Change Your Image
heisenberg12
9= Almost Perfect/Extremely Good Unforgettable Film: originality, intelligent, great movie. May have a few weaknesses at certain parts or in story, but overall is definitely a classic.
8= Very good movie, almost a classic, rises above most movies. Equivalent of 3.5/4 stars according to the classic 4 star rating scale. Rewatchable.
7= Equivalent to about 3/4 stars on the 4 star rating scale- very good movie, worth the watch. Has some weaknesses, but has great strengths too. You didn't regret watching it and liked it, but it is not a classic you would watch again.
6= Good, okay movie. You liked it but it was nothing special. It had some strengths but it could have been better so you will likely forget it and not recommend it.
5= Mediocre. It's okay, but far from great/special. You wouldn't watch it again. Equivalent to 2/4 stars on the 4 star scale.
4= Poor. An insult to your intelligence at many times, boring, unenjoyable, but it does have some good aspects and parts. It's not among the worst movies you've ever seen but if you went to the theatre to see it, you'd want your money back since it was a waste.
3= Borderline awful. You cant believe you just sat through that. Very bad movie. You want to forget you even saw it.
2= Almost as bad as it gets. You shut the film off about halfway through or less. A total waste of time, focus, and energy.
1= One of the worst movies you have ever witnessed in your life. Think cheesy horror movies of the 80s, or a movie that is so dark and depressing for no reason, or a stupid comedy, that it should be removed from the market. You wouldn't pay a penny to watch or own a film this bad. LOL
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again
Masterpieces
Flawed Masterpieces
Top 10 Film Experiences
Reviews
The Substance (2024)
Don't Buy the Hype, I Want My Money and Time Back
This is a desperately overrated film. It's an interesting watch, for sure, but as a whole it falls flat. While the director utilizes artistry for the story, ultimately the plot holes are undeniable, and worst of all, the ending is just ridiculous to the point where everything good that they were selling for the first hour about it devolves into a mess of a movie.
Have you ever heard of the term 'reaching'? That is what the people praising this are doing. They are reaching because in the first hour of the film, the movie showed promise, and they are ignoring everything that came after, which is plot holes galore.
Also, spiritually, it is a negative movie experience. The energy is negative and pointless by the end. There are no moral lessons here of which should have been if they stuck with the depth and substance of the first hour of a woman trying to regain her youth. Instead, it just devolves into a vapid gore fest in the third act that is just meant to stir up publicity and cause shock.
The first hour was pretty decent, but if this is what passes as a "good movie" or a "classic" these days as many reviews are trying to push, then we are in trouble. It has those very few elements at times of a masterpiece like many movies that try to push boundaries do, but ultimately it's a bad movie that doesn't even come close to a Wes Craven Scream film, and those aren't even masterpieces.
We need to cut down the hyperbole these days. Being different is not enough to be a masterpiece, and I feel bad for people who think this is anything great. They must have only seen twenty films in their lifetimes.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Apologies to the cult, it's not for me; Part I was better
I actually enjoyed Part I more than this. One hour in, I had to check the time. There's only so much time that can be spent on explaining that Charlamee is the savior.
The bright spot was definitely Javier Bardem, great performance for an otherwise banal cast of actors. Don't get me wrong, the visuals were outstanding, and the story had its moments, but overall it was frankly boring.
This was a big disappointment because it got off to a really good start and in the first hour, the editing and immersion was on point. But once they entered Austin Butler's character, it fell apart.
Cringeworthy character development and cliched storytelling at its finest, but I'm sure younger people and newbie sci-fi fans will love it. This is no masterpiece, not even close. Part I was actually better overall.
4/10.
Raging Bull (1980)
Scorsese in Top Form
I just watched the famous Raging Bull for the first time after wanting to see it for over ten years but just never got around to it. It was better than I expected given the b&w screen. Once I saw the opening five minutes for the first time I was hooked.
The best part of the movie for me was definitely how the mob was involved and friends with Joey (Pesci), and DeNiro does what few actors could do here, turning himself into La Motta. The fight scenes were very good for 1980, and between this and Rocky, you can suspect the influence on future boxing movies but also sports movies in general. The mafia-tough guy dark humor also shined through a handful of times, and Pesci did good work here.
Unfortunately, the movie can become slow and boring with the wife stuff all throughout, and by the final half hour or beyond I found myself dozing off at these quieter, slow scenes. The end in general, the final twenty to twenty five minutes, were also less entertaining, but they had the classic Scorsese biopic epilogue touch to them.
The movie could've used a little more action and drama away from the family stuff. For example, the height of the movie for me was when he had to throw a fight to get a chance at the title and bets were coming in out of nowhere on his opponent, turning him into the underdog. I was hopefully anticipating major problems from that dynamic that led to a twisted fallout with the mob, as just minutes before that Joey beat up one of the mob guys at the club. Instead, the story returned to even keeled about his family life throughout the rest of the duration.
Overall, while Raging Bull is a very good movie, worth a watch, I did not walk away considering it among Scorcese's top three movies. However, it was worth a look and a good film.
7.5/10.
Napoleon (2023)
2 Hours Wasted on Josephine
The title says it all. When anyone thinks about Napolean, they automatically think of the general, the egomaniacal conquerer, military genius who glorified and unified France after the French Revolution.
So going into an "epic" 2 hour and 40 minute movie, you would safely assume we'd get a glimpse into that twisted, genius mind, especially from an actor like Phoenix, right?
Wrong. Instead we get practically a two hour, unoriginal portrait of his banal relationship with Josephine; yes, the rest of the 45 minutes are indeed battles that were good, not great. The lopsided focus on Josephine is unwarranted and unjustified, merely because we didn't learn anything new that we couldn't already assume if it only featured a half hour with their relationship on screen. Honestly, I still cannot fathom any point in that narrative decision after enduring it, as again, there were no twists or startling revelations; if the point was to just humanize Napoleon, we get it, he had a wife and dealt with her toxicity.
The best part of the entire movie was the very end when the biographical title cards came up and revealed what a bloodlusting monster he really was, with the visceral explanation of the vast amount of lives he lost in his vain conquests. Back then, the world population was exponentially less than today. Three million in less than twenty years over 61 campaigns, with the Russian incursion costing three hundred plus thousand alone, seventy thousand at Waterloo. It's a shame that most of the tone of the movie not only was wasted on his love life, but moreso did not depict him as the maniacal sociopath he clearly was.
On a side note, since we're delving into European French history and this piece failed to capture the period well enough, future filmmakers should hone in on the actual French Revolution. Tale of Two Cities, anyone? Nolan would crush it!
4.5/10.
12 Angry Men (1957)
Against the Grain
It seems that this movie is unanimously a masterpiece, a 9/10, and according to the list, the #5 best movie of all time according to IMDB.
I'm going to be the dissenting juror to this conviction. While the movie is undoubtedly very good for its time and for being a black and white movie, I believe it is overrated at its score and where it sits in the top 5. I'm astonished this is as high ranked and rated actually.
It's like the jurors in the room pressuring everybody to side with their opinion, and anybody who doesn't agree with their assertion is outcasted and must give into peer pressure and consent to a 9/10. However, not me, I give this very good movie a 7/10, and I could see it in the 90-100 ranked range, maybe the 50 range at best.
There is practically no action, no big twists, and no grand surprises. There were just a couple of scenes such as where Fonda's character pulls out the knife or when the angry juror demonstrates the angle of the knife on Fonda that created some tension, but most of it is too even and simplistic to be considered great. Sure, the arguments brought up by the characters were often interesting and valid, but they were just using step by step logic that wasn't overly cerebral. That's fine, but the point is that there was no big mindblowing 'aha' moment. It was just a step by step chiseling of the evidence that was again interesting at some times, but at others it was just basic.
There was definitely a lot to learn from in this movie in terms of how a jury works if one has never been on one, as well as how the system works regarding arriving at verdicts. I'm sure for its time, it was very enlightening for people unfamiliar with the constitution, and even today there are timeless elements to the study of the situation.
I have one more minor criticism. While Fonda's acting was good, I found his character to be a little bit too much portrayed like an angel. The director even has him place the most angry juror's jacket on him at the end, and the camera just about solely focuses in on him at the end. They didn't even include the reading of the final verdict or show the boy's or the attorneys' reactions or the courtroom's. I mean, come on, Fonda's character may have just convinced eleven other men to let the culprit walk free, and yet the director paints him as a basically perfect person, like an angel. I think this betrays the script in a sense because there was ample evidence that the boy was guilty, not because of the pathetic prejudicial arguments or preconceptions of character, but because of some other key pieces of evidence. For example, just because juror four can't remember the exact name of the movie he saw or struggles to recall the actor names shouldn't be enough to disregard the boy's statements. I'm not saying he was definitely guilty, but the way the script was playing out, I don't think it was clear enough to pain Fonda's character as this perfect person the way they did, especially at the end, although this could be a trope of the times in the 1950's to always have a hero be idealized.
In summation, it is a very good movie, but I probably wouldn't watch it again as it is rather monotonous with very little action if any at all and very few twists. Still, I'm glad I watched it once and would put it in the top 30 or so of black and white movies, but definitely not in the top 5 movies of all time. Just off the top of my head, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, The Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo, and Gone With the Wind are better older movies than this was.
Oppenheimer (2023)
A Celebration of Intellectual Movies
Comic books, Marvel, Remakes, Franchises, and garbage is the norm.
No, Oppenheimer is not perfect, but what people who criticize it fail to reach is that it's a rare type of movie these days. It's a historical true story, biopic, and character study. It will also be a frontrunner for Best Picture that will surpass in quality if it wins all Best Picture winners of the last ten years in terms of importance and meaningfulness.
Now, with that being said, here is why it is crucial. Heisenberg was the key factor.
My name is Walter Hartwell White. I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87104. This is my confession. If you're watching this tape, I'm probably dead, murdered by my brother-in-law Hank Schrader. Hank has been building a meth empire for over a year now and using me as his chemist. Shortly after my 50th birthday, Hank came to me with a rather, shocking proposition. He asked that I use my chemistry knowledge to cook methamphetamine, which he would then sell using his connections in the drug world. Connections that he made through his career with the DEA. I was... astounded, I... I always thought that Hank was a very moral man and I was... thrown, confused, but I was also particularly vulnerable at the time, something he knew and took advantage of. I was reeling from a cancer diagnosis that was poised to bankrupt my family. Hank took me on a ride along, and showed me just how much money even a small meth operation could make. And I was weak. I didn't want my family to go into financial ruin so I agreed. Every day, I think back at that moment with regret. I quickly realized that I was in way over my head, and Hank had a partner, a man named Gustavo Fring, a businessman. Hank essentially sold me into servitude to this man, and when I tried to quit, Fring threatened my family. I didn't know where to turn. Eventually, Hank and Fring had a falling out. From what I can gather, Hank was always pushing for a greater share of the business, to which Fring flatly refused to give him, and things escalated. Fring was able to arrange, uh I guess I guess you call it a "hit" on my brother-in-law, and failed, but Hank was seriously injured, and I wound up paying his medical bills which amounted to a little over $177,000. Upon recovery, Hank was bent on revenge, working with a man named Hector Salamanca, he plotted to kill Fring, and did so. In fact, the bomb that he used was built by me, and he gave me no option in it. I have often contemplated suicide, but I'm a coward. I wanted to go to the police, but I was frightened. Hank had risen in the ranks to become the head of the Albuquerque DEA, and about that time, to keep me in line, he took my children from me. For 3 months he kept them. My wife, who up until that point, had no idea of my criminal activities, was horrified to learn what I had done, why Hank had taken our children. We were scared. I was in Hell, I hated myself for what I had brought upon my family. Recently, I tried once again to quit, to end this nightmare, and in response, he gave me this. I can't take this anymore. I live in fear every day that Hank will kill me, or worse, hurt my family. I... All I could think to do was to make this video in hope that the world will finally see this man, for what he really is.
-Heisenberg.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
One of the Best Action Movies I've Ever Seen
The stakes have never been higher, the writing has never been sharper, the twists have never been as endless. No, I'm not a huge MI franchise follower, but I know a great movie when I see one, and this is one of them.
I rarely give out 10's and will probably lower this to a 9 eventually, but just walking out of seeing this, I can honestly say that I've never been as riveted while watching an action movie since 2008, and that one was a little film called The Dark Knight. I'm rating this solely on the Action Genre. It might be an unpopular opinion, but I think this is leagues better than the previous MI movie "Fallout". It's way better in every way.
I'm actually speechless beyond that.
9/10.
Barbarian (2022)
Check your brain at the door, and save the deep analysis for something that deserves it
Yeesh, I read the first featured reviews for this after watching it, and it's like they presuppose that every popular or critically acclaimed movie is supposed to be deep and layered with intellectual meaning, insights, and subtleties.
Let me simplify this movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet: there is nothing deep or intellectual about it whatsoever. It's plainly a movie that is meant to entertain, keep you in suspense, and mainly to have a good time viewing. Yes, it's entertaining and worth a view, in my opinion.
It does start off more promising than it evolves into, but even still it's an entertaining horror flick. I will say though that the concepts and ideas they based the story on had much more potential in story development than the direction they went with it, but it's not half bad.
I'll give a shout out to Campbell and the male actor Long who added some laughs. It's a crazy movie that could've used a better ending and maybe more profundity, but for an entertaining couple of hours, it was pretty good. It goes from realistically creepy to eyerolling creepy, but overall had decent writing and suspense.
7/10.
Better Call Saul: Waterworks (2022)
Shocking
It's just absolutely shocking how much this show has disappointed. I see a lot of fans complaining about the past 3 episodes who were normally lovers of the first 6 seasons overall, but I am truly baffled why they didn't see this before since the whole show has been a disappointment except for a handful of great episodes.
But these final series episodes are extra shocking. To have that long of an amount of time to work on this script and story and to basically end the series on anticlimactic whimpers in the last 3 episodes is just unfathomable. You would thing basically that they would turn up the heat a notch during this run of episodes, but they have really just done mostly the opposite with truly boring episodes just like in the early seasons.
Sometimes I really have to rewind scenes because although they have pertinent information in them, they are so slow and drawn out for no good reason that I literally get distracted. This isn't Gus vs Walt in the desert with clouds passing by type of slow cinematography but rather just self indulgent series of meaningless shots that feel like they are truly just long and drawn out to fill up minutes in an otherwise hollow and poorly thought out story to pack in more episodes, which unironically is what most of the show felt like.
Look, I give it a 7/10, so I'm not saying it's awful, but come on: this is not even close to what you would expect from this crew and set of writers and directors of Breaking Bad. This is the penultimate episode? And the previous 2 comprised the final run of episodes? That's it? Wow, just astonishing. Truly astonishing disappointing work. It's not the actors' faults either- they're fine. Just awful writing and plotting.
7/10.
The Breakfast Club (1985)
Amazing
Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm giving it the full ten stars. I've just watched it for the first two times over the last few days, and it's irresistably likable. All I wanted to do was finally see this popular movie after all these years, and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen for a second. The dialogue is excellent, acting is superb, and the characters are unforgettble. Mollie Ringwald is so pretty in this, and Judd Nelson plays the troublemaker to perfection. I like how the whole day plays out naturally but in ways and directions you don't expect. It's very funny, fun, and instantly unforgettable.
Better Call Saul: Point and Shoot (2022)
Booyah! Blue, Red, Yellow, Pink, Man, Just Keep Bringing Me That!
This was an excellent hit of the 99.1% pure Breaking Bad level episodes. Just keep bringing us that, Heisenberg! Tight, tight, tight, tight! This episode will sell faster than a ten dollar piece of ash in Tijuanai!
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Good Sequel to the 80's Classic
So I just walked out of the theatre catching an early show of Top Gun 2: Maverick. This is going to be an honest and fair review for people curious to just how good the movie is (as that is what my biggest question was).
First off, I'd like to begin by stating: this is not a "bad" movie at all. It's not bad, so you can get that right out of the way. That leaves the question: "Just how good is it though?" To answer that fairly, it must be broken down into pros and cons.
Let's start with the pluses (pros). First off, I personally need to say that Jennifer Connelly alone is an absolute mega-bonus to this movie. For all of those JC fans out there, you will not be disappointed. In fact, I don't know if this is a beautiful movie, or if Jennifer Connelly's face makes it a beautiful movie, but I'd lean more towards the latter. The final result, however it is equated, though, is a beautiful movie.
Next, we'll give a plus (pro) to the nostalgia factor. While an objective critic or someone who never saw Top Gun (1986) would be less interested in this and perhaps critical of it, it was definitely a strength of Top Gun: Maverick. Every single time there was a callback to Part I (1986) or reference or appearance or mention of the Part I characters, it really worked in the movie. Nothing felt overly forced except for maybe one small moment toward the end so it was nice to see them tie in a plotline to the original.
Thirdly, let's talk romance and return back to Jennifer Connelly. This was another solid addition into the story. It added to the human side and emotional side, and I think without this balance of it, the movie might have suffered by being overly reliant on the air and flight scenes.
In discussing the pros, the final thing to mention is the action scenes. While I didn't think they were immensely better "overall" than Top Gun (1986), the final mission sequences were incredibly intense. Intense is the perfect word to describe it. You will be glued into your seat, unable to move while taking in the air acrobats towards the end.
Probably the best part about TG:M is that it is truly never boring except for a brief moment toward the beginning. It has that feel that you can't miss a minute. This is probably due to the tight editing. I had to go to the bathroom from the first scene, but I held it in the entire movie so I didn't miss anything. That's how fast it moves. It is very entertaining and fast-moving. The 2 hour, 10 minute runtime truly does "fly" by, no pun intended.
Now, unfortunately, I have to be honest and admit that there are cons, and like many overly hyped movies, some of them are related to expectations and the movie being hyped so much before going in. This is subjective, but for me personally, I had heard some people who had reviewed TG:M early make claims that "it was WAY better than the original", it may be "nominated for Best Picture", and "this is Tom Cruise's BEST movie". To each their own, and I'm not judging the people who said these things because they may really feel that way because they liked the movie so much, but I would have to be honest and say that claims such as these are a little bit of a stretch, in my humble opinion.
This by no means is to say the movie is bad. It's good. But I can't fully agree with these sensational headlines or claims I've read or heard. Now, to be fair, Best Picture is ultimately determined by competition for that particular year (and in recent years up to 10 movies can now be nominated), so it's not impossible, but if it came down to a conventional 5 nominees, this definitely probably wouldn't make the cut even though I wish it did because that would be cool. The one BP-level quality that it would have if any at all that might draw in voters is the emotional components. This movie will "move" you, mostly thanks to Connelly, but it probably won't be enough to get a nomination and many action movies also have the same ability and still don't get a nomination (even the 1986 movie had emotional aspects to it and that didn't get nominated). One category I do believe TG:M will have a great chance of winning is in Editing, and maybe it has a solid shot at sound and song (just like when it won for that category in 1986).
I also don't believe this is Cruise's best movie ever or even in his top 5, maybe even top 10. Controversially, I think he was better in Part I than in this. And believe it or not I still like the first one better. That concludes an analysis on the cons in terms of expectations.
My biggest criticism of the movie on its own is simply that I thought that it could have been even better. I understand the big budget and they're limited on logistics and what they can film, but I felt like: as good as the ending was, I had an idea for something even better, and because this is a Spoiler review, I can say that it would have been cool if all 4 partners were still in the air in an all out dog fight (and I actually thought this would be the end result based on preceding scenes) with the enemy jets rather than only Mav and one other companion.
I also have to mention and complain about how Hangman came out of nowhere for the final splash when last time we saw him he was still on the Aircraft Carrier and called off so as a viewer, you are left wondering, "where did he come from?" We get it. He pulled a "Maverick" and disobeyed orders probably, or Hamm changed his mind, but they should have showed this so it wasn't sort of cliche. But to be fair, look, I get it, it's a movie and it is plausible that they sent Hangman. It's just that they should have showed it so it wasn't one of those shootout cliches where the hero comes out of nowhere.
One final criticism is that some of the acting, only at certain times, could have been better. And I think Part I had better acting overall, even from smaller roles. But this movie has to be taken for what it is, which is a fun summer movie just to have a good time at.
TG:2 is rated PG-13, and sadly they are mostly aiming at teenagers for some of the big moments in the script; the good news is that it is a movie that can be enjoyed by the whole family, containing far less cursing than the first Top Gun and even less graphic love scenes (by far). There are handful of s words and one f word at an intense moment, but overall it is very mild compared to the first one. There is no nudity or intense sex scenes, but just innuendo on the romance side.
As a whole, TG:2 is a very enjoyable summer motion picture. If you have any interest in the movie, you will laugh, cry, be thrilled, maybe even feel patriotic, and be interested in the military logistics presented for the missions. Cruise does his best at an older age to nail his lines, and while maybe not possessing the charisma that only a young, 24 year old hot shot rising movie star could display, he certainly carries the movie with a commitment to the role. A shout out must also go to Miles Teller, who is sufficient as Goose's son.
If you are looking for a fun summer movie, anticipating the nostalgia for the Top Gun 1986 hit, want a theatre movie that the whole family can enjoy, or you simply like a well-made mixture of drama, action, and romance, you really can't go wrong by giving Top Gun:Maverick a watch on the big screen. However, I would recommend lowering expectations going in to see it so you aren't expecting it to be an Oscar winner or Cruise's best movie ever. It is definitely a good movie though. How good? That will ultimately be more subjective with this movie than any one I can think of.
7/10.
Titanic (1997)
Undeniably Brilliant and Iconic
Is it one of my favorite movies? No. Is it one of the greatest movies Hollywood ever made? Yes. Titanic is objectively one of the greatest movies of all time, and it's undeniable.
What works against it are the incredibly long runtime of over 3 hours, which can dredge along on rewatches at the beginning, and the fact that it's a Romance movie, which will likely turn off many male viewers who prefer action, thrillers, and some dramas. So while it's among the best movies of all time, it does have drawbacks for certain audiences.
Titanic excels best in the third and final act, the last hour or so, when they strike the iceberg and just before that as the romance heats up more. There it evolves into an action-packed, heart racing thriller with lots of moving parts. Beyond the unforgettable and realistic spectacle of the sinking ship (which amazingly makes you feel like you are right there), there is still plenty of story left to be told, and no matter how strong you think you are, this movie will pull at even the most stoic person's heartstrings, quite a tearjerker for most people.
It's a true epic. Director Cameron's ambition (the most expensive movie ever made at the time over 200 million in 1997) and commitment to consistency and quality being quite the "movie" experience, Kate Winslet's unforgettable lead performance as Rose (how did she not win the Oscar?; she should have), and the emotional components set in front of the background of one of the most infamous disasters of the 20th century, all factor into making Titanic one of the most groundbreaking and iconic love story movies of all-time.
9/10.
Batman Begins (2005)
Solid 8/10, This is a Good Movie
Originally, I only saw The Dark Knight because of the raving reviews and excellent marketing and advertising campaign prior to its release in 2008. I thought, "More Batman reboots and comic book movies? Not for me". TDK was great in the movie theatre and surprisingly impressed me, but I held off on any more, thinking this wasn't as acclaimed so it wouldn't be that good.
I was wrong. Close to ten years later, I finally decided to give Batman Begins a try when it was on my cable, and it was way better than I expected. In my opinion, the first hour of it with Liam Neeson is just awesome. I love the construction of the origin story and how Ducard (Neesom) uses quotable lines of wisdom, inspiration, and crazy training sessions to recruit and mold him.
There is also some additional deeper themes discussed between many different characters that manage to add emotional and realistic elements. While TDK will still be my favorite of the trilogy, Begins is without question a good movie. This is the epitome of what I label an 8/10. It's not perfect, but it is such a solidly made movie, it's undeniable. I didn't like the Scarecrow focused back end of the movie, but the first hour of development and training, in my opinion, is incredibly good and well made. Nolan did an excellent job handling this. In some ways, it is better than TDK, but as a whole it's just a step or two below it, and like I mentioned, I think it has to do with the main villain not being as enjoyable as Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight.
8/10.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Better and more expansive than the original
The acting, cinematography, storytelling, writing, and editing are all better than the original. It feels more polished and mature in these categories than the first. This feels more like a masterpiece than the first one. Everything from the ending, the nuances, certain high drama scenes all feel more powerful and meaningful. Surely though, many will prefer the original but not me. This is the better movie, imo.
9/10.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Passion of the Christ 9/10- Masterfully Made Historical Masterpiece
I revisited this movie for the first time in about seven years recently, and it held up well, intensely riveting and moving, directed with a scalpel. Each scene contains so much attention to detail and planning to get every shot right.
It goes without say that anyone who would take offense to the religious subject will automatically be biased to review it in a negative light. Simply put, some people don't believe in religion or the Bible, but it is very hard to deny the historical truth behind the story.
In college, my professor who taught a class about the Bible was also an Oxford professor. Since my college was not a religious one, I was surprised at how seriously a hardcore academic like him taught that class, trying to make it as intellectual and studious as possible. He went over the history of religion, basically a rendering of the evolution in history through all known ancient civilizations, from Greece to Rome, from ancient tribes to middle eastern civilization, to Israel. Essentially, historically speaking, there has always been the existence of a belief in gods, and what originated as basically pantheism and moved to polytheism, eventually evolved into monotheism, the belief in one god.
All one has to do is observe a map of the world to see Israel's location, smack dab in the center of the convergence of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Anthropologists have recently released studies suggesting that this area was a critical point in man's evolution out of Africa, and the first known civilizations arose very close by in Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, so even scientists understand the significance of the geographical region in history. Unfortunately for Israel, on what is known as the fertile crescent for a reason, their land and borders were constantly under attack from foreign invaders from east Asia, Persia, Assyria, and Egypt, among others, as they were brutally and violently overtaken by savages throughout ancient history, often essentially turning them into slaves.
The tides finally began to turn once Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and back to the promised land, where they continued to ward off invading forces who wanted their land. Moses handed down the Ten Commandments, and somewhere around this era monotheism began to spread, new kings of Israel became heroes, and new prophets arose in Israel's culture that were inscribed into the Old Testament. The most notable was Isaiah, who predicted the coming of a savior hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53).
As the Roman Empire expanded and inhabited Israel, its people once again had to deal with oppression and attacks on its culture and religion. Naturally, many sects of Jerusalem were hoping for a savior to come as the prophets prophesized, who would free them from slavery and redeem them and their faith. Then came along Jesus of Nazareth, born in a time where King Herod was slaughtering in mass newborn babies, hearing the rumor that a savior was coming. Not much is truly known about Jesus' early life. Even the Bible leaves it out, as it essentially begins documenting his life at the very start of his ministry, thought to be around the age of 27 years old. However, some scarce stories of his childhood arise like the wedding where he turned water into wine.
So what you have here is a historical retelling of the last days of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ around what would be the third decade A. D., most scholars would say around 30-33 A. D. during Roman occupation. Rumors of war were widespread, and political tensions were hot, as Jerusalem was looking for a savior, but with the political climate and Ceasar's rule, leaders were caught between war and obedience as their decisions.
Jesus came along preaching a new doctrine, performing miracles, and gaining what was a originally a small but loyal following near the Sea of Galilee, which eventually began to spread far and wide once word of his miracles and teachings got out. Rome was afraid of the rumored Rebellion, and the religious leaders were offended by Jesus' confidence and successes. They viewed him as a threat, both politically and religiously, and this is the point where The Passion of the Christ begins, at around this point.
Religious or not, most historians agree that these events really occurred, but whether you believe in the miracles, that Jesus was indeed the son of God, a prophet, a good man, or something else is a matter of faith.
When I watched it recently, my mind became absorbed into a combination of views simultaneously interpreting the film, from the perspectives of theists, atheists, agnostics, and scholars, and this time around I couldn't help but think about humanity's imperfections, how life is not perfect, and how most people who are born into this world can only interpret it based on what they see around them at the time. But reflecting on how people are bullied, made fun of, outcasted, and gossiped about as early as high school, starting to think about how peer pressure begins to set in with temptations to do drugs, mischief, and duplistic behaviors, you start to think back to how having faith really is a natural human inclination. Sometimes the pressure and pain is so much that teens and adults can no longer take it. Additionally, health problems from injuries to genetic disorders, as well as minor aches and pains and skin rashes like acne, and even more serious illnesses are practically inevitable at points in most peoples' lives (and most religions are engrained in suffering, especially Buddhism), so you can appreciate how having Faith through hard times can truly save someone's life. While doctors and surgeons are necessary, the person has to also WANT to survive, WANT to live, WANT to have a better future and life and follow the prescriptions and show up for the medicine, therapy or procedures. This, too, requires an act of Faith and goodwill, a strong will. With life being so hard at times, often out of one's control, watching the Passion of the Christ can make you question everything only to conclude that having Faith in God and a higher power, while not for everybody, can certainly come in handy and help people, especially certain people at certain times, through difficulties and pain. If not, they would simply give up and never improve or improve their lives, or get through tough periods. Otherwise, like the ancient Israelites, they would only be slaves, whether literally or metaphorically.
Jesus' message was one of goodwill, love, faith, hope, and courage, among other things, and monotheism historically only strengthened and spread further throughout the world after the crucifixion. It was a watershed moment in both World History and Theology that literally changed the entire world forever. Soon enough, the Roman Empire would indeed fall, giving way to a new Israel and a new world. Christianity would spread far and wide, and with the archaeology discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the existence of Jesus' life was only solidified and confirmed even more. In 325 A. D., at the Council of Nicea, Emporer Constantine essentially made Christianity the official religion of the remaining Roman empire, and bishops and religious leaders came to the agreement that Jesus was divine. That's just how History played out. What you had was centuries of wars, savage invasions, slavery in Israel paving the way for monotheism, and eventually Jesus' coming and ministry documented in the New Testament.
The Passion of the Christ is undeniably a well-made movie, excellently produced and directed, with admirable performances from all, a historical period piece, faithfully adhering to Biblical events, that even non-believers will have a difficult time honestly denying is a masterpiece.
9/10.
Dune: Part One (2021)
Not as bad as the negative reviews, and Not as good as the best raving reviews, but still Good
If you are looking for an action adventure with splendid visuals, then you will not be disappointed.
From a negative viewpoint, probably my biggest gripe was that it felt like an amalgamation of The Matrix, Star Wars, and Braveheart, which for a movie that is supposed to stand-on-its-own made it feel all-been-done-before and unoriginal, especially in the opening.
From a positive point of view, there were some really riveting action scenes and sequences, though most of them have been done hundreds of times before. The part when the Duke gets captured and the traitor confronts the emporer was the best part for me, that whole turn of events. I also liked when Paul and his mother escape their capture as well.
Really, it's a good movie that you won't be disappointed you saw, especially if you want to be immersed into a new world. Even though the story could have been better, it immersed me and made me forget everything else for 2.5 hours, and for that I was entertained and glad I saw it. For people who say it's boring, it's not except for a couple of stretches of it. It's nowhere near as boring as say Nomadland, which is the last new movie I saw recently. It's not that bad.
7/10.
300 (2006)
Fun to experience, but lacks in script, acting, realism, and drama
7.6 is way too high for this. It naturally tries to land in the realm of its blueprints like Gladiator and Braveheart (epic ancient/medieval war classics) but simply doesn't come near their feats and accomplishments.
About the only standalone difference with 300 is its unusual color palette, which somewhat detracts from the film. From a visual standpoint, many viewers will fall for its iconic scenery and some one-liners while the warriors flex in CGI-enhanced, artificial physiques that will appeal to those seeking testosterone rage catharcism.
However, there is nothing deeper, meaningful, or desirably rewatchable about 300 other than that. It's a one-watch movie at best, one you won't forget as it fills the epic modern-Hollywood void left after Gladiator and Brahveheart, but also one that failed to live up to the hype and its predecessors.
6/10.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
More Dramatic and Emotional Than Its Reputation
It's notorious for a certain moment, but it's the moments like where the video tape of Mischa Barton's mom in the movie is discovered and when Osmett confronts Toni Collette about the fight with her mom before the dance recital that produce splendid and unforgettable memories and emotional drama.
The movie is incredibly well-acted by everyone involved, and it's still astonishing how Shayamalan, who has been on a long slump of disappointing movies, was able to pull this gem out of his magic hat at the very dawn of his career since it is still by far his best film to date.
It's a classic and holds up due to all of the great acting, directing, and poignant moments from start to finish. Personally, my favorite part is when Willis' wife asks him why she left him and drops the ring on the ground. As it lands and rolls toward him, it's breathtaking and magical filmmaking. In fact the whole scene is.
8.5/10.
Blue Velvet (1986)
I surprisingly liked this
This is a movie that will have you talking, reflecting, thinking, and analyzing. For me, it's one of the weirdest and most puzzling movies that I've ever seen. And it's not the type of movie that I usually go for. For example, I am not a fan of David Lynch and usually can't get into his work on the attempts that I've tried.
However, this is something special. First of all, let me say I absolutely love the ending. It's one of the most beautiful and interesting endings of a movie I've ever seen, and what meaning he is going for in the final five minutes, I can only speculate. I want to interpret it, as one reviewer alluded to it, as an analysis of the surface, superficial view of suburban life after just being exposed for two hours to the darkness and hidden secrets and forbidden lives that boil underneath it. But also in juxtaposing those differing perspectives, it is also commenting on how society can shape one's spiritual trajectory in life: one can become and stay wholesome and good around good people, or they can be corrupted and fall into the influence of people who have become bad and act more animalistic, immoral, and in Hopper's character's case downright crazy.
The second time I watched it, I picked up more on Rosellini's character in the final scenes, and perhaps with regards to what I just mentioned above, metaphorically she has just escaped from that underbelly and has rebounded to come into the light (after being brought down and becoming lost).
Whether you like the movie or not (and many won't), it is one that is hard to forget because for as strange as it is, it is so well-made. The actors, especially Laura Dern, in my opinion are great for what they are there to do in the film.
I could personally do without the excessive nudity, innuendo, and language (mostly from Hopper), but the movie is so good that you can tolerate it and almost set it aside. I wonder if I would rate it higher if it wasn't for excessiveness for these things, but it's hard to say. Put it this way- some scenes were provocative enough and could've been shortened, but that's fine. It sure gets you to think and people into psychology will be drawn to the darker stuff.
Regardless, this is probably one of the better maturely made movies from the 80's. As controversial as it is, there is also plenty of innocence and PG-level stuff at the core of the movie, which makes it accessible to wider audience demographics regardless of the innuendo and uncomfortable scenes.
In conclusion, I would definitely call this a classic. There are a few scenes that I didn't like and felt like a) could have been edited out and b) detracted from my overall score, but it's so interesting and well-made that it's rewatchable. The ending is a whopper, just mindblowing in my opinion. I never saw anything like it.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
An Interesting, Perhaps Underrated Viewing Made in an Outdated Time
The year this came out (1984) and a lack of word of mouth praise regarding it (I never heard of this movie, although everyone knows the book) lowered my expectations prior to viewing, but it was very interesting to say the least.
The script doesn't hold back from the novel at all by trying to alter it, but rather it is a very accurate portrayal of the book in all of scenery, dialogue, and character. That makes it an interesting, studious revisiting of the famous Orwell classic.
It is surprisingly dark, gritty, and uncompromising in its depictions of the dystopian Oceandia, where a Totalitarian government abuses freedoms for control and power. I would watch it again just because of how interesting it was.
7.5/10.
The Game (1997)
Very Good
Most people seem to like this, but I'm going to write about three topics based on some reviews that have popped up that run contrary to them.
1. Nicholas (Douglas) goes through intense and extensive psychological tests as a prerequisite to becoming a client. They obviously do an assessment and analysis of his personality, strengths, weaknesses, and then they use that to make predictions of his responses. Conrad, his brother, also probably gave them insight before referring him to the company.
That's how they can make predictive analysis to his responses, but the most important detail that people seem to miss is his flashbacks to his father's fate. This seems to be the whole point of why Van Orten is the way he is at the beginning; he is still traumatized and dealing with suppressed feelings, perhaps feelings of loss, guilt, anger, and idealism to not meet the same fate as his father. So Conrad probably understands this is still affecting him and causing him to retreat into isolation, maybe even worriedly end up the same way. That's how they could, at least possibly (it's not impossible), predict the contingency plan that they may need the safeguard cushion at the end. The whole point is to get him to face his fears, and to stop living in fear because of his father.
Lots of people keep echoing the taxi scene together, but you have to assume that they had divers and first aid medics around in case he didn't escape that scene.
2. Unpopular opinion- this is actually Fincher's second best movie behind Seven. I can even see how some people might think it's better. His other popular movies are good, too, but this and Seven are his best.
3. Recapping, the reason why he reacts the way he does at the end is because he realizes the psychological relief, or release, it has been so he is awakened to the therapy it has provided him, like the same way people enjoy bungy jumping or a roller coaster ride....
In the end, I can understand many peoples' confusion and dislike of such an unexpected ending and perhaps the arguments proposed about the plausibility of the events, but if this was a sophisticated organization that had mastered their services, they could be good enough to pull it off and also have him sign off on a contract when he joined that would release them of liability or culpability if anything went really wrong (he does have to fill out paperwork with his application and tests). And this is one of the ironies of the whole thing that may have some thematic meaning, or significance of the whole corporate argument cliche where they only care about money and prey on their customers- it's just business to them. Once he signed the contract, he relieved them of legal liability.
Anyway, I literally laughed out loud several times at the negative reviews that mention some of this stuff, since I think one of the biggest ironies of all is how this thriller turns into a dark comedy because of all of this stuff in addition to Michael Douglas' character. It's kind of funny when you think about it just as entertainment, but that's not to say it's not a seriously good movie and awesome thriller.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
One of the More Underrated Ones, but Understandably
This is a really fun movie, highly entertaining. I remember when it first came out, I wasn't expecting much, but it was so much better than I ever anticipated, I almost bought the DVD. The only thing that doesn't work for it is that it does have a little bit of cliche to it that is undeniable, but that's despite it also feeling very fresh and original enough to be different enough to stand out. I think this is a solid "7.5" movie, but I'll give it an "8" on here because I feel like 6.5 is underrated. It's a really good film and deserves a rewatch at some point. For me, that is tonight, and while watching it I can't stop smiling at the satirical, metaphorical, dialogue about marriage, and am still very impressed by the action and cinematography. The dance floor scene is great, as are some others, and it is genuinely a funny movie.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
A Slice of History That Should Be Memorialized in a Museum If It Hasn't Already
Even though its age of 80 years can be a turnoff for modern day film watchers compared to the CGI and other technological advancements, GTTW remains a modern marvel. Perhaps the most difficult part of appreciating it is forcing yourself to finally watch it if you haven't already. The anachronistic, outdated romantic love story may not popularly appeal to young audiences of today- that and the approximate four hour runtime, which makes it sound like a chore. That was me.
Once I dove into it a few years ago for the first time as an attempt to appreciate both history and film history, I quickly realized why it was so popular. What impressed me the most was how good the cinematography was for a movie from 1939, as well as how believable the dramatization was in bringing to life a love saga from the civil war period.
Prior to watching the film, the only learning I ever had on the civil war was based on textbooks and documentaries, most of which were a bore. There are war tales of the great commanders and generals involved, but there was never a colorful depiction of society that humanizes people who lived in that era and what it was like. Of all places, the South was the perfect setting to depict an era in history that was tumultuous, painstaking, unstable, and just like that, gone with the wind.
The acting is as good as you can get for an old film period, not just 1939. It's better than any acting I've seen well after 1939 into the proceeding few decades. The directing is crisp, music emotive and epic, and Vivien Leigh's Scarlett is unforgettable. Even not being a big fan of older films, the thing that struck me as the most impressive thing about GWTW was its realistic, historical reconstruction of an era and place in time that is scarcely described throughout history lessons. In doing so, it creates an timeless, artistic display of that time. It's epic and important, there's no denying that.
Hoosiers (1986)
More Poetic Than Just a Sports Movie
Hoosiers is more poetic than a movie about competitive basketball. On the surface, many viewers will rightfully focus on the inspirational sports story, but underneath of it is poetry in motion, the story of redemption, faith, self belief, and the beauty of basketball the way it was born to be played (and this is based in the 50s or 60s).
Hackman, stellar as always, delivers one of his finest and most memorable performances, never short on heart and poignancy. He nails every syllable of every line of his dialogue. The music is all-time historically great, a score that is up there with the top 10 scores of all-time easily- a classic, masterpiece level score.
Unlike if it were made today or recent years, where they would be shallow on character development and thick in on-the-court action, Hoosiers builds characters, setting, scenery, and dialogue to deliver not only a classic sports movie, but one of the greatest movies of all time.
9.7/10