talks on the company phone while orders are coming through, and when Sal's son makes note of it, Sal ignores it and reprimands his son instead. If you're going to have Mookie turn on Sal, have the resentment build from the start of the movie. Don't have a scene right before the riot where Sal tells Mookie that he sees him as another son. Don't have Mookie defend Sal and the business throughout the film. Is he really just doing it for a paycheck? He delivers pizzas, and according to Rosie Perez's character, he makes no money doing that. Mookie could easily get another job delivering for somewhere else. Having Mookie be the one to start the riot made no sense and felt like a lazy way to make Mookie the catalyst for the finale. Unfortunately, the overacting and sloppy writing really detract from what should be a great film that has such a poignant message.