Reviews

As you may know, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is an anthology film, consisting of six shorts, which range wildly in quality. The first short is entertaining but suffers from excessive violence that doesn't mesh with the film's tone, over-the-top, unnecessary songs, and an overabundance of camp. The second short is one of the best: darkly funny, unpredictable, and quite clever. The third short I did not care for at all, but found it to be slow, unengaging, weird, and bleak. The fourth short is a very slight piece of work. Phony and self-satirical, it contains a couple of surprises, and has an appealing connection to nature, but is, overall, a misfire. The fifth short tells a simple story, and it tells it fairly well if you can overcome stilted dialogue and acting and a soundtrack that doesn't always complement the events onscreen. It's just ok, nothing special. The sixth short is my favorite and ties with the second short as the best. While the story is not especially developed, the superior characters, performances, dialogue, and atmosphere more than make up for it. In sum, only three of the shorts are passable (2, 5, and 6), and only two are particularly good (2 and 6), making this an uneven work from The Coen Brothers.

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of anime. I like Studio Ghibli, but only because their films can be enjoyed and even loved by people who don't typically like anime. Having said that, the animation in this movie is flat-out amazing. Every frame is a work of art, demonstrating unbelievable mastery of the film medium. Though a visual masterpiece, Your Name's flaws are, unfortunately, wide-ranging and deep. In fact, the movie's convoluted plot, poor choice of songs, unappealing characters, and off-putting, melodramatic tone make it a chore to sit through. I realize anime is not for everyone, but this movie really didn't connect with me. And it's not just because it's an anime film. It's because it's a movie whose plot and characters fail to engage the viewer in any meaningful way, whose soundtrack, tone, and overall style actively resist any attempt made by the viewer to enjoy the movie. If you decide to watch this movie, I hope you like it more than I did. Visually, there is a lot to appreciate. The movie is so good visually, I regret that I am not able to leave it a better review.

Although I thought Rogue One was ok overall, for a spin-off, anyway, it is among my least favorite Star Wars movies largely because it is the most unnecessary. Rogue One is clearly a better movie than, say, The Phantom Menace; however, in my opinion, Rogue One has the least merit of all of the Star Wars movies due to the fact that it is the most irrelevant to the overarching Star Wars narrative. It's a movie that really didn't need to be made and one that was, ostensibly, only made to cash-in on the Star Wars brand. As flawed as the prequels are, they give the original trilogy much exposition that it, for better or worse, would not have had otherwise. This exposition is nonessential and arguably even detrimental to the original trilogy, but it is nowhere near as irrevelent as Rogue One's, which doesn't shed light on all that much, and which doesn't answer any questions that really needed to be answered. In addition, neither the story nor the characters are very engaging. I can't recall a single moment in the movie where I sympathized or identified with any of the characters, and was disinterested in both the story and the characters during the great majority of the movie. The entire movie seemed inconsequential to me, like it didn't matter whether the main characters succeeded or failed, whether they lived or died. In its defense, I think it would have been extraordinarily difficult to have made Rogue One good. As a spin-off of off and a prequel to one of the greatest movies of all time, which really didn't need a spin-off/prequel, Rogue One was almost destined to disappoint.

To conclude the review, I would like to clarify that I didn't dislike Rogue One. There are a few things to like about it. The CGI is amazing, for one thing, and the ending couldn't have been much better. The way it bridges the gap between Rogue One and A New Hope is perfect. That said, I still kind of wish Rogue One hadn't been made. From a business standpoint, releasing a sequel/spin-off every single year is a good move; from a business standpoint, I don't blame Disney at all; however, from an artistic standpoint, Disney's milking of the franchise and relentless marketing dilutes and cheapens the magic of Star Wars. There's frankly something concerning about the degree to which Disney is willing to capitalise on fans' seemingly insatiable appetite for new Star Wars movies. Rogue One is a stark reminder that Disney has already begun to convert Star Wars into something much like itself: a money-making machine, sleek and durable, but cold and lifeless.

Frenzy is one of the better Hitchcock movies out there (I've seen most of them), largely due to stunning cinematography, well-written dialogue, and a suspenseful story. Some sections of the movie may seem a bit slow to modern viewers, but many of these scenes are saved by the dialogue and acting. The movie hasn't aged terrifically, but that shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering how old it is. Frenzy isn't perfect; parts of it, such as the rape scene and the dinner scenes, are pretty over-the-top, but, overall, the movie's strengths compensate for its shortcomings. Frenzy may not rank among Hitchcock's very best work, but I'd still say it's a must-watch for fans of the genre. 8/10.

The Force Awakens is about as faithful a Star Wars movie as one could hope for. Return of the Jedi is a challenging movie to make a sequel to, but J.J. Abrams and company have pulled it off. While perhaps not quite on par with the originals in terms of sheer innovation, the latest installment in the saga succeeds in that it draws ample inspiration from the original films without trying to outdo them.

As this is the first film in the series without Lucas's involvement, as well as the first to feature the original cast in over thirty years, it is, naturally, going to feel a bit different. Many things had to come together in order for this film to work. The shift in ownership, three years prior to the release of this film, has caused some to speculate as to whether or not the new Star Wars movies would be the same. Despite Disney's acquisition of the franchise, however, most of the themes of the originals are still evident, which is a testament to the timeless appeal of the series' subject matter.

From a financial and creative standpoint, the artists involved in this project were generally smart to imitate previous Star Wars films without going so far as to remake them (even though the film does stray a little too close to A New Hope at times). Though there are scenes and touches in this movie that some viewers consider to be "fan service," the movie would probably not have been as enjoyable overall had the writers not made the attempt to appeal to fans of the original trilogy. The film does introduce new characters and plot lines, but this is necessary in order for the story to progress.

Among the new characters are Finn, a rogue and free-thinking stormtrooper, Poe Dameron, a talented pilot, and Rey, a mysterious young woman who, despite having no training in the Jedi arts, already seems to have a powerful command of the Force. Finn and Rey team up early in the movie, fighting alongside Han Solo, Chewbacca and The Resistance in an effort to destroy the fascist First Order and their Starkiller Base, which dwarfs The Death Star. At the forefront of the First Order is the lightsaber-wielding Kylo Ren, a masked figure who bears a slight resemblance to Darth Vader, whom he idolizes.

The story, though often familiar, is intriguing nonetheless, thanks in large part to the movie's quality writing, gifted cast and crew and thrilling action sequences. The Force Awakens may be a bit of an unnecessary sequel in some ways, but that does not make it any less satisfying. Although, for some fans, Star Wars is well past its heyday, The Force Awakens proves that, in a galaxy far, far away, there are plenty of stories still left to be told.

I have been following the AVGN for several years now, and have been looking forward to his movie for some time. It more or less met my expectations. While by no means a masterpiece, AVGN: The Movie was fun, entertaining, and inventive. It feels pretty low-budget and campy at times, but it's worth watching for fans, as it has enough fresh ideas and clever twists to make up for its faults.

While I did enjoy this movie, I must say I'm ready for James to move on to bigger and better things. AVGN may have been what put him on the map, and it has been entertaining thus far, but after 119 episodes, it's starting to lose some of its luster. It'd be refreshing to see him do something outside of video gaming for a change.

I've seen some of his short films, and they made it clear that he has the talent for more serious, artistic projects. Although I'm glad he made this film, I'm still of the mind that it would be appropriate and timely as a swan song for The Nerd, or at least as his major work. He mentioned making a sequel, and while I would willingly watch one, I would much prefer an original film.

Overall, this movie is worth watching for anyone who enjoys lighthearted, farcical films. It may leave a bit to be desired in terms of acting and character development, but it's surprisingly watchable considering its budget and the fact that it's James's first feature film.

I really loved the beginning of this game when I first played it. It's strange, dark, surreal, and compelling. Soon after, I discovered that you only have "three days" to complete the game. It's probably closer to three hours. This oddity is soon solved though, allowing you to save and refresh throughout milestones in the game. It is challening though, completing some of the dungeons in this amount of time. You can't dawdle through them like you can in the other games. I got stuck for a while in the very beginning of this game. I can't remember exactly why. I guess it just wasn't as straightforward as some of the other Zelda games.

Anyway, this game is very original, even for a Zelda game. There are a number of intriguing side quests, and another cool aspect of it is that you get to acquire and wear many different masks that give you new abilities, such as swimming and rolling about 50 miles an hour. Majora's Mask is not as good as Ocarina of Time, but how could it be? It came directly after. It's a solid, and worthwhile sequel, it just takes some getting used to. For one thing, there's only four dungeons, but they are all much harder than a lot of the dungeons in Ocarina of Time. I didn't especially like any of them.

If you were a fan of the musical aspects of Ocarina of Time, the fact that this game continues that trend, is a definite plus, especially considering it adds new instruments. This is one of a few ways that Majora's Mask is more diverse than its predecessor, another other being that you can play as multiple characters in this game.

Although I have not and probably never would play through all of it again, it's still a dark, atmospheric, and unforgettable game. I really like how this game incorporates apocalyptic aspects too, as they give the story a sense of urgency and dread, something pretty much all other Zelda games are not as good about doing.

The story is also much better and more interesting than those of the other Zelda games that diverged from the main Hyrule setting and structure. I recommend this game to anyone who has played and enjoyed Zelda games before. It's a bit experimental, and it's not one of the very best, but I would still rank it higher than most of the others, as it's actually one of the deepest, most immersing Zelda games I have ever played.

When I first got my GameCube, this game was part of the Zelda collector's edition. I didn't know much about Zelda, and had only played a few games before, but was mesmerized by this game. The beginning of it is so magical and imaginative. I found myself playing through the beginning of it over and over because I didn't have a memory card yet. This game takes place in a vivid fantasy world that is vivid, ominous, beautiful, and haunting. I had never experienced anything like it. To this day, I have never been so absorbed by another game.

What's really impressive is that the entire game is very consistent in quality. The music is also exceptional. The music is better than most movie soundtracks, in my opinion. All of it perfectly accompanies what is happening in the game. So much happens in this game; it contains many cinematic cut scenes too, which really develop the story, which is an excellent tale of good versus evil.

Ocarina of Time stimulated my imagination at a young age more than just about anything I experienced. There are a few films and books that would come close, but I can't think of anything that could quite equal it. Ocarina of Time is an involving, authentic, frightening, and epic adventure. Playing it for the first time makes for an unparalleled experience.

Link's Awakening is the first hand-held Zelda and the first one to diverge from the Triforce, Ganon, and Zelda structure. This one instead takes place on a random island. A lot of people love this game, but I don't know why. In my opinion, it's one of the weaker Zelda games out there. Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages are far from my favorites, but they are both better and more interesting games. They both have a better story and overall have more to offer. As I remember, Link's Awakening does have some decent game play, but everything else about it is really dated. The music to these older games is hard to listen to. The first two Zelda games actually have better music than this. Yeah, we have the option of turning it off, but I like to have music while playing a game.

Link's Awakening is easy to play; it's not excessively difficult, but overall it just doesn't add that much to the series, in my opinion.

The Adventure of Link is a least favorite game among a lot of Zelda fans. I couldn't believe how bad and how difficult at was at first. The overworld is absurd, as you cannot use your sword, and there are no conventional enemies. Every ten seconds three enemies appear and it's like pac-man in that you have to run and try to avoid them. If they run into you, you are forced into this new screen of enemies. You can either fight them at this point or leave the screen and return to the overworld.

This game is very annoying at first, but you sort of get used to it. I tried to make progress in this game countless times and gave up on it within minutes. It doesn't even seem like a Zelda game. It is playable though once you figure out how it works. It helps to consult a walkthrough or a Youtube video to get help, as there are a lot of cryptic places where you get stuck and there's no way to know that there's a wall you can walk through or a certain grave that you can fall into unless you consult a walkthrough.

The dungeons are side-scrolling, so they're basically the opposite of the first Zelda game. A really annoying thing is that every time you die you have to start at the very beginning of the game. So you have to complete a palace in its entirety, or else you have to start from the beginning. You still do keep items and stuff like that, and going through the dungeon the second or third time is much easier, but it gets really tiresome. It's easily the worst thing about the game.

There are points in this game that seem virtually impossible. I felt like some of them require 50+ attempts before you beat them, and that's a lot for a game like this. The worst is the very last dungeon. It is incredibly hard. The last boss took me so many times to beat. There's also a boss right after that one. Fortunately, there's a technique to beat this boss that makes it about the easiest boss in the game, but if you don't know it you won't ever beat the game.

Overall, I would only recommend this game to Zelda completists who want to beat every game. The Adventure of Link does some things right, but it's far from a success. The palaces are kind of different and almost fun at times, but the difficulty is ridiculous. The graphics are also very dated.

This is, in my opinion, the first Zelda game that is actually a quality game by today's standards. It has a developed story, uses actual dialogue and characterization, has vastly improved graphics, better game play, and it has a much better save function. You can save anywhere in the game and not have to do anything over.

It is difficult at times, but not in the frustrating way that the first two Zelda games are. It's the first Zelda game I ever really played, and I'm glad I started with it. Although A Link to the Past is not one that I would replay many times, as there are others that are more fun for me, it has a style, a story, and a relevance that make it one of the most essential and authentic Zelda games out there.

Although I have beaten 14 Zelda games, the older ones are my least favorites. They are excellent for their time, but by today's standards they are pretty dated. The graphics are very bright and hard on the eyes for the first two Zelda games. The difficulty is also much, much harder. There's also not nearly as much of an emphasis on story, and overall the older ones just aren't as enjoyable. This game does get better the more you play it, and you do get used to it, but I found myself just progressing in it a little bit at a time, partly due to difficulty, but mostly just because I got tired of it and wanted to play something more contemporary. I mostly played and beat this game because it was a Zelda game, and I want to beat all of them.

This movie is one of the most beautifully filmed I have ever seen. It also has many intriguing and otherworldly settings, some of which some great scenes take place in, but despite the extraordinary cinematography , this movie had a lot of flaws. For one thing the pace is uneven. It was really fast at first, and then much slower, and then fast again; also the movie jumps around too much between past and present.

The many deaths and tragedies in this movie seem contrived. The whole thing just wasn't really as affecting or convincing as it should have been. I could have overlooked a lot of this though if the ending wouldn't have been so syrupy.

I'm not talking about the play of events, but the style in which it was written and filmed. It was just way too melodramatic especially considering all of the pain and loss that the characters had been experiencing for the whole movie.

I like happy endings, but the level of happiness should match up with the content and style of the rest of the movie, and that didn't happen here. The overall mood of the movie wasn't dark enough for its premise. The loneliness and anguish were there mostly, but there just wasn't enough of a sense of urgency and dread for most of the movie. It's still a beautiful film to look at though; there's no denying that.

Marlon Brando is one of the most talented actors of all time, and this is is one of his finest performances. The Wild One may not have the status of On the Waterfront, or A Street Car Named Desire, his other two knockout roles, but it is still an enjoyable and engaging film, and one of my personal favorites from the era in which it was made. It takes you back to another time. The Wild One does have a few moments that show its age, but its themes are timeless, and the characterization is just as artful as it was back when it was made. I highly recommend this movie to all audiences who enjoy classic cinema. You'll certainly have to look hard to find better acting.

I saw this movie twice in one year. I woke up one day and just felt compelled to watch it again. I think I might have even dreamed about it. It's really something. I always felt like I could identify with the protagonist, I don't know why. James Dean delivers the performance of a life time in this movie. He really becomes his character.

Rebel Without a Cause is grim, it's honest, and it forces you to look at the kinds of things we normally like to forget about while watching a movie. It certainly dwells on themes that were routinely avoided back when it was made. It's about real people with real problems, and these are not criminals. They're regular young people from middle-class families.

This movie is not sugar-coated; it's not pretty or polished. It's dirty and it's refreshing. It may not seem that controversial now, but the 50s were a time of happy family facades, and this film is one of the few of its kind that broke the rules and showed life how it really is.

Rebel is not without flaws, and it may not seem quite as groundbreaking or as fresh as it was back in 1955, but it is still an engaging and original classic that includes a signature and unforgettable performance from one of the finest acting legends of the 20th century.

I thoroughly enjoyed parts of this film. It has moments of pure brilliance and hilarity; however, I'm afraid it's a movie that has great scenes but doesn't really work as a whole. There's a great deal of spirit and ambition in this film, but it just lags a lot in scenes, and the longer you watch it, the more it starts to lose focus, and much of the humor that made it so enjoyable towards the beginning. I did enjoy its unstructured plot, but interest level starts to wane after about the 2 hour mark. This one definitely could have used some cutting; however, this film does take place underground, and the visuals, the music and the setting make for a great atmosphere and a plot that is always unpredictable and filled with adventure, and fun; however, if you want to watch a Kusturica film, I'd go with his other one I've seen: Arizona Dream. It's equally bizarre but it has a much more engaging and interesting story.

I've seen every David Lynch film known to man. Why? Because, like many others, I was captivated by the driven, innovative hybrid of beauty and horror, good and evil that is evident in Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. These films blew my mind. Between the story, the music, the visuals, and just the downright bizarre nature of these pictures, I was spellbound. David Lynch is a master of atmosphere, and as a painter, he has moments of cinematic genius. I was so moved and amazed by Lynch's earlier works that I found myself watching films that I wasn't even interested in, films that I knew may not be good, just because he directed them. I kept getting disappointed, but I didn't give up. I bought the best of davidlynch.com, I saw his short films, I listened to his CD, and I even sat through every minute of his very slow, very experimental three hour movie...

Where do I begin? This film tries so hard. It actually tries to recapture some of the horror and the oddness that made his earlier films so engaging, but it never feels the same. The eerie atmosphere is there, but there's never any plotting, or any substance to support it. It starts off with possibility, but it ends up feeling forced, and even arbitrary at times. I normally try to give a plot summary in a review, but what we have here is simply a very dark and strange movie about an actress. That's it. There's no continuity, there's no logic, there's very little justifiable conflict, and there's no story arc. This film is literally an incoherent, episodic jumble of weird scenes.

It's kind of like Eraserhead in a way, but guess what? Eraserhead was only 85 minutes. It feels like 120. By this particular scale, Inland Empire seems to go on interminably. Eraserhead was equally surreal, abstract, and disturbing, but unlike Inland Empire, an intelligent viewer can actually make connections with the scenes in Eraserhead—not inherently logical connections, but connections nonetheless.

Even among fans, I think it's pretty much unanimous that Inland Empire is so utterly disjointed that it's futile to even attempt an analysis. It is simply devoid of any traditional story whatsoever. I can see what the movie was trying to accomplish; it is meant to create a very bizarre viewing experience unlike anything else, and it does do that, but it takes far too long to do so. I will admit this movie had its moments. It has a couple scenes that made me jump, and one more that made me regret watching it while I was alone in the house; however, these few moments of terror are wedged between hours of plot less, stagnantly paced scenes that require too much patience to sit through.

I appreciate artistic films, but I like artistic films to get their point across within a reasonable period of time. I think some reviewers, me included, wouldn't have been so hard on this movie if it were about 40 to 60 minutes shorter. I enjoy odd films as well, but I like odd films to make sense, and if they don't make sense, if they break the bonds of logic, they need to justify this decision with something intriguing and original. I like the idea of an experimental film. I am even interested in a film that imitates the flow of dreams, and I admire a director for trying; however, as far as I'm concerned, this is nearly impossible to pull off, as, too often, ambitious filmmakers abandon the tried-and-true effectiveness of a classic story, and instead get carried away and ultimately drunk on their own meandering vision.

I never watch TV, ever. But I made an exception for Twin Peaks, because it was directed by David Lynch. Twin Peaks is an excellent show. It has a really strong, solid script, and it is complete with skilled directing, strong performances, good pacing, and an interesting story. Twin Peaks is a very smart show. Like it or not, it is a very original show, that in my opinion has moments of genius. Twin Peaks is well-made, and accessible, and it is brimming with intelligence and creativity.

But Twin Peaks is not for everybody. Some viewers will be turned off to it. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say it is "too weird", but all the same it is not only original, but also thoroughly entertaining and engrossing. Twin Peaks is an engaging show that really pulls the audience into the story.

There is no show, no movie I have ever seen that I have found much more engaging than this. It also also addictive. Once I got really into this show, I could not stop watching it, I was hooked. I watched all of the episodes back-to-back, watching 2-4 episodes each day. I could not wait to see what would happen next. Twin Peaks is filled with surprises, and unexpected situations. It is an unpredictable show that keeps you on your toes, and leaves you guessing.

It does have some flaws, but most are minor. Some of the transitions from one scene to the next where a little rough, a little rushed. Some scenes seemed like they could have lasted a little longer. The entire series was very entertaining, but the show lost a little momentum towards the end, and Twin Peaks does occasionally wander away from its original premise, focusing on characters and situations that do not seem as relevant to the plot. But these minor characters made the show a lot more versatile, by adding spontaneity, and comedy.

The plot is simple on the surface: A FBI agent investigating a murder of a young girl in a small town, but as the show progresses it gets more and more complicated. It incorporates many subplots, and minor characters. The show has a great soundtrack, but one of the best things about it is the characters. There are a variety of interesting characters in this show. I do not think I have ever seen better characterization anywhere. There are wacky characters, likable characters, unlikable characters, strange characters, funny characters, scary characters, and lovable characters.

Twin Peaks is about the tragic death of a young woman, so it is very depressing at times, but it also has a lot of comic relief. There is plenty of humor in this show. Twin Peaks is mainly a Drama, but it really has it all: Crime, Suspense, Romance, Mystery, Comedy. It is a very mysterious show. Most of the show is realistic, but there is a subliminal element of fantasy, and there is also a underlying element of horror in the series. These themes of terror really add a lot to the series.

I was genuinely scared by Twin Peaks. It even gave me nightmares, and films rarely if ever do that. I would certainly recommended Twin Peaks, but consider yourself warned that it is disturbing, and even terrifying at times. It is a great show that is full of flawless characterization, impeccable storytelling, and vivid imagination, but I would not recommended it to anybody much under 16.

But if there was one definitive TV show to watch, I think this would be it. I would recommended this to all mature, smart, and open-minded audiences. Even if you do not like the director, you may still like this. I would recommend this even if you do not like Television. I strongly dislike Television, but I loved this show.