Reviews

Good -There are comedic moments to be had throughout the movie although the beginning is stronger -You could say its nice to see cultural representation in the cast, jokes, and production

Bad -At a runtime of 1hr 35min, still felt a bit long -Ending not much of a satisfying conclusion and sort of just didn't know how to end, -Did not feel too much attachment to the characters

Overall -It's in the same situation as "Crazy Rich Asians" where that was for the most part an above-average rom-com with Asian influences. This film is one of the more solid comedies in recent memory but doesn't add anything new or change the game in terms of R-Rated comedy/story.

-With the director and screenwriters having a limited filmography, mainly limited to TV shows, it sort of shows as the cast bounce from one place to another, with a plot that doesn't really have much depth, but more so comedic/slapstick moments, granted when going to these films you aren't really looking for that.

-In comparing to the recent "No Hard Feeelings" I prefer "Joy Ride" as they are about the same but "Joy Ride" to me had more comedic moments, yet "No Hard Feelings" did have the star power of Jennifer Lawrence -Its good to see more raunchy comedies coming out although none reaching the heights of those in the late 2000s-2010s

3/5.

Good: There are laughs to be had and the crew pull off some creative and daring pranks/stunts.

Bad: With how many jokes/stunts that are thrown at you, there are misses to be had. As someone who has never seen a Jackass movie, there is no real emotion/story to be had as it is mainly a montage/compilation of pranks and stunts but that is to be expected for the "Jackass" fan

Overall: Without watching the trailer or having seen a Jackass movie, it surprised me and provided enough laughs to be a pleasant time. However with just mainly being that compilation, the movie can get tiring over its runtime especially if the jokes are not hitting you for brief moments.

*Celebrity cameos are also a plus even though some of the pranks revolving around them are not the best and are rehearsed

3.2/5.

Good: An All-Star Studded Cast that must have cost millions to cast. The two leads, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence, as always, are great in their role, but nothing Oscar-worthy. At times the humor/satire works. Fun concept/story about Fake News/climate change with its political satire. Jonah Hill stole many of the comedic moments.

Bad: Some parts can easily be cut short, and some actors do not get enough screen time or utilized enough. Although some jokes hit, some also land flat. As a big fan of their music, it was disappointing to see Ariana Grande and Kid Cudi wasted and are only there to draw in potential viewers, as their whole subplot could have been trashed along with a soundtrack song that is just not good.

Overall: It was refreshing to get a satire/comedy in 2021 and is worth the watch to see Lawrence and DiCaprio on screen. However, the script does get messy and lost in the story that it wants to tell, along with trying to land numerous jokes.

3.4/5.

Good: The Rock and Emily Blunt really "Make" this movie. Without them the movie would not have as much charm and wit. Like the famous Jungle Cruise attraction, there are some good puns/jokes to be had.

Bad: The characters are generic, and villains can be too cartoonish at times. The lore is alright and not much of a treasure hunt concerning the puzzles or creativity in the adventure. The CGI of the villains is awful.

Overall: Unfortunately, the movie falls into Disney's cash grab of employing high-prolific actors and having high production in a sub-par story capitalizing on its IP's. It is a fine movie because of the Rock and Emily Blunt, but there are much better treasure/adventure movies out there.

2.9/5.

Good: Henry Golding is truly a star in this movie and would be a primary reason to watch it. A generic actor would not have the charm and wit, lending the movie to be a total wasteful action movie in 2021. The action is alright and uses A LOT of swords but is passable.

Bad: Writing is your average Ninja/Revenge flic. There is nothing new to the table and could have easily been made a couple of years ago.

Overall: A generic Summer-Action film that has nothing new except Golding, but even that is not enough to recommend to average moviegoers.

2.8/5.

Good: More production than the first and a variety of rooms providing a different scenery every so often. A serviceable amount of enjoyment.

Bad: The acting is the same as the first film, cheesy and awful. To me the characters are not the most likeable so the support and rooting for them is not there.

Overall: The movie is similar to the first in terms of quality and plotlines with just a bigger budget. However, it still does not go all out in creativity of puzzles or stick the landing with its storytelling containing generic characters.

With a title and plot of a story of Champions you would expect some smart and intelligent puzzles with great characters, but you get quite the opposite and an almost copy of the first.

Some of the puzzles are creative, but overall a good live escape room will definitely serve more enjoyment and creativity than this movie.

2.4/5.

Good: An interesting storyline with a decent performance by Jeffrey Morgan can't save this movie from being lazily executed

Bad: The scares are lackluster, and the CGI demon is nothing spectacular.

Overall: As an adaptation from a novel, the film proves to provide nothing new and has no business being made. Although an interesting concept/theme, the cliché horror plot points and horror cues prove to be predictable with ineffective scares that can't make this movie stand out in 2021.

*The trailer gives most of the story away along with the scares :/

2.3/5.

Good: Great idea on paper, yet never fully reaches its full potential and does not fully develop, lacking a full cohesive story. The acting is average all around with Betty Gilpin being the standout of a strong female lead. There is humor to be had, but not much with just a lot of quick quips here and there. The film starts off great, but then fizzles away with pacing issues...

Bad: The writing is messy, and the middle drags. The story just does not add up to much and lacks depth and production.

Overall: The movie tries to be political but never quite works out. The advertisements and political uproars are unnecessary. The film has a unique idea, but the low budget world does not come together.

2.5/5

Good: There really is not much good to say about this movie except that the acting isn't awful from Lin Shaye and John Cho.

Bad: Messy writing with convoluted plot lines with time frame switches from 2004-2006, cannot focus on one story at a time. There is barely any story and relies heavily on jump scares. There are so many bland scenes and an annoying ominous score in the background to create an atmosphere but utterly fails. There are also random cinematographic shots that provide no purpose other than to extend the runtime.

Overall: This is one of the worst horror movies I have seen in a long time that is awful and entirely unnecessary. The plot clearly sat at a desk and is now only being produced to make a profit from a low budget. The story does not add up to much or provide any additional lore and has no significant themes. No entertainment value from this!

0.5/5

Good: Kristen Stewart is great, badass, and a fun time. The rest of the characters do not add much. Some action scenes are okay, but nothing to the quality of James Bond or John Wick.

Bad: The dialogue and writing overall are generic and sloppy. The humor falls flat and no jokes are gut-busting. Patrick Stewart is wasted potential. Naomi Scott just marvels at everything and Ella Balinska is fine.

Overall: A lackluster film that provides some entertainment. Kristen Stewart single-handedly carries the film. Elizabeth Banks is fine as an actress but not a great director or writer, just look at her directing filmography. A good try at a reboot but brings nothing new to the table and is unnecessary.

*Could be fun for a girls night out but nothing more...

2.3/5

Good: Emilia Clarke is great and is the one that brings the heart to the film. Henry Goulding is fine for role cast but can feel off at times. There are funny scenes to be had but not numerous. Emma Thompson is good as always.

Bad: Michelle Yeoh is a big miscast and role did not fit in with the movie. Although writing could be funny at parts, there is not much for the cast to work with as the story is run-of-the-mill and generic. There are filler scenes and not much to see.

Overall: There is nothing new here and will probably not be a Christmas staple. Although Clarke excels in her role and is great to see her on the big screen, she is the only one that holds the movie together.

2.5/5

*The movie focuses more on Clarke's arc than on romance so do not expect a mushy-gushy romance.

Good: The haunted house setting is always fun. There lies some suspense in the beginning, but in the second-half loses it. The play around with haunted house aspects can be entertaining somewhat.

Bad: The acting is terrible, the characters make poor choices. The film lacks themes so there is no redeeming factor in the end. Some plot points do not connect and some things are not explained well.

Overall: The movie should not be bad. It is evident that Eli Roth produced it by the movie having some gore and over the top violence. The poor execution and generic storyline make it a run-of-the mill horror movie that adds nothing to the genre.

1/5

Good: The main story that is tying the 'scary stories' together is interesting and a fresh take as the 'scary stories' are short and filler needs to be made for a feature film. The direction from Øvredal is great finding the right amount of scares to be had with built suspense from the grisly production by Del Toro.

Bad: The cast is fine, nothing spectacular or atrocious, it is something you would expect from a horror film. Some lines are cheesy and laughable. The main story could have been shortened.

Overall: Although there is nothing innovating it is still a solid fresh straight-up(less jump scare, more imagery) horror of 2019 that can pass the time with entertainment and chills to be made.

3.5/5

Good: Hands down the production and cinematography are amazing and truly comes to life over the course of the film to emphasize the film's purpose/themes. The cast overall is great, each one playing their role respectively whether it is an outsider or a cult member, especially Florence Pugh who goes through a lot over the course of the film.

Bad: The film moves relatively at a great pace until near the 3rd act and then takes its time to craft its ending and at times dragged and started to get stale. There are so many clues/culture traditions learned through brief images of paintings and drawings in the community. Although this serves great for analysis and more viewings as a first watch it is a lot to comprehend and can be confusing near the end if you do not remember some of the drawings. It goes without saying that the characters do not make the smartest of decisions and there are quite a few horror cliches.

Overall: The film triumphs in creating a beautiful yet disturbing atmosphere in broad daylight. There are powerful performances filled with emotions. However, the run-time goes a little past its run time and an ending that was not the most satisfying. Although I'll be back for more viewings to see the easter eggs and hidden clues, I personally prefer "Hereditary" over this one.

3.5/5

*Pro-Tip look at the painting/drawings from right to left *I strongly do not recommend this to children, 18+ mainly because of the slow-burn and material.

Good: No doubt, Octavia Spencer carries the film and without her, the film would have easily crumbled and been unwatchable. And that's about it for the good....

Bad: The story's goal/main theme is not interesting and the choices of the characters are, like always, stupid and ignorant. The romance is forced and unbelievable. The story and characters are under-developed and are not given detail. The film lacks a scare factor/shock-value and the only times the audience jumped were in unnecessary jump scare scenes throughout a campy horror flick.

Overall: Besides Octavia Spencer, the cast is throw-away and do not add much to the film making it its own. This is a skip, at most a wait for Netflix. Messy with loose holes as it never fully develops and dark humor that's cringe and laughable.

*The movie's lesson here is to have common sense!

1.5/5

Good: For the most part, the cast knows what type of movie they are in and play their roles accordingly. The movie is self-aware of itself and has many tongue-in-cheek jokes that at times can be funny, however many do not land and end up being cringe. It does not follow its predecessor too closely in its story, which offers something different.

Bad: The movie opts for sci-fi elements to be the core of the story and many audience members can find themselves lost with a story that does not flow, granted people came to see the film for entertainment. The film is all over the place as it tackles many elements at once, yet there is not much progress that is made over the course of the movie retaining to the objective, and near the end, the pacing really takes a toll when the movie only has ~100 min runtime.

Overall: This sequel did not have to be made. Let alone the film sets up for a trilogy in the end-credits as stated by the director. Although the movie is self-aware, some of the jokes and dialogue are just plain embarrassing. There are practically no horror elements this time around and even the jump-scares lack effect. The masked killer does not even play a prominent role in the story and is only included to add some entertainment to the boring science elements.

2/5

*If you do end up giving the studio money. I recommend watching the first one to get background story that is referenced throughout.

Good: The acting across the board from the main cast: James McAvoy, Samuel L. Jackson, and Bruce Willis are great. However, like in "Split" McAvoy is definitely the standout portraying so many personalities one after the other is fascinating to watch. Although the setup is great and intriguing, it feels glossed over to get to the main plot. Shyamalan's direction with camera angles and shots also standout and help capture the scenes along with the color scheme as seen in the other movies. I appreciate the overall theme of the movie and the message Shymalan is trying to tell, but suffers in the end and pacing...

Bad: As a film that started off with "Unbreakable" and supposed to be the long awaited sequel to it, Bruce Willis' character does not have much depth and is more on the sidelines. There is a lot of talking and some parts definitely drag making the film feel longer than it actually is, however even with this not much seems to develop and happen.

Overall: The film is getting bashed way too hard by the critics, but overrated by the audience. The film's tone is more like "Unbreakable" than "Split" with more talking and a few action scenes here and there.

3.5/5

Good: Like most Will Ferrell movies there are a few chuckles, but most of them fall flat.

Bad: The plot is generic. There is rarely any suspense. It is not nearly as creative as many detective movies or shows. Nothing stands out or is memorable.

Overall: An unnecessary Sherlock movie that had no reason to be made. A simplistic movie that has nothing innovative or genuine. Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly play the same goofballs in their other movies, but the lack of story and not much to work with, turn this movie into a waste of good talent. "Step Brothers" and "Talladega Nights" are a step above this one.

2/5

Good: The relationship between Hailee Steinfeld & Bumblee has its charm and the scenes showing Bumblebee adjusting to the environment are great. Some action scenes are entertaining. Some nostalgia references. The pacing is fine and workable. Hailee Steinfeld is the only actress to do a decent job...

Bad: John Cena does not add anything special to the movie and is too dramatic, only used for his huge figure and loud shouting. I prefer Mark Wahlberg over John Cena. The love interest and family dynamic feel forced and is not handled well with a lack of chemistry. The dialogue is basic and most of the jokes are what you would expect from a Transformers movie. The villains are generic.

Overall: The whole film is generic and basic with its plotline and characters. Hailee Steinfeld was the best part of the movie, but she did do a better job in "The Edge of Seventeen." Although it is not as action packed as the previous Transformer films, the movie lacks an interesting storyline to carry the movie. Travis Knight did a decent job with what he was given. Just look at the writer, Christina Hodson's, history, nothing imaginative or creative. The reasons for its rave reviews are because of its fresh take on the Transformer's franchise and nostalgic references, but the high score is not justifiable as "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" is a much better movie and "Stranger Things" has enough 80s references.

2.7/5

Good: The time period 1969 provides a great stylistic approach to a hotel that has property on both California and Nevada, which adds to the idea of having a good side and a bad side and the hotel also creates a sense of entrapment. The cinematography is great as it makes slow pans to unveil the secrets of the characters and the El Royale. The hotel, costume design, and soundtrack help create a nostalgic setting. The directing and editing are also well done when incorporating sound/music to scenes especially when Cynthia Ervio sings. Erivo's musical performance is filled with heart and soul and helps develop the character and conveys her emotions. Other standouts are Jeff Bridges and Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth just has a charming presence and provides the slight dark tone of his character. Bridges plays his character well as he connects with Erivo and tries to execute his actions. However, the rest of the cast have trouble making their appearance known...

Bad: At a whopping 2h 20m runtime, the film is a slow burn where it takes a painstakingly long time to make it to the end and even the finale becomes a disappointment. At times it tries to be funny, but the humor is not a standout in this film. There is a lack of emotional pull to the characters which is evident in the finale where the characters are still not fully developed. The concept was there, but the creativity lacked, which ended up in poor execution.

Overall: Style over substance. I wanted to like this movie for the trailer was great with its editing, soundtrack, and cast, but does not live up to Drew Godard's directing predecessor "The Cabin in the Woods," or have the writing creativity from "The Martian." The film reminded me a lot of Quentin Tarantino films as it was divided into chapters and had the same style with flashback stories to gain background, however, I would rather watch "Hateful Eight," or any of Tarantino films that have excellent dialogue and action.

2.9/5 (Not fresh)

Good: The setting of an abbey helps create the dark and haunting tone of the movie. The creepy atmosphere built with dim lights and fog help set the mood. Because of the atmosphere and mood there is great suspense for the first few scares, but with too much repetition of jump scares, the tension starts to dissipate...

Bad: This film is a jump-scare fest. The writing lacks substance and ends up being a poor origin story with: a rushed introduction that comes off as choppy, a messy middle with little plot consisting of jump scares that become exhausting and predictable because of its abundance, and a bizarre and over the top ending. The characters are wooden and over the course of the movie do not show much dynamic. Throughout the movie, there is cheesy comedy and forced romance.

Overall: Bring James Wan back for even though this film could have no way been on the same level as "The Conjuring" and "The Conjuring 2" it still could have been fresh in the right hands. To me, Gary Dauberman's writing has not shined for I felt both Annabelle movies were subpar and I believe he is getting too much credit for "It" when he revised the script and the material was based on a book. The characters were underdeveloped, uninteresting, and lacked emotion. This movie is purely for those who only care about jump scares and have a lack of care for acting, direction, and a good story. This serves as a Halloween flick to entertain the squeamish teenagers who rate a movie based on jump scares and a scary nun. If only the movie was given more time and not rushed to make money off of "The Conjuring 2"'s success.

2.3/5

Good: The scenery and setting are gorgeous filled with vibrant colors depicting the wealthy lifestyle of the families. For the most part, the acting is solid, but can get over the top in order to portray extravagantly rich family stereotypes. The film is well paced and the editing helps provide an upbeat and entertaining tone. There are some nods to Asian culture, and the film will resonate with younger as well as older generations.

Bad: There is minimal originality or creativity in the storyline. Some jokes try too hard and end up falling flat. The movie is generic and the story does not differ much from other romantic comedies.

Overall: The film does a solid job with an all Asian cast and provides eye pleasing scenes. The story line is common to other romantic comedies. The main thing making it fresh is the cast and cultural introductions. Asians will be pleased with the humorous winks and appreciate their REPRESENTATION within the movie.

3.3/5

Good: The concept was original and different and the first two-thirds of the movie were interesting/engaging. The film is filled with talent from Tessa Thompson to Armie Hammer. But the true standout is Lakeith Stanfield's character who is relatable with his struggles and goal in life of making a difference and mattering in the world. I do like the themes the film tackles like the corruption of big companies with its hunger for power and money.

Bad: The film bounces around too much with its subplots. Near the end, the story goes for more of a shock value and the social problems it started to develop gets lost in a bad acid trip. Some of the ideas and characters were not fully developed as a result of the film being fast paced and messy. I personally did not find the jokes funny, but my audience was laughing for the most part.

Overall: This film is a political satire so it is not for everyone, however I believe there is a certain crowd that will absolutely admire this film and praise it for its originality and humor. The film juggles too much, but I appreciate Boots Riley's first time directorial debut ambitions.

3/5

Good: The cast does an amazing job overall and at times feels realistic, but Nick Robinson is the standout and acts like a genuine high school student dealing with a problem without going over the top. Robinson's family and friends work well with each other and have a connection. The writing and direction from Greg Berlanti make the film feel fresh even if it appears to be another teen romance. The film is filled with a lot of emotion and heart. The movie is paced evenly with its entertaining, comedic, and emotional moments.

Bad: Although the writing is very well done, I do not agree with some of the plot points that do occur. Nitpicking: A few jokes fall flat and the principal just becomes a source of comedic relief and does not benefit the story.

Overall: I will say that "Call Me By Your Name" is a better film overall, but "Love, Simon" has heart and wit and provides for an enjoyable watch. For a high school student, this movie can be relatable by showing the struggles of having a crush or secret and how it affects others. I hope more commercial films will start to produce more coming-of-age films instead of indie films always being the go-to when it comes to seeing great teen dramas.

3.75/5

Good: Some of the messages and morals of the story are heartfelt for its intended audience of children. The saving grace is Chris Pine. Even though he had a small role, he fit the role perfectly and was not so excessive. The color scheme is very bright and colorful, which makes the movie somewhat interesting, even with the subpar acting and plot.....

Bad: The acting all around is either subar from the cast or over the top from Mindy Kaling and Zach Galifianakis that it comes out unnatural. Even with a good cast consisting of Oprah Winfrey and Reese Witherspoon, they did not add much to the movie's benefit. Disney spent so much money on its adult characters that they forgot to hire good child actors/actresses for the child cast members are not even on par with some of the amazing child stars from "Stranger Things," "It," or "Jungle Book."

Overall: The movie is mainly geared towards elementary and middle school children with some adult aspects, yet the movie is childish and not up to Disney's standard. Disney should be embarrassed to have produced such a movie with big Hollywood names and have it bomb. The movie falls flat and lacks humor leading to a failure for Disney. Even though this movie is supposed to be a big statement towards diversity with a colored director helming a $100 million budget project, the movie does not do justice.

2/5