the strangers prey at night

POSITIVES 
- Soundtrack is filled with many Jim Steinman written songs which is pretty awesome. 
- Pop songs played over scenes of terror is oddly fitting in a high tension operatic sense. 
- The Strangers themselves are pretty menacing and downright creepy. 
- Doesn't rely too much on jump-scares. 
- The direction of the pool scene is a huge highlight of the whole movie. 

NEGATIVES 
- Characters are still doing way too many stupid things, and that's a critique on the protagonists and the antagonists. Gets hard to root for the victims to survive, or the villains to get their kills, when they don't seem to deserve those rewards. 
- Too many coincidences and conveniences to the point of absurdity. 
- While the soundtrack is great, the pop song choices over the horrific situations, can be a little too ironic. 
- All the good things the movie does, gets overshadowed by the poor things it manages to put on screen. 
- Expect a lot of face-palm moments and yelling at how idiotic the characters can get. 

loveditenjoyeditlikedit  IT'S OKAY  itsmehitsterrible 

thoroughbreds

Two teenage girls come up with the idea of killing the step-Dad. At least that's the simplest one sentence way to describe the plot, but of course it's a bit more complicated than that. Consider this fact, the first scene of the movie involves one of those said teenage girls killing a horse. So despite what you might initially have thought about this movie just based on the trailers, there's more to things than meets the eye. With that said, by the end of the movie, depending on your reactions to it, you might end up feeling indifferent about the whole thing anyway. 

Writer-Director Corey Finley has given us something that could easily be accused of being just another manufactured, cynical, and pretentious story. The unique soundtrack alone will make you think that way. I could also just describe this movie to be quirky and weird, which can make this black comedy sound a bit more palatable to comprehend. If you want to ignore all the underlying themes that is. You can also just be entertained by the many conversations that Amanda and Lily have in this, which to me are the main highlights and reasons as to why it's worth checking this movie out. 

So yes, the premise and all the characters represent some form of social commentary that should encourage some thought provoking discussions. I would say that it's actually all pretty clever, as to how Finley pulled off this story. I would also say that I also found it to be manipulative at times, and relied too much on particular caveats to add variety to the story. Some of the decisions made for this movie felt a bit misguided to me, but I can't blame him for doing what he did. 

On a purely visual level, this movie is fantastic to look at. There's a lot of nice cinematography, despite the relatively limited locations that this movie has to offer. While this has a very small cast, they are all great in this. Olivia Cooke, Anya Taylor-Joy, Paul Sparks, and Anton Yelchin; in his final movie role before his passing, are all awesome in their roles. The characters of Amanda and Lily were likely designed to stand out among the many teenage female roles in film history, and I applaud Finley's attempt in doing so. How successful he was is up to you. 

I can understand why some people are saying that "Thoroughbreds" could be a new modern cult classic, but I beg to differ. It's clever and has it's quirky qualities, but I think the methodical pacing, the offbeat tone, and the whole "art-house" vibe, will be oft-putting enough for some movie goers. It's hard to say how people will remember this movie in the future, but for now, I'm not going to stop you from checking it out if the trailers got your curiosity going. 

loveditenjoyedit  LIKED IT  itsokayitsmehitsterrible

a wrinkle in time

If there's only one description that I can give this movie, it's that it's constantly in my face. Whether it be because of all the many flashy colors that are being shown on screen, or the picturesque CGI backdrops that's full of imagination, or maybe it's just the fact that there were a lot of close-up shots of people's faces. I'm talking A LOT of close-up shots, to the point where I just wanted to push my hand out and tell the characters on the screen to keep to their own personal boundaries. 

I don't know what's going on with the script or the direction, but somehow this movie felt like it was in a complete rush. It didn't really give me many moments to just breath and take it all in. The focus seemed to be on just constantly moving the plot along at a breakneck speed, that I didn't really get a proper feel to the world building. I can appreciate all the imaginative and outrageous mix of science and fantasy that makes up this movie, but that didn't change the fact that it made me feel a little detached from what I'm watching. 

The one element that kept me going however was Storm Reid as Meg Murry. It helped that her character is the main focus of the story, because she is pretty much the driving force to see things through the end. The rest of the cast were either hit or miss for me. The Mrs, that consisted of Witherspoon, Kaling, and Winfrey, were all interesting in concept, if not totally in execution. They were just fine, I guess. Calvin, the friend of Meg that is played by Deric McCabe, was so embarrassingly underwritten, that he seemed completely unnecessary for this story. I also started to get annoyed by the fact everybody calls Meg's little annoyingly precocious brother "Charles Wallace," and not just Charles or just Wallace. Oh and the other adults weren't in it enough for me to care. 

Maybe I'm simply not the target audience for "A Wrinkle In Time," and I should point out that I never read the book that this movie is an adaptation for. Even though I can recognize the craft of putting all that complicated stuff on screen, I can't deny the fact that it just didn't click with me. The overall theme and message of the story is also undeniably profound and a good lesson to learn, but unfortunately it's likely a lot more effective for a pre-teen than a grown adult. 

For a movie that is capable of showing me scenes of inexplicable cleverness and creativity, it somehow still leaned heavily on being overtly on-the-nose and obvious with a lot of the plot and philosophical elements. It got pretentious at times, or much too precious the other times. However there were several moments I actually did like what I was seeing. I just wish it completely hit the landing overall. 

loveditenjoyeditlikedit  IT'S OKAY  itsmehitsterrible 

red sparrow

If you were hoping that "Red Sparrow" was going to be the "Black Widow" movie that you haven't gotten yet from Marvel Studios, look further. This is not the glamorous action adventure thriller spy movie a la James Bond or Mission Impossible. This is closer to a methodical and slow burning spy drama like "Bridge Of Spies" or "A Most Wanted Man." Not only that, but the subject matter in this movie is absolutely not for everybody. 

There are heavy plot elements in this film that should be a bit unsettling. I'm not just referring to some of the more obvious elements here like torture or rape, but the premise that is set up with why Jennifer Lawrence's characters goes down the rabbit hole of working as a spy for Russia that she finds herself in. It's kinda dark and bleak and hopeless for her character many times over, but it's also easy to root for her to see things through. What she needs to do to see things through is what should grab your attention to keep watching. 

While not exactly a super exciting story to watch, and a plot progression that seems relatively obvious, the film does pay off at the end. The conclusion makes it easy to appreciate the movie more, after going through the dark journey that we had to experience. There were of course other things to like about the movie, like Jennifer Lawrence's performance, the little details that build up to the end, and a plot set piece involving Mary-Louise Parker. It's hardly a perfect spy drama though, as there were some story elements that I can call out as plot holes, but it didn't distract me too much. 

Although I think I would have preferred a more exciting spy thriller over "Red Sparrow," I did appreciate what the movie was trying to do thematic-wise and plot-wise. I don't think I'll find myself watching it again, but it was at least worth checking out. That is if you're the type that would like this kind of spy movie. 

loveditenjoyedit  LIKED IT  itsokayitsmehitsterrible

death wish

Positives... 
- Bruce Willis and the rest of the cast aren't bad in this
- It's a revenge flick with a story premise that easily generates interesting discussions
- essentially a serviceable movie that doesn't take things too far

Negatives... 
- it's a serviceable movie that doesn't take things too far! 
- those expecting Horror Director Eli Roth to take the action and violence up several notches will be mostly disappointed that he didn't that here
- some people will get impatient that the plot doesn't move fast enough
- the general theme of the story can be a little on the nose
- comes off too much like it's pandering to the NRA
- the full length trailer is spoilerific and diminished the impact of several scenes
- as a remake and a re-adaptation of a book, this movie doesn't give enough justification for existing

loveditenjoyeditlikedit  IT'S OKAY  itsmehitsterrible 

game night

Just by looking at the trailer, the first thought that might come to your head is that this is like "The Hangover," but instead of a drunken adventure in Las Vegas, this is about a group of friends who got together to play games when the situation becomes more than they can handle. Outrageously fun? It's totally crazy am I right? I could totally feel your eyes rolling back at how embarrassing this movie must be to exist. Here's the thing though. It's not bad at all. In fact, I would say that it actually is genuinely entertaining. 

With a good cast and some inspired funny set pieces, this seemingly idiotic overdone premise of a story, actually produced a bunch of very likable qualities to it. The chemistry between this group of friends, with standout moments from each of them, made this an extremely good experience watching this movie. From a fantastic bit where Rachel McAdams has to try and patch Jason Bateman's wound, a running joke between Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury, to Jesse Plemons being all creepy, there's a lot to like here. 

As it goes with these kinds of movies though, there's also a feeling like it's very disposable and forgettable entertainment. While I would argue that there are moments that aren't forgettable, I wouldn't blame you for accusing this for being disposable. There are many parts of this movie that requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, and that brings the experience down a notch. There are many parts that feel overdone, like it's trying too hard to be just zany. The ongoing joke that Billy Magnussen's character is dumb as bricks can get a bit weary too. 

While "Game Night" isn't going to be accused of being an instant comedy movie classic, I have to give it props for not being an annoying and overly obnoxious, piece of tripe. In general, it made me laugh, it was undeniably fun several times over, and I came away thinking more highly of the movie than I thought I would. 

loveditenjoyedit  LIKED IT  itsokayitsmehitsterrible

annihilation

I was absolutely riveted watching this science-fiction movie, and it's very gripping plot. Some people might find the pacing to be a bit slow, but I myself was extremely hooked. There's a general mystery that needs to be uncovered here, and it is the driving force to see this story through. There may be some complicated jargon and dense concepts all over the place that might turn you off, but the plot is actually relatively simple and easy to follow along with. 

Part of what made this film's premise so fascinating is how it expertly melds the sci-fi elements with the visuals. Speaking of which, while this isn't technically a horror film, there were some terrifying visuals to be seen. Some scenes made me queasy to watch, while some just simply made my skin crawl. Unnerving is one word to describe this movie, and if the story isn't enough, the visuals definitely helps with that. 

Natalie Portman is as good as expected. While there is some dramatic range for her to play with, she's oh so very serious here. The movie itself has the tone of tense seriousness, with hardly a spark of levity at all. That's another thing that some people might not like, but the subject matter presented here doesn't really welcome jokes and lightheartedness. After certain scenes, you're going to want to be able to laugh it off, but this movie doesn't want to give you that reprieve. 

"Annihilation" is a great addition to the science-fiction movie genre. The sheer ideas and creativity found here is laudable. It makes me want to read the book series now. If that was writer/director Alex Garland's intentions, then congratulations! I would like to see more of this in a movie format though.... 

lovedit  ENJOYED IT  likedititsokayitsmehitsterrible

black panther

Unlike the other characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I admit that I'm not that familiar with the Black Panther; short of his appearance in "Captain America : Civil War." I went into this movie not sure what to expect, and at the mercy of whatever wonders it has to show me. Needless to say, after seeing this movie, I really want to read his comic books now. 

Wow what a film! Director Ryan Coogler gave us a superhero movie, that didn't feel like a superhero movie. I know it's a little bit cliche to say that, but I'm more inclined to compare this movie to "the Lion King," if anything else. In doing so, I'm more inclined to compare it to Shakespeare than another Iron Man or Batman.

Speaking of which, both 2008's "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight," were able to set themselves apart from being typical super hero movies, by being able to balance the comic book aspects of it with a more straightforward dramatic narrative that you might find in other films not involving capes or super villains. "Black Panther" gave me that same feeling, and it was really easy to treat it like it's own entity that isn't connected to the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

"Black Panther" gave us some thoughtful themes involving global issues about isolationism, prejudice, and more. While it teased us a bit about royalty politics with individuals fighting for a throne, and the agendas that different rulers can have, the movie was thankfully more interested in conveying it's feelings about the more worldly issues. There's a lot to tackle in the narrative, which I greatly appreciate the ambitions of this film, and it's what sets this apart from other MCU movies. However, I won't go so far and say that the themes are completely nuanced. 

As an action adventure movie, it hits all the right spots. From chase sequences with some creative twists, the pageantry of duels, fantastic battle sequences, to a whole covert operation this side of James Bond. All those amazing elements of the movie however wouldn't be as good as they are if it weren't for the cast. Chadwick Boseman fits the role of the title character well. Michael B Jordan plays an interesting antagonist. Letitia Wright is the very welcome scene stealer. Danai Gurira is such a badass. So many more of the acting crew are so good in this, I wanted even more time with them past the 135 minutes run-time of this film. 

It exceeded my expectations, and I now understand why some people are calling "Black Panther" an instant masterpiece. It's easy to get swept in with all the accolades that this film is getting, and maybe I should be more pragmatic with my reactions for it. Nah, it deserves all the praises. Such an amazingly entertaining movie. 

LOVED IT  enjoyeditlikedititsokayitsmehitsterrible

the 15:17 to paris

You ever watch those straight to home video movies that clearly feels like they didn't deserve to be shown on the big screen? One of those movies that only have one real main set piece to showcase, and because of that the rest of the story feels like filler or padding? Well, this feels like one of those films. Which is unfortunate for me to have to say, because this is based on the true life story of these individuals who took heroic action to save lives when it was needed. I was hoping the movie lived up to what they accomplished. 

I suppose I should address the fact that they actually didn't use actors to play the roles of these heroes, and whether that decision affected the movie in a positive or negative way. The positive is that it does give off an authenticity to the real life people of this story. The negative is that due to the fact they aren't real actors, there are many moments when they feel very stilted in delivering their lines. The other negative is that it primarily focuses on one individual, Spencer Stone, and the rest of these true life people are essentially just the supporting cast. Is it a story about these real life heroes, or just the one hero? 

Despite that directorial choice, it does feel like due to the material at hand, there really isn't much that could have been done to stretch out Spencer Stone's story into a full length movie. It should have been a short film, or a documentary at best. The majority of the time in this film adaptation is that we are just waiting and waiting and waiting for that pivotal moment in the train. That has been the focus of the marketing push to what this movie is about after all. That particular scene itself was very engaging, but it's unfortunately the outlier to the rest of the movie.

If it isn't already obvious, this is absolutely not an action thriller of a movie. This is a movie about Spencer Stone, who is just trying to find a reason to his life, and thinks that fate (and God) is leading him to some specific purpose. Thematically, that isn't a bad idea for a story, but unfortunately the narrative veers off into many meandering scenes that come off more like an abbreviated montage of Stone's life, or just a pedestrian travelogue of his European trip. All that simply could have been more interesting, but just came off as derivative, or at worst boring. 

You would think the great Clint Eastwood could have given us something a bit more interesting than what we actually got from "The 15:17 To Paris," but instead we got uninspired dialogue and plot points, plus a few scenes with eyebrow raising camera shots of women's butts (how old is Clint Eastwood again?). Just stick to reading about the real life story than watching this, as it's probably more engaging in a written format. 

loveditenjoyeditlikedititsokay  IT'S MEH  itsterrible

the cloverfield paradox

First things first. I think I have to point out that it was incredible how in just one day, the first official publicity for this movie is made public via a teaser trailer during Super Bowl 52, then it's officially released to be watched on Netflix mere hours later, and here I am writing my review of it no more than six hours after seeing that advertisement for the first time. Amazing. Is the movie itself amazing though? How does it compare to the previous two Cloverfield movies? 

One thing it really has going for it is the cast. Fantastic line-up of actors here. From the stellar Gugu Mbatha-Raw, entertaining as always Chris O'Dowd, the commanding presence of David Oyelowo, to the rest of the cast from Daniel Bruhl, and even Elizabeth Debicki (hey, that's Zemo and Ayesha from the Marvel movies!). Another thing going for it is the premise, that involves particle accelerators and the overall tie-in to the Cloverfield universe. Plus there are some genuinely spectacular sci-fi horror sequences that are creepy and shocking in all the right ways. There's a whole thing with an arm that is easily one of the highlights of this movie. 

So far so good right? Well, the script could have used more work. Like many sci-fi movies around, there needs to be a level of believability in the supposedly smart scientist astronaut types that fill the characters in the movie. Then how come they still do some stupid things here?! Forget the sci-fi aspect for a second, but as a horror-thriller movie, the audience watching it shouldn't be smarter than the characters who should know better. There were also some plot issues that just felt so nonsensical and were just there to serve the story's dramatic moments. 

If I looked at "The Cloverfield Paradox" as a simple straight-to-video type "B-Movie," then I can probably excuse it for it's flaws. I still liked the characters, the general premise of the story, and those cool memorable scenes. All that saves this movie from just being out right disappointing. I can probably still watch it for those good aspects. With that said, this is unfortunately the weakest in the franchise so far. 

loveditenjoyeditlikedit  IT'S OKAY  itsmehitsterrible