Reviews

The history of video game adaptations in Hollywood is certainly dubious. Lazy productions and general disdain for the source material has led to decades of one of the world's most complex art forms being undervalued and underrepresented in film.

But, with recent series like Fallout and The Last of Us, it seems like the tide may be shifting. It could have something to do with the video game industry surpassing all other entertainment sectors in revenue... by a huge margin.

Whatever the reason is for this new renaissance of video game adaptations, I'm here for it.

Fallout in particular, is an impressive showing of what can happen when filmmakers understand the source material. While The Last of Us is certainly a high-quality show with tremendous acting and a professional production, it very closely follows an existing story that has already been told with a world-class deftness in a different medium.

All they really needed to do was follow the path already set for them.

This is not the case with Fallout, which dares to be creative enough to give the fandom a brand-new story in the revered franchise. And it's good enough to go right into the head canon next to all the games. All of which I've played.

The brutality of the wasteland, the comedic tone, the environmental story-telling, the cutesy juxtapositions against the harsh despair, the distinctive art style, and everything else "Fallout" is represented here with a true masterstroke of direction and set design.

In particular, Lucy, our fish-out-of-water Vault-Dweller from Vault 33, and The Ghoul, our prewar cowboy-turned-Ghoul bounty-hunter, are story standouts. These two actors carry every scene on their backs like its effortless. I expected Walter Goggins to put in a good performance, as he always does.

But, Ella Purnell was a surprise scene-stealer for me. I wasn't sold on her from the trailers, but her weirdness, her impeccable timing, and her wide-eyed naivety giving way to hints of darkness immediately ingratiated me to her character.

I can no longer imagine anyone else as Lucy.

What is perhaps even more impressive about the Fallout series is the cinematography, the props, and the set designs. The attention to detail to ensure this series fits into the lore with a proper respect is beyond commendable. It's legendary. A lot of money was spent to faithfully recreate the Wasteland, and it shows. If you've played the video game, I can't see how you'll be disappointed with this aspect of the show.

Of course, it's not all perfect. But, what is?

There are some pacing issues in episodes 2 and 3. Some of the comedy is very left-field and offbeat, which may turn-off some viewers. The Brotherhood storyline is also a bit of a missed opportunity, especially given the rich history of the organization. Plus, the monster CGI, featuring creatures like Radroaches and Gulpers, feels pretty B-grade in some areas.

These minor grievances weren't enough to detract from the overall brilliance of the series.

No, to the contrary, Fallout season 1 is a masterpiece. It's a testament to what can be achieved with an adaptation if the source material is given the proper veneration and admiration.

Amazon Prime has a certified hit on their hands, and they have made a legion of fans very happy. Let's hope they keep this momentum heading into Season 2!

While it isn't flawless, the Fallout series is about as perfect as can be with this kind of translation. I never thought it could be possible, but...

It's a rare 10/10.

When most people sit down with Trailer Park Boys Season One, they are going to be confused. It's crude, amoral, and not traditionally funny. It's also a direct continuation of a lesser known movie, which is an even bigger entry barrier to enjoying what turns out to be one of the best comedy series ever made.

Comedy is arguably the most subjective genre in film, and it would not surprise me if many people can't hurdle the walls that this show puts in place.

I have trouble recommending it to a general audience.

However, the brilliance of TPB isn't overt. It's in the subtext, verisimilitude, heart, and attention to detail. Similar to Idiocracy, the dumb-slapstick humor often provides a thick veil that the viewer must push aside to reveal the real comedic backbone of the content.

Most of the funniest stuff in this show isn't said, but rather shown or implied.

The sets and the props, for instance, are incredibly detailed and destitute. There are bits of hilarity strewn through the backdrops of almost every scene that a discerning viewer will notice and get a chuckle from. TPB, particularly in seasons 1-7, is relentless in portraying poverty, criminality, and desperation. This perspective is never broken in the early seasons, and its painfully accurate in many of its non-judgmental representations of people in the lowest rungs of society who are just trying to get-by.

The cast of eclectic characters equally shines here. Everyone in the park has a very distinct personality and reason for existing within the park's ecosystem. Even in the later seasons, when they ramp the silliness up while leaning into caricatures, it's still a joy to watch. There's a certain comfort that the viewer gets with this cast, as if we are also living in the park with them.

And, that's probably the show's greatest success - being a window into the lives of flawed people living in a tough situation, but who are still trying to make the best out of it. There's simply no other show quite like it.

When Netflix (known in the show as SwearNet) took over the show for seasons 8-12, it was eight years after the original series finale aired. Someone, perhaps Mike Smith (Bubbles) who became a primary writer, decided to change some of the portrayals in the show to be extremely over-the-top. Many fans of the original series despise these changes, and refuse to even watch the last five seasons.

However, once one gets used to the cartoony switch of tone, there is plenty of amusement and laugh-out-loud moments to still be had. Though it does feel like Netflix ripped some of the tone and heart from Clattenburg's classic, the show still ends up feeling a cut above other comedies, mostly due to the great character-acting and ridiculous plotlines.

Even though I gave TPB a perfect 10 rating, the show isn't perfect by any means. In my countless viewings, I've noticed some continuity errors and jarring pacing. The five Netflix seasons, specifically, are tonally disconnected from the original series in many ways.

However, the re-watchability of TPB is unlike any show I've ever seen. Many, many shows were influenced by this early mockumentary, and it's obvious why. This is a great binge and an even greater background-show. It's consistently funny and realistic, while still being silly and bombastic.

Nothing is perfect, but for what this show is, nothing could be perfecter.

10/10 Must-Watch.

The Blair Witch Project was a cinematic phenomenon that, for better or for worse, popularized the found-footage subgenre. It had one of the earliest and most successful viral marketing campaigns in film history. And, to top it off, it's one of the most profitable movies ever made, having only a 25,000 dollar budget.

The inevitable sequel, Book of Shadows, was never going to reach these flash-in-the-pan heights, either critically or commercially. But, everyone knew that studio Artisan would try.

What fans received through these efforts was both confounding and astounding.

On the one hand, Artisan showed great courage in greenlighting a project for such a profitable IP with a director at the helm who was primarily known for documentaries. Berlinger declined the three scripts the studio shopped around in favor of his own quirky idea.

I would have loved to be a fly on that wall for that pitch meeting.

The movie that Berlinger wanted to make turned out to be a mind-bending psychological puzzle thriller about media influence, shared hysteria, and how both film and video can alter the viewer's perceptions. It has countless throwbacks to the original movie and a fun puzzle with pieces buried in almost every scene for the discerning fan to put together.

Find the mystery of Esrever to uncover the truth...

What starts out as a comedic riff on the first movie and its fandom slowly devolves into a paranoid madness feeding into a potential supernatural influence guiding the hands of the protagonists towards their ultimate shared fate.

It was clever, subversive, and smart. So, naturally the studio and producers immediately hated it.

They demanded that Berlinger shoot new cuts to splice into the movie featuring graphic violence, Marilyn Manson, and a clearer antagonist from the onset.

Thus, in the final product, viewers were subjected to jarring quick-cut edits of the nude protagonists graphically murdering another tourist group, nonsensical scenes in a psychiatric hospital to paint one of our protagonists as a potential villain, and much more pointless filler that muddied the final product.

Audiences and critics alike were befuddled. Unsurprisingly, most people seemed to point directly to the studio additions as reasons why the movie felt oddly paced and confusing. They also didn't understand why this movie was so drastically different from the first movie in format, tone, themes, and vibes.

However, in 2023, far removed from the zeitgeist of the original 1999 movie, Book of Shadows has aged like a fine wine. It's clear that it was way ahead of its time.

Berlinger's film often plays its themes like a documentary, discussing the long-reaching effects of the internet and video and how they relate to mass perception. Extrapolating further, it applies this concept directly to paranoia and hysteria, locking its media-obsessed characters into a creepy location and observing their descent into a shared madness.

Book of Shadow's chilling themes, atmospheric music, unsettling horror scenes, subtle puzzles, and shocking finale are purposeful and executed with precision. The acting is admittedly cringeworthy in places, particularly in the more light-hearted parodistic first act, however it was never enough to destroy the tension. Other than the silly studio cuts, the cinematography and direction are well above average for a horror film.

This is a great horror sequel, not only because it wasn't simply a rehash of the first movie, but because it was intelligent, it expanded upon the lore, and it provided a fresh take on an IP that in lesser hands would have just been another found footage dud.

The fandom cursed Book of Shadows all the way to the bargain bin, but in retrospect it's one of the most underrated horror films in modern cinema.

8/10 - Great.

When I saw Halloween 2018, I was convinced that this new trilogy would finally be the definitive Michael Myers experience.

2018 Halloween had it all. Great acting, particularly from Jamie Lee Curtis, held up by a solid script bathed in atmosphere and terror. It was exactly what the fanbase had been waiting on.

Go back and read my glowing review. I considered Halloween 2018 a perfect revival and the best in the series since Halloween 1978.

Then, warning signs started appearing with Halloween Kills, a meandering movie that sees our heroine sidelined in a hospital with nothing to do while a mob yells out "Evil dies tonight" and chases Danny Devito's Penguin around. It did have some good kills and Michael was still an interesting antagonist though, so it scraped by as tolerable. I figured that Kills was just a filler movie to get to our much-awaited final showdown between Lori and Michael.

Well, I was wrong. They clearly had no direction or plans for this trilogy. Halloween Ends is one of the worst movies in the entire franchise, and I don't say that lightly. I would rather watch H20 on repeat than sit through Ends one more time.

Everything that Halloween 2018 spent precious time setting up is completely forgotten or abandoned in the final entry in favor of a new, highly-unlikable antagonist. His whole story is, "everyone hates me and band geeks bully me so I kill like Michael Myers," and it's every bit as bad as it sounds.

The murderous superhuman from Halloween Kills now sits in a tunnel, frail and unable to do what he does best... for some inexplicable reason. Lori, even though she's spent the last 40 years in survival prep mode, even though her daughter was killed the last movie by her enemy, and even though her arch nemesis has never been caught and is still on the loose presumably in Haddonfield, Lori is somehow just chilling at the house trying to be a grandma or whatever.

...What?

It's absolutely unforgivable to sideline Lori once again, betray everything her character stood for, put an old useless Michael Myers in a sewer hole for 4/5 of the movie, and focus on a completely new character who has 0 interesting qualities.

We get a lazy fight for the last 15 minutes or so of the movie and then poof, trilogy over.

...What?

I can't even imagine what was going through Green's head when he helmed this movie, other than some weird "thwart expectations" or "pass the torch to get a new cinematic universe" nonsense, but I guess it doesn't matter now.

Halloween Ends ruins the entire trilogy, and puts Halloween back in the schlocky bargain bin of tired franchises. It's a bad movie all-around. Poor script, poor acting, poor scares, poor gore, poor characters, and a lazy finish.

At least Halloween: H20 was stupid fun. Halloween Ends is just stupid.

3/10.

Truthfully, I watch a lot of crap. All true horror fans do. It's the only way to find your own subjective gold within the polluted genre.

I have no qualms with admitting that I enjoy B-Grade gorefests, trashy slashers, same-y zombie apocalypses, evil demons, gross creatures, and more general low-brow dumb-fun entertainment with macabre twists.

So, Cocaine Bear should have been for me. You would think that I'm the target audience, or at least in the same stadium as the target audience. Perhaps this movie, however, is playing a different game entirely. Perhaps the point is to ridicule people like me that posses lower niche-genre standards than the snooty critics. But I can normally enjoy a good satire or vicious roast, so if that is indeed the intention of Cocaine Bear, then I must have just missed the punchline.

Because this is a really bad movie. It's both pretentious and stupid at the same time without a proper comedic backbone to justify that dichotomy. It has 2009 SyFy Original Programming effects with matching energy that had me scratching my head at how they could have possibly spent their 35 million dollar production budget.

At least there are two decent gore scenes, and a couple more intentional parody-bad ones, but overall it's sadly pretty tame for its premise. The titular coked-up bear gets about 10 minutes of screentime. When it does actually engage in some expected rampaging, it's almost aways underwhelming and cheaply cartoonish, instead of being visceral and consistently engaging.

The actors, even the recognizable ones, are also sleepwalking through a poor script that tries to weave a mountain of pointless human plots over what could have been a funny basic core concept. It's not like I expected Shakesbear, but this movie is bloated and plodding with very little payoff. The writing, especially the dialogue, is just generally lifeless and vapid.

I'm glad that I got this for free on Peacock through Xfinity, because Cocaine Bear was a disappointing mess. The filmmakers and writers, including Elizabeth Banks, don't even bother to pay attention to any small details. They are consistently wrong about bear facts and behavior, mountainous terrain, the Appalachian food chain, the role and responsibilities of Forest Rangers, and more basic elements directly related to their concept. Even if these types of oversights are somehow supposed to be intentional, the movie as a whole just reeks of laziness and contempt.

This is a 3/10 and it's just bearly that. Only worth ADHD-viewing in the background while multitasking.

Enola Holmes 2 is a better film than Enola Holmes in almost every way.

I rated the original movie a 5/10 (average/mediocre). It had some good acting and a distinct visual style, but it was missing the brains and the heart of the best of Holmes tales.

Sherlock (2010 series) and Young Sherlock Holmes come to mind.

And while I have read all of the original Doyle works, I never read Nancy Springer's "The Enola Holmes Mysteries" on which this movie series is based. So, I haven't a clue how faithful the movies are to those books.

But Enola Holmes 2 is closer to the fun, light-hearted adventures of later Doyle material, with a better central mystery and a bit of improved writing over the first film.

The writing still isn't quite there though. It's missing the wit that it so confidently thinks it contains. It's a definite improvement over the original, however if you're one of those people that really hates fourth-wall breaking dialogue, then this might really get on your nerves. Enola addresses the camera and the audience at least a dozen times as she solves her first real case.

The acting is quite good here. Millie Bobby Brown has a very expressive face and she seems quite committed to this character. She can easily hold this movie!

But, as expected, Henry Cavill's Sherlock Holmes is a scene-stealer. We need a Cavill Sherlock series or movie. I was glad to see that his role was a bit expanded here. Really though, every actor in this movie genuinely embodies their roles, whether classic or new. There are fine performances all around.

Bradbeer also continues improving his style, and the movie is better for it. That said, the action sequences are sometimes underdeveloped. Since Guy Ritchie's Holmes movies exist, it's hard not to compare. And while it often seems like Bradbeer tries to match the energy and flair of Ritchie, it falls short when big set-pieces are introduced.

Admittedly, this could be due to budgetary constraints, but everything from the fight scenes to the chases to the effects seem quickly edited to a jarring degree. You never get the full-scope of the on-screen action or the stunts.

Enola Holmes 2 isn't a great movie, but it does surprisingly build upon the foundations of the first, and I can see this series evolving into really good Holmes content in the future.

As it stands, it's a decent family-friendly adventure-mystery that could be a fun distraction-watch.

6/10.

The House That Jack Built is a gritty dark-comedy-arthouse-horror gem with backbone and confidence.

However, the incessant and meandering pontifications in this film stop it from being the masterpiece that it could have been.

The House That Jack Built is about 30 minutes too long. The filler-laden voice-over and the excessive monologuing that hammer the themes of the movie over and over again should have been edited down or removed entirely, especially given the masterful, if not a bit on-the-nose, final act.

Horror will always be a divisive genre, and Von Trier will always be a divisive figure in cinema. The callousness of this film blended with many people's disdain for Von Trier was always going to divide audiences regardless of its actual quality.

But, past the veneer of the inaccessibly misanthropic, Von Trier's latest film examines the lines of art and the fear of death in a hilariously dark manner that pokes fun at both the viewer and the filmmaker.

It's the kind of horrific comedy that only Lars Von Trier can do.

And therein lies the movie's blessing and its curse. It's Von Trier at his most Von Trier. It takes the left path wherever it can, and it will take further detours just to overtly debate its own philosophies with itself.

These ponderous embellishments lead to a ton of pacing issues that had me rolling my eyes on more than one occasion.

Yet, by the time the credits rolled, I knew I would never forget The House That Jack Built. It ends with a visually-striking, mind-boggling payoff that is so entrancing I can only wish that the whole movie had as much soul and as much purpose as its final half hour.

Overall, this is a film that has some really funny concepts, disturbingly dark psychological horror, a fantastic finale, and a terrifying, powerhouse performance from an aging Matt Dillon. Yet, a myriad of pacing issues hold its messages back from having the kind of impact that they could have had, resulting in an often-middling viewing experience that could have benefitted from tighter editing.

7/10.

Through 3 glorious seasons, The Boys has managed to stay relatively high quality and thematically satisfying.

It's also sometimes absolutely bonkers and over-the-top.

It's not always perfect though.

Sometimes, The Boys gets too political and it's way too on-the-nose with its messaging, particularly in the third season.

It's not even that I disagree with the messages being espoused, but the series will veer from its incredible graphic-novel-esque, noir-inspired storytelling to relay these messages, like it's just ticking boxes.

Also, there are the occasional power-scaling conundrums that are common in this type of fantasy story and are even more prevalent in things like Shonen Jump anime.

There are also some fast-cut edits in some of the lower-budget action scenes that are confusing and restrictive.

But, when The Boys is firing on all cylinders, there's really nothing else like it.

From Kill Bill inspired martial-arts scenes involving superhero-themed sex-toys to congressional head explosions, when The Boys goes off-the-rails it's a blast to gawk in awe at its brilliant outlandishness.

It's also got some really solid worldbuilding and terrifying antagonists while still managing to strike a well-balanced spark of comedy and tension.

The acting is incredible all around, with the seasoned Karl Urban and the mesmerizing newcomer Antony Starr as particular stand-outs for their respective turns as Billy Butcher and Homelander.

These two really steal every scene they're in.

The Boys is also not afraid to embrace the comic-book schlock-writing that endeared so many fans to the likes of Marvel and DC, and it masterfully respects those fans while adding its own quirky lore and keeping its edge.

If Amazon keeps up this kind of momentum with The Boys, and allows it to gracefully end when it needs to, there's no doubt in my mind that The Boys will be a classic show that is long revered.

It's currently a 9/10.

I had pretty low expectations for Prey.

Both the Alien and Predator series have been in a slump since the second iteration of both franchises, so when the trailer dropped for Prey showcasing what appeared to be a Mary Sue Rey kicking Predator butt, I was not excited.

However, I'm surprised to relay that Prey is a fantastic story in the Predator universe, and it may have single-handedly revived this franchise.

Amber Midthunder's Naru is just awesome here. If they had written Daisy Ridley's Rey with as much depth as Naru, then she could have been the best hero of the entire franchise.

Naru is vulnerable, not perfect, and she reacts properly to deadly or stressful situations. Midthunder's intense eyes and expressive features do wonders for the character.

I would also like to address the fact that the movie uses a female Comanche hunter.

It is very true that Comanche females generally were not hunters, especially after the tribe's move to the Great Plains.

However, to say that a female would NEVER be a hunter in a primarily hunter/gatherer society just shows a willful ignorance for the North American tribes.

There are instances throughout recorded history of powerful female warriors/hunters in adjacent tribes. There is absolutely no reason that Comanche female couldn't be a hunter if she showed significant prowess to the leadership.

Just as ONE example of such a woman, look into a Cheyenne warrior known only as Buffalo Calf Road Woman. She landed the final blow to Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn.

The truth is, there are women all throughout history that served roles outside of their traditions in Native American society, in all tribes. If you were a master-hunter, and could prove it, then you were utilized, simple as that.

Anyways, the story for Prey is simple, which is a good thing here. There are no annoying side-plots or frustrating pacing issues. Not a single minute of the 1 hour 40 minutes of runtime seems wasted.

Prey also has a genre-pleasing amount of action, violence, and gore, and the effects are well done.

Overall, this is a huge success for Hulu. Prey is an easy 8/10, and it's the best Predator movie we've seen since Predator 2.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was effectively filmed and presented as one epic film, is one of the greatest cinematic achievements in the history of the medium.

I'm not sure how a high-fantasy film could be any more perfect, which is why I have awarded it a 10/10.

Jackson shows a proper reverence for the source material and a meticulous eye for detail that only a handful of directors in the world could properly convey.

You can really feel the cast and crew's love for Tolkien in every beautifully-crafted scene.

Cinematography, acting, effects, writing, editing... it's all brilliant. And it will stand the test of time.

17 Oscars wasn't even enough for The Lord of the Rings.

If you haven't watched it, your friends aren't lying to you. It really is a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience.

This movie actually had a decent premise and some cool effects, but the performances were some of the worst I've seen this year.

Seriously, these actors were almost insufferable. Long-haired Psycho Guy was... okay, I guess? The rest of the cast were in a different movie. A spoof or something. It's like they were directed to ham it up for a low budget comedy riff on the genre, but then any humor or fun were cut in the editing room.

It's a shame too, since Hideout has some neat effects, a solid premise, and is competently shot. It could have been so much better had they done some script doctoring to tighten up continuity, dialogue, and pacing.

Instead we get a poorly acted mess of a movie with a ton of wasted potential. And wasted potential is always the most frustrating thing to endure as a viewer.

The vision was clear, but the execution was amateur.

4/10.

I saw this movie on opening weekend in (accidentally) the same theater that the 2012 Aurora "Batman Shooting" occurred.

I only realized where I was when I asked my friend about the ridiculous amount of police presence all over the theater grounds.

I'm not really sure how that information played into my initial viewing experience, but I came out of that tension-filled environment generally thinking that Joker was a slightly overhyped, but ultimately successful take on the character.

I watched it again last night on HBO MAX and quickly realized that the film had soured on me quite a bit in the last couple of years.

Joker is a decent character piece with a stellar performance that, while a showcase for Phoenix, does little to advance narrative, plot, or worldbuilding.

Instead, we get a lazy homage to Scorcese thinly veiled as a Joker movie.

The writing for this movie is bad. Dialogues go nowhere and say nothing. Interesting lore is hinted upon then quickly abandoned. It's pretending to be brooding and thoughtful with nothing to say.

The plot is just "Watch Phoenix the Clown go crazy for two hours while he kind of does King of Comedy or whatever."

Thankfully, Phoenix finds a way to make the titular character both electrifying and terrifying. Joker's demise is like a fever dream, and Todd Phillips has no problem just turning down the lights and keeping the camera and the film centered on Phoenix's bonkers delivery.

It works for the most part. As long as you had this performance, you could replace "Joker" with any damaged soul and it would still accomplish all the same things.

It's an award-worthy portrayal of a broken man with very few options, and it's worth checking out for its central display.

Everything else is subpar.

Its Batman elements are ham-fisted into its overly-simplified plot, and there's no solid theme or even the bones of a formulated philosophy. It's a puddle-deep, needlessly-constrictive movie that at least understands that it has nothing really going for it but its lead actor upon which it can rely, so it does just that.

Phillips is able to save this movie from disaster by letting his star just kind do his thing. It's ballsy, and it's admittedly enthralling to witness, yet in retrospect it's a missed opportunity to really do something unique with this setting and this lore. Or even at least deliver any cool themes or thought-provocation.

Slightly disappointing for me, but it's still worth a watch.

7/10.

This is bad even for TCM standards, though I thoroughly enjoyed watching it.

A hilarious tonal shift on a party bus really changes the direction of this messy B-movie slasher romp. If they could have kept that laugh-out-loud energy going, then this could have been as good as Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Instead, the viewer is subjected to a film that really has no idea what it wants to be, other than maybe a comedic riff on Halloween 2018.

Oh, and hopefully you've never lived in Texas, so you don't realize how this doesn't look or feel remotely like the iconic state in the film's title.

Also, and I know this is stupid to even bring up in a TCM review, but seriously - what is this timeline? Who is this magical Leatherface-suppressing orphanage lady? Why is Leatherface 76 years old with the strength and agility of Kratos?

One thing I'll give this movie is it has pretty good gore scenes and our boy LF racks up the hipster body count, so that's fun.

Otherwise, it's laughably bad, which may be intended. I smiled throughout the short runtime, so it's hard for me to be too upset about how most of the many abandoned plotlines make little to no sense at all.

If you go into this movie expecting a horror follow-up to the original 1974 classic, then you are going to hate this film. It has all the worst things that you can possibly imagine them doing to the lore.

But, if you go in expecting a corny B-movie slasher comedy with some good gore, then you may get a kick out of it.

Even though I had fun laughing at this movie, there's no way I could even give it an average score of 5/10. It's not average. It's honestly a terrible movie.

4/10.

And even though that baby grew up with heavy hands, Don't Look Up manages to be a stand-out comedy with masterclass performances.

Leo especially shines here. His Doctor Mindy is a flawed, yet relatable every-man who attempts, with the help of his doctoral student who actually made the discovery, to relay to the world that a "planet-killer" comet is approaching Earth and that everyone has about six months to live.

In the hands of a lesser actor, Doctor Mindy's idiosyncrasies could have come off as silly and trite, but DiCaprio really provides the gravitas needed to give the character an understated edge that glues the viewer to their seat.

Everyone is really great here though. Jennifer Lawrence is hilarious as Kate Dibiasky, the doctoral student who slowly just gives up on life as the story moves along, and it becomes increasingly painfully clear just how dumb everyone has really become around her.

The only one I feel like was really underutilized was Jonah Hill. Though he shows up and does his thing, fitting nicely into his douchey character, I have come to expect a bit more nuance from his performances. I know that he has serious acting chops, so it felt like a bit of a phone-in here. I think he showed up just for a chance to share the screen with Leo again and be directed by Adam Mckay.

And the direction is pretty clean here. We get some solid comedic timing, which is no surprise given the director's previous works, such as Step Brothers, Anchorman, and The Other Guys. However, we also get some cringey ad-libbing and a few heavy-handed narratives that stop this movie from being truly great.

Subtlety could have really helped sell this movie, given its political bend.

Don't Look Up does its very best to call climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists absolutely stupid. Being an R-Rated dark comedy, it pulls no punches with its savagery either.

That means that this will be a divisive film. If you're someone who supports the Capitol riots, Q-Anon, climate change denial, mask refusals, antivaxxers, flat-earthers, and the like, then you probably won't be watching something like this anyways.

Its contempt is very overt and very condescending.

And this kind of pretentious flavor often leaves a bad taste in viewers' mouths.

It wasn't enough for me not to enjoy the movie, as you can probably tell, but I can definitely see people hating this film for opposing their "beliefs" and calling them stupid.

That said, the more commonly-accepted stupidity of our modern society is depicted in chilling detail here. Pop stars, influencers, corrupt politicians, ratings-hungry news outlets, social media icons, and the general loss of autonomy and privacy are all served up for the roast.

And most of these depictions are scarily realistic. It gives the film a certain haunting humor that permeates its entire bloated runtime.

The film also gives a fun B-plot Armageddon riff that culminates in an ending I really didn't think they had the cajones to attempt, but it somehow works to hilarious effect.

All in all, Don't Look Up is a politically-charged, dark-comedy disaster movie that finds its footing early and engages the viewer with some really interesting characters and conceptualizations.

And, if you're willing to give it a chance, the film becomes surprisingly heartwarming with genuinely wholesome messages about faith, family, death, and cherishing the things that we normally take for granted.

It could have been way worse without this ensemble cast, but with Leonardo DiCaprio leading the way, Don't Look Up manages to instead be a scathing satire about our modern political divisiveness.

This is one of Netflix's better movies, but I also think that audiences will be divided on its messaging.

8/10.

Watching The Matrix Resurrections is like watching an old friend's new cover band perform your favorite songs at a local dive bar and they... did their best.

Generally, I'm pretty forgiving of bad movies and bad shows. I'm someone who enjoyed Picard, Transformers, and Army of the Dead. While my cinephile friends will get a good laugh from the kind of stuff that I'm willing to call good, I stand by my conviction to just seek a good time with cinema, even if I don't come out of every experience with my life changed.

So, if I dislike a movie as much as I disliked Resurrections, I see red flags start to fly in my friends' minds about the quality of it immediately.

I was generally looking forward to The Matrix Resurrections. Everyone, including me, loves The Matrix. And even if its two sequels didn't reach the same heights of the original classic, they were still interesting and thought-provoking sci-fi action movies with deep worldbuilding.

But the fourth film, The Matrix Resurrections, is a disaster of a movie filled with meta nonsense and half-baked ideas. If it hadn't been made by Lana Wachowski, I probably would have already mentally deleted this story from the lore and chalked it up to misguided fan-fiction.

Legend has it that Wachowski didn't want to continue the franchise, but she was getting pressure and constant threats from the studio that another director would be found to reboot The Matrix if she didn't return.

It makes me think that Lana Wachowski made The Matrix Resurrections as a direct stab at Warner Brothers and their insistence on ruining the franchise in an all-too-common chase for the capitalization of nostalgia.

They all but confirmed this theory in one of the film's painfully awkward dialogue scenes.

And, you know, I kind of respect that sentiment from Wachowski. I even respect using that same threatened IP to throw the middle finger up to your corporate overlords.

The problem with this epic-level troll of a concept is that Wachowski also threw that finger at both the fans of The Matrix and the IP itself.

While you'll find a few interesting ideas and story continuations in Resurrections, mostly you'll get a bitter attempt at throwing shade at everyone who came to force this unnecessary fourth installment into existence.

Sadly, the interesting moments of worldbuilding that do manage to sneak their way into the movie are token gestures at best, and mind-blowingly stupid story decisions at worst.

And it's not that Resurrections doesn't have any good ideas, because it does. It's that the film isn't really willing to explore them to any satisfactory level. Instead, the film treads tired-waters and wallows in the misery of its own existence.

You might say, "But wait! Neo and Trinity are back! That's cool, right?!"

Sure, in a way. Their chemistry is still good here. And they are a warm blanket on a cold day when they share the screen together. It just makes you comfortable and content seeing these two icons again.

However, if you are expecting at least some decent Kung Fu or unique action set-pieces, then you should temper your expectations right now.

The action in Matrix 4 is subpar at best, and laughable at worse, sans a 5-minute segment in the closing minutes of the final act. And even that sequence was just visually average for a 2021 big-budget film.

As someone who has watched an unspeakable amount of martial arts films with paper-thin plots, I can say that the fights in Resurrections are really bad. A particular scene with Neo that was supposed to dose you with heavy nostalgia ends up being hilariously choreographed to the point where there are inches of space between punches and slow, wide swings that make no sense in context.

The original choreography team is sorely missed in a film that needed them this much.

All of this makes for a movie that just can't manage to justify its own existence, and that's a shame. Because even if the Wachowskis don't think there are more good Matrix stories to be told, there are potentially tens of millions of fans just like me who think that there are still lots of great opportunities for interesting stories within this complicated and beloved lore.

I never thought that I would say this, but maybe it is actually time that someone else try their hand at this franchise, since it's obvious that WB is going to try to bring it back.

4/10. This was my biggest cinematic disappointment of 2021.

First, Anya Taylor Joy is really impressive. The Queen's Gambit was my introduction to her, but her talent seems to be infinite. I really hope she has a long and storied career. She's absolutely riveting here yet again. And her singing voice is somehow angelic. Is she even human?

That said, Thomasin McKenzie turns in a genuinely dazzling performance as well.

In fact, that's a great way to describe Last Night in Soho - dazzling. This is Edgar Wright in his bag, though I believe that it may be more divisive than his other films.

It's a mature, refined movie that take its time building its world and characters before it goes into artsy territory that will disorient or turn off some of the general audience.

But this man just knows how to make movies. I'm convinced so far that he will be another Tarantino-esque director with a body of work that contains zero bad films.

Last Night in Soho is somewhat of a departure for Wright, as he delves into straight-up psychological horror while channeling influence from masterpieces like Suspiria and Black Swan.

The set-pieces of 60's London should also be applauded. It's beautifully lively and deliciously decadent. If the horror and art were inspired by Argento and Aronofsky, the set design and cinematography were inspired by Scorcese.

That said, Last Night in Soho will not resonate with all viewers. It's slow-paced and melodic. Much of its storytelling is done emotively or visually.

On a technical level though, Last Night in Soho is easily one of the best films of 2021. I was going to comment that its current IMDB rating of 7.4 is too low of a score, but then I considered the film's niche subgenre and colorful arthouse style. That and some of the plotlines, like the Mean Girls stuff, get short-handed.

I also wouldn't blame you if you thought is film was a tad pretentious, though I would argue that it's part of the point.

It isn't a safe film for this director, who could have kept making hilarious comedies like Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, The World's End, and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World. But, after Baby Driver and Last Night in Soho, it's pretty obvious that Edgar Wright is determined to bless the world with great films in other genres.

9/10.

My take on Dexter: New Blood is one of my lowest "helpful" reviews, though I'm not even really sure what that means.

Don't care either.

In my review through Episode 7, I criticized some of the performances while praising the story and characters as a return to form for one of my favorite shows of all time.

After finishing this "miniseries" made by Dexter's original Season 1-4 showrunner, Clyde Phillips, it's clear that a lot of love was poured into this finale.

Michael C. Hall and Clyde Phillips understand this character, and they have finally provided the fandom with a proper ending to Dexter. I really don't understand how a true fan of Dexter could not like Season 9 (New Blood), as it provides one last romp for our antihero along with some long-needed closure.

As a fan of both the books and the series, I really enjoyed New Blood.

When angsty teen Harrison first shows up in Episode 1 acting like he's going to be Dexter's replacement, alarm bells were sounding. I was fearful that the "New Blood" moniker was inferring that we would be getting a new protagonist to follow.

I'm happy to relay that this is not the case. This is very much about catching back up with Dexter and finally getting an ending to his story. And like it or not, Harrison is an integral part of Dexter's story, and that element was heavily neglected in the original series.

At first, it kind of seemed like they ripped Harrison out of the Shameless universe or something, but once I saw the direction of the show I warmed up to him.

Michael C. Hall is as wonderful as ever as Dexter, and this is one of his best turns as the character. Watching a fully-adjusted Dexter, who hasn't murdered anyone in like 10 years brutally descend back into the character of the Dark Avenger who we all know and begrudgingly love, is just a blast to experience.

This is a must-watch for every Dexter fan. It's the best Dexter season since at least Season 4, and it gives the fans surprising closure that I honestly never thought we would get.

Though some of the performances are rocky from the supporting actors, overall New Blood is a genuinely great watch for fans of the series.

9/10.

I didn't expect much from Halloween 2018.

The Halloween franchise, with its multiple timelines and silly campiness, has been flailing for many years. Though Rob Zombie gave the world a fairly interesting take on the series back in 2007, every other film has been a dud.

Until the 2018 revival.

Jamie Lee Curtis is fiery and enthralling as the damaged Laurie, a woman still reeling from the Haddonfield murders 40 years ago. And given that Carpenter's biggest regret was his part in making Laurie related to Michael, the retconning of every single Halloween sequel is actually a breath of fresh air.

This gritty reboot does fall into some of the same trappings of previous iterations, but nothing is too ham-fisted or referential. Michael is sufficiently scary, albeit he is much less of a supernatural force here. Instead, he is what Carpenter originally intended. A vicious, calculated monster.

For fans of horror, however, some of the scenes will be pretty eye-rollingly predictable, and there are only two GOOD gore scenes in the film. The rest of the kills are your standard-fare, run-of-the-mill slasher stuff.

The story is simple, therefore it's well-executed. There were no glaring plot holes or stupid inconsistencies that I noticed. Especially since it only uses the first film as canon. The acting is incredible, with Jamie Lee Curtis turning in a pained, haunting portrayal of Laurie that really revitalized the character in interesting ways.

Overall, Halloween 2018 is one of the best films in the entire series. It hits all the right notes while staying true to its roots. It has a powerhouse performance through Curtis, and it nails the atmosphere of Haddonfield. If the actual horror had been a bit more diverse and unpredictable, this would probably be a classic. As it stands, it's still a great Halloween movie, and it will now be permanently added to my yearly October watchlist.

8/10 for Halloween fans.

7/10 for Horror fans who could take or leave Halloween.

6/10 if you just don't care for horror or Halloween.

When I watch a documentary like this, especially one that's masquerading as an expose of some hidden truth, I expect that there will be some awesome new revealing information that will provide the viewers and fans a little more closure.

Or at least more actual evidence around the mystery of the subject.

I remember Brittany Murphy. She was one of my teen celebrity crushes. She had a daring, adventurous look to her in her early dramatic roles like 8 Mile, and Girl, Interrupted. She had the intensity of a leading lady, and everyone was sure that she was the next big thing.

When her stardom promptly faded, I figured that she had just been eaten up by Hollywood like so many other promising actors.

When the news broke that she died at the age of 32, it didn't surprise me one bit. She had looked emaciated and despondent to me for a while at this point. Especially compared to the prime of her career.

When she died, I figured that the cause was probably bad men and drugs.

The real part that stood out about her death to me was the fact that her creepy husband died like 5 months later under eerily similar circumstances.

So when I turned on a 2021 HBO 2-part documentary that is supposedly about her strange death, I expected it to reveal some new evidence to the world that it would, at least, either further confound the mystery or shed some real light upon it.

What I got instead was mostly people fondly remembering Brittany Murphy, and not much else.

Shockingly, it turns out that she was a young Hollywood star who was eaten up and fell into a toxic, drug-laden relationship.

Yeah, I think that everyone had already gathered that.

Then, she died from falling ill and not getting the help she needed while her toxic husband did nothing to save her. Then, he died of that same illness 5 months later, doing nothing to save himself either.

That's it. No new information, and thus no point to watch this movie.

If you're a huge Brittany Murphy fan, chances are you will be incredibly offended by the clout-chasing sleaziness of this undercooked dud. If you just remember Brittany Murphy, and randomly throw the documentary on your TV, you will most likely shrug in boredom with a resounding "meh" and move on quickly to the next content.

I did enjoy learning a bit more about my teen crush and theorizing a few times about what may have been, which earns the movie a few points above a 1. But, it's bad. This is a bad documentary.

As a fan of true crime documentaries, and documentaries in general, I would recommend that you avoid this pointless snore-fest.

4/10.

I tried to think of a clever title for this review, but then I realized that I was spending too much time on a movie this dismal.

Hey Reader, remember when The Sixth Sense gave us a legendary plot twist that had everybody talking for a whole year?

Well, I'm feeling real old right about now, because that was 1999. Since then, Shyamalan has given us some of the most laughingly pretentious movies ever produced.

Old is no exception.

With a tacked-on twist-ending that fails every logic check along with a host of uninspired actors, you can chalk "Old" up as another weak Shyamalan concept film that feels like a 12-year-old asking "what-if," then just full-speed running with a movie made out of the very first thought that formulated in his head.

Even though I'm biased against this director because he shamelessly ruined The Last Airbender, I usually still give him a chance for his potential. There is always a whimsical and fantastical atmosphere permeating his movies, which always attracts me.

Then, I'm almost always unequivocally disappointed in the effort. Really, someone needs to QA this man's ideas. Then, ask him some basic follow-up questions about his concept. That way, the entire foundation of the "twist" doesn't fall completely apart if a single question from any outside angle is asked.

Silly expository scenes, dialogue that seems like it was written by a buggy A. I., and yawn-inducing performances round out a movie that loves the smell of its own farts more than the structural stability of its core themes and characters.

I'd say that if you're inexplicably one of Shyamalan's legion of fans, then this is like a 5. It's about on par with other bricks like Lady in the Water, After Earth, or The Happening.

If you're like me and see his potential, but you generally feel disappointed by Shyamalan movies, then this one won't be changing your mind.

Like the three listed above, this one is about a 3/10.

It's still better than the Last Airbender though.

Let's get it out of the way. World War Z is one of my favorite novels. So, I'm biased.

But, Brad Pitt's version of World War Z really M. Nighted it.

At least the worst adaptation ever made, The Last Airbender, followed roughly the same story beats and characters as its source material.

Pitt's World War Z shamelessly tosses the characters and stories away, and it even manages to dump the tone and the concepts of the book in favor of shoddy CGI and painfully mediocre one-note performances.

How this gets a 7 on IMDB is beyond me.

I can't find many redeeming aspects to Pitt's WWZ besides some of the aerial shots of zombie hordes having a definite "cool" factor to them.

A barebones plot with a laughable "twist" hollowly rounds out this disrespectful take on a classic book.

This is a 5 at best if you haven't read the novel. It's an average-ish PG-13 popcorn summer flick with zombies.

If you're a fan of this movie's supposed source material, then Pitt's WWZ feels like an insult. I got the same feelings watching this as I did when I watched The Last Airbender.

Why would they do this to such a perfect IP?

The answer is - probably money.

A "2" rating is generous for this abomination.

First, this show is certainly derivative. No argument there.

Also, the acting is pretty hit or miss. Season 1 is particularly rough around the edges, especially with Katie McGrath as Sarah.

It's not her acting, it's her atrocious slips of accent. Actually I guess that means that it's her acting. It's every scene. I usually don't even have an ear for such things, but it's egregious in this one.

Now, let's talk some good.

If you're a fan of 80s-00s slasher films, this series is an absolute gem for you to discover.

It hits every glorious note in...mostly the ways that you want. And unlike others in this genre, it holds a reverence for its inspirations instead of making them into a mockery.

To make a long review short, Slasher is a well-executed, by-the-numbers affair with a few twists in the formula. It has some really solid, gruesome effects as well as engaging mysteries that keep the viewer entertained.

For its intended audience, this is an 8/10. An authentic, mostly-successful attempt to add some new and fiery lore to a burnt-out genre.

It could have been a 9/10 (for genre fans) if they had paid for Katie McGrath to take some accent reduction classes or whatever actors do to not be bad. Or just write a little line about her being Irish in the first episode.

Instead, they inexplicably made her explicitly North American (Canadian pretty sure), but then she fails on every line at portraying one. It was quite immersion breaking and I could see it ruining it for some people.

If you aren't a fan of Slasher movies though, you may want to skip Slasher (needless to say?). It's made for fans.

I don't enjoy the ghost/demon "Possession" subgenre of horror. That's why I never watched The Conjuring films until 2021.

The Exorcist was cool, for a laugh. It didn't age well, but it has charm and the unmistakable anarchy of a trailblazer. The mystique of that movie's production and its ballsy presentation to a terrified generation has haunted the horror genre ever since its release, and it arguably pigeonholed the aforementioned "Possession" subgenre into weak, formulaic clones with diminishing returns.

That is, until James Wan gave the world The Conjuring.

The Conjuring, all three of them thus far, is this generation's Exorcist. Furthermore, it surpasses the Exorcist on every technical level.

First, I don't buy that Ed and Lorraine (RIP) were out here in real life beating back ghosts and demons. But, that's because my belief system doesn't support conscious life after death or a physical realm of judgment. I leave room to acknowledge possibilities though.

These movies are just well crafted. The Conjuring series follows a Vatican-recognized Demonologist and his UCLA-tested Clairvoyant spouse (all true) through different demon-busting exploits.

And it mostly works.

Shots are tight. The actors are believable. The special effects are low on CGI and instead rely mostly on tension-building and creepiness.

The Conjuring 2, in particular, has a kinetic style to it that keeps the viewer engaged for its whole bloated runtime. Great acting and stand-out cinematography.

That said, there are some problems with the series.

There are some by-the-numbers jump scares, none of which work, and some eye-rolling plot contrivances.

I wrote too much. That was too much. This is a good movie. Conjuring is pretty creepy.

8/10.

Avatar: The Last Airbender is one of the greatest television shows ever created.

Its live-action version was made in some kind of mirror universe, and is one of the worst films ever made.

A 4/10 is way too high for this movie. I gave it one star above a one because it has some pretty cinematography in places.

Nothing else here is even serviceable.

2/10.

This film is frustrating and brilliant at the same time.

If you have peeped the reviews, you have probably noticed the split reactions. That's because this movie has a powerful concept and rooted in a believable universe, but the acting and story don't quite do the concept full justice.

That said, for horror fans, this movie is still worth a watch. It works well for what it is, and it is believable enough.

But, for some, its admittedly entertaining execution and its unique concept will be ruined by some contrived writing, poor dialog, and boring characterizations.

I felt that it overcame a lot of these hurdles by staying claustrophobic and fairly grounded.

For me, as a guilty pleasure horror fan, it's a surprising 7/10.

TLDR - Unfriended: Dark Web is, somehow, a good and underrated horror flick with a stupid title that just stops short of being great due to a couple of frustratingly confounding choices.