movies_are_life_

In a Violent Nature is a pun in the most fantastic way. We hear the sounds nature during long scenes of our lead character, that's right, the killer, walking in the woods. No one can talk about this movie without bringing this up. It's not completely original, but it does make itself stand out enough to get a theatrical release, and thankfully so. The more you can stay away from outside distractions, the more likely you'll be able to pay attention to the movie.

I loved the mental involvement that you create while watching this. There's a fun suspense, not which characters will survive the killer, but the methodology of how the killer moves about and when he ultimately decides to go for a kill. Some will say the "gimmick" of the pov shots were overdone, but I appreciate that it stuck with it's method through the entire run time. It's like if The Blair Witch Project would've given up it's gimmick and changed to a more regular film halfway through. I will say that fans of 70's exploitation and 80's slashers will find this movie satisfying on both levels just as long as you have a good internal dialogue to talk your mind through all the scenes of the killer walking. You're in the mind of the killer, and each scene of him walking allows you to think something different about the characters and plot.

There's some moments of stand out gore effects, but uncovering who backstory of the killer piece by piece is what helps this earn its rating. I could see how sequels could improve upon the shortcomings of this one. It does have some pacing issues and could've gotten a bit more schlocky. Overall, this was fun in the theatre and smartly stuck to it's style! The movie knows that most people won't like it, but it caters very well to the audience it shoots for.

Movies are either objectively or subjectively not good. The more subjectively bad it is, the more filmgoers should be able to agree on the degree of it's shortcomings. Going into Furiosa I think it's important to know that I generally liked the first three Mad Max movies. I didn't care for Fury Road. The action scenes are great to look at. That's not enough for me to like the movie. I gave Furiosa a chance simply because I had hopes for something better. This was not to be the case.

Most of the time the movie had me intrigued as to what was going on. Unfortunately, my curiosity of scenes resulted in laughing at stupidity, or flabbergasted at answers that left gaping questions. An example of this is when the child Furiosa (who eats up way too much screen time) cuts her hair and fashions a wig out of it. This leads to something dumb, then another dumb thing, then the "payoff" leads nowhere other than confusion and multiple plot holes. Not even the action is good as there's scenes that could've been a choreographer's wet dream, but ends up being a choppy mess. The big semi truck action scene had me face-palming at the illogical approach. This review could be a two hour read where I explain the movie in-depth just to point out every bad thing.

One of the few things that I liked was Dementus. In dog-eat-dog world, he's a villain you root for, especially since Furiosa is the worst character in the film. Even Dementus became a joke by the end. Not since The Flash from a year ago have I been so disappointed by a movie that was so unbelievably bad that I couldn't believe the reality that it got past the script stage. The fact that seemingly so many people either ignore the issues or give them a pass is mind-boggling to the point where I have a fear that we are in a period of film that is bleak to the point where not even critics can recognize bad writing, direction, and everything in between.

Going into the movie I felt that it was a romance with random action scenes. It's actually an action movie that has romance in it. This smart direction allows the film to do what it wants to do which is to be a "love letter" to stuntmen as well as general movie making. And the stunts are done very well!

Smartly, we know the motivations of our main leads. They don't have to come out and say where things can lead. Will the fall guy win back the director? The outcome is possible, but only if he does and says the correct things. Explain why he left her. Win her back. Prove he's worth another chance. The fact that he has to use his stunt skills to keep his job and therefore stay on the film set around his former girlfriend is a great way to show his loyal need to the film production, but also his willingness to prove his worth to her. Along the way, we get meta conversations that are tied together with filming and editing techniques. We get drug-fueled visuals, comedy, and impressive action that continues to prove why cgi should be used sparingly.

Of course not everything makes total sense. But the movie is a lot of fun and makes you not care about these small drawbacks, although the ending seems to have been re-shot. One ending was set up and would've worked very well on multiple points, but we are treated to something that ends the movie on a bit of a bum note. Overall, though, it succeeds with memorable action, great chemistry, and mostly satisfying third act.

Sure, it's an Apes movie in the age of cgi. Three of these came out several years ago and they look the same (or even better) than Kingdom. Even with good cgi, this movie is visually less stunning, but doesn't even have a well written script or a sense of urgency to keep you entertained beyond the first act. I watched it and liked stuff, but the more parts that happened, the more a fulfilling story came apart.

The first act sets up a few of the characters, sure, but has no story. The real story isn't even realized until three quarters into the movie, and then it's just bland action from there on out. It's the lack of action that doesn't fill the space of a story that seems as though it's written while being made. The most interesting character is not in the movie enough and is in a scene that has limited emotional impact in a part where the audience should feel something beyond just liking some visuals. The female that comes off as a feral only to show intelligence when the script requires and the man who buckles his knees to the apes aren't fleshed out at all. I sided with the villains because at least they seemed to have a purpose.

Yes, there's good parts. Some character moments and visuals are good enough to keep me from giving up on the film, but it all leads to a plot hole action finale that had my hand pressed to my head at the stupidity. The film is a first act of a movie that cares more about setting up two more movies instead of being its own film. While enjoyable visually, the end result falls flat and doesn't make me care to see what's next.

Abigail has gotten flak regarding its trailer giving away a "twist". While this is partly true, I felt the trailer made it seem like there would be non-stop ballerina dancing throughout. It came off feeling like it would be a schtick that never stopped. Thankfully the ballerina aspects are kept close to a minimum, albeit never fully explained.

The strength of the film is its ability to keep you guessing, not only what is happening to each character as they are dealt with, but to guess as to the extent our groups of characters are good or secondary villains. Whereas there are some dumb things that happen in the first act, the bulk stays away from dumbing down the audience. We know generally what to expect when it comes to our lead villain, but the rules of the genre are well hidden and only revealed when it is necessary to move the characters forward. Although we get a lot of insight into what the villain is, we do not understand much about who they are. How often she play her game? What type of life does she normally have? Who has to clean up the mess each time?

Some questions wouldn't get answered, but the audience shouldn't have to ask them in the first place. The story is self-contained and doesn't have anywhere to go other than a prequel. It sure is set up for another film to possibly expand what little characters it set up, and it's this lack of character that leaves me feeling unfulfilled. Still, if succeeds a lot more than it fails, nitpicks aside. Deaths could use some diversity, but it's still a bloody good time.

Guy Ritchie has had a string of underwhelming box office pulls, and it's not because they are bad movies. It's the titles that deter people. The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is word salad, but hopefully it doesn't drive away fans of what they can expect: a war movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. The dramatic weight of the story is not well presented, so it could've been a story set in anytime, but this is done on purpose, so I do not see it as a fault.

Guy Ritchie typically brings a good sense of style to his movies with some comedy thrown in for good measure. Kind of like a more light-hearted Tarantino with dialogue that isn't as good, but technically superior than other directors when it comes to a stylistic action that is well-paced. Ministry mostly intercuts between a group of mercenary figures who are making their way to the African coast and killing anyone who stands (floats) in their way, and a man and woman who are infiltrating the Nazi African front on land. You don't have to choose sides as to whether you prefer the action story or the spy plot. Both support one another to help the film ease its way to its thrilling conclusion that lets the viewer experience how things go down rather than prepare us for what will happen. The characters themselves don't know exactly how things will go to plan and mostly wing it.

Comparisons to Inglourious Basterds is unavoidable. The story is reminiscent of hundreds of movies. Ritchie doesn't shy away from his Tarantino-esque World War 2 film, but embraces it, all the while doing everything his way. Sure, the actors don't resemble their real life counterparts very well, and things don't necessarily feel visually like they happened, but the movie is up front about its laissez-faire attitude towards the historical aspects, but that's how I know to accept the comedic tone and just enjoy the movie. It's a great jumping off point if you want to dive deeper into the real life events.

Civil War has a very simple plot; get to the president to get a final photo and interview before he is murdered. The United States is in a civil war and most of the reasoning, who is who, which side is the movie for, and other questions are (mostly) left open for no interpretation. The script allows for the viewer to focus on the photographers neutral stance. They are there to take photos and do an interview to document what is happening rather than presenting their personal viewpoints.

We are dropped into a civil war that has been ongoing for some time. Whether you are in a city or rural area, you are surrounded by danger and a bleak future. If a young girl wants to tag along on a dangerous trip to Virginia, then it's no more dangerous than her staying in New York, and perhaps less so because she can learn some things along the way. If veterans of journalistic activities want to endanger their lives to pursue their drives, then no better time than now. Living life more dangerously than normal because the world around you has become a more dangerous place is worth it to some. Knowing the why a civil war happened can have the same, or even less, importance than seeing the results and preventing it for the future.

If you want more politics or see too deeply into the politics (whether you're right or wrong) you will have more of a negative feeling regarding the film. Watching Civil War as a non-partisan lover of the craft of filmmaking, you'll walk away finding it to be a great experience in the horrors of witnessing how a civil war will unfold, no matter which side is which. It's sometimes violent, sometimes beautiful, but always done with great filmmaking.

The First Omen is one of those films that you sit back and wait for the twist and the cliffhanger. Unfortunately, the audience will know both of these far ahead of time. The journey getting to the third act stumbles along with random acts of confusion where not much seems to really happen.

Positively speaking, the direction and acting are both very good and work well together when there's scenes that focus on Nell Tiger Free and her internal struggle to figure out what is happening with all the characters that surround her. Unfortunately, it's when we start branching out with other characters and deepening the plot that the plot becomes muddy. Scenes stand out as being visually enthralling, but underneath the stylistic aspects of the storytelling, I couldn't help but to question everything that happens in the second half. And these questions come about not because I missed a line of dialogue, but because things happen that are irrational.

A tighter script, more horror, and a true twist would really set this apart from the genre. It can't stand up against the first film nor other horror movies that are coming out in 2024 simply because it doesn't add up as being scary, being smart, or being fun.

When remaking a movie, ask why and how you can honor or improve it. Road House's answers to these are: why, just because it's an IP that could draw people, how can you honor or improve, no need to honor or improve anything. Jake Gyllenhaal is a good draw and it's interesting to see the choices they do for a remake, but there's not much draw other than those things. Unfortunately if you are drawn to the movie, nothing will make you want to revisit is like you would with the original.

Even if you were not compare the remake to the original, there's some glaring issues with this tropical action mess. Things start off good enough. We get the "I'm not interested in your offer to be a cooker at a bar" to mind changed 2 minutes later. Some nice scenes with Dalton being introduced to the Florida Keys beach town. Stakes are set up early on and there's some good fights happening, especially with Gyllenhaal displaying high levels of charisma. This is where things start to fall apart, though, as the villains are base level with Conor McGregor's character especially having no ambition. Music choices could be better. There's protagonists that have no place in the film and others that could be developed more, with the love interest being cannon fodder for a cgi-ridden third act.

Everything that elevates the 1989 classic from being a generic film is left out of the remake. What you have left is a movie that looks good and has good moments, but offers nothing to make it memorable. It's not a movie you necessarily hate, but there's nothing to love. A new theory in Hollywood will be how much a script is written by AI. This feels like one of them.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire felt a lot like the original, while not relying on the original to weave a fun ghost busting story. I say weave because there's a lot going on. Many characters all with their own character arcs are cleverly edited together in a story that is blended into the drive of the film, which is its characters. While you could just make it full of ghost action, we get treated to some interesting character dilemmas with some smart comedy sprinkled throughout.

Nostalgia. Memberberries. Fan service. While not negative for a lot (most) people, many others view these things as detriments to a movie. To me, they are a part of a franchise's identity, as long as they aren't used to fill empty space. Frozen Empire never got stagnated by nostalgia, nor did anything ever outlast itself. Funny lines came quick and were never dwelled upon. Action that could've padded the run time was cut short in favor of story. It handled its complex plot, but simple story very well by focusing on its characters and their situations rather than unnecessary action to fill the run time. Yes, there's a lot of characters, and some have little screen time, but they were all utilized exactly how they should have been, even if they all didn't contribute as much as the main characters. It's these side characters to help expand the layers of subplots that come together in the end.

My fear for the movie was how it would handle the fact that there's several kids who are taking part in action and science of ghost busting. It needed to be addressed, and the movie did this head on. Everything that played out made sense in the real world. I was astonished that the filmmakers didn't gloss over the idea that some kids would be involved in saving the city from a horned demon ghost. In the end, not only will families enjoy the fun nature of the movie, it passes on a technical level as a bonus that turns it from something that could've been okay, to a surprise film that I had a lot of fun with.

I want to love this movie. Despite being in a confused state throughout the film, I enjoyed what I was seeing visually. The lack of dialogue didn't work for me, although it's an aspect that would lessen the more I learned about the characters and world. I just don't get much of a chance at that within the movie. Despite my uninvolvement of the Dune world and its characters, I still have to be honest with the faults of the script and editing.

Other than the overarching plot, scenes happen rather than you being lead into scenes via an emotional journey. The first hour is a back and forth of random tests and does she like him or not. Many characters simply appear in the movie, some deep into the runtime, including a main villain who has no discernible traits other than evil for the sake of it. Some characters appear very briefly and don't do much at all. The motivation of everyone was stripped out of the script. We see an abundant amount of screen time on someone riding a worm, but large battles will abrubtly end after very little setup. Did we need a large segment of screen time involving the nukes, when we could've just been told that there's nukes? The nuke scene feels as a standout filler sequence perhaps to be overshadow a few dozen moments of filler that could've been replaced with plot.

I would challenge the praisers of this film to explain why everything was perfect. Austin Butler's character was great! Why? Because he was so one dimensional? The battles are the best! You mean snippets of battles that we got and one where it was hard to tell who was who. The score was amazing! Oh, the unbelievably overused bong noise that will randomly appear in the most tepid of scenes? Even the "twist" ending was foreshadowed in the first few minutes. This film is all spectacle with no emotional payoff. The number one praise that people will use to describe greatness of Dune 2 is the cinematography. This should be a leg that a great movie stands on, not the foundation. Although the direction and technicality of the look of Dune 2 is epic, the writing and editing are faulty. Maybe upon rewatches I would like it more since I might understand more of the details (after getting those details from other sources), but it's still nowhere as good as it could be or as most everyone seems to think it is.

Watching Drive-Away Dolls, expect everything to be surface level. You'll smile, but not laugh much. There's bad guys, but they're not threatening. There's stakes, but you don't know what they are. Much like the title (dolls replacing the word dykes), the movie doesn't seem to really go for what it wants. There's quite a lot to like, but it comes off feeling too flat.

All of the "issues" in the movie feel like they are on purpose. Any questions you have concerning characters and their roles, motivations of the lead characters, and other moments don't need to be elaborated upon...just as long as there's other things to make you don't care about the thin aspects of the script. Drive-Away Dolls has some fun acting and visuals that keep the viewer interested, but they're not strong enough to take your mind off its shortcomings.

Although many of the choices with the psychedelic cut scenes, different editing transitions, and even some of the dialogue may dissuade some viewers from liking it at all, fans of Coen's work can find a lot to like. In the end, you wish there was more to like, so it comes off as being fine while you are watching it, but may not stick with you to want to see again.

Is Bob Marley: One Love a musical biopic? I don't think so. Barring any official answer to what that is, they tend to take a deeper dive into a musical artist or band. If a film does that, then it better not be afraid to tell the truth. I'm looking at you Bohemian Rhapsody. With One Love, we take a slice of life take into Bob Marley that prefers to focus on faith, family, and the power of music as opposed to diving deep into Marley's life. Even the flashbacks relate more to the themes of the film rather than telling his backstory. With that in mind, the film is done really well.

Bob Marley was a warrior for peace, love, and Rastafarianism, and being generally positive. He never had an ego. Smartly, One Love focuses on these ideals. We see the attempt on Marley's life that stems from political unrest. This takes Marley and the audience on a journey of finding the best way to push on and spread joy. Whether home is being with your family, going to the land where your ancestors came, or back to the place where you were born, I think the film makes an argument that it's internal love. A home for Marley is definitely Jamaica and a climax in his life came when he went back to Jamaica to give the people what they needed: happiness and hope.

Those two feelings, among many others, are what I got while watching this and they stuck with me after. If you want more details with his life/family, how he got started, other events in his life, then there's always documentaries. A slight drawback is the music that rarely feels like it's happening in camera. If you want to relax with some reggae music, fun characters who have a ton of chemistry, some funny parts, and positive vibrations, then this is a great time.

Matthew Vaughn has been involved in a lot of great movies over the years, and some not so much. It's always interesting to know whether a director can just get lucky if the script is good or unlucky if there's studio interference. Too many things go into what makes a good movie. With a cast like Argylle, a healthy budget, and his name behind it, it's inexcusable to be as bad as it is. It's a generic movie that is 60% passable fun and 40% full of blandness and plot holes.

Things get off in a good way. The opening action sequence is okay. It's a bit too digital and the action itself is surface level. You can overlook that since it's an imagining from a book. This is just the first of several things you tend to overlook, because there's some intrigue to keep you focused on some fun things going on. There's a train fight sequence that is more elaborate than the opening sequence, albeit a bit too over the top. As we get near the halfway point, things you overlook become outweighed by a story that is building itself up to fall down upon weak legs. Those weak legs come in the form of plot holes that stand out embarrassingly amongst too many characters and no true sense of direction. The plot makes sense, but our lead has no ambition to lead her to that point.

I waited to write a review to see how my thoughts would change. I left the theater knowing it was just above average (because there are a lot of fun parts), but also a lot of issues sticking out like a sore thumb. A few weeks after seeing it, the issues have stayed with me way more than the good parts. How a script with so many plot holes is greenlit with an all star cast and production (like a lot of movies nowadays) would make for a better story than what Argylle gives us. It's watchable, but you can watch 10,000 other things that are better and don't just serve a purpose to be a time passer.

The premise is fairly strong, but would need a great script that takes the story into a direction that subverts expectations. I. S. S. Doesn't do this. In fact, it goes the route of turning characters stupid and having situations happen to fit the narrative rather than coming off at all realistic.

Nothing is worse than a movie that has plot holes that glaringly stick out while you're watching it. You foresee where the shaky plot will falter, then the film proceeds to flounder itself into becoming more and more stupid because the original plot points are too weak to be paid off in a smart way. It is written into a corner where there's too many instances of plot convenience, with many going off the deep end of all plausibility. Characters inexplicably become different persons on a flip of a dime. At one point a character "dies" off screen only to come back for no reason. A character does evil things early on only to become a good guy by the end. Another character can't speak Russian well at all only to become fluent later. Someone else chooses to make a distraction in an unbelievably dangerous way. If the conflict is between the U. S. and Russia, why is the Yucatan Peninsula being bombed? These, and many other dumb decisions, lead to an end that is perhaps the dumbest moment of all.

Ultimately, when a writer can't figure out a smart way to resolve a conflict, then you should rethink the conflict. I. S. S. Becomes more stupid as it goes because its conflicts are too weak to begin with and it digs itself into a never-ending hole by the end. There's not much positive to say about this, because any positivity that I had was only in the first 30 minutes of the movie. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.

It's like The Beekeeper knows that it's not gonna be in the realm of anything higher than a 7/10, so it goes for a solid 7/10, very good overall attempt at a fun, albeit, generic action film. If you like Jason Statham movies (a genre almost of itself), then you always judge the new one against all the others.

Typically a movie is set in the backdrop of the real world unless it is outright obvious as being a fantasy or sci-fi set story. In the case of The Beekeeper everything seems realistically possible in the real world other than the FBI characters whose dialogue is very off-putting and act as if they are playing make believe agents. It will help your overall enjoyment of the movie by accepting those characters as they are and just having fun with action aspects. The action is fresh and choreographed very well, creating some memorable action set pieces. That's the main job of the movie. Make it stand out as having some solid action, despite any off-putting characters and dialogue.

Although, the story and characters could've been expanded upon a bit more, it does have a good pace and doesn't outstay its welcome. Surprisingly the movie doesn't hit you over the head with "saving the bees" talk, but their importance to the world equals that of Statham's importance to the film world. If you're a fan of Statham, then this one will happily be on your shelf as an easy one to watch in the rotation.

The Holdovers is a very typical story and mostly goes in directions you expect it to go. What makes it great is the joy you get with the actors delivering lines from a great script and a pace that never makes it feel like it's over two hours. After having just seen a similar movie with a set up, this one shows how it's done. There's not one scene that doesn't provide enjoyment to hold us over until the meat of the picture starts getting carved out.

A major highlight is the script. The dialogue written for the antagonist, if you want to call him that, sets up who he is early on. He's a pompous teacher who loves to show how smart he is by saying things to people that automatically puts him above anyone else, not because he's smart, but because he's arrogant. It's slowly revealed why he is the way he is and we want him to become a better person. The same thing is true for a student who appears to be arrogant to people around him, but the audience can see who he really is. Every interaction with these characters is energetic and fun to the point that the story is second nature and you just enjoy the ride.

Most all movies should be this way, but with a movie that has a basic storyline with a few characters, the film has a harder job of being great. By the end, our three lead characters are in a better place, even though it may not be that of a fairy tale ending. It's very realistic, although it does feel open enough to let your mind take the characters to where you want them to go. Unlike the stuck up lead character, the film doesn't come off as being the smartest jerk of the year, but rather a wise friend that you enjoy being around and will stick with you forever.

Pretentious is a word that gets tossed around a lot. It's a word that I reserve for films like Ferrari. The writing and editing is overdone to the point where they think that they are skillfully creating moments of surprises. On the contrary, they come off as withholding information unnaturally and not trusting smart writing for a smart audience.

The biggest issue with the movie is its identity. Does it want to be a family drama? Does it want to be about a fledgling business? How important is an upcoming race? Movies can be about a lot of things, but plot points in Ferrari seemingly come from out of nowhere and/or are abandoned unless they need to magically come back at the right time. Same thing happens with characters. There's scenes that mean nothing. Characters come and go. The heart of the story feels like a cross between basic domestic disputes and a gangster family that's being ran by a domineering wife. I don't know whether to truly fear some characters, or have a laugh at some of the things that happen. For the life of me I never could figure out why he couldn't get that autograph (other than bad writing).

I'm not sure how much the average moviegoer will know about the main race, but there's no build-up to it at all, other than the trope of knowing something's going to happen to a character just because the movie is giving you the clues. When you finally get to see some racing, some awful cgi intervenes turning tragedy into blank emotion. While there are good scenes and good moments, they are bookended by bad ones. The only thing that could've made this a better movie would have been to scrap it and start all over.

There's movies where there's a thin plot, but can still be convoluted. The thin plot is necessary to allow a focus on the weird things that happen. These movies are not for the masses, but for those that enjoy them, they can extrapolate so many different ideas, that no one is wrong when they come up with what the film is about and what themes were explored. Poor Things is one of those films.

What's it about? A woman with the mentality of a child goes on a journey into adulthood. To go into any more detail, I could go scene by scene or describe highlighted moments that illustrate the oddities and start spoiling the movie. It's best to prepare someone s to the type of film they can expect to experience and let them figure out what the movie is really about for themselves. For me, among many themes, the major one is how sexual freedom can shape a woman's life.

Whether it's the experimental cinematography, Willem Dafoe's burping, cross-bred animals, otherworldy scenery, or just the general wackiness in every scene, Poor Things is one of my favorites of the year. Although, not without a few faults that prevent it from being a 10, it stands out as a film that challenges the viewer and rewards you with tons of laughs, wonderment, and provoking thoughts that make it a memorable work of art that earns it an easy spot in my top of the year list.

The difference between a direct to video B movie and a blockbuster can mostly simply be budget, especially if it's sci-fi. Some people dislike the finished products, others find joy in them, despite the possible bad effects. The Abyss could easily fit into that category, but with James Cameron behind the helm, as well as an impressive cast and crew, it's a B movie masterpiece.

We get a cast of characters that range from goofballs to assholes. The script is riddled with fun dialogue and has a setup that evolves into dead serious moments with everything in between. There's not one overarching story. The characters adjust to the changing plot as we go from rescue mission to deathly set pieces, all the while a storm is brewing above the water that could escalate to a world war! Oh, yeah, and there's also something mysterious in the ocean, which only comes into the story when necessary. Each scene has a direction that takes its characters on journeys that the audience truly participates in. We don't always know what is happening, and we are right there with our heroes trying to figure out how to survive each step of the way.

Thankfully the budget is large. Scene after scene stages impressive action set pieces with incredible cgi that supports the practical displays of carnage. As the film gets more serious, the viewer becomes more and more emotionally involved until the utterly intense third act. In short, it does all the things that a B popcorn movie should do, with top notch filmmaking. It's the type of film that has a place in the technical departments of the Academy Awards, but might be too much of a popcorn movie to truly garner attention for Best Picture. For me, it's my favorite film of 2023 (seeing that I saw it for the first time at a theater). It is surely one of the best films of 1989 and will leave you wanting to talk about it in more ways than one.

First and foremost, this movie will not be for everyone simply because it is mostly dialogue-free. Truly silent, minus a few bits of radio chatter and music with action sound effects. This is what sets it apart from other revenge flicks, though, and part of the reason why it is fresh, but also a little problematic. It has to get to the action as quickly as it can, but needs to fill the run time, so has a shaky first half, albeit a very rewarding second half.

Many movies, especially from the past 10 years, start twenty minutes later than movies used to begin. Character building is lost because we are thrown into the action. For this to truly work, on a quick popcorn movie, the film would have to be just over an hour. Since we are over that theoretical minimum of 90 minutes, there's a chunk of slow-moving scenes at the start. We get hit over the head with the reasoning behind the vengeance, and it's done in a slow, no dialogue way. Once you get past this, then you can settle in for some very good action scenes! Luckily these action scenes are rewarding enough to deal with a frustratingly unlikeable hero and a shallow supporting cast.

I could definitely see rewatching this, but only for the practical action that is very well directed. Some people may not get far enough into the movie appreciate some John Woo thrills, but if you give it 30 minutes (or chapter skips), then it's very worth your time.

People might possibly fall into one of two sides. Yes, liking it or not, but more specifically those who don't mind a historical war movie that hopes it's viewers to fill in the blanks without too much worry; then there's the side who expects or wants a Napoleon movie made my Ridley Scott to be as book-accurate and detailed as can be. My approach to the film was knowing about 30% of Napoleon's exploits, but not having a large grasp on the political climate back then . If it was good, I figured Napoleon would make me delve into the true history more thoroughly.

There is/was an aura of particular hate involving a few things seemingly reviewers agreed on: choppy editing & no French language or accent. An important aspect of period films is usually accuracy with the setting. Napoleon transports you back in time whether it's the way battles were staged or simple things such as every day tasks all the characters did. The cinematography is a highlight that also transports you to that era. With that in mind, I can accept the story as it is being displayed and not let any possible historical accuracies get in the way. The film touches a few times on how the reality of a situation was or could've been different. I'm no historian, but there's a large portion of "known history" that turns out to be false. Scott chooses to stray from the known history for entertainment purposes. A real surprise of the story is how it can take focus to the relationship between Bonaparte and Josephine. Their tumultuous relationship helps us understand the effect he has upon his soldiers and population of France, as well as the enemies.

I think the film could've been in French, but that would mean Joaquin Phoenix would have to speak French or they would have to have a French actor play the lead role, as well as everyone else. English-speaking actors using a foreign accent might come off negatively. I understand why we don't go into those two territories with this particular version. The acting, especially the two leads, are both excellent. It's fun seeing Napoleon react militarily from the relationship with his wife. True, there's a fast moving character arc that seems to compress story beats in favor of a dramatic development of its characters. Luckily I accepted the direction that the film took. It contains layers of appropriate comedy to take the edge off any debauchery, and great battles.

While certainly not showing up on anybody's Oscar picks, Thanksgiving will show up on a few lists: movies to watch every Thanksgiving, top tier campy slasher flicks, and well made practical gore extravaganzas. The movie earns its strong rating for achieving what it's going for, and surprisingly being better than it could've been. It could've been a movie that was good albeit not memorable. Instead, I'm happy to know I'll watch this on a steady rotation.

A movie that has been anticipated for 16 years can easily be internally overhyped to the point where it could fall flat. You can expect a tongue-in-cheek slasher, but you will be rewarded with more: a well done slasher with an interesting plot. As with many slashers, you have a large dinner table full of characters lined up to get killed. Eli Roth made every single one of them stand out with some good character traits. They are likable for the most part. Even most of the characters who have downfalls, can be charming. Even the killer has some moments that are slightly forgiving. The best aspect of the movie is how the thematic plots and killers motive converge in a finale that balances both factors in a rewarding way.

Thanksgiving is one the better horror movies of the past several years. It's not because there have been a lot that have been overhyped and/or letdowns, it's because it earns the respect that it strives for. It wants you to have a good time. Have some laughs. Get grossed out by the gore. Be surprised by its intelligent script. When a film not only does what it needs to do, but exceeds in ways that most in the genre don't, then it earns a high grade and a very high recommendation.

It's a Wonderful Knife has a style that is not often seen, possibly a style of its own. It will turn some away, but if you go along with it, then you'll find a lot to like, despite oddball scripting.

If questions like "why are these people making out at family Christmas" or "why are so many people calm about dozens of murders happening in a tiny town" or "shouldn't this person do that instead of this" stop you from having the fun the movie wants you to have, then move on. True, the movie could be 30 minutes longer. It could've attempted to add scenes to explain and answer some of these questions. This could've made it better or even worse. The film is more concerned with our lead character surviving a killer in this alternate timeline that she is experiencing. With her POV, she doesn't get to answer these questions that the audience will ask. She's asking them too. The only question she needs to answer is how to get back to her normal life.

Despite the script not being perfect, it could've been better or worse, but its intentions don't feel like it wants to be anything more than what it is. Because it feels like it's the product that the filmmakers intended. The thing that holds the movie together the best is the acting, with the highlights being Justin Long and Jane Widdop, among others. By it's nature, the movie isn't "great", but it fits into the mold of an easy watch that will be on a fairly steady rotation on Christmas.

I saw this on opening night and couldn't write a review until now. You'll see people talk about the running time , whether it's an issue or not for them (for me it wasn't an issue), but it's the length that contains a lot to unpack in deciding how to honestly rate. Could things have been cut out? Sure. What would I cut out? I'm not sure I would have cut anything. I would have to watch it again and really take note. Nothing stood out that didn't need to be there. Anytime I try to think of a negative, it becomes a positive that works in this film.

In the day and age where you can stream a show that lasts several hours, there tends to be a lot of filler. I can easily point to things that can be cut. Watching Killers of the Flower Moon, I constantly felt like the movie was one or two steps ahead of me and was very well paced, not allowing me to be bored. The editing and writing help give the audience clues to what's going on. We ask ourselves what shots or lines of dialogue mean, then the film answers those questions soon thereafter. All the actors are on the same page how they hold back their emotions. Most of the emotions that need to be expressed are expressed internally, just like the characters hold back a lot of their plans and goals. The villains outwardly don't seem bad. They almost appear to everyone else as good people. Eventually circumstances and some botched activities catch up to them by the end.

I really wanted to give this a 10 and had a hard time finding things to bring it down to a 9. Ultimately it came down to some things not being "perfect". Perhaps it needed 4 hours to fully flesh out some of the characters back stories and aspirations of why they're doing what they're doing. Perhaps that's fine for this film. Maybe it doesn't need to be an edge of your seat thrill ride. Its easygoing nature makes it stand out, maybe for some to give it a 9. Yesterday or tomorrow it could be a 9 for me, but today it's a 10.