acarltoncooke

Clickbait is about two episodes too long. After episode six, it slips into improbability regarding the perpetrator's identity. As the show tries to account for how people and events tie together, it begins to rely on questionable coincidences. But it's most unpardonable sin lies in its treatment of important peripheral characters; the connections to the son, the reporter, the volleyball coach, and the two the Internet sleuths fall by the wayside and are never picked up. Stories do not need happy endings, nor does every event require a nice, tidy bow. However, characters who make significant contributions to the story and who interact with the main characters in a major way need to be addressed by the writer. When you take the time to invest in characters you need to see them through. Otherwise, the viewer is left unsatisfied.

"Feral" is captivating and surprising, a standout among a season of poorly written, cliche-ridden episodes reminiscent of Blumhouse's teen horror. I literally jumped a few times. More of this caliber, please.

Structurally, this is as close to a perfect script as it is possible to achieve. It is not overlong, there are no wasted words, and every event (no matter how small), every character trait, serves some purpose in the larger story. I never lost interest. "If a gun is on a nightstand then at some point it must go off," as Chekhov said. Screenwriters can learn a lot from this film.

Invincible wears its influences on its sleeve-Lee/Ditko era Spider-Man, S. H. I. E. L. D., Watchmen, and even a little X-Men-and doesn't pretend to be something new (unlike Umbrella Academy), and this is its chief virtue. However, it's also suspenseful, has great action sequences, and wonderfully full characters.

Sweetheart is a watchable horror film. I enjoyed the mystery surrounding how Jenn wound up on the island and the buildup to the creature's first appearance. After that, however, the movie unravels. There were simply too many slip ups and things that were not thought through well enough. For example, when Jenn is wounded by the creature, she bathes in the sea to clean the wound. Bathing in salt water would hurt but she feels no pain; in fact, her wound has disappeared. The shifting camera angles try to cover up this error, but it's easy to see. The reveal regarding the boat of friends was well timed, but were never let in on why Mia and Lucas don't want to leave the island. It's hinted via a bloody handprint inside the raft that they killed someone but it wasn't enough to justify having that subplot at all. I think the writers should have consulted with someone about the creature. Why does it only come out at night when it can come out during the day? How did Jenn avoid a creature that, as an amphibious animal, probably has excellent eyesight, and as a predator, probably has an excellent sense of smell? If Jenn could survive off of fish, why does the creature come ashore at all? It clearly has a steady food supply in the ocean. A few other things could have been handled more thoroughly but I'll close by saying that it was an average movie (but I've seen many far worse films get far better reviews) and I applaud the writers' bravery; a film that has no dialogue for almost the first half is difficult to pull off but you kept me in suspense.

Mystery Inc. is a tough act to follow, as it is the best in the series since the original. Guess Who is a (reboot? Reimagining?) of The New Scooby-Doo movies from the 70s, so the concept isn't original. Add to that a "softer" drawing style, a brighter palette than Mystery Inc. (the characters were more angular and the colors were darker; the atmosphere was reminiscent of the original Scooby-Doo), and simplified stories (compared to the complex arc of Mystery Inc.), the experience just isn't memorable. It falls alongside other forgettable iterations (What's New?, etc.). That said, this is my opinion as an adult who grew up with the original, The New Scooby-Doo Movies, The Scooby-Doo Show, Scooby and Scrappy, and loved the fresh, serious take of Mystery Inc. so take it with a grain of salt. It seems that after Mystery Inc., they've decided to return to more of a kid friendly format; those who enjoy that will probably rate it higher.

This was a great movie from a great (and often controversial) writer/director. We have Dante, Virgil, Blake, and (at least for me) flashes of De Quincy, Marquis de Sade, and even Kierkegaard floating around in a serial killer film that also has something to say about our culture's worship of fame and our apathy towards human suffering. Highly recommended but about twenty minutes too long.

I'm saddened to see how few good reviews the film received from critics, but I'm not surprised. We often have difficulty distinguishing between our moral compass and artistic skill, and between characters' ideas and actions vs. the author's. It's the great flaw of critics, to judge by personal opinion or by artistic merit.

How did this blatant X-Men rip off make it to production? Contributing to a genre is one thing; stealing a concept and rewriting it is another. Even the characters are similar. Number Five is a combination of Nightcrawler and Shadowcat, for example. And then there's the dysfunctional team/family aspect, taken straight from the Fantastic Four. Did I mention the school? The misfit children? The most disturbing thing of all is that this show was originally a comic book. That no one in the comics community panned this book bothers me.

One bright spot: it is good to see Ellen Page acting again.

This movie does more through what it does not show or tell than many movies do through spoonfeeding and gratuitous FX. I especially enjoyed how the film teased you with the promise of a "reveal" then withheld it and let the viewer try to understand what was "caught." This film is for those who like to use their imaginations. A "lo-if" film reminiscent of The Invitation or The Sound of Your Voice.