tylerwoodrownichols

First off, I am a massive admirer of Tarantino's work, whether he's the director or simply the writer. Few people today are putting out cinematic experiences that are both artistic and, above all, FUN. I watch his entire filmography about once per year, and some of the individual films I watch every few months. So please don't mistake me for a "hater", my criticism of this film is not a criticism of the man himself.

So now that's out of the way, let's talk about QT8, a so-called "documentary". I have no idea what the purpose of this film is. It's more of a hagiography than anything else, consisting of little more than actors lavishing praise on him and his genius for 90 minutes straight. Documentaries are generally intended to inform the viewer, but there is very little information delivered with regard to the production of the various films, or even the man himself. In fact, he barely even appears in it aside from archival footage. It's kind of interesting hearing some of the actors talk about meeting him for the first time and how much he helped them with their careers, but that approach quickly wears out its welcome and is not enough to carry a 90-minute running time.

I just watched this, and it was an alright way to pass the time, but don't expect anything great. There is no clear thesis and honestly I was expecting to find out more about her "true" identity. Most of the people who are interviewed are only tangentially connected to her, like that one woman from Madd TV or Raven-Symoné (the latter is utterly insufferable). The only compelling storylines are the theatre she defrauded in Seattle and the attorney who was involved in suing her employers. It's a shame because it seems like there really is more to the story, but you might as well just read the Wikipedia article about her. Having said that, it served its purpose as background noise while I was working on something.

I know I'm late to the party, but I have no memory of this film being advertised when it came out. I was bored and saw it on Hulu so I figured I'd give it a spin. I've always had a thing for films with a hotel setting so it seemed vaguely appealing. Well, it didn't take long for me to tell this was a mess. I'm gonna be honest, I do not like the Wilson brothers and right off the bat I could tell Luke was miscast as the husband. The couple is miserable to be around, lots of bickering that contributes very little in the way of actual character development. OK, their son is dead and now they hate each other. I struggle to understand why that was included or what it contributes to the story's theme. But it's a dumb horror movie after all, I could possibly look past the bad characters if the story was good. Sadly that was not the case. None of the writing makes any sense! Why would the killers leave videotapes in the room? Why would they not just break the window to get in to the couple's room? Why would the cop arrive alone to a situation that was described as being very dangerous? Why would the police station not be alarmed when he never called in or returned? How would the guy not be dead after lying there bleeding out for such a long time? None of it makes sense! Terrible movie.

I couldn't make it through one episode, it was just so incredibly awful. I actually felt embarrassed on behalf of everybody involved, which is never pleasant. I'm a big fan of the original 90s series... it was the perfect mix of cheesiness, colorful clothes, aesthetically pleasing set-pieces, and characters who were actually charming once you get to know them. This cynical cash-grab lacks all the things that made the original a classic, and replaced it with genuinely repulsive characters and an incredibly stupid premise from top to bottom. The producers of this travesty should be ashamed of themselves. How about come up with something fresh and original instead of churning out insufferable reboots? (sadly, this show is one of many examples).

I was recently recommended this show by a friend, as somehow it had slipped under my radar when it first aired. On the surface, it seemed like something I'd love. I know a lot about the AIDS crisis, have volunteered at an HIV/AIDS charity, and have a degree in biology so viruses have always been interesting to me. Reflecting on pandemics of the past (and present, since AIDS is an ongoing issue) seems especially prescient due to the current crisis we face with covid. I also happen to be gay, which I'm only stating so that the rest of my review isn't waved off as bigotry or something stupid like that.

This show, frankly, baffled me. The tone is really bizarre. It handles an extremely heavy topic with all the flippancy of a soap opera. There are a bunch of weird montages with fourth wall-rupturing soliloquies that made me feel like I was watching a production meant for the stage. I half-expected the characters to break out in song during these moments, which mercifully did not happen. The acting is generally sub-par, with many of the scenes that should be poignant, upsetting, and probably even terrifying instead being tinged with an unshakeable sense of melodrama. It just didn't work for me.

Aside from the confusing tone, the characters were mostly ridiculous stereotypes... were it not for the director being a gay guy himself, I'd probably go as far as calling them homophobic caricatures. Almost every single one of the core group of gay men is a lisping, gender-bending diva, all of whom talked more like Zoomers than 80s youths (the "LA" call and response thing they do is the most cringeworthy thing I've seen in recent memory.) They were incredibly flat and one-dimensional, with so little humanity given to them that I simply couldn't connect with them. Most of them also seemed to be afflicted by some sort of neuroses resembling narcissistic personality disorder and, frankly, were insufferable. The only characters I thought had any redeeming qualities were Jill and Colin. Jill was sort of puzzling because over the entire decade we follow her around, she doesn't seem to have any significant other of her own or any clear career goals other than being a full-time f*g-hag. Colin, though sweet and sympathetic, felt shoehorned in, and his eventual doom felt unearned and manipulative on the writer's part.

Worst of all, however, is Olly Alexander's character, Ritchie, who unfortunately for us all is supposed to be the lead role. I was unfamiliar with Olly and all I can say is... this dude not only cannot act but is also almost impressively annoying. Once I realized that he was going to be the final death, the gut-punch that the whole train wreck had been building up to, I couldn't believe it. I think the point where it finally completely jumped the shark for me was when he put on his little ballerina dance in front of his friend's car... barf. His closing monologue to his mom was incredible cringe-inducing, and the following exchange between his mom and Jill was probably even worse. Terrible, terrible stuff.

What's more is that this show's structure is almost a complete ripoff of the FAR superior film "Longtime Companion" (1989). That movie came out when the AIDS crisis was still at its peak, and the characters act like actual gay men from the 80s instead of annoying Zoomers playing fashion show. Seriously, whether or not you like this show, do yourself a favor and watch that one. The characters are multi-dimensional beings who you will genuinely care about, the tone is just as dark as it should be, and above all it is genuinely SCARY. It's criminal how few people seem to be aware of that great film.

(NOTE: This would be a 1-star review, but I'm awarding the extra star due to Neil Patrick Harris and the prospect of raising awareness about details of the AIDS crisis that the textbooks gloss over.)

I can understand not giving this movie 1 star like I do (but I am not alone), but any of the 10 star reviews are either astroturfing or are from people who have a hilariously low bar for what constitutes a "perfect" movie.

Full disclosure, I paid to see the first "reboot" (LOL) on screen in 2018 and was... incredibly disappointed. What a terrible movie that was. But oh wow, that movie was Oscar-worthy compared to "Halloween Kills", which is also a stupid title.

This time I did not make the mistake of paying again, so watched it for free at home, mainly out of morbid curiosity and a desire for background noise while working. Dear god, the 2018 edition was bad but this one is absolutely atrocious... every ingredient sucks. The writing is the worst part, by far. And the bad aspects just keep coming rapid fire. Why would anybody care about this 1978 character arc about some random cop non-character? Why does the other cop tell us he knew Michael as kids? The last thing he needs is more exposition. Things only get worse. For some reason, all the "survivors" of the original movie hang out on Halloween in a bar and reminisce about that night they almost got murdered? The best (worst?) is that the girl who got her throat slit in the 1978 movie somehow survived even though that makes no sense...

Laurie is almost dead, and then her daughter, who would certainly be suffering from some form of PTSD, finds out Michael is alive and immediately goes into a rage to hunt him (LOL). She joins the other tertiary leftover characters from 1978 and they drive around hunting Michael (?). I wish I was joking, but this makes up most of the first half of the film.

Oh yeah, and when he does rarely appear, Michael is also now a Mortal Kombat character and kills 3 firefighters in about 15 seconds with a table saw... it's just utterly absurd. He's supposed to be a slow creeping "force of nature" not an agile fighting game character. And no, there's not a sense of Evil Dead style campiness to any of this. The movie is a tonal nightmare but the Michael scenes are serious to the point of melodrama.

The absolute nadir of the film is when Laurie, who has just come out of surgery, somehow "snaps out of it" by giving herself a shot of... something? She just knows how to find this miracle potion in the hospital and how to administer it without killing herself. Then the hospital fills with... a sea of scared people? Why would they go to the hospital and not, like, the police station or just leave town? It makes no sense and is incredibly frustrating. Then the hospital invaders think some random old guy with a disability is Michael (?) only for him to literally commit suicide by jumping out of the window (?). Let's just say it doesn't get better from there. Not at all. But I don't want to spoil the ending for anybody who enjoys this.

Final remarks: There are tertiary (maybe quaternary?) characters who are either a gay couple (I'm gay, for the record) or an interracial couple... which just feels so cynically shoehorned in to tick some boxes. For the record, if the movie was good and these elements were included I really wouldn't care. I'm not any kind of conservative or culture warrior, but I see this stuff for what it is. It just adds insult to injury by fetishizing these minority groups in an otherwise morally, ethically, and artistically bankrupt piece of trash as a self-serving PR attempt to appear "righteous".

Please, dear reader, do NOT pay to see this movie. It's worse than even 5, 6, or the Zombie remakes (yes, really). If you're new to the franchise, don't bother with this. Just watch Halloween (1978), Pt. 2, and then H20. If you want to watch the 4 thru 6 trilogy... OK. They're not great, but at least at their worst they're so bad they're funny... there is nothing funny about this. It's just really, really cringe.

I cannot believe HBO would distribute this pile of garbage. First of all, who is Chris Gethard and why is he even in this? He's almost a constant presence and it's deeply, deeply annoying. He isn't funny, his memories aren't interesting, and he contributes literally nothing of value. On top of that, the fact that half the runtime of this miserable documentary is padded with half-assed animations speaks volumes. The filmmakers couldn't even be bothered to source enough actual footage of the subject of their documentary! What a joke. As someone else noted, they also clearly have no grasp of the three act structure, because the pacing and storytelling are a nightmare. Absolutely atrocious film.

I remember being captivated by the trailer for "St. Maud" when I first saw it advertised circa-February. It had been a long time since I'd gone to see a good horror film during its theatrical release cycle, and so I was really looking forward to seeing this one at the cinema. But then covid happened and the release was pushed back from April to October, further delaying my gratification. Yet now that I've finally seen it, I can't believe I was ever hyped for it to come out. Make no mistake: I love slow-burn horror movies, but only when they're executed correctly. In this case, I felt that the tension kind of fizzled out half-way through and the third-act payoff just wasn't there. It's less of a horror movie and more of a psychological character study with very brief moments of unsettling imagery. To put it bluntly, the main character just isn't interesting or dynamic enough for this to work. Her internal monologues were much more tedious than they were creepy. The ending felt phoned-in and cliché; I even heard a couple of snide chuckles when the credits rolled. But I think the biggest issue for me was that the marketing felt deceptive... I didn't really get anything resembling what the trailers alluded to... nearly all of the "action" was shown in the trailers, with the other 90% of the film being a chore to sit through. Now that I think of it, this mismanagement of audience expectations is quite reminiscent of the way I felt about another A24 dud, "It Comes At Night". It's not the worst thing I've ever sat through, but I do wish I hadn't paid to see it.

I think Temple of Doom was the very first Indiana Jones films I saw as a child, and I've seen it more times than its companion films. While it's not quite as good as Raiders of the Lost Arc (A true 10/10 IMO), that says more about the quality of the original than it does about issues with this one. It has only recently come to my attention that many within the Indy fandom regard TOD as a bad movie, which really surprised me. Since I hadn't seen it since I was a teenager and am now in my 30s, I decided to watch it on Netflix last night to see if my perception of it had soured with age. But I really loved every second of it! It's an action-packed, entertaining, pulpy adventure film with memorable characters and a great blend of suspense, humor, and even horror. What more could I ask for?

I feel bad for the character of Willie, and even worse for Kate Capshaw. I see so many reviewers attack her for "terrible acting", when what they really mean is they don't like the way the character was written. There's nothing wrong with her acting, she just had to work with what she was given. I think Willie is just a badly misunderstood character who doesn't deserve the vitriol she receives. The whole point of her character was that she was out of her element and, unlike Marion, was not a seasoned adventurer. This made her a foil to Indy and Short, and her presence helped set up many of the more memorable comedic moments of the film. I guess whether or not she's "annoying" is a matter of personal taste, but I just found her to be more cute than anything. While Marion was the best, I prefer Willie to the Nazi girl in The Last Crusade... who was basically devoid of anything resembling a personality.

I love the character of Short... he just feels so quintessentially "80s" to me. Yes, a lot of the things he does are utterly ridiculous, but I like what he brings to the table. It's a shame he didn't appear in any of the other films, not even for a brief cameo or something.

Now, onto the "problematic" aspects of TOD... If you are personally offended by this movie, I can't really argue against that because it's understandable. I 100% agree that some elements of the plot and characterization of Chinese/Indian people hasn't aged well and is in some ways feels racist. Anyone who knows anything about Hinduism or the god Siva will tell you that the entire premise of this murderous Thugee cult making human sacrifices to Siva makes literally no sense. It feels like that plot element was more inspired by ancient Mesoamerican cultures than Indian religions. Same with when the child sultan is using what appears to be a voodoo doll on Indy... that doesn't really add up either. The gross-out dinner scene where Indians are depicted as savages who eat live snakes, eyeball soup, and chilled monkey brains has no basis in reality... especially when you consider that Hinduism is closely associated with vegetarianism. And finally, the whole framing narrative of Indy being the 'chosen one' to rescue the village of brown people is a perfect example of the "white savior trope".

However, at the end of the day I know that this work of fiction was inspired by pulp novels from the early-20th Century... and yeah, this kind of "othering" of "exotic" cultures kind of comes with the territory. I can only speak for myself, but the way these groups are depicted in this film has not influenced my perception of these cultures whatsoever. I have known plenty of actual Indian people and I know damn well this isn't an accurate portrait of how they live. I prefer to view it as a document of a by-gone era, where Westerners viewed foreign civilizations with a confusing blend of mysticism and fear. So while these features could easily form the basis for a PhD thesis, I personally find enough entertainment value and light-heartedness in the rest of the film to justify loving this film.

Meh. After hearing the hype about Green Room for a few years, I finally got around to watching it today. I was very underwhelmed. I kept reading comments along the lines of "don't spoil anything for yourself" and "go in totally blind", but I don't understand what they meant? The plot went exactly where I thought it would. I thought there'd be some crazy twist or unexpected plot element, but nope. I was honestly kind of bored by the end of it. Not terrible, just nothing particularly memorable either. 5/10

As usual, too many people on here are leaving ratings based on a.) how interesting the source material is, or b.) their personal feelings about the cult and people who participated in it. Those feelings are valid, but not really what IMDB is for. Instead, I prefer to focus on the quality of the documentary itself and HOW the story is delivered.

The subject matter of this show could not be more interesting, and I was already quite familiar with many details thanks to some longform articles I've read over the past few years. So I had a decent idea of what to expect. As for the documentary itself, I have to say I'm quite disappointed so far. Yes, the cinematography is beautiful, and it feels very polished. But that doesn't really make up for some of the glaring flaws.

First of all, I found the editing to be confusing at first. We jump between timelines (the years when Mark was in the cult and everyone was "happy" vs the present day when everyone is freaking out) without any kind of text to let us know what year the footage is in. I picked up on these shifts by the end of the first episode, but I still found that a little strange. That's a minor issue though, I could overlook it if that was the only problem.

However, I'm starting to pick up an issues that seem to plague 95% of the 'docuseries' of recent years: it feels like the story is artificially stretched out just to make it fill up a 9 hour series. Episode 1 was boring, but 2 and 3 had much more exciting content. Unfortunately, we've now begun to stagnate. The stories in Episode 4 probably could have been told with just as much detail in 20 minutes flat. Instead, in order to bloat it into an hour, we're left with a lot of repetition and re-stating things we already know from previous episodes, or sometimes even from earlier in the same episode. It's already getting kind of boring hearing women talk about how they were mesmerized by Keith and then lured in by that... there's only so many times we can state the obvious. We know that's how he operates. Let's move on. I really hope the next few episodes don't drag on as badly as Episode 4 did, but I have a feeling that this is a sign of things to come. I don't see how there's 5 hours left of this.

The subject matter of this show could not be more interesting, and the cinematography is great. However, I'm starting to pick up an issues that seem to plague most docuseries of recent years: it feels like the story is artificially stretched out in order to make it fill up a 9 hour series. The stories in this episode probably could have been told with just as much detail in 20 minutes. Instead, in order to bloat it into an hour, we're left with a lot of repetition and re-stating things we already know. It's already getting kind of boring hearing women talk about how they were mesmerized by Keith and then lured in by that... there's only so many times we can state the obvious. Let's move on. Episodes 2 and 3 were great, but I really hope the next few episodes don't drag on as badly as Episode 4 did.

It seems like most people here are reacting to the sad subject matter instead of actually talking about the quality of the documentary itself. I too was moved and disgusted by the sad story... but honestly, by the end of episode 2 I pretty much knew everything I needed to. This seems like the latest in an annoying trend where EVERY documentary produced by Netflix, Amazon, or HBO has to be a series. This seems to be done not out of necessity, but because everyone wants to find the next Making A Murderer. The end result is a lot of unnecessary padding that waters down the interesting main story. By episode 4, we were talking about things that were only nebulously connected to the subject at hand. The production value is high, but that can't conceal the fact that it's just not a very good series.

This is such a good illustration of how 'Best of' lists on RT and IMDB are utterly worthless. Through some enigma of algorithm abuse, RT listed this as the best comedy of the decade. I suspect this is simply by the same virtue that every month the top movie in theatres creeps in to the 'Greatest films of all time' rankings on IMDB. I knew it probably wouldn't be the best of the decade, but still figured it would at least be 'good'. It had been awhile since a new comedy came along that worked for me, and I was in the mood for light viewing so decided to give it a chance. I went in to it blind without any trailer beforehand... but I literally could not make it 5 minutes in, the cringe was so unbearable. It reminded me of a bizarro version of 2001's "Ghost World", except with intolerable characters and jokes so bad that I felt embarrassment transfer... it was like watching an amateur stand-up comedian bomb on stage. You'd have to pay me to sit through the full movie. Awful.

Things I liked: Between "Uncut Gems" and, almost 20 years earlier, "Punch Drunk Love", there is no denying Adam Sandler's acting chops (seriously, I want to see this dude in more drama films). In fact, there's no weak acting anywhere in this film. The cinematography is absolutely stunning, and the soundtrack is great too (Now I've had 'Rain' by Madonna stuck in my head for the past week!) In some sequences, there are brief glimpses of the kinetic energy that made "Good Time" such a masterpiece. All of these elements worked so well for me, so how is it that I wasn't left feeling totally satisfied?

Things I disliked: No matter how you spin it, "Uncut Gems" is not in the same league as "Good Time". Which is fair enough because movies of that calibre only come along a few times a decade, and it must have been a daunting task trying to follow up on that success. I was expecting more of a 'crime thriller', but it did really deliver on that for me. The story was just so basic and dull that I often found myself more focused on how pretty everything looked (those shots of the gems!), as opposed to caring about the plot. Without those captivating aesthetic touches or Sandler's performance, there really wouldn't be much of note going on here. Tonally, "Uncut Gems" was a bit of a mixed bag for me... I couldn't quite grasp which emotions I was intended to feel about the things that were happening. My gut feeling is that this would have worked better as full-on black comedy, rather than a 'crime thriller' (which is how I've seen it marketed). Overall, I enjoyed "Uncut Gems", but it won't be something that will inspire repeat viewings in the way "Good Time" does.

The entirety of this documentary could have been told in about 15 minutes, but it's awkwardly stretched into an hour and a half. After the first 20 minutes it becomes painfully repetitive, and it's got an atrocious soundtrack to boot. A lot of the 'industry insiders' who are interviewed are so dumb it's hard to sympathise with them, let alone view them as credible sources of information. You also have to question the ethics of the filmmakers for uncritically giving a platform to some idiot who openly claims that AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill off "undesirables". Very classy! Save yourself the trouble and simply read the Wikipedia article called, "STDs in the Porn Industry". This amateurish garbage isn't worth your valuable time.

How this sorry excuse for a horror film is receiving rave reviews from critics is beyond me. For me, "Us" felt like an idea for an hour-long Black Mirror episode was unnecessarily stretched into a 2-hour snore-fest. Things started out promisingly enough, with lush cinematography and some decent atmosphere. I honestly did like the beginning a lot with the flashback to the 80s and the vibrant settings that the characters found themselves in. I felt engaged in the story and was eager to find out what was going to happen to this family. But as soon as the cards were on the table and "Us" showed its true form, there was a 90-degree nosedive in quality that lasted for a solid 75% of the running time.

I think the worst part for me was that Mr. Peele wasn't content to leave anything to the audience's imagination. He really beat us over the head with exposition and ham-fisted attempts at injecting anything resembling a coherent theme. Sadly, the more exposition Mr. Peele provided, the less sense "Us" made and the more I found myself thinking "no, please... please stop, you're literally just making it worse." And then when the jaw-droppingly ludicrous ending rolled around, I left the cinema feeling exhausted and genuinely shocked by how schlocky the whole thing was.

I hated this movie, but I won't write off Jordan Peele just yet. I really did enjoy "Get Out" and it rightfully established him as a director with serious potential. But the serious drop in quality between "Get Out" and "Us" is concerning. To me it illustrates that either he was a one-hit wonder (unlikely), or maybe he just isn't the blossoming auteur that we thought he was. Honestly, all of the problems I had with this movie derived from the awful story... all of the other elements were polished. For future projects, I hope Peele will allow some more experienced writers handle the story, that way he can just focus on further developing his promising directing chops. I really do think he could make another good horror movie. But as it stands, "Us" is a pile of garbage that probably deserves to be forgotten... forever relegated to B-movie status, something you'd mindlessly scroll past on Netflix at 2 am.

Happiness is one of my favorite films of all time. I feel compelled to echo the sentiment of other viewers who have stated that this film is not for everyone and is certainly not suitable for children/families under any circumstances. I love black humor, and the comedy herein is as dark as it gets. But it is dark comedy with a purpose, there is satirical subtext at every turn. It manages to get laughs out of taboo subject matter without ever feeling like it is mainly going for shock value, a feat that I've rarely seen anyone else pull off. I've seen Happiness at least 5 times, and with each viewing I pick up on things I'd never noticed before. The attention to detail is jaw-dropping; every single plot element has purpose, as does every line of dialogue. I honestly believe that in the coming decades this film will be seen as a classic of sorts, and if you can get past the heavy subject matter you will be highly rewarded for the time you invest in watching it. It's a masterpiece.

I love the original Suspiria, and "Call Me By Your Name" was my favorite film of last year, so when I heard that Luca Guadagnino was directing this remake I was intrigued where I otherwise would have just written it off. After seeing it in cinema last week, all I can say is wow... what a bloated disappointment that was. I think the worse part is that there was the potential for a good film buried under this long-winded mess. It's about 45 minutes longer than it has any right to be. The plot doesn't really make any sense, which wasn't immediately obvious to me but upon further reading and reflection I've come to that realization. The best part of the movie, when we finally see the witches at their most evil, is marred by an inappropriate choice of music (so tonally dissonant that it pulled me out of what otherwise could have been a very engrossing scene) and terrible editing. Was it really necessary to show every single witch, in flashbacks, accepting the wrong witch as their leader before having their head blown off? I certainly didn't think so. Most of that was somewhat forgivable though, and if that was all that's wrong with this movie I may have been willing to look past those flaws. No, what really ruins this movie for me is the stupid political "commentary" (for lack of a better word) that they awkwardly tried to shoehorn into the plot. It all just felt so heavy-handed and pretentious. When they tell us that the previous student, murdered by the witches, was also involved in "political groups" I just didn't care and didn't see how that tied back into literally any part of the plot. So while most horror remakes are guilty of dumbing down their source material for a quick cash grab, this is basically the opposite scenario: it tries to turn what could have and should have been a fun movie about evil witches into half-baked attempt at political allegory that falls flat on its face.

Mysterious Skin is one of my favorite films, and despite its extremely visceral and heavy subject matter I can watch it anytime and be totally absorbed by it. The cinematography is beautiful, the soundtrack by Harold Budd and Robin Guthrie (of the Cocteau Twins) is lush and tranquil, providing an interesting contrast to the dark themes explored in this film. The acting is superb, and you will actually care about all of the characters. It's definitely not a film that I'd be comfortable watching with my parents, and it is not family friendly by any stretch of the imagination, but if you haven't seen it you really should stop what you're doing and watch it right now.

OK, I'll admit I went into this with high expectations, which was probably a mistake. I'm not by any means a huge fan of the original 1978 film, but I do find it entertaining. I've always thought it was the ONLY good film in the franchise though, and (naively) that's part of what intrigued me about this one. That and the rave reviews, which at this point I just don't understand. Oh, and the trailer, which I regretted watching because it spoiled the only good parts of the movie. If you have any intention of going to see this, I'd strongly advise you to avoid viewing the trailer. But honestly, I don't think I would have liked it any better if I'd taken that advice myself.

This movie has a lot of problems that I just cannot forgive. The biggest one is that it's just not "scary", or even "creepy". It felt like they couldn't decide what they wanted to do with the plot, so they threw together elements from what could have been several different movies. The only problem is, this movie is only 2 hours long so there are a lot of ideas they can't follow through on, leaving us with what feels like a jumbled mess, plot-wise and tonally. There are lots of comedic elements that just felt out of place. Julie has been transformed from slasher movie trope into action movie trope, and the movie itself undergoes a very similar transformation. All of the killings feel like things I've seen a million times before. Then there's a "twist" at the end of the second act that made me think for a brief moment that things were going to head in an unexpected direction. Well, that ends up going nowhere and things go right back on the rails for a groan-inducingly predictable final act. And wouldn't you know it sets itself up for another sequel at the end. Please no. Just stop.

I remember seeing Sphere as a kid when it was first released on VHS, and then basically forgot all about it. A friend told me that I should watch it again, and since I had nothing better to do I gave it a spin last night. I was not impressed. At first, I thought I picked up on some parallels between Sphere and Event Horizon (which is one of my favorite 90s movies) but it did not get nearly as dark or even suspenseful in any way. It's really boring and really vague, with a plot so lacking in anything resembling novelty it just feels downright lazy. I didn't care about any of the characters, and the few death scenes aren't scary or anxiety-inducing on any level. There was a lot of potential to sculpt the plot into at least a decent psychological thriller, but it's utterly unsuccessful there as well. A lot of times, with this type of sci-fi where the protagonists encounter an extra-terrestrial consciousness, less really is more in terms of what we know about the "alien" (or whatever it is) because maintaining some sense of mystery can be satisfying and thought-provoking. But in this case, it just felt like the plot never went anywhere and I just couldn't believe how hokey the ending was. I really can't think of a reason why I'd ever want to revisit Sphere, you're much better off watching basically any other Hollywood sci-fi movie (Event Horizon, Contact, the Arrival, etc.) from the 90s if that's what you're after. This one is just a waste of time, both for the audience and for the actors who appeared in it. It's really no wonder why this POS bombed at the box office.

I'd had Nocturnal Animals shortlisted for a while now, and after finally watching it last night I have no idea why I'd waited so long to watch it. The perfect balance of style and substance, I was immediately captivated by the stunning cinematography, alluring sets, and lush costume design but once the story-within-a-story began to unfold I realized there was much more to this film than the eye candy. I don't remember the last time I was so thoroughly entertained by a new film. The casting was perfect and every actor is at the top of their game here, no performance feels even remotely phoned-in. Amy Adams shines as the haunted lead, Susan; meanwhile, Gyllenhaal gives one of the finest and most memorable performances of his career (right up there with Brokeback Mountain and Nightcrawler) as Susan's former husband Edward, and as Susan's mental image of the fictional character Tony, the protagonist from Edward's novel. But perhaps the best, and most unnerving, of all is Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the degenerate villain, Ray. There's a lot to love about this film, but the sharp contrast between Susan's empty, decadent life in the post-post-modern world of high art in LA and the ugly, rugged desert thriller of Edward's novel is one of my favorite features. Combine that with excellent pacing and a thought-provoking ending that's bound to stay with you for a few days and you're left with one of the most satisfying thrillers of the past decade.

I've been interested in multi-level marketing (MLM), AKA legal pyramid schemes, for a while now, so when I heard about this film I knew I needed to watch it. There's a lot to like about it, but there's also a lot to hate. I would have loved for it to focus more on Herbalife itself and its victims. There's a decent amount of information about Herbalife (which is nothing but despicable) and a kind of sub-plot about a group of Latino immigrants who are trying to sue the company for taking advantage of their community. There would probably be more than enough going on there to make for a decent documentary, but instead it focuses too much on the stereotypical "wolf of Wall Street" opportunist (oh wait, my mistake,"activist investor") Bill Ackman and his bid to get rich(er) off of ruining Herbalife's stock. It's clear to me that he's just a sociopath himself who doesn't really care about Herbalife's victims at all, but just sees a situation to exploit for his own financial gain. On one level, I get it. It makes for a very juicy story and everybody wants a "hero" to root for. However, I would rather that hero to have been the actual underdog here, Herbalife's victims. I do think that there is a valuable lesson in the childish quibble between Ackman and his nemesis, fellow Wall Street scum Carl Icahn, about why using the stock market as an indicator of how the economy is doing is basically meaningless for the average person: in reality it's little more than a playground for the ultra-rich, men who are so out of touch with reality or basic human empathy that they put their own egos (oh, and money, did I mention money?) above everything else. It's well-made and will surely keep you entertained, but ultimately it feels hollow and left me hoping for a better documentary about MLM itself, not ego-measuring contests between reprehensible "activist investors".

First off, the other reviewers complaining about the "bias" in this documentary are being overly sensitive. While there are definitely opinions about his character offered by the people being interviewed at certain points (I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to have an opinion about Trump not acknowledging the construction workers who actually did all of the labor, or worse, not paying them on time), the vast majority of what's presented are facts. These facts are well-documented both from news publications and from interviews with people who've known him for decades (both friends and detractors). For good measure, there are even excerpts from historical interviews with the man himself (although, thankfully, he was not interviewed for the making of this documentary). It's neither a character assassination nor is it anything that will fuel his cult of personality (which is perhaps what has offended his supporters so much); I could hardly imagine a more neutral assessment of Trump's life leading up to his election. However, I do feel like it doesn't quite go into enough depth. The first 3 episodes have a really nice narrative put together, but something about the final episode doesn't feel complete to me. I think maybe they should have gone the extra mile and covered all the circumstances of him actually running in 2016 and securing the presidency. Additionally, although not as necessary, it would have been interesting to have a bit about his life before he was 27. Some interviews with people who knew him as a teenager/young adult would have maybe revealed some more as to how he ended up being the person he is. Either way, unless you're the most fervent Trump supporter who only wants to hear superlative after superlative about your Dear Leader, An American Dream will keep you entertained from start to finish and helps to put everything into context for those of us who aren't old enough to remember his persona from the 70s/80s/90s.