Change Your Image
cinemapersonified
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Challengers (2024)
Great Movie
Rating: 9.2
Overall, a great movie that is carried by incredible writing, an incredible score, great direction, and memorable performances (especially Zendaya's) as the film uses tennis as a metaphor to explain the relationships of this love triangle, but this movie is held back by its noticeable editing/continuity blunders and unrealistic tennis technique.
Direction: Great
The direction on a macroscale is great as he sets the overarching love triangle conflict well and accurately portrays both the intensity/mine-games of Tennis and various aspects of the organized sport (including the ATP Tour, the US Open series, the challenger circuit, the collegiate level, and the amateur circuit); the direction on a microscale is great as you see the triangle of relationships between the three main characters; the storytelling is great as they do an amazing job jumping between the past and the present to holistically share the match between all three of these characters; he builds tension very well as it mimics the intensity of tennis (especially in the climax/final match)
Story: Incredible
The concept is incredible as the movie is really about this love triangle between the three main characters, and tennis is merely a metaphor for how these characters interact with each other; the movie very accurately displays the various levels of organized tennis as well as the intensity/mental game of playing tennis; the plot structure is laid out very well as the movie does a good job in going between the current match and the past to holistically display the relationships between the three characters; character writing is great as you get a sense of the double-edged nature of Tashi's character, the fall from grace for Pat's character, the unreciprocated love for Art's character, and how Tashi is the net between these challengers
Screenplay: Incredible
The dialogue is incredible as you see how conversations are a metaphorical tennis rally the way the characters recite lines back and forth to win each conversation, and the tennis vernacular is very accurate to the sport and the different time periods they move across; the symbolism is incredibly profound and prevalent as the movie is a metaphorical game of tennis the way Tashi is the net between these two characters; there is just so much symbolism that all my spoiler thoughts on the symbolism will be in the 'final notes' section; the foreshadowing is incredible as you the way the narrative is structured with it going between the present and the past because elements from the past come back to play a role in the present (especially in the climax)
Acting: Good to Very Good
Zendaya: Great (Really carries the movie as she acts as the net between the two challengers and shows how she is the one really in control of the match of their lives)
Josh O'Connor: Pretty Good (The weakest one out of the main three characters as he is not really on the other two's level, but does hold his own when it counts)
Mike Faist: Very Good (Has a lot of charisma and shows genuine concern for Zendaya's character, even though it may not always be reciprocated; does a very good job at matching the levels of his castmates and showing how his character has changed over the years)
Rest of the cast: Decent (The movie is really about the main three as everyone else is merely a cameo; the tennis form for the actors is not the best as some either have great footwork but bad technique and vise versa)
Score: Incredible
Fits the mood incredibly well as it does an amazing job at establishing the intensity and tension of every scene; their best score since 'The Social Network'
Cinematography: Very Good
Does an amazing job of showing all the different angles of tennis (even though the first-person POVs are a bit tacky)
Editing: Pretty Bad
While the editing was decent for the most part, there were so many continuity errors/simple blunders that could have easily been fixed in post (like the score on the ticker was wrong many times and there were moments where someone who serving when they should be returning), and it is very baffling these errors made the final cut considering this movie got pushed back more than half a year; the slow motion shots were fine to build tension, but they were overused in the climax
Sound: Great
Really good at getting the intensity of tennis and the crisp pop of hitting a tennis ball
Visual Effects: Pretty Bad
It made the movie super obvious they were not hitting the tennis balls as the spin/trajectory of the balls never actually matched how they were hit; side note, but there is no way Pat could serve that fast on a half-serve
Production Design: Great
Accurately portrays the different time periods of tennis and the US Open series
Pacing
Pacing is perfect
Climax
Climax is incredibly intense as it was the climax for both this close tennis match and the relationships between all of these characters; I enjoyed how the movie is left a bit open-ended as it brings different levels of interpretations on what happened
Tone
Tone is really a romantic drama between these three characters and tennis acts as a background/setting
Final Notes
This is one of the most accurate portrayals of tennis I have seen in media (minus how they actually played tennis); there is just so much symbolism for this movie (first: each convseration was a rally, second: Tashi was really the net between these two challengers (but on a more metaphorical level she is an obstacle between these two, so when the net is removed, these two challengers can finally embrace each other), third: the title itself is very symbolic (in the beginning, she adds the 's' to the title, so this is not an ATP Challenger, it is an ATP Challengers as she is trying to live her career vicariously through her husband (so when Art contemplates retirement, she does not know what she wants to do because this is all she knows (she thinks of herself as more than a ball and a racket, but in the end that all she is (and she doesn't know what she'll do with herself once her husband retires, She is clinging onto Pat because he still wants to play tennis and isn't giving up))), fourth: Tashi really is a homewrecker for these two challengers (there are a lot of homosexual undertones for this movie and Tashi is really the net/obstacle that got in the way betwen their friendship/relationship to where they feel free in the end when the obstacle is finally removed))
Hereditary (2018)
Very Good Movie
REDUX (04/24/2024)
Rating: 8.9
Overall, a very good horror movie that is carried by a brilliant performance from Toni Collete as she perfectly encapsulates a grieving mother and the lengths one would go to relieve her pain/trauma, but a poorly executed climax and a forced conflict hold this movie back from being truly great. While this film is better on a second watch, a movie should not require another viewing to fix major problems from an initial watch.
Direction: Very Good
The direction on a macroscale is good as he builds this world well and shows the internal struggle for the protagonist, but it falters when he tries to establish the conflict; the direction on a microscale is great as you see how trauma is effecting these characters (especially the protagonist); the storytelling is good to an extent as you see how trauma is effecting Annie and how she is trying everything she can to try and relieve her pain/guilt, but the storytelling falls apart towards the end when they try to resolve the conflict; he builds tension incredibly well as it uses a lot of horror techniques plus the emotional weight of what is going on to
Story: Good
The concept is very interesting as the movie boils down to a mother grieving the loss of her loved ones and going through every possible way to relieve her trauma/pain, but the supernatural concept is kinda forced in and not told well; the plot structure is a real mess as the conflict feels very forced and sudden, which leads to it being poorly executed (this movie would've really benefited from 20 minutes added to learn more about the backstory Annie's mother and how the overarching conflict has been effecting this family); character writing is very good for Annie as you get a sense of who she and how the deaths of everyone around her is effecting her psyche
Screenplay: Very Good
The dialogue is very good and natural overall; the symbolism is pretty prominent and helps show what the overarching conflict is; the foreshadowing is very subtle and laced throughout the movie very well, but the main issue is that it is way too subtle that the ending just feels so forced (these are things that are picked up on a second watch but would make no sense on an initial watch)
Acting: Very Good
Toni Collette: Brilliant (A perfect encapsulation of a mother grieving on all the loss in her life and how she is doing everything she can to relieve her trauma/pain; a performance that is multi-faceted as she steals the show in both solo shots and group settings)
Alex Wolff: Good (Does a good job at playing a high-school teen filled with anxiety and guilt, and he does a good job in showing how the supernatural conflict is affecting him)
Milly Shapiro: Good (Does exactly what is needed from her)
Ann Dowd: Good (Shows her experience and acts as a conduit for Annie to help her grieve through her loss)
Gabriel Byrne: Decent (Has a good number of scenes where his levels don't match the rest of the cast, but comes into his own by the end of the movie)
Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (Most of these characters are minor, but they do what they are told)
Score: Pretty Good
Used well to establish tension
Cinematography: Pretty Good
Used well for the most part but falls apart towards the end as the motion-blurring/low-budget shooting shows here
Editing: Very Good
There were many seamless shots that helped make this movie feel both polished and auter-esque
Sound: Very Good
Used effectively to help build tension and illicit fear
Visual Effects: Pretty Good
Does the most it can with a small budget
Production Design: Good
Really enjoyed the Dollhouse feel for the house as it mimicked Annie's art pieces
Makeup: Good
Typical horror makeup
Pacing
Pacing is good for the most part, but the 45 minutes feel too rushed; 20-30 minutes could have been added leading up to climax
Climax
Climax is poorly executed as it feels rushed and forced and feels like a big narrative jump from the rest of the movie
Tone
Tone is pretty true to other Supernatural movies (but does a good job at fitting in dramatic/deeper tones throughout the movie)
Final Notes
This movie is a lot better on a second watch when you know what the conflict is/how it is built up, but a movie should not require a second watch to fix all the problems from an initial watch
ORIGINAL: (04/24/2024)
Rating: 8.5
The Movie was just incredible, The Ending was horrible, The movie was only scary because the director had to explain why it was scary.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Great Movie
Rating: 9.2
Overall, a great super-hero movie that is a strong improvement over its predecessor with its acting, writing, and technicals as Sam Raimi pushes this film to the limit to make it one of the most groundbreaking comic-book adaptations of all time.
Direction: Great
The direction on a macroscale is great as uses improved technology and experience from the last film to do a better job at building this comic-book version of New York and creating more grand action sequences; the direction on a microscale is very good as it is a lot less campy and 00s, with it doing a better job at tackling topics on purpose and duty; the direction of actors is good as all the performances are improved since last time and the movie is less campy; the storytelling is very good as it feels very focused and structured, and Raimi does a good job at showing how doubt and purpose effect Peter's decisions; he builds tension very well
Story: Great
The concept is great as they built on everything they created in the first film and tackle deeper topics like balancing wants and obligations; the plot structure is laid out well; character writing is great as you really see the weight of the world affecting Peter and the dilemma to make decisions based on what he wants and what he has to do, and the villain writing is very good
Screenplay: Very Good
The dialogue is a strong improvement as it is less campy and is more profound when it needs to be; the humor is very good as it is used effectively and gives the movie a more playful/comic-book feel, but there still are some campy moments that are still unintentionally funny; the symbolism is more prevalent as the whole movie is about Peter finding balance with so much weight put on him; the foreshadowing is good and helps tell the story
Acting: Good
Tobey Maguire: Good (A strong improvement this time around as he is not campy and does a good job at showing his emotions and how they affect Spider-Man's decisions)
Kirsten Dunst: Pretty Good (Develops chemistry with her castmates and does a good job at showing the love dynamic between MJ and Peter)
James Franco: Pretty Good (The biggest improvement since the last film because he seems more controlled/comfortable and shows his acting ability; there still are some campy moments, but this adds to why this performance is memorable)
Alfred Molina: Very Good (Does a very good job at showing the different sides of his character and the dichotomy between his real personality and the villain he is turned into)
Rosemary Harris: Good (Does a good job at playing the motherly figure and is given more material to work with as she grieves over Ben's death)
Donna Murphy: Pretty Good
J. K. Simmons: Great (Still the best performance in the movie as he is given more to work with this time around and pushes the limits at how comedic his character can be)
Rest of the cast: Pretty Good (The performances are less campy this time around and do a good job at supporting the main cast)
Score: Great
Still Iconic
Soundtrack: Decent
Super 2000s and kinda disrupts the flow
Cinematography: Very Good
Uses improved technology and widescreen to make the movie feel more clear and polished
Editing: Very Good
More polished and seamless (but there are still a lot of campy/00s edits that hold it back from being great)
Sound: Great
Feel very polished and help bring to life the fight scenes/world (especially in regards to Spider-Man's web-shooting and Doc Oc's mechanical arms)
Visual Effects: Great
Uses advanced technology very well to push the bounds of 00s visual effects to make this movie very iconic and groundbreaking (but it is still obvious where they used a blue screen and how far we've come in terms of VFX technology)
Production Design: Very Good
Iconic and helps set this comic book version of New York
Makeup: Good
Helps show the damage and scars Peter gets from how far he pushes Spider-Man
Costumes: Great
The Spider-Man suit is still iconic and the Doc Oc costume is designed very well
Pacing
Pacing is very good and there is nothing to cut
Climax
Climax is executed very well as it is action-packed and gives big revelations about Spider-Man/gives closure to Peter's internal conflict throughout the movie
Tone
Tone is less campy and more comic-book/dramatic this time around (but still has its fair share of comedic moments)
Final Notes
One of the biggest improvements I have seen from the first to the second movie in a series/trilogy I have ever seen.
Shrek 2 (2004)
Great Movie
Rating: 9.2
Overall, a great follow-up to 'Shrek' that is a classic in its own right as it does a great job in building where they left off and being a great satire on fairy-tales and pop-culture from the time.
Direction: Great
The direction on a macroscale is great as it is once again a parody of the fairy-tale story (but from a different angle); the direction on a microscale is great as you see a sense of chemistry between the whole cast and the relationships/motivations the characters have; the storytelling is great as the whole movie is a parody/satire on the fairy-tale genre
Story: Great
The concept is great as, on the surface, it is an animated take on the 'Meet the Parents' trope, but, on a deeper level, it is a satire on both the fair-tale genre and the 'Hollywood lifestyle'; the plot structure is great at it follows the same template as the last movie, but has a different spin on it; character writing is great as you get a deeper look at Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey and how they are willing to do anything for the people they love (even if it means sacrificing all they know)
Screenplay: Great
The dialogue is very well written and is very topical to the time; the humor is very good and very topical to the time (there are many pop-culture references from the period); the symbolism is good as the movie is all about the sacrifices people make for love and commentary on the 'Hollywood lifestyle'; the foreshadowing is pretty prevalent and helps tie the movie together in the end
Acting: Great
Mike Myers: Great (Continues where he left off in the first movie as he brings Shrek to life)
Eddie Murphy: Great (Continues where he left off in the first movie as he brings Donkey to life and is the true comedic relief for the movie)
Cameron Diaz: Good (Not given as much of a presence in this movie but continues where she left off and still has good chemistry with Myers)
Julie Andrews: Good (Plays the regal, mother figure well)
Antonio Banderas: Great (He's Puss in Boots; on a serious note, does a good job at parodying his 'Zorro' character)
John Cleese: Very Good (Plays the father figure well and is very expressive in his emotions and motivations)
Rupert Everett: Good
Jennifer Saunders: Very Good (Brings out the character's strengths and does a good job at showing her motivation for what she wants)
Rest of the cast: Good (Everyone does their job well as they help create the world of 'Far Far Away')
Score: Good
Uses a lot of iconic themes from the last movie
Soundtrack: Incredible
One of the best soundtracks in cinema history as it is filled with some many bangers and is used well in the story
Editing: Very Good
Sound: Good
Animation: Great
Very groundbreaking for the time; but 20 years later, it is pretty evident we have come a long way in CGI and animation
Production Design: Very Good
Iconic and did a good job at parodying Hollywood mixed with fairy-tale elements
Pacing
Pacing is very good as it is short, sweet, and to the point
Climax
Climax is executed very well and is a culmination of all the characters' journeys
Tone
Tone is very satirical to fairy-tale, Grimms Brothers' movies.
Spider-Man (2002)
Very Good Movie
REDUX (04/18/2024)
Rating: 8.5
Overall, an iconic superhero movie that holds up well with its story and memeable moments as it ushered in the super-hero renaissance of the 21st century, even though it is very 00s and campy.
Direction: Good
The direction on a macroscale is very good as builds this comic-book version of New York City and has memorable action sequences; the direction on a microscale is incredibly campy and 00s (but this helps make the movie enjoyable and memeable); the direction of actors is pretty bad as a lot of the performances feel overly campy and unnatural; the storytelling is very good as it feels very focused and structured, and Raimi does a good job in showing the origin of Spider-Man and how duty affects his decisions; he builds tension pretty well, as much as he can for a PG comic book movie
Story: Great
The concept is great as they do an amazing job at creating Spider-Man's backstory and how he establishes his obligation to help others because of his power, and they do a good job at showing how the Green Goblin is tempting him to fight for evil; the plot structure is laid out very well as it feels like every scene is integral to moving both the movie and Spider-Man's backstory, but it is not perfect because there are issues with how they deal with the passage of time; flow between sequences is pretty standard for a campy comic book movie; character writing is very good as the whole movie is about Peter finding his purpose in life and fulfilling the obligations he has because of his powers, and the Green Goblin acts as a good foil to this because he shows the volatility in public opinions on their heroes (so why even bother)
Screenplay: Pretty Good
The dialogue is incredibly campy and 00s, but I do love this because it is filled with iconic lines and is just funny to see how unnatural it is; the humor is pretty good, but the movie is more unintentionally funny than when it tries to be funny; the symbolism is pretty prevalent as the movie is about duty despite living in a corrupted world; the foreshadowing is as good as any other comic book movie, so it kinda makes the movie predictable
Acting: Decent to Pretty Good
Tobey Maguire: Decent to Pretty Good (Incredibly campy and monotonous when he is Peter Parker, but he does hold his own well as Spider-Man; despite its surface-level flaws, his performance is just so memorable and iconic that it helps add to why people love this movie)
Willem Dafoe: Good (I love how over-the-top and iconic this performance is as he does a good job at showing the two sides of Norman and how he can switch so seamlessly; has very good line delivery in the more iconic moments)
Kirsten Dunst: Decent (A pretty shallow performance that does not have any chemistry with her castmates, but nothing is not a problem as she holds her own well))
James Franco: Pretty Bad (He does not connect with any of his classmates and his levels are just very off compared to the rest of the cast)
Cliff Robertson: Pretty Good (Plays the fatherly figure well as he helps establish Peter's moral compass)
Rosemary Harris: Decent to Pretty Good (Plays the motherly figure well and has some good comedic moments)
J. K. Simmons: Very Good (By far the best performance of the movie as he is very true to the character and is the funniest character in the movie)
Rest of the cast: Pretty Bad (So many campy, 2000s background performances)
Score: Great
Very iconic
Cinematography: Good
Editing: Good
Incredibly 00s and is very campy, but still enjoyable
Sound: Good
Made the web-shooting and the Green Goblin sound iconic
Visual Effects: Good
Very 2000s, but still good for the time
Production Design: Good
Iconic and helped set this comic book version of New York
Costumes: Great
The Spider-Man and Green Goblin suits are some of the most iconic costumes not only in comic book history but film history
Pacing
Pacing is good as the movie does not feel too fast or too slow
Climax
Climax is executed well because is action-packed and shows Spider-Man's decision making
Tone
Tone is very 2000s and campy (but this helps make the movie iconic)
Final Notes
This is a minor detail but why does everyone call her 'Aunt May' (like I get MJ, but like why does Norman call her 'Aunt May')
ORIGINAL: (04/18/2024)
Rating: 8.5
Iconic, great story, Decent acting, plot holes in how he became a good fighter, a childhood movie favorite, good screenplay, plays emotions pretty well, good action.
Civil War (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.1
Overall, a symbolic film that uses cinematography, tension, and sound well to highlight the importance of wartime journalism in such a divided country, but the movie's potential for a profound message is hindered by its bland writing and interpersonal scenes making it difficult to care for these characters.
Pretty Good Direction (Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as it shows how divided the country is and how horrifying the Civil War is on the country and its victims; the direction on a microscale is pretty bad as it is very monotonous and does not do a good job at showing how the conflict is personally effecting the characters, does not do a good job at providing any depth or growing the relationships between these characters; direction of actors is not good because none of the performances feel elevated; storytelling is good as it mimics the hero's journey in how these characters have to travel to reach a goal, it is during this trip that we see how impacted this country is from the Civil War; builds tension very well as it is a major mechanism in driving the story forward, there are many scenes that truly have you on the edge of your seat with how tense and horrifying they are (like the Jesse Plemons scene))), Pretty Bad to Decent Acting (Decent (from Kirsten Dunst (Does as much as is possible given how her character is written because her monotonous performance mimics how desensitized her character is to war)), Decent (from Wagner Moura (A real hit or miss performance as he does a good job at showing a wide range of emotions and showing how traumatized he is from the war, but has a mismatch in levels with his castmates and never really builds chemistry)), Pretty Bad (from Cailee Spaeny (Not convincing as a naive photographer and does not do a good job at connecting with her castmates in the more interpersonal scenes; while there are some moments where she does go outside of her comfort zone (like the Jesse Plemons scene), she does not have that wide of a range of emotions)), Prett Good (from Stephen McKinley Henderson (Does a good job at showing his wisdom and being the elderly figure in the group)), Decent (from Sonoya Mizuno (Really just in the movie to fulfill her Alex Garland cameo)), Decent (from Nick Offerman (He's really in the movie for like 2 scenes)), Good (from Jesse Plemons (A real scene stealer as he does a great job in building tension through his menacing nature as he is a major factor in creating the best scene in the movie; he shows that he is one of the best pinch hitters in the business as he makes such a memorable impact despite always having little screentime)), Pretty Bad from the rest of the cast (from the rest of the cast (Just a lot of background, inexperienced actors who do not support or connect with the main cast))), Decent Story (Story (The concept is pretty good as the movie is really about wartime journalism and the lengths journalists will go to cover a story, and even though there are some political undertones, they do not overshadow the movie; the plot structure is pretty formulaic as it just follows the hero's journey and the quest to reach a goal; the flow between sequences is very off as there are many scenes that feel unnatural and rushed; character writing is pretty bad as they aren't provided with any interesting depth and the interpersonal scenes do not do a good job at making you care for any of the characters)), Decent Screenplay (Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and unnatural as there were many scenes where I scratched my head at how some of the lines made the final cut, and a major issue is the dialogue is just so to the point that it disrupts the flow and contributes to the conversations feeling unnatural; the humor is decent as there are some funny moments, but a lot of the jokes flew over the audiences heads; the overarching conflict is a symbol as the Civil War is an overt symbol for Trump having an authoritarian rule over the country, and there are many symbols for how the divided the country will become, but the main message of the movie is about the integrity of journalists and their fight for the story and the truth; the foreshadowing is kinda an issue because it makes the movie pretty predictable, especially in the climax)), Decent Score (Score (Helps provide tension and add to the tone); Pretty Good Soundtrack), Very Good to Great Cinematography (Cinematography (Filled with both beautiful and horrifying images as it helps show the true complexity in a divided nation; I really enjoyed when they interjected the movie with photography stills, but I would've liked to have seen it used more consistently)), Good Editing (Editing (Helps give the movie an auter feel in such a heavy blockbuster; helps show the response of these characters during traumatic scenes, with it sometimes having their point of view photo shots)), Great Sound (Sound (Used well and feels authentic to show the warfare in the country)), Decent Visual Effects (Visual Effects (Practical effects are used effectively, but the CGI is really obvious and kinda tacky at times)), Decent Animation (Visual Effects (Practical effects are used effectively, but the CGI is really obvious and kinda tacky at times)), Good Production Design (Production Design (Helps show the destruction of America, juxtaposed with the areas that are unaffected)), Good Makeup (Makeup (Shows the grit, grime, and blood of the Civil War)), Makeup (Shows the grit, grime, and blood of the Civil War), Pacing is good as the movie did not feel too slow or fast; Scenes in the second half of the movie could have been cut because this latter part feels a bit bloated (especially in the climax), Climax is the biggest spectacle in terms of warfare, but is incredibly predictable as you know what is going to happen within the first minute, Tone feels very similar to other war movies (like Saving Private Ryan) with how these characters are trying to get through this traumatic experience, The movie is less political than I thought it would be as it is more about the characters than the conflict (the only issue is, the characters are pretty poorly written because you don't care for any of them)
Jack and Jill (2011)
Terrible Movie
Rating: 2.5
Overall, this may not be the worst movie ever made because it does have some moments and a 'memorable' performance from Al Pacino, but a majority of this movie is unwatchable and needs to be burned from existence.
Terrible Direction (Direction (The direction on a macroscale is incredibly formulaic and low-effort (similar to other Adam Sandler movies from this time period); the direction on a microscale is formulaic and tries very hard to get the comedy out in the movie; storytelling is templated and formulaic (similar to other Adam Sandler movies))), Bad to Pretty Bad Acting (Bad (from Adam Sandler (Pretty Bad from Jack because he's just playing the typical straight-man Adam Sandler character (who has his over-the-top moments); Very Bad from Jill because it is just so obnoxious and hard to sit through (burn all references to Jill in his filmography))), Pretty Bad (from Katie Holmes (Has ok chemistry with Sandler, but she does not do anything to make this performance memorable)), Decent (from Al Pacino (Plays Al Pacino but he is acting his ass off in some moments; he did not take any direction because it was obvious he did not want to be there)), Bad from the rest of the cast (from the rest of the cast (Typical Adam Sandler background characters; this does not count any child actors))), Terrible Story (Story (The concept is incredibly stupid; the plot structure is very formulaic and forced; character writing is very forced and shallow)), Very Bad Screenplay (Screenplay (The dialogue is low effort and similar to other Adam Sandler movies; the humor is not terrible because I will admit I did laugh at some moments, but it is very bad because the hit rate is like 1/8; the symbolism is shallow because it's a formulaic family message; the foreshadowing is a problem because this movie is too predictable)), Decent Score (Score), Terrible Cinematography (Cinematography (The frame rate was like off at some moments, there were too many cuts, and some of the scenes felt like they were from a multi-cam sitcom)), Terrible Editing (Editing (The cut felt very amateur and low effort; there were so many unnecessary cuts that it was very confusing)), Decent Sound (Sound), Terrible Visual Effects (Visual Effects (Very obvious and unnatural; clearly evident where the 79 million dollar budget went)), Terrible Animation (Visual Effects (Very obvious and unnatural; clearly evident where the 79 million dollar budget went)), Bad Makeup (Makeup (They just put drugstore makeup on the Sandman and called him a woman)), Makeup (They just put drugstore makeup on the Sandman and called him a woman), Pacing was decent because the movie followed the Sandler template, Climax is very predictable, Tone is very similar to other Sandler movies (just obnoxious comedy), There is no way this movie cost 79 million dollars to make.
Monkey Man (2024)
Very Good Movie
Rating: 8.6
Overall, Dev Patel uses an allegory to Hanuman to create a gritty and raw tour de force that is a political love letter to Indian Cinema and Martial Arts movies.
Good to Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very raw and gritty to show this underbelly of India, yet the stunt choreography is very sharp and polished as it feels like all the action sequences are part of a well-oiled machine; the direction on a microscale is great as the interpersonal scenes give you a sense of how the conflict affects the protagonist; the direction of actors is very good as all the performances feel elevated and true to Indian culture; the storytelling is very good as it uses Hanuman and Hinduism to serve as an allegory to lay the blueprint on, and the film uses the personal connection the protagonist has to his mother drive this story forward; the tension is built very well as the protagonist's emotional rage helps fuel the intensity of the fight scenes), Good to Very Good Acting (Great from Dev Patel (A true leading man as he displays a wide range of emotions to convey all the feelings he has towards his mother and his past trauma, and he seamlessly transitions between these emotions; his action/stunts are very well executed and show how meticulous and technical he is in his craft), Pretty Good from Sharlto Copley (Helps provide comedic relief and give a 'non-Indian' voice for the film), Pretty Good from Pitobash (Feels like a comedic Bollywood/Tollywood side-kick character and develops good chemistry with Dev Patel), Pretty Good from Sobhita Dhulipala (Develops good chemistry with Dev Patel and plays his character's role well in providing insight in working with the corrupted, elite world), Pretty Good from Sikandar Kher (Plays the stereotypical Indian villain well), Pretty Good to Good from Vipin Sharma (Develops good chemistry with Dev Patel and plays the oracle figure well as he helps show the protagonist his true potential), Pretty Good from Ashwini Kalsekar (Feels like an authentic performance for an Indian of Elite status), Pretty Good from Makarand Deshpande (Plays his role well and does a good job at creating tension when working with the rest of the cast), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone plays their role well because the whole cast feels like authentic Indian/Bollywood performances)), Very Good to Great Story (The concept is great as the overarching story is an allegory to Hanuman and Hinduism, but in the end, the story really boils down to Mother-Son relationship; the plot structure is laid out very well as each element felt like the right length and all the scenes built on each other to lead the movie to the climax; the character writing is great as the protagonist is an allegory for Hanuman and he is written holistically to show how his past trauma fuels his revenge, and the character writing for the rest of the cast is good as they fill in roles that are very stereotypical to films in Indian Cinema), Very Good to Great Screenplay (The dialogue is very authentic to Indian Cinema and is very engaging; the symbolism is incredibly profound as the movie on a macro-scale is an allegory for Hanuman, but on a microscale, the movie is really about a Mother-Son relationship and getting through trauma; the movie is surprisingly political as a good amount of the themes they bring up are anti-Indian Nationalist; the foreshadowing is great as it helps provide intrigue into the protagonist's past and his destiny, and these questions are answers very well as the movie transitions to its second act), Decent Score (Uses its themes well to help establish the mood, but was not used uniformly well); Decent Soundtrack(Some of the songs were used very well, but there were some songs that did not feel like they fit the tone), Pretty Bad Cinematography (The cinematography isn't necessarily bad, it is just very raw; there were many shots that I enjoyed and I felt like they used lighting very well to help establish the mood and emotions of the scene (giving a 'Blade Runner' esque feel at points), but it just felt like a lot of the shots felt very raw and took away from what was going on on-screen as it made it feel way more chaotic than intended), Bad Editing (Like the cinematography, the editing was not necessarily bad, it was just very raw, but unlike the cinematography, there are no redeeming factors about the editing because it made the movie way more choppy than it needed to be), Good Sound (Felt somewhat of an homage to both Indian Cinema and Martial Arts movies), Good Visual Effects (Good use of practical effects, helped make the fight scenes feel more detailed and gory), Great Production Design (Really brought to life India as it showed its urban sprawl, its beautiful jungles, and detailed temples), Good Makeup (Helped show the grit and grime of India, and the blood helped make the action sequences feel more realistic), Makeup (Helped show the grit and grime of India, and the blood helped make the action sequences feel more realistic), Good Costumes (Helped make the movie more authentically Indian), Costumes (Helped make the movie more authentically Indian), Pacing is very good as the movie feels like it is the right pace; the runtime is the right length as there was nothing that could have been cut or added, Climax is executed very well as the stunt choreography goes above and beyond and the action sequences feel so grand, yet raw, Tone is a mix of Indian Cinema, Martial Arts films, and high-octane action movies (while still leaving room for its dramatic moments), The stunt choreography for this movie needs to be studied as it feels so raw yet polished at the same time (and it is executed on such a high scale that it truly is a benchmark for action movies); This movie does an amazing job at representing multiple facets of India and bringing Indian representation to Hollywood.
Ricky Stanicky (2024)
Pretty Bad Movie
Rating: 5.3
Overall, a pretty mindless comedy that has memorable performances from Zac Efron and John Cena as well as good humor for the most part, but has a poorly managed plot and a deflated climax.
Pretty Bad Direction (The direction on a macroscale is like every stereotypical comedy from the 2010s; the direction on a microscale is decent as the performances feel elevated, there is a good amount of comedy, and the interpersonal scenes help show the relationships within the cast; the storytelling feels like it runs out of breath towards the end because it feels like they just give up on trying to tell a coherent story towards the climax), Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good to Good from Zac Efron (Has good comedic timing and develops chemistry well with the rest of the cast; holds his own in the more dramatic moments), Decent from Jermaine Fowler (Has his ups and downs, but holds himself well), Decent to Pretty Good from Andrew Santino (Holds himself well and has pretty good comedic timing), Pretty Good from William H. Macy (An experienced actor that works well off of others; does a good job in elevating the rest of the cast), Good from John Cena (A real scene stealer as he has a lot of charisma and good comedic timing; does a good job at showing his vulnerable side in the more dramatic moments), Decent from the rest of the cast), Pretty Bad Story (The concept is incredibly fun and interesting (I love the idea of Ricky Stanicky); the plot structure is kinda a mess as the movie just feels like the first half is exposition and the climax feels incredibly forced and deflated; character writing is pretty good as you get a sense of who this friend group is and who 'Ricky Stanicky' is), Decent Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and formulaic; the humor is pretty good for the most part, but feels very forced in the climax; the symbolism is somewhat prevalent for this type of movie; the foreshadowing is incredibly forced and makes this movie feel very formulaic/feel-good), Decent Score (Pretty light-hearted, but uses the same theme throughout the whole movie); Pretty Good Soundtrack (Even though it's used sparingly, I did enjoy the songs they chose), Decent Cinematography, Decent Editing, Decent Sound, Pacing is a bit of a mess because the first half feels incredibly slow and the climax is incredibly fast; the movie could have cut 30 minutes of the exposition and it would've been the same movie, Climax is poorly executed as it is incredibly fast and feels very forced (and none of the jokes in this part hit either), Tone is very 2010s comedy, Ricky Stanicky is such a good title for this movie.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)
Pretty Bad Movie
Rating: 5.5
Overall, a very stupid movie that has a dumb plot because the movie just feels like Kong ft Godzilla, but has some merit in watching with its visual effects, cinematography, and grand monster-filled fight scenes.
Pretty Bad Direction (The direction is only good on a macroscale because the movie is only about building this vast mythical world and the massive fight scenes; the direction on a microscale is pretty formulaic and bland as many of the performances just feel like they fill time; the storytelling is not good as the movie does not create a coherent story, it just feels like they force a bunch of plot points together), Decent Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Rebecca Hall (Plays the lead decently well and holds her own in getting the most out of the rest of the cast), Decent from Brian Tyree Henry (Really tries his best to be the comedic relief character, but he just isn't given good material to work with so he misses his jokes a lot), Decent from Dan Stevens (Has charisma that makes his character likable), Decent to Pretty Good from Kaylee Hottle (Does a pretty good job at being the emotional vulnerability in the movie and how she is a conduit between different groups), Pretty Bad from the rest of the cast (Just a bunch of formulaic, tent-pole performances)), Bad Story (The concept is so stupid because it just has dumb plot points, like the first 20 minutes of the movie is about how Kong has a toothache; the plot structure is a complete mess as they focus way too much on Kong that this movie feels like Kong ft Godzilla; the character writing for the humans is very shallow and formulaic, the character writing for Godzilla is very shallow as he's just there, the character writing for Kong and the apes is pretty good as its all about finding a home), Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is very stupid; the humor is pretty bad because it has a high miss rate; the symbolism is kinda forced, but surprising present despite how shallow it is; the foreshadowing makes the movie predictable), Decent Score, Good Cinematography (I don't know why they used IMAX cameras but they used it well and helped show this mythical world), Good Editing, Very Good Sound (Really helped bring to life the monsters and titans (especially Godzilla and Kong)), Good to Very Good Visual Effects (This movie is really about the visual effects as it helps bring to life the world, the monsters, and their fight scenes), Pacing is incredibly slow as this movie feels like it drags (the first hour just feels like exposition); the runtime could've been 20 minutes longer to help show the relationship between Godzilla and Kong because it is very forced, Climax is very short even though it is well executed (Godzilla and Kong are only in the movie for like 20 minutes together), Tone is just a stereotypical action monster movie (very Michael Bay-like), This movie is Kong ft Godzilla because the two are only on-screen together for like 20 minutes and their relationship is super forced.
Love Lies Bleeding (2024)
Pretty Bad Movie
Rating: 5.3
Overall, a movie that tries to do a lot in terms of concepts but only successfully shows the relationship/chemistry between the two leads because the plot is incredibly mismanaged and the ending just feels like it's AI-generated.
Decent Direction (the direction on a macroscale is pretty good as the movie has an interesting style with its slow-motion edits and siloed cinematography; the direction on a microscale is good as the interpersonal scenes is really where you see the relationships between the characters and the internal struggles they go through; the direction of actors is pretty bad as the individual performances do not feel that strong, but as a cast the movie is pretty good as there is strong chemistry; the storytelling is incredibly convoluted as they intentionally make the conflict too mysterious and too far away that you do not know what these characters are fighting for; they do not do the best job at building tension as the thriller moments feel a bit forced), Decent to Pretty Good Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Kristen Stewart (She develops strong chemistry with O'Brian and shows her experience as a lead actress, but hits some noticeable limits in a good number of her scenes, especially towards the end), Decent to Pretty Good from Katy O'Brian (Has strong chemistry with Stewart and does a pretty good job at showing her roid-filled emotions, but her performance feels a bit one-sided outside of this), Decent from Dave Franco (Feels like he's just playing the same character he always plays), Pretty Good from Ed Harris (Shows off his experience playing characters like this), Decent from the rest of the cast (There is pretty strong chemistry within the cast, it's just individual performances feel siloed)), Bad to Pretty Bad Story (The concept is really convoluted as they try to force too many things to where none of the plot points are presented well (obsession of the artist/body-building mixed with a grounded relationship mixed with murder mixed with a crime-drama); the plot is not that well developed as the movie does not really feel like its building to anything, more like the characters are just 'running away' from their issues; the final arc of this movie is so bad because it genuinely feels like it's AI-generated with what happens and how it is executed; flow between sequences is a bit disjoint as they try to do so much; character writing is pretty good as you get a sense of who these characters are (especially the two leads)), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is decent; the symbolism is kinda nonexistent (but also somewhere there); the foreshadowing is there but is kinda an issue because it leads to a very poorly executed ending), Pretty Good Score (Sprinkled well throughout and helps with establishing the tone), Good Cinematography (Enjoyed the montage shots where they narrowed the focus and showed the obsession of the artist), Good Editing (Enjoyed how they slowed the movie down in some of the montage shots to emphasize what the subjects were doing), Bad Sound (Everything felt muffled and inaccurate), Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Everything felt tacky and out-of-place, especially towards the end), Pacing is a bit on the slower side (mainly cause the plot does not move), Climax is very poorly executed as the ending feels like it's AI-generated with what happens (and it did not help that they didn't do a good job of building this or closing out plot points), Tone is a mix of different concepts (but does not do a good job in anything except the relationship they portray)
Road House (2024)
Pretty Bad Movie
Rating: 5.6
Overall, a mindless action-remake that has an entertaining performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, well-choregraphed action sequences, and pretty good humor, but the movie is really held back by its formulaic story, bad over-the-top dialogue, and bad performances from some of the cast.
Pretty Bad to Decent Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good because the action sequences are well choreographed and have a unique/over-the-top style that makes the movie entertaining, and the worldbuilding/scene-setting helps highlight the Florida Keys; the direction on a microscale is bad because a lot of the performances felt off/inexperienced, and the interpersonal scenes feel so forced and rigid, but he does do a good job in setting up the comedy in the movie; the storytelling is very formulaic and emulates action movies from the 80s (so basically Road House); he builds tension somewhat well, but it definitely feels forced for the most part), Bad Acting (Pretty Good to Good from Jake Gyllenhaal (Has good comedic timing and is a good action star in the fighting sequences, but it feels like this performance is more propelled by his acting experience rather than the material), Bad from Daniela Melchior (A pretty Monotonous performance that does not play off of Gyllenhaal at all), Decent from Billy Magnussen (The character is really written for him because of his past roles (the rich arrogant prick)), Decent to Pretty Good from Jessica Williams (Has good scenes with Gyllenhaal), Very Bad to Bad from Joaquim de Almeida (Has no emotion and feels very off compared to the rest of the cast), Decent from Austin Post (He's in the movie for like 2 minutes), Very Bad to Bad from Conor McGregor (He just plays his persona, but his lack of acting experience shows as he misses a lot of his queues), Pretty Good from Arturo Castro (The comedic relief character as he does a good job with his meta interjections), Very Bad to Bad from the rest of the cast (Just a lot of inexperienced actors who do not develop chemistry in the cast or buttress Gyllenhaal; this does not include child actors)), Pretty Bad to Decent Story (The concept is super simple as it uses the same action-movie template as its predecessor (but the movie is really more about the action/fighting sequences that it really doesn't matter that much); the plot structure is very formulaic to the 80s action movie template; character writing is good for the protagonist as they provide some depth to his character and his trauma, but the rest of the characters are just cookie-cutter shallow characters from action movies), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is just so forced and bad overall because it tries super hard to emulate the over-the-top 80s, but this ends up making the movie feel unnatural; the humor is pretty good as they make an effort to inject comedy whenever they can, and it hits probably 3 out of 5 times; the symbolism is surprisingly prevalent for the protagonist as the movie touches on themes about trauma and duty, but beside that its pretty shallow; the foreshadowing is only prevalent because the movie is very formulaic/predictable), Pretty Good Score (Along with the soundtrack, it helps establish that 80s Road House, action-movie feel), Good to Very Good Cinematography (I really enjoyed how the action-scenes were filmed as the use of wide-angle, panning, and following shots really help give the fighting scenes a unique feeling), Good Editing (Really well executed in the action sequences to give it an over-the-top feel), Good to Very Good Sound (Helped make the fighting sequences/punches feel very crisp), Good Visual Effects (Very over-the-top, but still well executed and enjoyable), Pacing is fine as the movie just follows a template, Climax is decent as it's just over-the-top action on a massive scale (still very enjoyable), Tone is very over-the-top with its 80s action-style (but does a pretty good job at lightening the mood with humor), Saw an encore screening at SXSW.
It's What's Inside (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.8
Overall, a very entertaining comedy thriller that is funny, has good chemistry within the cast, and is well directed/shot on a macro-scale, but the movie is very millennial and a bit messy in its presentation.
Pretty Good to Good Direction (The movie is good on a macroscale as they do a good job in building the world, setting the conflict, and integrating humor throughout (and the movie feels really unique on technical scale with its cinematography and editing); the direction on a microscale is pretty good as the interpersonal scenes are well executed and bring out the internal conflict in all the characters (and how these are pieces for the overarching issue); the direction of actors is good to very good as every performance feels elevated, and the cast has very good chemistry (especially when working with the conflict); the storytelling is very millennial (and this kinda makes the movie a bit convoluted and messy at times as they prioritize humor/influence over clarity); he builds tension very well to incorporate the horror elements of the film (especially towards the end)), Pretty Good to Good Acting (Good from Brittany O'Grady (Established herself as the true lead in the movie as she had a range of emotions and delivers some powerful scenes), Pretty Good to Good from Alycia Debnam-Carey (Does a good job at establishing status with the rest of the cast as she shows the real influence she has (and does a good job acting when working with the conflict)), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone does a pretty good job working with each other and establishing chemistry, and everyone does a pretty good job acting during the conflict)), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is very unique and handled well (though it does get a bit convoluted at times, especially in the ending); the plot structure is laid out pretty well, but the ending is a bit of a mess in how chaotic it is; character writing is very good as you really get a sense of who all these characters are, especially the protagonist, and their true relationships amongst each other), Pretty Good to Good Screenplay (The dialogue is forcibly millennial/gen-z, but it is pretty accurate in capturing the generation/target audience; the humor is pretty good as it lightens the mood and makes the movie more enjoyable; the symbolism is pretty prevalent as the movie deals with jealousy, relationships, and trust; the foreshadowing is somewhat prevalent (though it could be better at times because movie is really messy)), Pretty Good Score (Helped with establishing the tone), Good to Very Good Cinematography (A lot of unique shots that are very interesting; they use light very well to help tell the story), Good to Very Good Editing (Had a lot of cool edits that gave the movie a unique feel), Pretty Good Sound (Helps in more of the thriller moments), , Pretty Good to Good Production Design (They use the singular location well), Pacing is very fast (and this hurts the movie a bit because it makes the movie more convoluted and a bit messy), Climax is a bit hectic and messy (but still enjoyable), Tone is a Millennial/Gen-z Comedy-Thriller (and really plays to this throughout the movie as it does a pretty good job at tethering the line between comedy and thriller), Saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.
Cuckoo (2024)
Pretty Bad Movie
Rating: 5.7
Overall, a film that has the elements to be a good horror movie as everything begins to click by the climax, but the movie is held back by its convoluted concept/storytelling and mediocre performances.
Decent Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as the horror elements are laid out well (even though there are moments where he tries to do a lot); the direction on a microscale is Bad as a lot of the performances do not feel that elevated, and some of the interpersonal scenes feel kinda off/forced; the storytelling is not the best as the conflict is not really explained that well (even though they try to explain it); he builds tension well as the movie is pretty good on a horror/action scale), Pretty Bad to Decent Acting (Pretty Bad from Hunter Schafer (Shows she has some tools to make her a good actress, but it feels like she hits an acting limit in a lot of the interpersonal/emotional scenes because her energy is off from what is needed), Decent from Dan Stevens (Plays the antagonist well and holds his demeanor in a very sinister, yet calm way), Decent from Jessica Henwick (She's really just there in this movie), Pretty Bad to Decent from the rest of the cast (Some actors do have a significant impact on the movie, but some show inexperience and a lack of chemistry; the child actor does a pretty good job with what she is given)), Decent Story (The concept is interesting but a bit convoluted as they try to explain the conflict, but its not done is a coherent way; the plot structure is decent; flow between sequences is not the best in the beginning but gets better towards the halfway point; the character writing is good as they do a good job at showing the different conflicts the protagonist are going through, as well as giving different dimensions to the antagonist and minor characters)), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is a little off and not that natural, but overall is decent; the humor is a bit forced, but it is fine for the most part; the symbolism is somewhat there; the foreshadowing is somewhat there, but could be better), Decent Score (Used well to establish the tone and build tension in the horror moments), Decent Cinematography, Pretty Bad Editing (I was not really a fan of how they used the ripple effects to show supernatural powers because I felt it was pretty tacky), Pretty Good Sound (Helps emphasize the horror and supernatural elements), Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Feels kinda tacky and low-budget, especially during the supernatural moments), Pacing is a bit on the slower side for most of the movie (but the movie does find a good pace towards the end), Climax is executed well as it definitely was the scariest part (and it felt like all the elements were finally coming together), Tone was very similar to other supernatural horror movies, Saw the International Premiere at SXSW; This movie does have tools to be a good horror movie (but it just feels like this was a test run for a very new director, I would love to see him do a follow-up where he learns from this experience)
Dìdi (2024)
Very Good Movie
Rating: 8.7
Overall, a very good coming-of-age drama that accurately portrays the struggles of an Asian American adolescent trying to find himself, carried out by authentic, yet humorous writing and a powerful performance from Joan Chen.
Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very good as they set the area and time-period very well (2000s, Bay Area); the direction on a microscale is great as you see how the characters' emotions and relationships change in the interpersonal scenes, and this might be one of the most accurate portrayals of Asian American adolescence I have seen; the direction of actors is very good as it feels like everyone's performance is elevated; the storytelling is very good as it tells a coming-of-age story through both the Asian-American lens and the lens from someone who grew up in the 2000s), Good to Very Good Acting (Good to Very Good from Izaac Wang (Shows a wide range of emotions as you can see how he changes his personality to fit in, all while being incredibly anxious/feeling lost), Very Good to Great from Joan Chen (Delivers a very powerful performance as the matriarch in the family as she tries her best to hold the family together while also trying to pursue her own passions; her final monologue is truly Oscar worthy as it comes second to Ellen Burstyn's Red Dress monologue in how emotional and well executed it is), Good from the rest of the cast (Really emulates the time-period and adolescence)), Good to Very Good Story (The concept is simple and self-explanatory as it is an Asian-American, coming-of-age story set in 2000s Fremont; the plot structure is pretty simple (short and to the point); flow between sequences is very good; the character writing is great as you really get a grasp of what each character in the family is going through (especially the protagonist and the mother)), Great Screenplay (The dialogue is great as it mimics the time-period/location/age of the characters; the Cantonese dialogue is used very well as it helps show the identity of the family and show this dichotomy of being an Asian American in that time-period; the emotional dialogue is very powerful as it invokes a lot of strong emotions in both the cast and the audience; the humor is very true to the time and well written; the symbolism is very powerful as it realistically shows Asian-American Identity and adolescence; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a coming-of-age story), Pretty Good to Good Score (Helps with establishing the tone, especially in the more depressing scenes), Good Cinematography (Enjoyed the how they interweaved 2000s camcorder shots in with the standard shots, and I felt the more large scale shots did a good job at showing the emotions of the characters (especially the protagonist)), Very Good Editing (Feels very polished and interjects the message/social-media scenes very well), , Pretty Bad Visual Effects (Feels pretty tacky and out of place), Good Production Design (Did a good job in emulating 2000s Fremont, CA), Pacing is pretty fast as it tries to go through a decent amount in its short runtime (but there really could not have been any more runtime that could've been added), Climax is executed very well as it is the epiphany/lowest for the protagonist and displays an incredible monologue from the mother (showing her identity in relation to her family and personal ambitions), Tone feels like a coming-of-age movie set in 2000s Bay Area (and executes this very well), Saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.
Immaculate (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.2
Overall, a pretty good catholic horror movie that is carried out by a pretty good performance from Sydneey Sweeney and a well-executed climax, but the movie heavily relies on jump-scares to illicit fear.
Pretty Good to Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as they set the setting well (especially in the covenant and the countryside) and illicit engaging horror; the direction on a microscale is pretty good as you see how the conflict is unraveling and how it affects the characters (though some of the direction of actors was a bit monotonous at times); storytelling is pretty good as they slowly unravel what is going wrong and why it is happening; he builds tension well as the horror moments are executed very well, especially towards the end, but the movie does heavily rely on jump scares), Decent to Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good from Sydney Sweeney (Even though she is pretty monotonous in the first half of the movie, clearly hitting an acting limit at times, she really comes into her own as a scream queen in the second half and opens up her toolbelt with the emotions she can convey (especially in the final sequence)), Decent to Pretty Good from Álvaro Morte (Has a good dynamic with Sweeney throughout the movie, even when their relationship is changing), Decent to Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone plays their role well as they really buttress Sweeney in showing her importance in the covenant)), Pretty Good Story (The concept is decent for a horror movie as it uses biblical tones to set up the conflict; the plot structure is laid out well; the flow between sequences is good; character writing is as good as it could get with its short runtime because it mainly focuses on Sweeney's character and how her opinion of the covenant is changing the longer she's in it, but the writing for Morte's character is decent even though it is formulaic), Decent Screenplay (The dialogue is decent; the symbolism is about as much as you're gonna get for the subject matter; the foreshadowing is decent (but kinda uses your knowledge that the movie is a horror movie to lay down these roots)), Pretty Good Score (Has both horror and catholic tones to help set the mood and drive the horror), Good Cinematography (Felt polished and used well in setting the scene and eliciting horror), Pretty Good Editing (Used well in the horror sequences), Good Sound (A key driving factor in helped illicit horror as the movie heavily relies on jump scares, and the absence of sound really helps amplify this effect), Pretty Good Visual Effects, Pretty Good Production Design (Helped establish the covenant), Pretty Good Costumes (Helped establish the covenant), Costumes (Helped establish the covenant), Pacing is pretty good as the movie does not go through that much plot in its short runtime, Climax is executed very well as the movie uses more horror techniques besides jump-scares to illicit fear from the audience (with the final sequence being very chilling), Tone is very similar to other catholic horror movies, Saw the World Premiere at SXSW.
Sew Torn (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.7
Overall, a very unique movie that uses sharp technicals, especially editing and cinematography, and fast-paced direction to create an engaging thriller as we see the same story told in three different perspectives.
Pretty Good to Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good to very good as he has a distinct fast-paced style that helps make this movie feel sharp and well executed (especially in the action-based scenes); the direction on a microscale is not the best as the performances felt a bit rigid, but you did get a sense of what the personal conflicts for the characters are; the storytelling is pretty unique as it is fast-paced, action-packed, and filled with a lot of action to make the movie feel like a thrill-ride; he builds tension well through the action-based scenes), Decent Acting (Decent to Pretty Good from Eve Connolly (Not given a lot in terms of dialogue, but she carries out the character well through her mannerisms and holds her own in the action-packed scenes), Decent from Calum Worthy, Pretty Bad to Decent from John Lynch (Is fine as a villain but there are noticeable moments where there is a lack of chemistry between him and the rest of the cast), Pretty Bad to Decent from K Callan (Feels just a bit out of place), Decent from the rest of the cast (Just minor characters)), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is unique as it visits the conflict in three different scenarios, and it does a good job at making the scenes feel fast-paced and filled with action; the plot structure is very overt as the movie is structured out into three different vignettes; the flow between sequences is decent, but the flow between storylines is a bit forced; the character writing is pretty void), Pretty Bad Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty bland and rigid as it doesn't feel natural, and it is pretty overt in some places; the symbolism is somewhat present (but not a key point for the movie); the foreshadowing is somewhat there (but the movie is just 3 vignettes from multiple angles)), Good to Very Good Cinematography (Really helped show how fast-paced the movie/editing was; used well in the action-based scenes (especially with the fast cuts)), Very Good Editing (The editing style is very fast-paced, borderline emulating Hip-Hop montages, as this helps build tension and make the thriller very engaging), Good Sound (Feels crisp and aids the action-scenes), Good Visual Effects, Pacing is pretty fast as it goes through 3 different scenarios (but this was intentional as the editing style helped make it more of a thriller), Climax in each of the three scenarios is carried out well and shows what would happen if the story played out that way, Tone is very similar to other action-thrillers (sometimes even feeling like a shootout movie like John Wick), Saw the world premiere at SXSW.
Sasquatch Sunset (2024)
Decent Movie
Rating: 6.1
Overall, a decent film that mimics a nature documentary as we use to lens of the camera to look into the lives of sasquatches and how they parallel humans, but this movie was not really for me because of the excessive use of bodily fluids and grotesque comedy.
Decent to Pretty Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is pretty good as they set the scenic shots well and show the beauty in secluded nature; the direction on a microscale is decent as they get a lot out of their actors through action-based acting (because there's no dialogue); storytelling is very slice-of-life (making it feel somewhat like a documentary), but there are some moments where they try to move the story forward)), Pretty Good Acting (Pretty Good from the cast (The whole cast acted as a unit to portray Sasquatches going about their day, and showed how they do have a good amount of humanity to them)), Decent to Pretty Good Story (The concept is interesting as it's a slice of life look into sasquatches (which helps give them humanity and show parallels to humans); the plot structure is not really present as the movie tries to be mostly slice of life, while also shoving in shock and grotesque humor; flow between sequences is pretty bad as lot of the movie feels disjointed; character writing is decent as it helps show the parallels between humans and sasquatches), Decent Screenplay (the humor is pretty overt as they try super hard to shock and show grotesque subjects (with this sometimes hitting and sometimes not); the symbolism is decent as it's about looking at humanity from the lens of Sasquatch; the foreshadowing is nonexistent), Pretty Good Score (Used well in the establishing shots), Pretty Good to Good Cinematography (Used well in the scenic/nature shots as it helped make the movie seem like a documentary), Pretty Good Editing (The way they cut the movie gave it a nature doc feel), Pretty Good Sound (Helped show the actions of the characters), Decent Visual Effects (Uses Practice effects well), Pretty Good Production Design (The nature setting is nice and helps show the wilderness), Very Good Makeup (Good use of full body makeup), Makeup (Good use of full body makeup), Very Good Costumes (Good use of costumes to make the actors look like sasquatches), Costumes (Good use of costumes to make the actors look like sasquatches), Pacing is very slow as a lot of the movie drags with its elongated/repetitive scenes, Climax is decent but just feels like a continuation of the rest of the movie, Tone is very similar to nature documentaries (with some comedic flavors), This movie was really not for me with the excessive bodily fluids and grotesque scenes; saw the Texas Premiere at SXSW.
Magpie (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.6
Overall, a pretty good psychological thriller that is laid out well and shows the impact jealousy has on family dynamics/relationships, all lead by a good performance from Daisy Ridley and a well-executed climax.
Pretty Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is good as he does a good job in laying out the conflict and planting the horror/thriller roots throughout the movie; the direction on a microscale is pretty good to good as the interpersonal scenes are where you really see the family dynamic and the relationships between the characters; the storytelling is good as you're really interested in what will happen next as they slowly unravel the conflict; the tension is built well as it keeps the audience engaged (especially towards the climax)), Pretty Good Acting (Good from Daisy Ridley (Really shows a full range of emotions and a lot of charisma in the lead role), Pretty Good from Shazad Latif (Plays well off of Ridley, but is a little too overt as the villain (still pretty good though)), Decent from Matilda Lutz (Shows some separation from the main two but holds her own enough), Decent to Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (everyone plays their role well, but it's really about the main three characters)), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is pretty interesting as it ties horror concepts around family dynamics and relationships; the plot structure is laid out well; the flow between sequences is good; the character writing is pretty good as you really get a sense of who Daisy Ridley's character is, but the rest are a bit overt), Pretty Good Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty good (some amateur lines); the symbolism is decently prevalent as the movie is centered around the family dynamic while also tackling mental illness; the foreshadowing is very good as it's a key element in telling the story), Pretty Good Score (Helped with establishing the tone), Pretty Good Cinematography (A lot of well-executed shots to create tension and build the seclusion of the world (especially when dealing with reflection)), Decent Editing, Pretty Good Sound (Helped with establishing tension), , Pacing is good as the movie felt like the right pace, Climax is well executed as they display what they were trying to build for the entire movie, Tone is very similar to other psychological thrillers, Saw the World Premiere at SXSW.
Sing Sing (2023)
Very Good Movie
Rating: 8.7
Overall, a powerful movie that shows how inmates are still humans despite their mistakes as the movie uses alumni from Sing Sing's RTA program to deliver this strong message on redemption, all lead by a great performance from Colman Domingo.
Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very good as they really set the scene and the weight the setting has on the characters, especially how they are secluded from the free world; the direction on a microscale is great as you see all the performances elevated in the interpersonal scenes since this is where you see the trauma these characters are facing as they fight for their humanity; the storytelling is good as he lets the actors play and be storytellers (using their personal experiences to shape their characters); he builds tension very well as the whole movie is about building an emotional connection with these characters, and you are invested in what happens with their fight for their freedom), Very Good Acting (Great from Colman Domingo (A real commanding performance as he is the leader of the cast and brings out the best in everyone, showing a wide range of emotions to show how the characters are still human beings despite their mistakes), Good from the rest of the cast (The entire cast gives very grounded, multidimensional performances as they use their personal experiences in Sing Sing and RTA to create their characters and convey their messages/struggles)), Very Good Story (The concept is very unique as it is a semi-autobiographical take on finding a safe place in a traumatic environment, and the movie shows how the characters continue to fight for their freedom and humanity; the plot structure is laid out very well; flow between sequences is good; character writing is great as you care for these characters and their struggle, and by the end, you root for them to grow and earn their freedom), Very Good Screenplay (The dialogue is good for the most part (even though it is a bit overt at times) and emulates how people in a maximum security penitentiary would talk, and the dialogue is filled with a lot of emotion at times that invokes feelings out of the audience; the humor is used well to help lighten the mood and show multiple dimensions of the characters; the symbolism is heavily prevalent as the movie is a huge metaphor about finding humanity in a place that tries to take it from you, and it deals a lot with how humans may be flawed people, but there is still good in those who try to redeem themselves for the better; the foreshadowing is decently prevalent), Good Score (Helps with establishing the mood), Good to Very Good Cinematography (Filled with a lot of beautiful shots and shows the large distance between the penitentiary and the free world), Good Editing (Used well in the context of the movie), , , Very Good Production Design (They send a strong message by filming the movie at Sing Sing (and this most likely helps the cast as they convey the trauma they felt from being there)), Pacing is the right pace, Climax is very emotional as it is a key point in many of the characters' lives as they fight for their freedom as well as their peace, Tone is very emotional as the semi-biographical feel paints this drama as very grounded (but still has other flavors to holistically portray the characters), It is very powerful that they had the cast filled with alumni from the program as it made the performances feel very realistic; saw the US premiere at SXSW.
Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.3
Overall, a pretty good installment in the franchise as the film is animated very well and has noticable voice acting performances, but the movie is not as strong as the first three because its tailored more towards children and feels like a cash grab.
Pretty Good Direction (The macroscale is very good as they once again take a simple plot and make the most out of it, going above and beyond with more advanced visuals and grand fighting scenes; the microscale is pretty good as the interpersonal momenets felt very similiar to the other movies in the franchise, but the movie is less deep this time around as they try more to entertain rather than finding personal messages; the storytelling is very similiar to other children's movies, and while it is different this time around by have multiple storylines, this makes the movie more shallow), Good Acting (Very Good from Jack Black (Carries where he left off as he continues to show how Po was tailored to his real-life personality), Good to Very Good from Awkwafina (Does a good job in portraying a holistic character and really embodies the character as it seems like it is really tailored to her personality/mannerisms), Good to Very Good from Viola Davis (Does a good job in using her experience playing villians to bring this one to life as this was probably the best villian in the whole series), Good from Dustin Hoffman (Continues his performance from the previous movies, and while he is given more screentime this time around, it is pretty noticable that he has aged since the last movie), Good to Very Good from James Hong (Continues to give the character life and has really good chemistry with Jack Black and Bryan Cranston, but its noticable he has aged since the last one as he does not have the same energy as the last film (but he's 95 so I give him a big pass on this one)), Very Good from Bryan Cranston (An improved performance this time around as it feels like he's tailored the performance more to his comedic style and is given more to work with), Pretty Good from Ian McShane (Continues where he left off in the first film), Good from Ke Huy Quan (Does well in the screentime he is given), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (All the supporting performances really feel like they are buttressing the main cast)), Pretty Good Story (The concept is kinda forced this time around as it feels like an unnecessary story (even though they do carry it out well); the plot structure is laid out well as it does not try to overcomplicate the story (has one simple conflict and uses its short runtime to resolve this); flow between sequences is good; character writing is pretty good as they do a good job in showing the dimensions of the other characters, but it really feels like they did not give Po as much depth this time around), Good Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty sharp for a children's movie, but there are some forced lines; the humor is good for the most part, but is really geared towards children more this time around; the symbolism is more forced than present as the movie is pretty shallow in its message; the foreshadowing is more predictable this time around as you know where the movie is going within the first 10 minutes), Pretty Good to Good Score (Used well throughout the movie and still incorporates many Chinese tones, but does not feel as strong as the previous three films), Very Good Editing (Really shines in the scenes where they mix animation styles as well as the fighting scenes; a good amount of the cuts felt seamless; probably the best in the series), Good Sound, Very Good to Great Visual Effects (The most polished film in the franchise as they seamlessly incorporate different animation styles and do a great job in bringing to life the world and the fighting scenes; the visual effects are held back a bit because a lot of the new character designs feel very similiar to 'Zootopia'), Pacing was very good for its short runtime as every scene felt intended and the right length, Climax is executed well as it shows off the film's animation excellence as well as the display the message/ close the storyline they intended to have in this movie, Tone feels more like a children's movie this time around as they really try to force laughs and please the younger audience, The movie just feels unnecessary and does not really provide anything worth towards Po's character arc.
Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)
Good Movie
Rating: 8.2
Overall, a good follow-up in the series because the movie has improved voice acting performances, great animation, and tackles a more grounded topic in Po's relationship to his fathers, but the movie is held back by its story not being as tight this time around.
Good Direction (The macroscale is very good as they once again take a simple plot and make the most out of it, going above and beyond with more polished visuals and grand fighting scenes; the direction on a microscale is good as the movie goes a bit deeper in its interpersonal scenes with Po learning more about his roots and his connection to both his fathers, and the movie is better executed in the comedic moments; the direction of actors is the better than the previous two films as it feels like dialogue is more spread out this time and each character has a say in moving the story; the storytelling is still pretty formulaic for a children's movie, and there are some gaps in the story that aren't resolved), Good Acting (Great from Jack Black (Carries off where he left last time as it still feels like they wrote this character for Jack Black), Good from Bryan Cranston (Shows why he is an experienced actor as he develops good chemistry with Jack Black in showing that father-son dynamic), Good from Dustin Hoffman (Continues his performance from the previous movies, but his talent is still used a lot less this time around), Pretty Good from Angelina Jolie (Carries off where she left off as she still is given the biggest role out of the Furious Five, and does a good job in showing the connection Tigress has with Po), Good from J. K. Simmons (Uses his experience as a voice actor as he brings life to the villain and makes him very interesting), Great from James Hong (His best performance in the series as you see how much Ping loves Po and shows how much he doesn't want to lose his son), Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (It feels like everyone this time around got more screentime to show off their strengths (especially Seth Rogen, David Cross, and Jackie Chan))), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is pretty interesting as it's more about Po's relationship with his family and learning more about his identity outside of being the Dragon Warrior; the plot structure is laid decently as the movie uses its short runtime mostly well, but this is the first time where 10-15 minutes could have been added because there are some plot elements that are introduced that are not resolved; flow between sequences is fine; character writing is more about Po this time as he tries to learn more about his identity, and the villain writing is better this time around as you understand his conflict more), Good Screenplay (The dialogue is pretty similar to the other movies, so pretty good overall; the humor is the best it has been in the series as there are many jokes that are genuinely funny; the symbolism is less important this time around as the movie tries to focus more on identity rather than Po finding his potential/peace, which is still pretty important; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a children's movie), Good Score (Continues where the last two left off), Good to Very Good Editing (Really shines in the scenes where they mix animation styles as well as the fighting scenes; a good amount of the cuts felt seamless), Good Sound, Great Animation (The animation felt more polished this time around as they seamlessly incorporated many styles; the action sequences were well animated and some of the most vibrant the series has ever been), , , , , , Pacing is the same pace as the previous movies, but this is not a good thing this time around as it rushes some of the scenes and does not close plot elements introduced, Climax is executed well as it shows off the film's great animation, but has less to do with Po discovering a revelation, Tone is pretty similar to the first movie as it shares a lot of tones with other children's animated/Dreamworks films (but this is different this time around as it is less about marital arts and more about the father-son dynamic)
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
Pretty Good Movie
Rating: 7.8
Overall, a pretty good sequel as the film has a lot of the same charm as the first one and builds on some of the roots planted for Po's journey, but the movie does not feel as unique because its story construction is a little too close to its predecessor.
Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very good as they once again take a simple plot and make the most out of it, going above and beyond with more vibrant visuals and grand fighting scenes; the direction on a microscale is good as it feels like a continuation of where the last film left off, with its comedy and Po still trying to find himself; direction of actors is good as it felt like most of the performances picked up where they left off last time, and the new performances were executed well; the storytelling is still pretty formulaic for a children's movie (borderline copying the same template as last time)), Pretty Good to Good Acting (Great from Jack Black (Carries off where he left off last time as it still feels like they wrote this character for Jack Black), Good from Dustin Hoffman (Carries off where he left off last time as he still has very good chemistry with Jack Black, but his talent is used a lot less this time around), Good from Gary Oldman (Feels like Gary Oldman is using his experience as a villain to carry out his role (especially his work from 'Léon: The Professional')), Very Good from James Hong (Continues where he left off as he gives the character a lot of life and helps show the father-son dynamic between Mr. Ping and Po, and it once again felt like the character was written for him), Pretty Good from Angelina Jolie (Carries off where she left off as she still is given the biggest role out of the Furious Five, and does a good job at not only being distant towards Po but having a connection with him as well), Pretty Good to Good from Michelle Yeoh (Basically just plays herself but has good chemistry with both Jack Black and Gary Oldman), Decent to Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Once again, everyone plays their role well, but it just feels like a lot of their talent is underutilized (especially the remaining members of the Furious Five))), Pretty Good to Good Story (The concept is good as it uses the sequel template well to show Po continuing his journey and having to confront new conflicts/doubt in his life, and the movie continues its uses of ancient Chinese culture/wuxia; the plot structure is laid out almost identically to the first, but this is fine as it is still not overcomplicated because there is one simple conflict and they use the short runtime to resolve this effectively; the flow between sequences is good as the movie does not waste any time with its short runtime; character writing is pretty good as it continues to portray Po as someone who is multifaceted and needs to block out doubt to find inner-peace, but the villain writing is not as strong as he felt kinda forced and generic), Good Screenplay (The dialogue is once again written for children to enjoy more than adults, but they still try to push the limit in what they can say; the humor is pretty good as it's quirky and playful (with many moments that adults can enjoy); the symbolism is still prevalent as the movie is a giant message for finding inner-peace with past traumas; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a children's movie), Good Score (Continues a lot of the same themes as the last movie, and it is still used well throughout the movie; still does a good job at incorporating ancient Chinese themes), Good to Very Good Editing (Really shines in the scenes where they mix animation styles as well as the fighting scenes; a good amount of the cuts felt seamless), Good Sound, Great Animation (Builds on the previous film as many of the action sequences feel more vibrant and grand, while still having the same charm as the first movie), , , , , , Pacing is very good for its short runtime as every scene feels intended and the right length, Climax is executed well as it shows off the film's great animation as well as Po obtaining the message of the movie, Tone is pretty similar to the first movie as it shares a lot of tones with other children's animated/Dreamworks films (while still having tones that echoed wuxia and ancient China), It feels like they tried to make the same movie again.
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
Very Good Movie
Rating: 8.7
Overall, a very good children's movie as Jack Black's performance, the animation style, and the writing come together to make this film a must-watch for younger audiences.
Good to Very Good Direction (The direction on a macroscale is very good as they take a simple plot and make the most out of it with its visuals and fighting scenes; the direction on a microscale is very good as this is where a lot of the playful comedy comes out and where Po learns the themes and messages of the movie; the direction of actors is good as a lot of the performances feel elevated as many of the actors tailored their personalities to their characters; the storytelling is pretty formulaic for a children's movie, but it does do a good job in providing some unique, quirky behavior that gives Kung Fu Panda its charm), Pretty Good to Good Acting (Great from Jack Black (It feels like they wrote this character for Jack Black as he uses his personality and charm to create Po), Very Good from Dustin Hoffman (Uses his experience as an actor to show a wide range of emotions, and this plays an important part in Shifu shifting his tone towards Po; Has a good relationship with Jack Black), Pretty Good from Ian McShane (Plays the antagonist well), Very Good from James Hong (Gave the character a lot of life and helped show the father-son dynamic between Mr. Ping and Po, and it also felt like the character was written for him), Pretty Good from Angelina Jolie (Given the biggest role out of the Furious Five, and does well in her scenes by being somewhat distant to Po), Decent to Pretty Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone plays their role well, but it just feels like a lot of their talent is underutilized (especially the remaining members of the Furious Five))), Good to Very Good Story (The concept is very good as it simplifies the hero's journey/chosen one trope to a level children can understand and does a good job at incorporating ancient Chinese culture/wuxia into the subject; the plot structure is laid out well as it does not try to overcomplicate the story (has one simple conflict and uses its short runtime to resolve this); flow between sequences is good as the film does not waste any time with its short runtime (each scene feels necessary and there really could not have been any more time added); character writing is very good for a kids movie as the film does a good job at portraying Po as a multifaceted character that needs to believe in himself to reach his full potential, and the film does a good job at showing how the other characters change their attitude towards Po's journey during the movie), Good to Very Good Screenplay (The dialogue is written for children to enjoy more than adults, but does a good job in trying to push this limit; the humor is pretty quirky and mostly suited for children, but is still pretty good; the symbolism is really prevalent as there are many themes and messages that echo in mature movies about the hero's journey and self-belief; the foreshadowing is pretty standard for a children's and hero's journey movie), Very Good Score (Used well throughout the movie and does a good job in incorporating ancient Chinese themes), Good to Very Good Editing (Really shines in the scenes where they mix animation styles as well as the fighting scenes; a good amount of the cuts felt seamless), Good Sound, Great Animation (Feels polished and groundbreaking for the time, and does a good job at capturing ancient China and large-scale battle sequences that are sprinkled with Kung-Fu), , , , , , Pacing is very good for its short runtime as every scene felt intended and the right length, Climax is executed well as it shows off the film's great animation as well as the culmination of Po's journey, Tone is pretty similar to other children's movies/Dreamworks films (but did have tones that echoed wuxia and ancient China), 'Kung Fu Panda' is the perfect title for this movie (really flows off the tongue and like, yeah, he's the Kung Fu Panda)
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Great Movie
Rating: 9.4
Overall, a technical masterpiece that is led by Villeneuve's vision and groundbreaking technicals because this film sets a new benchmark in cinema as it builds on the trend in making large-scale, IMAX movies an event, but the film is held back from being perfect by its fast pace and too short runtime as you are left wanting more.
Incredible Direction (The film is brilliant on a macroscale as it provides something more epic than the first, with its vast dunes, gigantic crowds, and colossal battle scenes; the direction on a microscale is great because it is less Sci-fi/formulaic this time as the scenes touch on more messiah/prophecy-like meanings and how this power leads to corruption; the direction of actors is better this time as you really see every performance get elevated as each actor truly feels like they are serving their purpose; the storytelling has tones to both sci-fi epics as well as messiah/prophecy-like stories, and Villeneuve tells these tones on a grand scale; Villeneuve builds tension very well as he uses sound, action, scale, and story to showcase how epic this sequel is, building on everything the first film established), Good to Very Good Acting (Very Good from Timothée Chalamet (For the first half of the movie, it was hard to believe him as Paul Atredies, but after one scene, there is a full 180-degree switch where he fully immerses himself as the Lisan al Gaib and carries the movie to the finish line), Good to Very Good from Zendaya (Plays an integral part in buttressing Chalamet's performance in becoming one with the Freman, and does so by establishing good chemistry between the two; in her solo moments, she shows off in portraying her disbelief in the messiah as she as her character is more of a realist), Very Good from Rebecca Ferguson (Has both motherly and antagonistic characteristics throughout the movie as her character is someone who can simultaneously help and hurt the protagonist, and by the end, she fully immerses herself in her role), Good to Very Good from Josh Brolin (Plays a fatherly figure to Chalamet 's character well and still shows how he is a loyal solider to the House of Atreides), Good to Very Good from Austin Butler (Really embodies that his character is the heir to the Harkonnen throne as he does a good job at being a sociopathic antagonist), Good from Florence Pugh (Really isn't given that much to work with but does a good job at being a central figure in her scenes), Pretty Good from Dave Bautista (Shows status in a lot of his scenes, but he is very over-the-top in a lot of moments, and he isn't given much to work with by the time the climax arrives), Good from Christopher Walken (Literally just plays Christopher Walken), Pretty Good from Léa Seydoux (She's in the movie for like 2 scenes), Good to Very Good from Stellan Skarsgård (Carries over where he left off in the last film as he does a good job in showing the greed of the House of Harkonnen), Very Good to Great from Javier Bardem (The best performance in the movie as you really believe that he is a believer in the Lisan al Gaib prophecy and will do everything he can to help Paul achieve that potential, filling the void Duncan, Leto, and Gurney left in the first film; shows a wide range of emotions and can seamlessly transition from humorous to anger to infatuated in a second), Pretty Good to Good from the rest of the cast (Everyone does their job as you can see different sides of the spectrum on the belief of Paul as the Lisan al Gaib/Heir to the Atredies throne)), Very Good to Great Story (The concept carries out the intended purpose of the second half of the book as it follows Paul's journey in becoming the Lisan al Gaib (and does so in a way that mixes Sci-Fi elements with religious elements), and the film stays pretty true to the source material and only deviates to better fit the narrative that Villeneuve crafted; the plot structure is great for the most part as the movie itself has its own plot, but also benefits from having there be little needed exposition as that was the intent of the first film (this film picks up right where it's predecessor left off); the main issue with the plot structure/runtime is that the film felt too short as 20-30 minutes could have been added to help slow scenes down and show how epic this movie is (especially in the climax as it feels shorter than it needed to be); flow between sequences is very good as each sequence feels connected to the last (though these sequences could have been slowed down to emphasize the sequence's importance to the story); the character writing is great as you see the impact the conflict has on the characters and how they react (with character's blindly following this prophecy and some even being corrupted by it by taking advantage of this new found power)), Great Screenplay (The dialogue is a lot more polished this time around as it sounds less Sci-Fi heavy and more realistic; the humor is used well throughout the movie (and this is mainly from Stilgar/Javier Bardem's character); the symbolism is incredibly profound as you can see the metaphors to Biblical/Prophecy-like Messiahs aiming to free people, and this movie goes one step further by showing how this power can lead to corruption and losing morals; the foreshadowing is executed well as it helps show this concept of the corruption of power as Paul is scared to be the Lisan al Gaib because of what it might do to his morals, and this also shows the relationship Paul will have with the Freman and the other houses), Great Score (Used very well to build the world and used more to build tension than last time, but it just feels like he reused a lot of the same themes as last time), Brilliant Cinematography (A technical benchmark as the movie is shot entirely in the IMAX, and they use this effectively as it helps show how grand of an epic this movie is, especially in the large crowd scenes and the colossal battles; the coloring/lighting they used in many of the scenes were stunning and rival some of the shots from Blade Runner 2049 (especially in the Gladiator scene and the final fight)), Incredible Sound (Does an amazing job in setting the tone, showing how grand this epic is, and displaying the weight power has on followers (especially from Paul's perspective)), Incredible Editing (Carries off where the previous film left off as it helps show how so many small pieces come together to make this grand epic; Used effectively well in the interpersonal scenes to show how the visions of grandeur affect the characters), Incredible Visual Effects (Helps show how grand the epic is and is seamlessly used amongst the real world, making it feel like you are transported to Arrakis), Great to Incredible Production Design (Continues where it left off as it helps portray the vastness of Arrakis and how grand this movie is with its sets and design; pulls a lot from Ancient Middle Eastern/Egyptian culture to show the beliefs of the characters and how they are waiting for the Lisan al Gaib to save them), Great Makeup (Improves from the last film in helping showcase traditional Sci-Fi elements (like with the blue eyes and the Harkonnen), but feels even more polished this time), Very Good Costumes (Continued where it left off last time), Pacing is a bit too fast as the movie breezes through its runtime by going through as much plot as it can, and this leaves you wanting more because it does not give you enough time to sit with what was going on (I would have liked 20-30 minutes to help slow the pace down), Climax is incredibly grand and the best part of the movie as the whole final hour of the movie feels like everything was clicking as we got to see how grand this epic was with its large-scale fights and sets, but it feels a bit too short and could've benefited from a longer runtime to elongate come of the abrupt fight scenes, Tone is more biblical in nature this time around as you saw the impact the prophecy of the Lisan al Gaib had on the characters, but there are still many scenes where it still has Sci-Fi tones, This movie improved on almost every aspect from the previous film and is setting the groundwork for 'Dune: Messiah' to be even more grand and epic, but even if this was the last movie, I would have been satisfied where they left the movie off; the film being shot in IMAX truly is an achievement in itself and will set the trend for more films to follow; With Oppenheimer, this movie is now making going to the movies in IMAX a true spectacle (as if you were going to a concert)