Reviews

It pains me to say this but, The Master is easily my least favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film I've seen thus far.

Prior to watching The Master, I had rewatched three of my favorite PTA films. Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood, and Magnolia. Going into The Master, I knew this film was highly praised by most critics, and I've also seen the film routinely named as a lot of people's favorite PTA film. PTA himself has declared The Master to be his favorite movie he's made. So saying I had high hopes for this one would be an understatement.

The Master is an odd film for me to review because, on the one hand, the technical aspects of it are nearly flawless. Visually, the film is gorgeous, the score is very well executed, and all of the performances are top-notch. But on the other hand, I felt nothing watching this movie. I had no emotional connection to its story or characters whatsoever.

Roger Ebert, who was one of the very few major film critics to give The Master a mixed review, summed up my feelings perfectly when he said, "It's fabulously well-acted and crafted, but when I reach for it, my hand closes on air." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I felt a certain distance and emotional disconnect while watching The Master. At no point did I feel like I was getting sucked in by the story or its characters. Instead, I felt like the film was keeping me at arm's length.

The Master centers around an alcoholic, sex-addicted World War II Navy soldier who is trying to readjust to civilian life. He's a clearly damaged individual who's prone to irrational behavior and violent outbursts. He then meets the leader of a new cultish movement simply known as the Cause. The two characters end up developing a relationship that is very homoerotic in nature, and from there, the film explores themes of addiction, identity, and manipulation all through the lens of being in a cult.

The soldier, Freddie Quell, is played by Joaquin Phoenix. And although Phoenix is very good in the film, I felt little to no sympathy for his character. And given the fact that his character is the emotional center of this movie, it's clear that the audience is meant to sympathize with him even if he's severely flawed. And I just didn't.

I actively disliked Freddie due to how utterly abrasive, cold, violent, and perverted he was throughout the entire movie. I kind of hated him to be honest and I don't think that was the purpose of his character. It also doesn't help that by the time the film ends, Freddie feels more or less the same as he did at the beginning of the movie, which maybe was supposed to be the point of the film, I don't know, but I don't think I really care either.

I mentioned in my There Will Be Blood review that if you've only seen that film once, then you haven't truly seen it. Perhaps, the same could be said for The Master, but at least when I first watched There Will Be Blood, even when I didn't fully understand the film, I was far more invested in its characters, story, and themes than I ever was with The Master.

This film was such a chore for me to watch the first time around that I honestly don't know if I have the strength to put myself through it again.

"Well, what about on Jupiter?"

"At the time of his death, if he were on Jupiter, Elvis would've weighed six-hundred and forty-eight pounds."

"Six-hundred and forty-eight. Damn."

I think Jim Jarmusch's strongest attribute as a storyteller is his impeccable ability to write strange and interesting characters who feel oddly grounded and not just weird for the sake of being weird.

The characters in Mystery Train are so specific and unique that they don't feel like they came directly from the mind of Jarmusch. They feel as if Jarmusch discovered them in real life and decided to place them all together in his movie due to how interesting they all are.

In other words, the characters in Mystery Train don't feel like movie characters, they feel like real-life characters, and that's one of the main reasons why I enjoy this movie so much. The other reason is its very alluring and laid-back atmosphere.

Robby Müller's beautiful cinematography is a major contributor to that, he never disappoints, and the film's terrific soundtrack in combination with its visuals, slow pacing, colorful characters, and great performances create a wonderful vibe that is just so enjoyable to watch.

Much like Jarmusch's other anthology film, Night on Earth (which is still my favorite of his) Mystery Train seems to be exploring both the differences and similarities that all of humanity share regardless of race or differing backgrounds. We get to see how the lives of these unique characters, for one brief period of time, get uniquely entangled in the birthplace of rock'n'roll, Memphis, Tennessee.

There aren't a whole lot of movies out there that look or feel quite like Mystery Train. This movie is altogether funny, strange, charming, original, and even surprising.

Like the rest of Jarmusch's distinct filmography, this isn't going to be a movie for everyone. But if you're interested in a film that's more focused on giving you unique vibes and interesting characters rather than delivering a straightforward plot, then I would highly recommend Mystery Train.

Wim Wenders is a director that I've been wanting to get more familiar with. The first film I saw of his was Paris, Texas, which has gone on to become one of my favorite movies of all time. The second was An American Friend, which is a film that I found to be profoundly strange but ended up enjoying it.

My third and most recent film of Wim Wenders is often regarded as being his most well-known and acclaimed film, Wings of Desire. I went into the movie with high expectations thinking I was going to love it but sadly, that didn't end up being the case.

There are elements of this movie that I enjoyed. Mostly it's cinematography which I found to be stunning. Visually the film felt very reminiscent of Fellini's most iconic works such as 8 1/2 and La Dolce Vita. Every image in this movie is gorgeous and in combination with its haunting score, the film creates a very dark and grim atmosphere that is interesting to watch.

But what really started to put me off with Wings of Desire was firstly, how directionless and repetitive the film felt in its first two acts. The vast majority of this movie is seeing these two angels observe and hear the inner thoughts of human beings. And once they do that, they report to each other, and then they just go out and do it again several more times. It got rather monotonous to watch after a while.

And secondly, my other big issue was how pretentious the film felt in portraying the inner thoughts of everyday human beings. Wenders seems to think that most human beings' inner monologues are these deep, enigmatic, cryptic word salads that express the inner anguish and anxieties of everyday life and it got to the point where it was hard to take any of it seriously. There were moments in Wings of Desire that started to feel like it was becoming a parody of a cliched arthouse film.

The last 30 minutes of the movie is the first time it felt like the film started to have any sort of structure regarding an actual story. We see our lead Angel become a human and finally pursue the woman he loves, but unfortunately, the love story in the film felt very underdeveloped and heavily manufactured to me. But seeing Nick Cave was pretty cool.

There's a certain authenticity that feels like it's missing from Wings of Desire due to how overly poetic and profound the movie is desperately trying to be.

Wings of Desire is the perfect example of a film that tries way too hard to be profound and just ends up being too pretentious and meandering for its own good. This film really does feel like a far cry from Wenders's true masterpiece, Paris, Texas.

In certain circles, Paris, Texas is an undisputed classic. A film that was and still is universally praised by critics and film scholars alike. Even legendary filmmaker, Akira Kurosawa, has listed the movie as being one of his 100 favorite films of all time.

But outside of the arthouse community, Paris, Texas is a rather unknown film. I've told so many people about it and I get the same response every time, "I've never heard of it." And to be fair, Paris, Texas isn't what I would call a mainstream movie. It's certainly not a crowd-pleaser by any means. I could see some people thinking that the film is boring or possibly pretentious. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but speaking for myself, Paris, Texas is one of the major defining films of my life.

When I was getting into the world of arthouse cinema and watching films that were part of the Criterion Collection, Paris, Texas was one of the earliest ones that I watched. I watched it without knowing anything about it beforehand, and it was one of the most rewarding viewing experiences I've ever had.

To this day, I've never seen another film capture the spirit of Americana so beautifully. Robby Müller's stunning cinematography in combination with Ry Cooder's gorgeous and hypnotic score creates an ambiance that I still haven't seen or felt in any other movie. Wim Wenders, a German director, directed one of the most beautiful American films of all time, go figure.

The story of Paris, Texas is very simple but utterly unique. It starts out with an unknown, mute man who has been aimlessly wandering across the desert. After passing out from dehydration, he is taken to a doctor who then contacts his brother so that he can go and get him. We found out that the mysterious man had been missing for 4 years.

From there, the film is presented to the audience like a mystery. As the story goes along, much like the mysterious man who has no memory of his past, we learn about him, find out how he came to be wandering in the desert alone, and why he was been missing for 4 years. And that's as specific as I'd like to get with the plot because I think this is one of the best films to watch knowing as little as possible going into it.

Without giving away spoilers, Paris, Texas explores themes of repression, guilt, love, parenthood, and redemption. Harry Dean Stanton gives one of the most gentle and heartbreaking performances that has ever been captured on screen. He's one of those rare actors who can convey so much emotion with just his eyes.

The rest of the cast is also top-notch. Kid actors can be very hit-or-miss with me, but luckily Hunter Carson hits it out of the park. He feels and talks like an actual kid, and he also shares great chemistry with Stanton. Nastassja Kinski is a big reason why the climax of this film is so incredibly moving. Her ability to be so convincing with her on-screen heartbreak feels all too real. She's amazing in this.

If you're not interested in a slow-moving film that focuses on a very bitter-sweet story about one man's journey for redemption, then I think it's fair to say, this film may not be for you. But, for all my arthouse film lovers out there, or any film lover who is looking to watch something different, I can't recommend Paris, Texas highly enough. This is a film that I'm proud to call one of my all-time favorites.

It's a horror film that is genuinely scary but also hilarious in almost equal measure. And yet, I would be hesitant to label the film a horror comedy. The movie just doesn't feel in line with other horror comedies like Young Frankenstein or Beetlejuice for example.

John Landis was somehow able to separate the two tones without making the movie feel tonally inconsistent. But apparently, many critics at the time didn't feel that way. Some critics said that the film was too scary to be funny and others said it was too funny to be scary. Clearly, An American Werewolf was ahead of its time.

Not just in terms of its unique combination of horror and comedy but also with its stunning special makeup effects done by Rick Baker, who would go on to win the very first Academy Award for best makeup effects. I seriously doubt that we'll ever see another werewolf transformation that is on the same level as the one in this film. Even by today's standards, what Rick Baker was able to pull off in this movie is nothing short of amazing.

But a movie is only as good as its characters and story, not just special effects, luckily, An American Werewolf in London also excels with that too. Much of the humor in the film is derived from its very grounded and realistic characters. They're self-aware enough to realize that they're dealing with an unbelievable situation and that brings a level of authenticity to a movie about a man turning into a werewolf that you really don't see in any other werewolf movies.

All of the performances are great, all of the characters are engaging and memorable, the horror is scary and taken seriously, the comedy is legitimately funny and clever, the direction is pitch-perfect, the soundtrack is classic, and the story is compelling from beginning to end.

There's a reason why this movie is often heralded as being the greatest Werewolf movie of all time, and it's because An American Werewolf in London is the greatest werewolf movie of all time. It's also a top 10 favorite horror movie of mine. When it comes to iconic 80s horror, it doesn't get much better than this.

It's unfortunate that I can't talk about John Carpenter's low-budget horror masterpiece without mentioning the rest of this seemingly, never-ending series. For my money, the Halloween franchise is quite possibly one of the worst film franchises of all time.

That's not to say that some of the sequels aren't entertaining to watch or that some of them don't have any moments of redeeming value, but I think it's pretty undeniable that as a whole, the Halloween franchise is an absurdly nonsensical mess that contains many issues when it comes to both continuity and forced lore. I mean this series is such a mess that it's been retconned not just once, but twice! And I'm sure it won't be the last time either.

I mention all of this just to say, no matter how many pointless sequels this franchise tries to crap out, none of them, not ONE, will ever be able to top the original. John Carpenter's Halloween is an exercise in pure tension and utter suspense.

Halloween is one of the simplest horror films ever conceived. A masked killer goes out to kill babysitters. That's it. That's the movie. But what makes the film so timelessly effective is how Carpenter takes that simple premise and uses it to consistently build suspense and terror through the film's deliberate pacing, Dean Cundey's immaculate cinematography, and Carpenter's Iconic score, which is arguably the greatest film score in all of Horror.

To me, Halloween is the embodiment of Hitchcock's famous theory about the bomb under the table. To paraphrase, Hitchcock once said that suspense is not a bomb going off under a table, that's a surprise. Suspense is when the audience knows that there is a bomb under the table and they know when it's going to go off but the characters don't.

"In the first case, we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense."

Halloween is 91 minutes of the audience knowing that there is a bomb under the table but the characters don't. And that bomb's name is Michael Myers. Ironically enough, this is something that both the Halloween sequels and the vast majority of the slasher genre don't understand.

Those movies seem to think that suspense is showing the audience how gruesome someone can be murdered or that giving the killer a clear-cut motivation is more suspenseful than having a physical embodiment of pure evil killing indiscriminately for no reason at all. That's one of the reasons that I absolutely HATE Rob Zombie's remake of this movie.

Any filmmaker can scare audiences with just gore and shock value alone, but only a great one can scare you just by having a figure standing outside in the distance, looking at you through a classroom window.

Much like The Exorcist III, Psycho II is a sequel to an iconic horror film that came out roughly 20 years after the original, and much like The Exorcist III, Psycho II received a mixed reception amongst fans and critics but in more recent years has gone on to achieve cult classic status and is now seen as a very well made horror film that was unfairly overlooked at the time of its release, and I concur. Psycho II is pretty fantastic.

This is a film that could've failed spectacularly on so many levels. So the fact that not only didn't it fail, but that it also pairs incredibly well with the original by keeping the same spirit and atmosphere alive while also satisfyingly expanding on Norman Bates's character is kind of amazing to me.

And speaking of Norman Bates, we gotta talk about Anthony Perkins. His performance in this is arguably even better than it was in the first film. Perkins is given more opportunities to portray Norman's sympathetic side which just adds to the overall tragedy of his character. Perkins slips right back into playing the iconic Norman Bates with little to no effort and it's remarkable to see, especially if you watch both the Psycho films back to back.

Director Richard Franklin was a massive Hitchcock fan and he even went on to become friends with the legendary filmmaker. He legitimately studied the films of Hitchcock which made him the perfect choice to direct this sequel. As I said, Psycho II is very much in the same vein as the original in terms of visuals, slow build-up, terrific tension, and eerie atmosphere. This is a truly well-directed movie and I have a feeling that if Hitchcock got the chance to see it, he would've been proud.

Screenplay writer Tom Holland, who would go on to direct two classic 80s horror films himself, Fright Night and Child's Play, crafts a compelling mystery narrative that finds the perfect balance between being an homage to the first film and being an original story that adds new and interesting characters.

The addition of Mary Loomis, the daughter of Lila Loomis, played wonderfully by Meg Tilly is a fantastic addition to this story. Her relationship with Norman and how it develops throughout the film was my favorite part of the whole movie. Apparently, Perkins and Tilly didn't get along during the making of the film but it doesn't even remotely show in the final product which is a testament to just how great both of their performances are.

My only main complaint with Psycho II is with its twist ending, which I won't spoil here. All I'll say is that the ending to this movie does feel like it retcons the ending to the first film, and it feels a little cheap by doing so. But that's really the only issue I have with the whole movie.

Overall I think Psycho II is very worthy of its cult status and it's a movie that I would easily recommend to fans of the first film who may not've seen this underrated sequel yet. Psycho II is an incredibly entertaining and surprising treat for both Hitchcock and Horror fans alike.

Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula is a highly operatic, visually stunning Horror epic that is drenched in eerie gothic atmosphere and haunting surreal imagery that feels very hypnotic as you're watching it.

Coppola took many risks with his adaptation of Bram Stoker's iconic novel. Many of those risks, specifically the visual aesthetic and filmmaking techniques, pay off incredibly well creating a Dracula film that is not only one of the most daring and unique adaptations of all time but also one of the most faithful to the novel.

But admittedly, there are a few moments in the film that come off a bit goofier than I think were intended. One scene that comes to mind is when Dracula is given a letter written by Mina telling him that she still intends to marry Jonathan Harker. The scene then cuts to Dracula being surrounded by candles and he is seen crying with his face being partially transformed into a monster, but it just looks like he's crying with a goofy rubber mask on.

There are a few moments like that when the movie's style can go a little overboard, but for the vast majority of the film, I am fully on board with it. I love all of the costumes, the sets, the makeup, the score, and all of the terrific in-camera visual effects that still look awesome today.

Gary Oldman, who is literally great in everything, absolutely kills it as Dracula unsurprisingly. Oldman has an incredible knack for delivering every line with the utmost sincerity even when he's playing a larger-than-life character like Dracula. Anthony Hopkins, who much like Oldman rarely ever turns in a bad performance, is also terrific as Van Helsing. Hopkins's very presence adds a great level of class to the film.

But of course, one cannot talk about this movie without mentioning Keanu Reeves's dreadful performance as Jonathan Harker. There really isn't much to say at this point other than yeah, it's bad. I love Keanu but he sticks out like a sore thumb in every scene he's in.

Winona Ryder is serviceable in her role, nothing I would call great. When you're acting opposite Gary Oldman, you naturally just need to step your acting game up by a lot. And although Ryder tries, it never fully reaches for me which kind of takes away from their romantic chemistry in my opinion.

Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula may not be flawless, but its incredible visuals and haunting atmosphere go a long way to make this film a very engaging and entertaining experience that seems to get more rewarding with multiple viewings.

James Wan's Malignant is hands down one of the most bonkers and outrageous horror movies I've ever seen in my life. I loved every minute of it.

I've always felt that ever since A24 started to get popular back in the early to mid-2010s with their independent horror movies, it feels like there's been a lack of variety in the genre for quite some time. It seems to me that many of the most popular horror movies that have come out in the past 10 years or so have been these incredibly depressing, slow-moving, art-house kind of horror movies.

Now I'm not saying that all of these movies are terrible or that A24 hasn't made movies that I've enjoyed because they certainly have, but lately, I've been finding myself missing the more campy and dare I say, fun side of horror. And then here comes Malignant, perfectly satisfying my needs for a modern campy horror movie and a much-needed reminder that yes, horror is allowed to be crazy and fun and most importantly, not so freaking serious ALL the time.

This movie is just a blast from start to finish. In many ways, Malignant feels like the anti-A24 horror movie in that it's super fast-paced, contains utterly ridiculous scenes, crazy gory kills, and an outlandish premise that I will not spoil here. If there was ever a movie that you would want to go in blind for, it's this film, trust me.

Outside of the movie's wonderfully absurd tone, the other aspect that I thoroughly enjoyed about Malignant was how it felt like a delicious hodgepodge of different horror subgenres. Malignant is part body horror movie, part slasher movie, part possession movie, part action horror movie, and it even has moments that feel like it was part ghost/haunted house movie. Talk about a horror film that really gives you your money's worth.

Malignant is hands down my favorite horror movie of the 2020s so far. It literally has everything I could ever want in a fun, fast-paced, campy horror movie. If you want fun modern horror, you can't do much better than Malignant.

Bowie is one of those rare artists who is virtually impossible to describe.

Especially to anyone who has had the misfortune of not being familiar with his incredible catalog of music. And there is absolutely no way any filmmaker could sum up his illustrious and heavily diverse career with a 2-hour film.

Documentarian Brett Morgan knew this. So, instead of making a standard documentary on a rock icon that follows a very straightforward and linear template, Morgan decided to create not so much a documentary but rather a visual experience that mirrors the career of Bowie complete with his stunningly beautiful music and personal narration that has been compiled from various interviews and audio tapes.

We hear Bowie describe in his own words his personal life, dealings with fame, and expression in art, as well as his thoughts on existentialism and spirituality. All while being treated to a mesmerizing collage of kaleidoscopic images taken from archival footage, concerts, music videos, interviews, paintings, and films from Bowie's career.

Moonage Daydream is by the far closest thing we will ever get to a definitive David Bowie film. A film that truly captures the beautiful enigma of Bowie while also showcasing his deeply humanistic and spiritual side, all of which made him one of the greatest and most influential songwriters of the 20th century.

I never had the pleasure of being able to see Bowie live in concert, but thanks to Brett Morgan, I think I have a slight idea of what that might of been like. And it's otherworldly.

Don't let my generous rating of this film fool you. On Deadly Ground is by all means a terrible movie in every regard. But, it also happens to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies I've ever seen.

Only Steven Seagal, a man who is so clearly in love with himself, could make a film that is as inept, self-indulgent, and absurdly egotistical as On Deadly Ground is. In many ways, On Deadly Ground is kind of the ultimate Steven Seagal movie. Ultimate in the fact that all of the specific elements that make a Seagal movie a Seagal movie is featured in this film, but to even more of a ridiculous degree. This is the mother of all vanity projects.

His character is an environmentally conscious, Aikido-fighting badass who is also an expert at everything. He faces virtually no challenges or obstacles that he can't overcome with ease by either flipping someone through a window or shooting them to death. Seagal shows absolutely no signs of vulnerability or weakness.

Since he's also the director of this film (which would be his first and last time directing), it's fairly obvious that Seagal wanted to portray himself as one of the greatest modern warriors who has ever lived. And because Seagal is one of those guys who is so full himself and clearly can't take a joke, On Deadly Ground is impossible to take seriously on any level, which is why it's so damn funny. I laughed more at this movie than I have at nearly any comedy that has come out in the past few years.

One of the funniest aspects of this film, outside of Seagal's ridiculous Native American fringe jacket, is how the movie consistently has bad guys commenting on how much of a badass Seagal is. And then of course there's the absurd ending where after Seagal has blown up an oil refinery, which I think technically constitutes as being a terrorist act, he then gives a hilariously long speech on environmentalism that comes totally out of left field, especially when you consider that the entire last half of this movie is just Seagal killing people left and right.

On Deadly Ground is a film that I can only recommend to both Steven Seagal enthusiasts and bad movie coinsures. If you don't fall into either of those camps then I think it's safe to say that you're not gonna have a fun time with this movie. But if you're big a fan of so bad it's good cinema, then there's a fair chance that this film just might leave you in stitches, it sure did for me.

Let me start off by saying that the real Desmond Doss is without question an exemplary war hero whose heroic deeds have been well documented. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the sad fact that Mel Gibson decided to tell his story in the most horrifically clichéd and superficial way a war story could ever be told.

I hate to say this but I found Hacksaw Ridge to be an aggressively corny war film that felt so manufactured and manipulative to the point where it's hard to believe anything in this movie was based on reality. It's never a good sign when a historical film that's based on a true story feels like a fantasy. That to me is a clear indication of poor direction. And I'm not a Mel Gibson hater either.

There are many movies of his that I love such as Lethal Weapon and Road Warrior. But admittedly, I'm not as familiar with his directorial efforts. The only other film I saw of his besides this one was Passion of the Christ, which was another movie I didn't care for. Based on those two films, it feels to me that Mel Gibson has little faith in his audience due to his constant need to beat his viewers over the head with the most heavy-handed preachiness you could possibly imagine.

The first half of Hacksaw Ridge feels like your typical Oscar Bait drama with the forced sentimentality of a Hallmark movie complete with cheesy dialogue, a schmaltzy film score, and over-the-top melodramatic performances from the entire cast. I like Andrew Garfield as an actor, but the way his character is written and the corny dialogue he has to say really takes away from his performance even though he's clearly giving it his all. Vince Vaughn stood out like a sore thumb. I couldn't buy into his performance in the slightest. Hugo Weaving gave the only good performance in the whole film.

The second half of Hacksaw Ridge felt like the poor man's Saving Private Ryan but instead of portraying the horrors of warfare authentically, Gibson decided to double down on the violence and sensationalize it, much like he did in the Passion of the Christ, in order to manipulate his audience to get manufactured emotions out of them. The violence in this movie was not realistic. It felt like a war video game rather than an authentic re-creation.

There is a scene in Hacksaw Ridge where a soldier picks up the top half of a corpse and holds it up as a shield in one hand, and with his other hand he's firing his giant BAR rifle while running and shooting at the enemy. That was one of the biggest "what the hell were they thinking" moments I've ever seen in a movie. That scene belonged in Tropic Thunder, not in an authentic war movie.

This film was just a giant eye roll for me and as it stands currently, Hacksaw Ridge is one of the weakest war movies I've ever seen.

Hard Target is a prime example of a B-tier action movie being elevated to A-tier entertainment due to its impeccable direction by John Woo. Those who know me know that I'm a major John Woo fanboy. His Hong Kong action films (such as The Killer and Hard Boiled) made a significant impact on me back when I first discovered them in high school.

No other director does operatic action like Woo does, and even though Hard Target doesn't reach the same heights as some of his more classic movies, Woo's American debut still features some wonderfully insane action sequences executed in that classic John Woo style complete with ridiculous gunplay, bloody squibs, and doves aplenty. The entire third act of Hard Target is nonstop absurd action that never fails to leave a big goofy grin on my face.

The plot isn't original, the dialogue is rough, and the acting is pretty poor (with the exception of Lance Henriksen who does a great job chewing up the scenery) but for me, and I think for most fans of this film, Woo more than makes up for those shortcomings with his terrific skills as a filmmaker. Also, Jean Claude's greasy mullet elevates the film as well. Hard Target is a must-watch for any action movie fan.

Nobody is a wonderfully badass movie that is expertly executed with its viscous action sequences and showcases a genuinely terrific performance from Bob Odenkirk who not only holds his own as an excellent action protagonist but also manages to give his character a lot of depth and sympathy with his performance. Odenkirk is fantastic.

The film isn't overtly comedic but it has multiple moments where it winks at its audience and maintains a somewhat cheeky tone throughout. I mean just look at the theatrical poster for the movie, that kind of says it all. And that cheekiness just adds to the overall enjoyment factor of the film, as does its surprisingly awesome soundtrack.

Christopher Lloyd and The RZA were terrific additions to the movie. Both of them have relatively short screen times but they also have moments where the shine in the film, specifically in the final act which is just insane. However, I do feel like there was a missed opportunity for the filmmakers during that RZA fight scene. They should've played Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthing ta F' Wit.

But I can overlook that since Nobody is a near-flawless action film that is tailor-made for fans of the genre. If you love action and you haven't seen this movie yet, stop what you're doing and watch it immediately. Nobody is badass.

It should be fairly obvious by this point that if you loved the previous John Wick entries, then you're going to love chapter 4.

The John Wick franchise is hands down one of the most consistently well-made action franchises of all time. Just like the previous three films, John Wick 4 contains some of the most exciting and perfectly executed action scenes of modern cinema, all of which take place in gorgeous, gothic, neon-drenched set pieces. Highlights include the nunchucks fight, the amazing overhead shootout, and the epic staircase shootout at the finale. Badass stuff.

The new additions of Donnie Yen, Hiroyuki Sanada, Scott Adkins, and Bill Skarsgård were all great. The only new addition I was a bit iffy on was Shamier Anderson. He wasn't terrible by any means but his character did feel a bit underwhelming in comparison to the rest of the new cast. Donnie Yen in particular was just fantastic. I loved his character and the unpredictability that came with him. Ip Man rarely disappoints.

As much as I did enjoy John Wick 4 and was fully entertained during the entirety of its nearly three hour run time, looking at the film objectively, John Wick 4 is the only entry in the franchise that began to feel like it was starting to run low on new ideas. This chapter didn't expand the world-building of the John Wick universe nearly as much as its predecessors did.

And as much as I enjoyed all the action, I don't know if there was any action sequence in this one that I could put above some of the other sequel highlights such as the underground corridor shoot-out in chapter 2 or the incredible opening in chapter 3.

I will say however that the way this film ended was perfect. So perfect in fact that I feel like it would be a massive disservice to the franchise if this series decided to continue. I'm sure it will because Hollywood will milk any potential cash cow to death at this point. But if the franchise ended right now with this 4th chapter, then the legacy of this tetralogy would be fondly remembered as some of the finest action movies of the 21st century.

Is it just me or does it feel like Blade has never gotten the proper recognition it deserved for being a trailblazing film?

Think about it, it was the first majorly successful Marvel film (Blade predates both X-Men and Spiderman) with a hard R rating staring a black superhero protagonist. Not to mention, it's also a techno-heavy action film complete with leather jackets, sunglasses, Kung Fu, and slow-motion bullet dodging that came out a year before The Matrix did.

Blade really was a movie that was ahead of the curve in many aspects but it's still far from being a perfect masterpiece. For one, the film hasn't aged particularly well, especially in regard to its CGI effects. This was back in 1998 so CGI was far from being perfect but even still, T2 and Jurassic Park used it much more effectively several years before Blade did and it still looks very crappy here.

Tonally the film is also fairly inconsistent bouncing around from dark and somber to outright campy and cheesy. But even at its cheesiest, Blade is undeniably a fun time. This was one of the earliest R-rated movies I watched as a kid (it was shown to me by my grandmother oddly enough) so I will always have a soft spot for this film. Wesley Snipes is clearly having a ball playing a vampire-hunting badass and all of the Kung Fu/gun fights are a ton of fun as is the gratuitous gore.

All and all, Blade is a wildly entertaining Action Horror Superhero film that was ahead of its time and helped pave the way for all dark superhero movies to come. And for that alone, Blade is a movie that deserves respect.

Freaky is a prime example of a film's premise being so much stronger than its execution.

I really love the idea behind Freaky. A body-swapping comedy mixed with a slasher film is kind of ingenious. But, instead of using this great premise to cleverly play around with the clichés of both genres, Freaky, unfortunately, decides to indulge in just about every single one of them. There are no original ideas to be found in this movie.

All of the jokes are as obvious as humanly possible and all of the characters in the film are your standard archetypical movie characters such as the nerdy outcast, the sassy gay friend, the cute nice jock, the douchey rapey jocks, the slutty mean girls, the dickhead teacher, and the alcoholic mother. None of the characters have any real depth or originality to them.

The performances are nothing all that special either. Vince Vaughn is doing his best high school girl impression, but just like everything else in this movie, it's very trite and obvious, it doesn't feel genuine or convincing in the slightest.

Also, the attempted romantic subplot with Vince Vaughn and a high school boy felt so creepy. I know Vaughn's character is a high school girl in the logic of the movie but even still, did we really need a scene of them kissing? It didn't feel romantic it felt very weird and uncomfortable. I don't need to see a grown man kissing on high school boys.

The only real compliment I can give Freaky is that the kills were surprisingly brutal and creative. And the cold open to the film was far and away the best thing about it which in hindsight is kinda sad. This film needed to have a much stronger script with better-written characters and more fresh, funny, and exciting ideas in order for it to have been an effective horror comedy. But as it stands, Freaky is about as predictable, unoriginal, and unfunny as a horror comedy can get.

Well, color me pleasantly surprised.

I was not a big fan of Scream 5. I felt that movie was a terribly generic legacy sequel that was more focused on recreating all of the iconic moments of the first Scream rather than finding its own identity. Thankfully, I think this 6th entry of this franchise was able to find its own identity by adding enough new elements to make it stand out from the rest of the series and it also was just flat-out more entertaining than 5.

The kills were surprisingly brutal, the pacing of the film was excellent, the suspenseful Ghostface scenes were all very well executed and the overall direction felt like a significant improvement over the previous entry. The acting was about on par with the last movie. Jenna Ortega is once again the main standout, she just out-acts everybody in this movie just like she did in the last one.

I'm still somewhat lukewarm on Melissa Barrera. She hasn't fully convinced me that she is the daughter of Billy Loomis and has the potential of becoming an unhinged killer. She doesn't come off as naturally as she should which makes her feel out of place for this role even though her performance is mildly better in this movie, just not by much.

But what makes up for that shortcoming is the action-filled slasher sequences in this entry. The ladder scene in particular is a series highlight. Pretty much all of the Ghostface scenes in this movie were awesome, gory, and genuinely nerve-wracking. It is by far the best and strongest aspect of Scream 6.

The reveal of Ghostface at the end was a bit of a letdown. The motivation was pretty weak, but you could say that for all of the other scream movies with the exception of the first one. The bottom line is, Scream 6 felt fresher and more exciting in comparison to the last movie, and it had much more energy and tension which made me enjoy it more than I thought I would. Scream 6 is a good time for slasher fans.

As much as I did enjoy Creed II, my biggest issue with that movie was that it stayed almost too close to the Rocky sequel formula, making it feel very predictable as a result.

Creed II was fun but it was also very been there, done that. Luckily, Creed III goes back to the roots of the first film and creates a story that wonderfully expands on Adonis' character and gives us his most sympathetic and personal opponent yet.

Creed III marks the directorial debut of Michael B. Jordan and overall, I'd say he did an excellent job. This sequel stands out stylistically from the previous two films in a way that felt fresh and exciting. Michael B. Jordan clearly had a vision for Creed III and it proves to me that he has a bright future as an up-and-coming filmmaker.

The final fight in particular was a standout. Jordan has been open about the Anime influence in Creed III and it shows during the climax of the film. Admittedly, it was a little jarring at first and it probably won't work for everybody, but I admire the ambition and the risk Jordan took during that final fight.

Jonathan Majors is in my opinion, the biggest highlight of the film. His performance as Adonis' childhood friend, Damian, was amazing and it elevates the film as a whole. His character is flawed but deeply sympathetic and the way this film explores his relationship with Adonis is extremely heartfelt and compelling. Damian is by far the best opponent out of the Creed series thus far, and one of the most compelling characters out of the entire Rocky franchise.

Creed III is all about coming to terms with one's troubled past and learning to let go of it and forgiving yourself as opposed to just keep running away from it. It's exactly like what Adonis' manager Tony tells him in the final fight. "Let go of whatever was, and walk into what is."

Creed III is an excellent addition to this legacy franchise and is in my opinion the second-best of the series so far just behind the first film. My only concern is how the future of the series will live up to this strong sequel because as I was watching it, it had a sense of finality and felt like it would've been the perfect place to end this series. I guess we'll just have to see where the Creed franchise can go from here.

Out of all of Adam Sandler's comedic efforts, Billy Madison still stands as his most profoundly weird and dare I say, surreal.

Many of Sandler's worst comedies, such as Jack and Jill and Grown Ups are comedies that fail due to how horrifically lazy and uninspired they are. From their premises to their jokes and gags and their overall execution, those movies just have nothing to offer in terms of inspired humor or even just surface-level entertainment. Billy Madison may be absurdly idiotic and juvenile, but the movie isn't lazy or uninspired.

Many of the jokes and gags in this film are supremely strange, such as Billy making a call to an old schoolmate he used to bully and apologizing to him, then later on, that same guy comes back at the end of the film to save Billy from the film's antagonist, Eric, by shooting him in the ass with a sniper rifle. This movie does genuinely feel like an inspired piece of alternative comedy that totally works for me.

And the film manages to avoid what many of the worst Sandler comedies indulge in, which is trying to trick the audience with moments of phony sentimentality as a way to convince them into believing that the film has an emotional core. Billy Madison knows exactly what kind of movie it is and it makes no apologies for how stupid or ridiculous it gets and I both respect and appreciate that.

Billy Madison is a childish, bizarre, and kind of dark comedic film at times which is what makes it unique from most of Sandler's other films. It's an acquired taste for sure, this movie certainly wouldn't turn any Sandler haters into believers. But in comparison to most of Sandler's other comedies, Billy Madison is one that stands out.

"Hey Billy, who would you rather bone, Meg Ryan or Jack Nicholson?"

"Jack Nicholson now, or 1974?"

"'74"

"Meg Ryan."

I can't believe I'm gonna say this but, Ambulance is easily Michael Bay's best film since The Rock, which makes it the only other film of his that I enjoy, so far.

Ambulance is a much more scaled-back movie than what we're used to seeing from Bay, but don't worry, Ambulance still has plenty of Bayhem to give his hardcore fans. I've mentioned numerous times at this point how I'm not the biggest fan of Bay with the only exception being my love for The Rock. Which I think is a near-perfect action film.

What surprised me the most about Ambulance was that even though the film does contain many of the classic cinematic excesses that we're used to seeing from Bay, this movie was able to avoid many of Bay's worst tendencies as a director. Such as needlessly juvenile humor and his shameless over-sexualization of women. In fact, Eiza Gonzalez, who plays the EMT in the film is not sexualized at all, and she also happens to give one of the best performances I've ever seen in a Michael Bay movie. She was awesome in this.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is also a standout. His character has an unusual amount of depth which sets him apart from most other Bay protagonists, and he gives the movie some emotional substance that resonated very well with me. Jake Gyllenhaal gives the only performance that I feel a bit iffy about. He's the one character that feels the most standard for a Michael Bay movie.

He's very over the top and at times kind of annoying. In a way, I get what Gyllenhaal was going for. It seems like he was trying to match the energy of the film and purposely ham it up in some moments, and to be fair his character is written to be unhinged and hysterical, but there were times when he just wouldn't stop yelling and it got tiresome after a while, the same goes for some of the action too.

I was entertained for the majority of the film. There were a lot of great action scenes that I enjoyed but like most of Bay's other movies, Ambulance starts to wear out its welcome and feel a bit exhausted and bloated by its third act. This movie did not have enough story to justify being over two hours long. Few Michael Bay movies ever do.

Some of the drone shots in the film were very impressive, there was one shot in particular where a cop car jumps over the drone which was amazing to see. But there are other times when the drone was being overused and it started to feel less and less exciting the more I saw of it. Once again, subtlety is not one of Bay's strong suits as a filmmaker.

Ambulance is obviously not without its flaws, but in comparison to the vast majority of Bay's filmography, this was a movie that I had fun with. It was intense, captivating, and surprisingly emotional in a way that felt genuine. It doesn't reach anywhere near the same heights as The Rock, but this movie showed me that as long as Bay can pull back on some of his bad habits as a director and work with a good script, he can give us some quality entertainment that doesn't feel mind-numbingly stupid, and that's a pretty big win in my book.