sherylchilders82

I'm not sure how this movie can have such a low rating when a similarly silly action-comedy, Shazam!, has a 7. Well, I do know, because I'm a woman and I am very familiar with this bias. The comedy here is often mocking the spy genre, which is known for being sexist, and slanted toward a female perspective. So, it's easy to understand how people who think those movies are very true and serious, might not "get" it. I think in a way, you can probably identify a particular "type" of person by who cannot enjoy this even a little lol. If that was the intention, it's actually very underrated. But, either way, it was such a fun time! It was a nice surprise, better than I expected.

I loved this show. It's smarter than anything I've watched recently, probably even outdoing the average Christopher Nolan film. I would have been more attentive in the beginning, except I assumed everything was going to get much clearer. It does, and it doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I love that it challenged my brain. I just wasn't expecting it.

My biggest confusion at the end is which "universe" in which the CAM exists. She speaks Swedish with her daughter and about the experiment before the accident, then later she still remembers speaking Swedish with her daughter, but doesn't remember the CAM experiment? Maybe I'm mis-remembering the beginning. I'm sure a second viewing might clear it up, but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I just wish they'd spoon fed it to us a bit more. I really liked that the perspective was bent, though, defying biases, which I think was the point.

It's already established that the universe with the CAM experiment is the one in which Paul lived and Jo died. But, it also doesn't seem to be a simple split, either, as they appear to be switching identities, especially when they're both alive (as in Henry / Bud). So, maybe that explains the mix up, since the CAM does seem to be the center of it all. The concept of superposition in quantum mechanics is referred to more than once, so we get that is the premise pretty early on. But, there's also this plot line where these switches / splits have been happening as long as space travel, long before CAM. That part seems a bit hokey to me, like are we ever going to get an explanation for that?

I do really appreciate the strong female characters, even the astute daughter (played by twins which adds brilliantly to the spookiness). James D'Arcy's character (the husband) is pivotal for keeping perspectives grounded as the most neutral bystander. On that topic, why is the daughter, who never went to space, or the people with the "ghost tapes" able to see or hear the others? These parts are more mysterious and unexplained. I don't mind a few loose strings in writing, but too many make me start to lose faith that the writers have it worked out themselves.

Since this hasn't been renewed for another season at the time of writing this, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that there's some explanation for these holes. And, I hope that they get the opportunity to fill out the story. Of course, I don't want to leave out that Banks is amazing. He adds a wonderful dichotomy to the Henry / Bud character that is integral to the show.

Episode 6 was definitely the "a-ha" episode that answered many questions. But, at the same time, the above issues still lingered. And, the final episode does nothing to clear them up. Instead, it goes in a completely different direction. Just when her colleague gives her a way out, she gets scared and stays, which seems very out of character. Then, there's the mysterious double she sees upstairs. What? Also, the cosmonaut woman offers insight that she understands and believes her, but expresses that trying to undo it is pointless. Yet, she simultaneously is clueless about there being an actual double of herself? It feels less like a cliffhanger than the story was just interrupted. However, the many angles to think about are still there, so I think it's still ok. It will definitely be better to see more, though.

The horror genre can be quite diverse, and this one falls under what I call social horror - that is horror with a definite social commentary. There's slasher flicks, gore, classic horror, philosophical, survival & psychological horror, to name a few. But the type with a political message like this one is my favorite, and I love the topic, too - pregnancy and religion. It's obviously a timely topic.

Sydney Sweeney does an excellent job of convincing us in the first half that she's not much of an actor, or that her character doesn't have much fortitude. But, she turns out to not just be the vessel of writers and directors here - she seemed very committed. In the second half, we realize that she'd been holding back on purpose, that her performance is deliberate. Horror acting is always so underrated, but I am counting myself a new fan after not getting what the hype about her was, after having seen her in a few other things.

The commentary here was the perversion of religion. There is of course the reality that all nuns are considered brides of Christ, which is supposed to be symbolic, but is still kind of creepy. The patriarchal organization of the church is not directly addressed, but it seems open to interpretation. The nuns themselves aren't innocent bystanders here, either (an understatement). The fact that the acts are divided into trimesters shows a clear perspective from the pregnant person's view, not some general theme of evil like Rosemary's Baby.

It is not anti-religious, either, and there are supernatural innuendos. The themes of women as incubators is contrasted with religious themes to present an argument suggesting a criticism of Christianity, but not a rejection of, the supernatural. Indeed, there does seem to be an underlying force working in her favor. The last few minutes are barely graphic at all. They are purposefully edited to make a point. The horror is in the reality that she faces because of religious zealots. It's not the actual thing, but the fact that she's put in that position in the first place. That's definitely a commentary on the position of women in patriarchal society, and directly applies to current events and politics.

The one critique I offer is that there is a bit too much focus on aesthetics to feel a bit superficial, which distracts from the main theme. At one point, the nuns are bathing communally, with one of them brushing their wet hair in the background at the edge of the tub. I'm not really sure the point of this. And, of course, lots of attention is paid to Sweeney's already infamous knockers, but none of that is distracting at all. It's just the general portrayal of the nuns as sort of cartoonish that was a bit distracting.

I just watched all but one episode in a few days, and I rarely binge things. It's not like it's perfect or shocking or anything specific. I wouldn't say, "wow it's so good". It is incredibly entertaining, and looking forward to watching another episode is exciting, but I can't really say why. Yes, I want to see what happens next, because sometimes the writing is very predictable, but sometimes it's not. I guess that's why. It has that element of surprise perfectly combined with the familiarity you crave. Even the characters themselves are types plucked right out of other bingable shows or mainstream culture. It's like every popular thing crammed into one. There's sitcom elements, dumb humor, serial storylines, character drama, and it's all within the frame of a stable marriage on a property they literally can't leave. TV!

I love the premise of this movie. You rarely get a movie with gay leads that isn't just about being gay. Yes, the actors are pushing 30 playing teens - since when is that new? I didn't even notice because I'm over 40 and they all look young to me. Women are getting represented more and more in mainstream film - not just a certain "type". The casting and plot clearly aims to be LGBTQ diverse, which is a first that I can think of - you have blurred gender characters, gay, bi, feminine, straight, masculine, all represented (including different political spectrums). And none are straightforward stereotypes. If you care about these things (and smart people do), this alone makes it unique and worth the watch.

But, it is also very funny. So many jokes will go right over the head of someone not versed in all the current debates in feminism. It actually really impresses me that so many younger people get it from having grown up in 3rd wave feminism. Older people like myself had to be interested enough to learn, since no one was talking deeply about this stuff when we were younger. Besides this, though, the comedic writing, timing, directing, and delivery are perfect. Each joke lands as intended, better than, or at least as good as, any recent big screen comedy in memory. If you follow the finer satirical points, the jokes hit just right.

I can't actually compare this to anything recent, but it does have some capricious turns that seems rather familiar to other current films. While raunchy and romantic comedies 20 years ago were more predictable and grounded in reality, now they seem to be more abstract and willing to bend toward the less rational. There's nothing wrong with that - it's simply a purer expressive form. And the whimsy is probably reflective of the times. Much like Barbie, the larger message seems to get lost a bit in the art. It's great for any emotional release for those who are most stuck in the middle of these debates, specifically younger people.

I'm not a big fan of the Edward Scissorhands-type weirdness that Tim Burton brings, but this one really resonated with me. Many people have mentioned the Heathers-Beetlejuice feel which is particularly nostalgic if you grew up in that time. But, it's also fresh enough to introduce that feeling to a younger generation, too.

Now for spoilers: The story is a metaphor. On the surface, we might be wondering if (or assuming) that Lisa actually was the axe murderer, then dug up a dead body and had sex with it before killing herself. It's pretty heavily implied. It seems awful, except the true story is about finding love in strange places.

Lisa, having been traumatized by her mother's murder, just doesn't fit in. As well meaning as her sister is (and she says this), she just can't understand her. Even her sister recognizes this in her own way ("You just can't understand because your mother's already been murdered "). And Lisa agrees, driving the point home. But, The Creature "gets" her. She finds a true bond with him.

This movie is hilarious. The idea of her keeping this guy she summoned from the dead in the "friend zone" is funny. There's a satirical element in the phoniness of the setting and the stepmom, familiar to the aforementioned films. But, this goes further into the emotional shallowness of most relationships in general. There's also some parent-kid humor in there that anyone can appreciate. But, I think her dream is probably where we start to understand that this is about something psychologically deeper. I think it's about how life can be so weird and difficult, that you have to find and accept deeper connections wherever they may be. And, that makes this an instant classic for me - worthy of many future viewings.

I rarely take the time to write a negative review, but this one was absolutely inexcusable in its writing. How did this make network television? As a person who has suffered from PTSD (nobody calls it PTSS) for a long time, I'm used to media misinformation about mental illness in general. My biggest issue is that veterans are the only ones that get it, apparently, and that it makes people homicidal. Honestly, this characterization would be laughable if so many people didn't believe that.

First of all, bupropion is an antidepressant that has been used for 50 years, and it is not addictive. Abuse is incredibly rare and it doesn't make you high. I'm wondering how this even got by editing. Also, psych services don't let people with mental illness run out of meds (even the VA). If anything, they push meds over more expensive forms of treatment, like counseling from actual clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. If a patient is taking psych meds, they're going to be required to keep seeing someone for monitoring of symptoms. Meds that run out between visits can be filled by phone. No one is ever going to be deprived of medication - that's just poorly researched. The real problem is that meds don't usually solve mental illness alone. Write about that!

Anyway, besides these huge mistake, let's talk about PTSD and what it isn't. It doesn't make people kill people. In the context of veterans, if anything does that, it's the military training itself. But, more likely, if a person murders people, it's because they were never a very good person to begin with. Mental illnesses don't change who people are. None of the dialogue by the veterans makes sense given any knowledge of psychology. Frankly, it's insulting to veterans, like they're not normal people with normal points of view. Who is like "I can relate" after someone murders 5 people? Maybe sociopaths, which is a really terrible way to characterize veterans, who know the difference between right and wrong, as do individuals suffering from mental illnesses. Do better.

This episode is more than a story. Truthfully, I felt full of dread while watching it. You knew it wasn't going to be a happy ending. I think this was actually scarier than the "scary" episodes, with jump scares and creepiness. There was a looming presence of death, despite being mostly happy. The story of Bill and Frank is cleverly inserted between the 2 main characters after Tess's death. It begins as if it's going to be about the people the government killed, to prevent more infections, and abruptly changes to Bill, the one that doesn't get caught.

I think the purpose of this episode fits with the overall theme of the show, despite appearing separate. These two certainly made the best of a bad situation, but their lives were still quite tragic. It elevates the show to being more than just an apocalyptic story, to being a story about humanity. Cleverer viewers will appreciate this message.

I just finished season 2 of Foundation, and it was worth it. Although interesting, season 1 was forgotten, as I hadn't read the books and had little involvement in the story, which is complicated and takes some work to follow along. But, this season showed how the investment paid off. True to its story (whether it follows the books at heart, I don't know), this show is unforgiving to the characters, for the sake of the narrative. It's high sci fi with a deep message about humanity. I've listed Asimov's works in my reading list, and I look forward to enjoying its source material. You needn't have read the books, which were written in the WWII era, to know that characters and relationships have been updated for a modern audience. Progressives will appreciate this, as good science fiction never lives in the past. Even though this story starts off feeling a little too big for itself, it certainly had the right to do that, and it does eventually get to filling its own big shoes. You just need to be patient. I recommend watching the last 2 episodes of season 2 in one sitting for the full impact.

The Blackening starts as a regular horror movie, then feels generic for awhile, but actually ends up being quite entertaining. It's not supposed to be a serious movie, just fun. The best part is a phenomenal Black cast - I favorited them all. It's highly liberal, so be forewarned if you're not & you can't laugh at yourself. Overall, I found this a nice fun light watch to mix in if you just need a break from dramas, news & serious stuff.

Not that he played a big part, but I will say that the park ranger, Bader, is actually one of my favorite actors, too. He never seems to age. And I thought it was Black that didn't crack.

I don't know why I was under the impression that old films like Charlie Chaplin's were irrelevant and outdated. Perhaps that's what I was taught at some point, but this film should probably be part of a general knowledge. Pretty much every modern movie built off the work of Chaplin.

You could probably write a doctorate on this film alone (and I'm sure many have). A quick research into Chaplin's upbringing makes it obvious that this story is very personal to him. The Tramp is so inspiring here, that I've automatically added several books on Chaplin to learn more about the unique and compassionate person he clearly was (as well as the 1992 biopic). I seriously can't believe that this wasn't required viewing in school. It's highly culturally relevant, and The Dictator was historically relevant.

The story is overall, very touching, compassionate, and funny. The dream sequence, while probably relevant to the history of filmmaking, in general, is probably the least interesting scene, simply lengthening the conclusion. What I find fascinating is how the woman is portrayed in a very sympathetic light. Even The Man is not without his second thoughts. The characters are more nuanced than expected, with more dimensions than the average blockbuster today. It makes one wonder if art and society really are any better now.

Just as a side note, I also discovered that The Kid is Uncle Fester from The Addams Family, which kind of blew my mind.

I have avoided Black Mirror for so long. Now, I'm watching it one episode at a time, infrequently, as the darkness of it is disturbing. White Bear is particularly so. At the end, we are left to look at ourselves - now I get it, "Black Mirror"!

Like many, I am a fan of true crime TV, and I feel morally superior when the bad guy is revealed. I believe in justice, even though I know realistically that the justice system is broken. In America, it's a cultural continuation of slavery, discriminatory against POC, the poor & mentally ill, unequally targeting these populations. The fact that the main character here is Black is not inconsequential (at least from an American perspective).

The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and this definitely qualifies on both fronts. Historically, humans have used public executions as entertainment, so this type pf cultural development becoming a reality doesn't seem far-fetched. I could not have said it better than another reviewer that people believe that they have the right to judge and punish (which creates an ironic horror). We like to believe that we're good, not capable of such horrible things.

But, we are capable of horrible things. I think this is the point. True morality is valuing all people and their humanity - the murder victims and the murderers. This point is made well with the perpetrator chosen. I doubt this message would have been as effective if the boyfriend had been the protagonist (although the silent voyeurism also wouldn't have made sense).

In general, I find these "beware of technology" tropes to be unrealistic overall, though. They always misunderstand sociopathy and criminality on an individual vs cultural scale. The boyfriend, for example, is likely a sociopath, while Victoria is probably not, just like most of the "audience" is probably not. These negativistic worldviews tend to incorrectly conclude that these things are the same thing, and that anyone could become a sociopath, which is not true.

The truth is that most people would have no problem torturing actual sociopaths, and exploring that human tendency might actually be more interesting. Because our laws and morals tell us that we shouldn't be ok with that, when we're actually a lot more comfortable blaming and hating the complicit bystanders than the true threats. It seems like the real uncomfortable thing we don't want to face is the boyfriend types, and our ability to treat THEM humanely, so we take it out on the people that are more familiar to ourselves. In a way, it's like we're punishing ourselves for being human.

I recently rewatched The Strangers to prepare for this sequel. I loved the original and totally understood its theme of evil intentions in strangers. Actually, I liked it better now than I did when I was younger.

Watching Prey At Night, I was not impressed. Throughout most of it, I was not scared at all and felt no tension or suspense. I will say that they do a good job of creating mystery, though. We're not really sure when this film is taking place, relative to the first, or who The Strangers might be at this point. It's definitely not present day, as the phones and cars are older. But, we do finally learn that it's probably near to the time of the first film.

But, as I said, during most of this movie, I'm thinking it's probably a 3 or 4. Some of the acting is good, and the setting is original. But, not scary or suspenseful, pretty lazy feeling. I thought the mother-daughter scene started to seem better, but still not great. Then, the pool scene happens and it finally gets good. But, at that point, there's only like 15 minutes of actual movie left before the credits!

Admittedly, I actually really loved that last 15 minutes. It was not what I was expecting at all, given the first film, and I appreciate a surprise, especially when it's a happy one. I was yelling at my TV when she shot the girl with the shotgun! I think this alone really made it worth the watch. Maybe I'm a little jaded for enjoying watching the guys who killed poor Liv & her boyfriend back in 2008, but I don't care.

Wikipedia says there's a third film in production, and 2 more planned, and I welcome that. We'll see, though, if they can improve the third to be good from start to finish, rather than just finishing well.

Whitney left me feeling highly sympathetic for Houston - at first - but something about it simply did not sit right with me. In particular, the sexual abuse allegations of Dee Dee Warwick, who I then learned was one of the first openly lesbian performers in the music industry. Of course these types of allegations are possible and should be taken seriously, but Dee Dee also presents as an easy target for a scapegoat. Pairing that with the convincing testimonies given (along with footage) of how Houston treated her daughter, it certainly doesn't scream of high credibility. The only people alleging the abuse are tied closely to Houston, with no defending arguments from the other side. Furthermore, on quick research, many people close to Houston (including her mother, other brother, and Robyn) have publicly stated doubt of these allegations. Lastly, just a year after the release of this documentary, Robyn Crawford, Whitney's longtime friend, associate, and very probable lover, released a book about her relationship with Houston, which was incredibly well received (and I plan on reading next, thanks to this documentary).

What I got from this was that Whitney Houston was indeed a tragic figure - not a big surprise. But, as I was a bit younger, I had not seen some of her character and footage from her earlier days, and it seems quite apparent, in hindsight, that she was definitely LGBTQ (or queer as was said more back then). She really seemed to be running away from this label, in her marriage and in her drug use. It makes me sad that we couldn't see how she might be perceived now, where there's increased culture and acceptance, that she might have thrived as herself had she just been born a bit later. She might have even been more legendary. But, I don't think I feel much sympathy for her, as she seems to have been very selfish. Even if the sexual abuse allegations are true, it wouldn't excuse her behavior as an adult, and I'm not even really convinced such trauma would explain it. It seems more likely that she was scared of herself and of being like her mother.

I think this movie gets better with time. It is legitimately scary. And, even though the characters do predictably dumb things, it comes across as believable. But, what really makes it worth the watch, is wondering what you would do. I got really worked up by this - it is quite traumatic, actually. The suspense is sometimes too over-the-top (more slow burn than jump scares). But, that makes it extra creepy.

Of course, the real underlying theme that will keep you remembering The Strangers is - Why? Like all good realistic horror, it asks the viewer to consider how people can do such horrifying things. Why do some people enjoy terrorizing people? Maybe the reason this seems to get better with time is that that question tends to haunt you more the older you get. Despite its mediocre rating, this should be on the list of classic horror movies.

Do you long for Civil War and really wonder what that would be like? Then , learn history, people.

I am so tired of this type of melodramatic political drama about doomsday. If you want to watch a less exploitive apocalypse film, watch Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012). This is just the same thing, but not as good.

I've never been a fan of Julia Roberts. Every once in awhile, for one reason or another, I get roped into watching a film she's in, and I can't remember any that I liked her. I like Ali - he reminds me of Wesley Snipes, actually.

I laughed at another reviewer that wondered why they keep portraying women as angry (Do they watch the news? Lol). I just felt that this film was cheap with all the political innuendo and shallow soliloquy (to steal a word used in the movie) that ultimately says nothing important at all.

It's simply a dark fantasy for people who don't actually understand how real disasters work. Deer don't swarm, ever. Lyme disease won't make a teenagers teeth fall out overnight, and neither would a sonic weapon. This is all basically fear porn. If you want a realistic description of different potential world ending scenarios, there are documentaries.

I actually did like Bacon's character in the end, because he did seem believable. That was a little funny. When they were getting high and the pink flamingos landed in the pool, I felt for a second like the movie could have been better if it was more abstract. Like, was any of it real? Seems like a lost opportunity.

It certainly wasn't that I didn't get the point of this film. I just didn't find it original or compelling. So, I will reiterate that the average person who finds this believable needs to learn more about history, and perhaps science. Or, the filmmaker needed to go more abstract / artsy.

I kind of agree that this movie is overrated. But, I never was much of a fan of Tina Fey. The characters are actually all very shallow, so there's no inspirational moral ending. It's just jokes, which is fine. But, I think anyone who finds this is a deep inspirational story is lacking something

But, I will say, especially in the first half of the movie, before it digresses into a teen cheese fest, there are plenty of moments when this film felt ahead of its time. Like when they make fun of stereotypes of homeschooling, or because there's diverse representation (a little). But, it could also just be because social progress has declined the last couple decades. I recognized a lot of famous actors here just starting out. Except Lindsay Lohan, who at the peak of her career, still couldn't act (sorry).

This movie was entertaining, and I'd watch a bad sequel. But, I just wish they worked on the realism.

First, the good. Patrick Dempsey, still nice to look at. He seems to be in on the joke. And, like all good teen slasher films, it is supposed to be ridiculous. I'm pretty good at guessing the ending before most, and I didn't know who it was. Love a good surprise, no matter how dumb. Second, the opening Black Friday scene was pretty great, but there were some technical problems. I like my horror somewhat believable. And, I did enjoy the nostalgic horror feel - the creative murder scenes of dislikable victims. The one with the cat was probably the best.

Now, my gripes. 1. People don't stampede. This is a myth. I know it's pretty minor, but people actually do not tend to do this, even when very frightened. But, certainly not running for a waffle iron. People can be awful, but they're honestly not that awful (even if it sometimes seems like it). This is a common incorrect belief. 2. How did the waitress get chopped in half? The physics did not make sense at all. She was jumping in to the dumpster. The car was headed in a horizontal plane. She was chopped vertically, we're supposed to believe by the dumpster? No. Even if the car caught her legs, that would not happen. 3. I hate to ruin this for everyone, but human thighs don't look like chicken. I feel like the gore factor, if you're going all out, could have been better for the oven scene. I can't think of a more terrifying way to go. 4. Gina Gershon was supposed to be pregnant, but she was born in 1962, making her over 60 years old. She looks great, but I find this insulting to women. Come on. I know there were other little things, too, which just kind of annoyed me. I get that it's supposed to be dumb, but there were just too many things for me to overlook.

Overall, Thanksgiving is original in it's theme, which means that obviously there needs to be one for every other major holiday, too. (Easter anyone?). I like all types of horror, even the slasher films like this that are more about gore than actually scary. It was very well done for what it is.

I watched the original The Color Purple to prepare for the upcoming remake (and also because I'm starting a Whoopi marathon :). I did not watch it when it was released as I was 3 years old at the time, but I do remember it being on TV (although I was too young to understand it). I have not read the book, but plan on ordering it after writing this.

What The Color Purple does well is portraying post-slavery America and how subsequent generations struggled to find roots, accumulate minimal wealth, and independent lives. The remnants of practices during slavery (such as removing children from parents) continued, even as slavery had officially ended. And, even though it is sometimes Black people doing that separating, the culture is a continuation of that history. It also importantly portrays how one White woman would easily separate a Black mother from her children, just because she could. I feel that this was imperative to painting the whole picture about where the root of the oppression comes from (racism).

The subject matter of The Color Purple is heavy - child sexual abuse, rape, incest, domestic violence, alcoholism, etc. Even though the telling was sensitive, certainly not glorifying or glamorizing the violence, I found the campiness and melodrama inappropriate at times. The portrayal of the sisters screaming and crying as they are separated feels dated and a little sexist by today's standards. Even if it's reflecting beliefs of the time, it doesn't seem to have outgrown the prejudice of seeing women as children. Granted the girls were still young at the time, they were teenagers who had already been through a lot. And, the domestic violence aspect doesn't seem to be confronted very effectively (not surprising for its time).

The moral of the story is clearly about forgiveness and love conquering these horrible realities, but in so doing, seems to be playing them down on some level. Especially when there are campy moments surrounding abuse, it feels a bit dated. It feels like it should have been more somber. I know we're supposed to be celebrating the spirit of the people, but this joking almost feels reminiscent of minstrelsy. For example, when Harpo, a victim of abuse himself, falls through the roof multiple times. I don't think this type of humor would be appropriate today, given the subject matter.

Overall, The Color Purple still holds up very well, though. Considering the 80s were a backslide from previous decades of social progress, and that Spielberg is not particularly known for his social progressiveness, it is surprisingly forward thinking. Oprah's character was the most poignant for me, as I felt she best represented the spirit of the story. I think this type pf character was (and still is to some extent) rare - a strong independent-minded Black woman, with the consequences of that being realistic. While Goldberg's character does have wonderful development, she also follows stereotypes that are not as compelling. But, between the two, there is a good balance.

This came up randomly from my bloated watch list, and I was skeptical because of the low ratings. But, I really enjoyed it. Granted the actors aren't THAT young, I think it really captures that youthful spirit. Everyone needs that time in their life when they do stupid things and just have fun, especially women, who have such high standards expected of them. In that way, this is an expression of feminism, that women should get to be free and make mistakes.

But, this is really just a fun watch. I loved Vanessa Bayer on SNL, and she's equally as good in this role as a flighty dentist. I've not seen Phoebe Robinson before, but she was also very funny. The lead was ok, I don't know her. But, she was convincing as this character. It has a good cast overall. The DJ is really good looking, too. And, honestly, it was just refreshing to have the cool weirdness and openness in something not trying to be serious for once.

This had some laughs, felt well produced, and seemed well polished. The music is good. I think what actually ruins it is that the lead actors are poorly cast. Part of what made the 2003 film so good was the chemistry between Jamie Lee Curtis, and a then bright-eyed, but still edgy, Lindsey Lohan. The actress playing the daughter seems to be enjoying herself, but I'm sorry to say that the audience is not. I don't buy her as a rebellious teenager at all, more like the Christian church camp counselor. That short hair is not fooling anyone. This is why child acting is so bad for kids - no one really expects them to be fabulous, so they grow up with expectations that they'll be great. Lohan definitely suffered this fate as well, but at least she had charisma once. This girl reminds me of a high school classmate, someone that didn't go on to be famous because they aren't that particularly special (sorry).

The mother has more talent, and she does her best with the role, but, again, she does not fit. The Freaky Friday mother is supposed to be grumpy, run down by a teenage daughter for god's sake. Not to belabor the comparison, because I was totally open to a new version, but Jamie Lee was perfect. She has always been more energetic and animated making her portrayal of a teen believable (which also makes her a better grumpy mom, too). But, the mother here always felt like an adult playing a teen. In the parts when the acting was good, it felt awkward because it still wasn't believable, which was just so distracting. Overall, I think the personalities of the actors were just very poorly cast.

This is a smart movie, not for the people looking for a formulaic plot. It starts out that way - misbehaving coach gets stuck with the worst team in the world. Moviegoers expecting a miracle will be disappointed, because this is (mostly) a true story. And truth is always a bit more complicated.

But, it's also not taking's itself too seriously, which is absolutely necessary for the story. It's meant to be dumb and silly, which is ironically what makes it so smart (Yes, that's right). That's why this is for intelligent people who see hardship as the best stuff of life, not that which we must fix to be "whole" people. It's anti-perfectionism and against worshipping advantages over character. Which is what smart people know is most important.

Often, I want a movie that is like a fairytale - that gives me pure escapism. And, I'm certainly not one to nitpick entertainment for not being "realistic", and it annoys me when people complain about that when it clearly wasn't the intention of a film. And, those movies make me laugh and feel happy, and that's great. But, that joy is not like real life. With a film like Next Goal Wins, there is an opportunity to experience true joy for something real, which makes it refreshingly different.

I felt cringe for the coach's drinking and terrible behavior. Unlike I suspect many, I saw his back story coming. I also felt his personal disappointment for his wife's unfortunate romantic choices. He is not a perfect character, nor is he meant to be. My favorite scene is probably the team's little pre-game performance at the final game - it is the climax before the resolution. As I expected what came next, it was a satisfying and cathartic ending to me.

As someone who knows what hitting bottom feels like, I can attest that this film is true at heart. There is not a miraculous undoing of the past. That's just not how life works. And, that's not how you move forward. If you get this message, you will love this movie.

I have watched most of Shonda's stuff, including Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder, all of the Grey's Anatomy episodes and spin-offs (including Station 19), and of course, Bridgerton. What I really appreciate about her work is its unique perspective, especially regarding social justice issues and women's perspectives. The women in Rhime's shows are not just characters in men's stories, but people in their own right. As a single woman, a memorable moment was Viola Davis's character in How to Get Away with Murder, who didn't need to settle down and get married to have a happy ending. Queen Charlotte feels like the pinnacle of this work. It solidifies the idea that a strong female character need not be married or single, but exists on their own regardless.

Queen Charlotte moved me to tears. (A previous reviewer compared Brimsley's character to Thomas from Downton Abbey, proving they must not have watched these shows, as their only commonality is being gay male servants lol). It is a show ultimately about love, Brimsley's character included. Despite her shows often being about diverse people, they have never failed to have great white male characters as well. In Charlotte, King George III is beautifully portrayed as troubled, but a very good person. To show a black woman supporting a white man's royal reign without the hint of patriarchy or sexism is quite an accomplishment. It shows that it is not the systems in our way, but in the people supporting them. People, after all, make up the systems. If Queen Charlotte and King George truly existed as they do here, we would live in a very different world.

Queen Charlotte is a story about humanity, as all of Rhimes work is, and about how people make up the systems they're part of. And we can choose to behave in ways, and support people, that bring about the changes and equality that we desire. Agatha Danbury's character is actually the one who reveals this message the best. While most people would marry a King, she chooses to stay and do what she knows is right, to ensure that people receive their titles. I believe this is the message in the end, with the hats, besides the obvious representation of her love for Violet's father. It is about creating and choosing their own destiny, caring about their own desires, and refusing to put them away out of convenience or in the name of convention.

I've read the Hunger Games trilogy several times, including the audiobooks in anticipation of this film. I purposefully did not read the book for this movie, because I like to read the books after. While the rating seems good, I'm not understanding the large number of negative reviews.

The Hunger Games is YA - it seems a lot of people are expecting something different. The school setting of the trainers and Viola Davis's character felt very appropriate for the genre, and so did the immature characters. The melodrama between them, and the general focus was exactly as expected. The movie has a PG-13 rating, so while it is a dark story, the violence is toned down. This is not Game of Thrones, despite Peter Dinklage being there. I suspect the lack of intensity might have been an issue in expectations for some. In addition, the games themselves are only one part, rather than the main focus of the film. This is not a sequel meant to relive the original trilogy. Those books and movies stand alone. That saga is complete.

However, if you focus on the message and themes, much of the story is actually very striking. Snow is a realistic villain, which is exactly the point. It also occurs in the time of his life when these character developments really occur. He is never a completely sympathetic character because that would not be believable. From the beginning, we can see that he is strategizing more than caring, in contrast to many of his classmates, especially his friend, Plinth. In fact, he is a star mentor right away, attracting the attention of the head game maker, played by Viola Davis. The story is well crafted, and I'm so excited to now fill in the blanks by reading the book. There are indeed hints at unanswered questions.

Every once in awhile, I take a chance on something I'm not sure about, because sometimes it pays off. This time it did not. I knew this would obviously have Christian themes, but then I saw the director and writer did Glee and that Antonio Banderas starred. So, I didn't think it was going to be like the low budget overtly religious films, and I don't really pay attention to film budgets, anyway. But, I do despise cheesy fake Christian movies. As an atheist, I also sang in an evangelical church choir growing up, and I love musicals. I read the reviews carefully, but as usual, people don't say the obvious. So, I will.

This should not have been a movie - maybe a music album. The acting was terrible. Even Antonio Banderas was terrible. The only actor that stood out a little was the king's son, and one of the 3 wiseman. There were a couple times that the chemistry with the 3 kings was ok. The donkey bit was stupid. The visual effects were occasionally movie worthy. The actor that played Gabriel was good.

For a traditional Christmas musical, I expected more traditional music. But, almost all of this was original. Most of it would have made a fine Christian Christmas album. But, none of it was very memorable. The entire soundtrack is only 33 minutes. All of the rest is filler that isn't good enough to even be considered "dumb" good, like how sometimes you can enjoy something that's just silly. It just seemed like it was trying too hard to conceal its overt Christianity, like having Joseph cook and making Mary have "modern" views. It wasn't convincing at all.

The best songs are toward the end. "Three Wise Guys" was the only song, with the best acting (possibly the only movie worthy acting), with just a touch of Hallelujah chorus (not enough). "We Become We" is a beautiful duet that featured some pretty visual effects. "In My Blood" was the best song, also by the best actor (Joel Smallbone). This was a good performance, though on a second listen, kind of sounds like a rip off Thunder by Imagine Dragons. Finally, they do actually do Silent Night ("The Nativity Song"), which thank god, with a mash up of O Holy Night & more original music.

I honestly wish someone could do a secular movie well using bible stories, and I was hopeful. But, this was decidedly and annoyingly not that.