Reviews

Although this film has merits, and although it appears to be great for its time, I can't really say that I was entertained by it, and I expect that most modern audiences would feel similarly.

The film deserves praise for its acting, stunts, costumes, and music (especially if you enjoy opera) but most of the other elements fall short.

The comedy is a mixed bag. Plenty of the jokes--and even a couple of full scenes--are still quite funny. However, most of the humor undoubtedly doesn't land as well as it's intended to or as well as it once did.

Unfortunately, the other components of the writing fare even worse. The pacing is poor, in that many scenes far overstay their welcome. Together with the overall lack of character development and (with only one section) lack of consequences, the script often just feels like a mishmash of skits instead of a coherent story.

The editing is jarring, containing many conspicuous cuts and some inexplicable fast-motion sequences.

Perhaps I was expecting too much of the movie, or perhaps I'm unfairly judging it by modern standards. My rating of 6 reflects that benefit of the doubt. In terms of my own personal enjoyment, it's a 5 at most.

Free Guy's stand-out performances and good production values adequately compensate for its mixed writing.

The casting team and the cast themselves deserve plenty of praise. Ryan Reynolds perfectly nails a difficult role, and the other, relatively obscure cast deserve some credit, too--especially Jodie Comer.

The visual effects were skillfully crafted and wisely utilized. They filled their proper role, which was to add immersion and serve the narrative. The action sequences were fun and decidedly cartoonish, rather than thrilling. Speaking of tone: the movie was funny whenever it wanted to be, although much of it was quite serious. (...all of which can be fine, depending on your expectations.)

The writing was a mixed bag. The plot was more compelling and cohesive than I expected from the trailer. There were some parts that felt surprisingly savvy and inspired, such as the explanation for why and how Guy acted differently. Also, unlike Ready: Player One, the dialogue was generally good, and the IRL sequences didn't feel significantly worse than the rest. Additionally, the movie gets quite a lot (though definitely not everything) right about video games and gaming culture, accurately depicting the sort of games that bring out the worst in youngish males.

On the other hand, the writing would have benefited from being more decisive. It shied away from imposing real consequences in some cases, which undid the work of other, emotionally weighty moments. Also, the writers' lack of technical knowledge was apparent in ways that felt silly at times, given how integral the technical matters were to the plot. (e.g. So what if a player is spoofing their IP address? Their account can still be suspended.) It was also a tad preachy, with three different social issues each getting a couple of lines.

The score wasn't exactly bad, but it deserves some criticism for its lack of originality. The only memorable parts were pop hits (albeit good ones) and recycled Disney IP--most notably Paperman.

Altogether, "Free Guy" is worth a watch for video game enthusiasts and fans of Ryan Reynolds, if not the general public. It's a good movie, falling short of greatness mainly because of the writers' unfamiliarity with relevant subject matter and their unwillingness to commit to dramatic decisions.

This film isn't outright bad, and it has some strong points. However, it strongly suffers from a variety of writing issues, among other problems.

This sequel has some of the strengths that I've come to expect from an MCU movie: (mostly) great acting, stylish characters, and envelope-pushing visual effects. Dr. Strange capitalized on the last point to the fullest, given its psychedelic subject matter. Like a few of the recent MCU movies, this one also has some very strong cameos.

That's roughly where the strengths end, though. Another typical strength of MCU movies is the witty dialogue, which this largely lacks. In addition, Xochitl Gomez's wooden performance would have worked fine for some characters, but not for the wisecracking street kid that her character is treated as. (For the record, I thought that Brie Larson was fine in Captain Marvel.) Her visual theme is also extremely on-the-nose. However, the big, big problems from this movie revolve around the plot and the villain.

I think most No Way Home viewers had a pretty sensible expectation for this movie's premise: Strange cleaning up the effects of his botched, multiverse-breaching spell. It's quickly obvious that the movie isn't going there at all. The writers threw away a perfectly fine plot and made some wild jumps in both exposition and character development to conjure another one. (Perhaps the jumps made more sense for Disney+ subscribers, but the writers shouldn't rely on that.) There are secondary plot issues, too, including an obviously nonsensical MacGuffin.

The villain's motive was reasonably interesting, but their associated world-building was a mess. Their backstory contains some inexplicable, ad-hoc components that remain mysteries to even the villain themselves. Also, their non-cohesive, ever-escalating mishmash of abilities should have allowed them to instantly defeat the main heroes, as they did with other characters. This is especially disappointing since the writers tried to blend this movie with the horror genre--just as the Guardians movies are part comedy and Captain America 2 & 3 are part political thriller. It didn't work in this case, though, since Steven Strange's very clanky plot armor releases the tension. The villain's unique powers occasionally result in some very gripping moments, but other action scenes repeatedly degenerate into Dragon Ball Z-style laser duels.

Altogether, the film is probably worth a watch for niche crowds, such as die-hard Marvel viewers, occult enthusiasts, computer graphics nerds, and Cumberbatch fangirls, but I do not recommend it for a general audience. Aside from being dark and incredibly weird, it has numerous writing-related flaws that are uncharacteristic of other MCU movies and bode poorly for the future of the franchise.

I usually try to avoid lengthy reviews, but given the circumstances of the movie's development, and the enormous gap between the critic score and general score, I think a lengthy review is warranted.

The production value was excellent, and the acting is top-notch. As even the harshest critics have noted, Isabel May (the lead) delivered a fantastic performance. Nearly all of the other actors were great as well, with the man who played her father being the only one that I wouldn't describe as anything better than mediocre.

The characters were written well, including most of the shooters, and the movie does an above-average job of depicting the attitudes, speech patterns, etc. of real high-schoolers.

Now to address the points by critics and skeptical potential viewers:

1) This film is not exploitative. It's not exploiting school shootings any more than Hotel Rwanda is exploiting genocide. The film isn't shot or edited in such a way that revels in the suffering of the victims--unlike, for example, most horror movies.

It avoids cheap cinematic tricks such as the jump scares of horror movies and the frenetic cuts and bombastic music of faction movies. Instead, the film relies on the inherent weightiness of the situation in order to deliver the emotional impact. (On that note, this movie is *not* a "fun" watch, contrary to one popular review.)

2) The film is not conservative propaganda. Yes, the protagonist uses a gun to try to save the day. That doesn't make it pro-gun propaganda, though. By the same standard, the film would be anti-gun propaganda on the basis that it depicts guns being used to kill innocent people.

The movie also doesn't try to lay the blame for the incident on any particular person or group. It shows adults making a lot of relatively innocent mistakes that compound to make the situation worse, but those mistakes have little to do with politics. There was one line of dialogue that felt like the writers were taking a cheap shot at the press, but that's it.

(As an aside, I do like the way that the adults were written. Most of them are doing their best to alleviate the situation--they just aren't presented with the same opportunities as Zoe to do so, or they lack the requisite skills.)

3) Will this movie inspire copycat crimes? That's difficult to say. Three of four shooters are nihilistic and depicted in such a completely unflattering way that I can't imagine anyone trying to emulate them.

The fourth, who happens to be the leader of the group, would come off as remarkably charismatic if he was doing pretty much anything other than killing a bunch of innocent teens. He also looks like he's having a good time, at least initially.

------------

So, if the production values are excellent, and most of the criticisms of the movie aren't sound, why am I only giving this a 7? There are a few reasons.

At several points, Zoe converses with her dead mother, who gives her advice ranging from emotional counseling to survival strategies. It felt a little like a deus ex machina, and it disrupted to mood of the movie.

My other main point of criticism comes from the handling of the lead shooter. Even though he was an interesting character, I think that he's a little to relatable to teens who see themselves as edgy.

Altogether, I think this movie lands squarely between a 7 and an 8, but I'm giving it a 7 to balance out the current score (8.3). In all, this is quite a good movie, and it's definitely no Pure Flix film. I recommend it for anyone who's not faint of heart.

"Christian" movies have a reputation of being artificial, unprofessional, and only appealing to those who are already indoctrinated. "The Case for Christ" breaks these stereotypes, delivering the best piece of Christian filmography that I've seen, as well as a good biographical drama by more general standards.

As mentioned, "The Case" avoids the pitfalls that the majority of Christian films fall into. It does not vilify atheists, make Christians appear impossibly pious, stuff the script with corny and unnatural dialogue (or significantly lack any other production quality), or contrive situations in order to "prove" Christianity (this is a biography, after all).

While the primary character, Lee Strobel, isn't a very nice person for most of the movie, he is no more flawed than most protagonists, and these flaws are never blamed on atheism, per se. Mike Vogel's portrayal of a man doing what he feels is best for his family and dealing with life's stresses, especially those that come from having one's worldview challenged, is genuine and moving.

I don't think many folks will come into the movie theater as skeptics and walk out as Christians, but I think the movie's producers were mature enough that that's not what they were intending or expecting. The movie likely won't answer all of a skeptic's questions (though the questions they do address are relevant, not straw men), but it answers enough of them that they should realize that (some) people do indeed have reasons for their beliefs.

Altogether, Christians and non-Christians alike should walk away from this movie with the desire to learn more, and they'll have experienced a good piece of cinema in the process.

I'll start off by saying that I was a fan of the original series, and I was quite apprehensive when I heard about the reboot. I viewed the pilot with modest expectations, and they were adequately met. The reboot pays proper homage to the original without being afraid to take some new directions in storytelling. I anticipate that some of their changes will work for the better, while others will not.

On a line-by-line basis, the script could use a little work, with some of the dialogue coming off as sappy or forced. That being said, the original series had the same problem, particularly during the first few seasons. Regardless, despite some poor dialogue, the high-level plot points of the episode were somewhat clever, and I'm interested to see what story lines they come up with (more on that below).

The acting ranges from mediocre to good. It's worth noting that the reboot is an ensemble show, not a one-man show like the original was. Whether this is good or bad depends on how likable the characters end up being (so far, they're all fine, but nothing special), and how good the chemistry is between the actors. The writers are going to have a difficult time making the rest of the McTeam feel significant without making the audience question why the show is named after a single character.

As for the man himself: MacGyver suffers from some inconsistent character development. At various points in the episode, Till's character is written as a suave agent, a hyberobservant science hero, a devoted romantic, an impulsive action hero, and a brooding, mythology-savvy dramatist. I'm concerned that the writers are going to use this inconsistency to make him say and do whatever is plot-convenient, and never give him proper characterization. Unlike Anderson's Mac, who was consistently characterized as calm, charming, clever, and philanthropic, there doesn't seem to be any set of unifying character traits with Till's Mac.

The reboot's pilot is much faster-paced than the vast majority of the episodes in the original show. The action sequences are alright, with two noticeable drawbacks. First, the cinematography has a highly stylized jitter that feels distracting and unnecessary. Second, there are a few disappointingly blatant idiot-ball moments on the part of the mooks, such as shooting repeatedly at Mac's shielded head when his chest and abdomen are completely exposed.

Despite the faster pace and a less consistent main character, I think that the writers have a good change of excelling with the medium- and macro-level storytelling. There is already a promising long-term antagonist who has genuinely compelling motivations to act they way they do, and who has a legitimate reason to be interacting specifically with Mac. Furthermore, reboot hints that it will explore some themes that the original never got around to dealing with, such as Mac's do-good agency running into conflict with a other, less scrupulous parts of the government.

In summary: One pilot compared to the other, the original is at least slightly better. Both the titular character and the show itself felt more charming, and the action sequences are a step down in some ways, despite there being increased emphasis on them. However, there's nothing about the show that's downright bad, and the macro-scale writing shows promise. Altogether, it's worth keeping an eye on--not necessarily because of what it is right now, but because of what it could be.

Keep an eye out in a few weeks for an updated review.

I had previously written a review based off of this show's first four episodes, and I gave it a 7. I felt that, as of that time, it was an average show, and that it could go either way. Most of the first eight episodes were good. A couple were great, even. But: episodes nine and ten were stellar. This series earned its 8th star.

The main characters are good. Agent Coulson, Skye, and Agent May are all very good, and, though some would disagree, I find Fitz and Simmons both likable. As for the minor characters: the people making this show aren't afraid to make up new characters, whether they're hero or villain, super- powered or non-super-powered. They already have a couple of compelling villains that are driven by more than simple greed or madness. The show's special effects are particularly good, which you might well have guessed. The show uses offshoots of classic story-lines such as Extremis. They also make references to the events happening in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at large. They are also beginning to link the events of individual episodes together very nicely. There is a good deal of mystery as to what happened to Coulson after the Battle of New York, and Skye's and May's rather ambiguous background is intriguing.

On the downside, the show contains some gratuitous content (and I'm not talking about showing blood in the action sequences or anything, I mean including things that are genuinely unnecessary). Also, some of the dialogue is a little cheesy. Additionally, some people who have seen a lot of television might find some of the plot elements predictable (although I personally don't).

Let me stress again: this show had potential, and, as of the most recent episodes, it is fulfilling it. It is truly earning its place in the MCU.