“Kramer vs. Kramer” was released in 1979 and was written & directed by John Benton. The film swept at the 1980 Oscars, winning Best Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay, and Picture. It stars Dustin Hoffman as Ted Kramer, a advertising executive, Meryl Streep as his wife Joanna, and Justin Henry as their son Billy. One day, Joanna leaves Ted and their son after being dissatisfied with her old life and Ted’s workaholic behavior. Ted and Billy both struggle without Joanna at first, but they learn to love each other as Ted realizes he should focus more on family than his work.
It’s important to note that beyond what I explained in the introduction, the movie doesn’t have much of a plot. The movie’s focus is almost exclusively on the bond between Ted and Billy, so this film’s appeal is mainly the phenomenal acting on display by most of its actors. Dustin Hoffman was brilliant in the film. He did a good job of making the character’s split from his wife feel realistic and relatable. Hoffman didn’t fall into the overacting trap many actors do in these types of films, and his chemistry with Justin Henry was strong. I was so thankful that Justin Henry gave a good performance in this movie because most child actors in movies are absolutely abysmal, but he was definitely an exception. The best and most emotional scenes in this movie are the ones between Ted and his son where they do simple things like eat dinner or cook together. My favorite scene was one where Ted and Billy simply fight over eating ice cream during dinner.
Another great aspect of the film is the dialogue. The banter is very snappy and the monologues aren’t sappy or underwhelming. It also helps that the directing and acting was good enough to strengthen the dialogue.
While Dustin Hoffman and the rest of the cast gave incredible performances, I found Meryl Streep to be overly dramatic in the film. Maybe it’s the script, but Streep cries in almost every scene she is in, which can be insufferable at times. I don’t think her Oscar for this film was well deserved because she seemed like she was acting in a soap opera while the other actors were doing their best to make the characters as real and relatable as possible. I also thought the writing for her character was a little weak. At times the film made it seem like Joanna (Streep) was the villain who was abandoning her child only to come back & take him away from his father, but other times the movie tries to make her actions justified somehow. This simply doesn’t work because the movie spends so much more time with Ted & Billy, and Joanna is only in the film during the first scene and the third act. She doesn’t have enough time to grow on the audience and make them feel for her.
A film that is able to make both sides of a divorce understandable and sympathetic is “Marriage Story.” The film spends about equal time with the mother & father and shows what each of them did wrong in the relationship. That way, when the custody battles ensue the audience feels for both characters and can’t completely decide who the protagonist is. “Kramer vs. Kramer” didn’t do that, which would be fine if it wasn’t already trying to.
Although the Joanna Kramer character was written and acted poorly, almost every other aspect of “Kramer vs. Kramer” was executed perfectly. Dustin Hoffman gave one of his best performances, the direction was excellent, and the writing was superb, so I strongly recommend this film.
Contrary to what the poster says, this isn’t a Borat movie, and I’ll explain why. To give context, the original “Borat” is my favorite comedy of all time, and it’s in my top 15 favorite movies of all time. I’ve seen it so many times that I can reenact it. The film didn’t pull any punches and wasn’t afraid to make fun of anyone or anything. Add the fact that Sacha Baron Cohen (who plays Borat) was absolutely fearless, and we get the most hilarious movie of all time (in my opinion). Therefore, I didn’t want a sequel, because I knew it would never be as good, and in this current time where the United States is extremely divided, I knew Cohen would get overly political and less offensive, and I was mostly correct.
BORAT DISGUISED AS DONALD TRUMP
“Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” stars Sacha Baron Cohen and Maria Bakalova, and was directed by Jason Woliner. The plot is overly complicated for a “Borat” movie, but basically this film follows Borat as he returns to America to deliver a bribe to president (as of writing this) Donald Trump in order to bring honor to his home country Kazakhstan, which was humiliated due to the release of the original Borat movie. His daughter Tutar (Bakalova) ends up accompanying him and the two of them grow a loving bond with each other. If you aren’t familiar with the original “Borat,” that film and this new one are mockumentaries in which Sacha Baron Cohen interacts with real people instead of actors. So every reaction to Borat’s hijinks that isn’t from Cohen or Bakalova is completely authentic.
TUTAR ACCOMPANIED BY A DISGUISED BORAT RIGHT BEFORE A HYSTERICAL SCENE
The reason why I previously wrote that this isn’t a Borat movie is the fact that Tutar has more screen time than him, or at least it feels that way. So anyone who saw the first one and loved it like I did, don’t go into this movie expecting a ton of Borat content, because you won’t be getting much. That said, I loved Bakalova’s performance as Tutar. She was able to go toe to toe with Cohen and she never got embarrassed, which is the key to this kind of comedy. She was really funny and knew how to push people into a corner and make situations as cringe-inducing as possible. However, the reason the character is detrimental has nothing to do with the actress. The problem is the movie steers away from humor a bit too much in order to craft a cliche story in which Tutar steals the spotlight from Borat, as she simply has more to do. What was fun about the original film was that there was a loosely crafted plot which was clearly made up as they went along. The story was its own joke, which worked out perfectly. I’m fine with adding more of a story, but not if it lessens other elements of the movie.
The movie was still hilarious at many points, and was definitely a thousand times funnier than the average boring comedy that comes out nowadays, but did it live up to the original? No, barely even close. I’m not saying it’s bad, because the movie has many great scenes that will make you belly laugh, but there aren’t any jokes that would make you stop breathing like the ones in the original film. However, there were some unique aspects to the movie that were really clever. For example, during the entire movie Borat has to disguise himself because of how famous he is due to the success of the last movie. It adds to the humor to see Borat in ridiculous disguises and try to pull off southern accents.
Even though the movie wasn’t as funny as the original, I would still be satisfied with it if it wasn’t for its abysmal ending. The ending starts off really clever and presents a hysterical situation, but then it absolutely dive bombs towards the last few minutes. I won’t spoil it, but I will say it partially ruins the Borat character by making him a lot more politically correct, which is the exact opposite of what makes him funny.
SACHA BARON COHEN IN THE ORIGINAL “BORAT”
The addition of Maria Bakalova as Tutar was a welcome one and the movie was often sidesplitting, but it just didn’t feel like a Borat movie. So I’ll give it two grades. One as a film, and one as a Borat movie. I definitely recommend this movie to those who haven’t seen the first movie or saw it but didn’t love it, because they will probably like this movie quite a bit.
You know a movie is bad when a toy is put into its poster. Yes, that actually happened. Ian McDiarmid, who plays Palpatine, wouldn’t take a photo for the poster, so the advertising team used an Emperor Palpatine hot toy for the character. Anyway, this Star Wars movie is on the bottom of the list because it damaged the franchise the most. Darth Vader’s arc was ruined by bringing back Palpatine, Rey was an awful & unlikeable Mary Sue, the action was pathetic, the fact that the force can bring people back to life is ridiculous, etc. The movie was also unenjoyable because the plot was just a goose chase for macguffins. I can go on & on about how insulting this movie is to the franchise and to the viewer’s intelligence.
10. Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
The dialogue in this movie, particularly the infamous “sand line,” is some of the worst in the past few decades. It’s unrealistic, over-the-top, and constantly distracting. Besides that aspect, the film is also the most boring movie in the franchise, and most of the performances are abysmal, specifically Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. He is actually a really nice person in real life, and I know he already gets a lot of hate, but I have to pile on. He sounds like a never-ending voice crack. The only emotions he conveys are irritability and angst. He has what scientists call, “an obnoxious face.” The CGI is also atrocious at times, specifically some of the green screen and clone troopers (who were computer generated; they weren’t even played by real people). However, Ewan McGregor was still fantastic as Obi-Wan and the introduction of Jango Fett and the clones was interesting.
9. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
This film’s main problem is its unrelenting desire to “subvert expectations.” Rian Johnson, the writer/director, chose to kill Snoke off without giving him a backstory to “subvert expectations.” Rian Johnson killed off Admiral Ackbar to “subvert expectations.” Rian Johnson turned Luke Skywalker, who was once a symbol of hope & optimism, into a hermit who drinks space walrus milk and wants the jedi to end, to “subvert expectations.” Rian Johnson created an atrocious, annoying, and senseless character named Rose, to… well, I don’t know. Maybe he just did it to anger the audience even further. There are a lot more problems with this movie, but I won’t go through them because it would take too long. Adam Driver’s performance as Kylo Ren was phenomenal and there was some beautiful imagery, but those two aspects couldn’t save this awful movie.
8. Solo: A Star Wars Story
Han Solo doesn’t need an origin story, but unfortunately, Disney decided to make one. The problem with this film was its poorly written script. There were some ridiculous choices that were made by the writers. For example, Lando, a suave and stylish hero in the original films, was in a physical romantic relationship with an annoying droid who argued for droid civil rights in this movie. That ruins Lando now; he’s no longer the cool lady’s man people admire, he’s just a man attracted to robots. Also, the movie just felt like a safe Marvel-like movie that was pumped out of a conveyor belt. It was so obvious that it was made solely to make money, which it failed at doing since it bombed at the box office. I did like the portrayal of Chewbacca and his chemistry with Han. The filmmakers actually respected Chewie, and they came up with the perfect origin for how he & Han met. The action was well-filmed too and most of the actors did a good job.
7. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
This movie is definitely flawed, but it still has many great elements. For example, the world-building was some of the best in any Star Wars movie. Obviously, there were some boring senate meetings, but it was still amazing to see the Jedi Council and to learn how the galaxy operated before the Empire. Also, Liam Neeson was great as Qui-Gon Jinn, the ending lightsaber battle was amazing, and Darth Maul was a really cool character despite his limited screen time. However, the best part of this movie is the “Duel of the Fates” musical masterpiece by John Williams. It’s definitely the best music piece in Star Wars history, and it’s a contender for the best of all time. Now to the negatives. Hearing Jar Jar Binks talk is like putting one ear into a blender and the other against the mouth of a crying toddler; he is still the worst Star Wars character. I also disliked Jake Lloyd’s performance as Anakin, and the dialogue, while not nearly as unbearable as the dialogue in “Attack of the Clones,” was still super unrealistic and often cringy.
6. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
As a film, this is pretty good, but as a Star Wars movie, it’s mediocre at best. It’s basically a remake of “A New Hope” with a different title, which is extremely detrimental to the original trilogy. The efforts of Luke & the rebels in the original trilogy were made meaningless because the Empire just came back again with a different name: the First Order. I also think this has the worst score in any of the core 9 movies; there were no music pieces that stood out to me. Besides those problems, it is still a really good movie. I love everything about the character of Kylo Ren and Adam Driver’s performance. Harrison Ford did not disappoint as Han Solo; he was as roguish as ever and it was clear the writers did their best with the character. The best part of this film is definitely its near flawless pacing. The special effects, dialogue, and action were all great as well.
5. Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
While the third entry in the original trilogy is the weakest, it still is a great film. Everything with Luke and Vader is really well done and seeing Vader sacrifice himself for his son was beautiful. The lightsaber battle between them & the Emperor’s introduction was great as well. The first act in Jabba’s Palace was a little cheesy and didn’t make much sense, but it was still really fun and a classic Star Wars adventure. Unlike many others, I don’t find the Ewoks annoying, and I think their lack of dialogue helped them be more tolerable. However, it made no sense how the Ewoks were able to defeat stormtroopers with just rocks and pellets at the end of the film. I also didn’t like Han as much because he lacked his bad temper and his suaveness; he was sidelined. But this is still a great movie and (was once) a perfect ending to the saga.
4. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Unlike Solo, this movie was actually needed. Rogue One fixed the massive plot hole in Episode 4 of why there was a severe weak point built into the Death Star. What I love about it beyond that is the film didn’t play it safe, and it took risks without damaging the franchise. Spoilers, but all of the main characters die in the end trying to get the Death Star plans to the rebels. It was a bold move that truly left an impact since it was unexpected to many viewers. Some people argue the movie is bad because the characters aren’t well-developed, but it isn’t about the characters. The movie focuses on the decisions & sacrifices make during war and the morality behind them. I also love how in this film, war was gritty, brutal, and devastating, unlike the other movies where it was simply explosions and fun space battles. Additionally, the ending scene with Darth Vader is one of the greatest scenes in Star Wars history; it was satisfying to finally see Vader lash out and be that powerful monster. My problem with the movie is that it sometimes dragged during the second act, but it picked up during the final act.
3. Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
If I only had one word to describe this film, it would be “epic,” since the story might be the best in the franchise. The infamous Order 66 scene where the Jedi are tragically exterminated is stunning and brilliantly executed. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan gave the best performance in Star Wars history in my opinion, and Ian McDiarmid gave the second best as Palpatine. While the dialogue in the first two prequels was abysmal, the dialogue in this film is exponentially better (but still a bit flawed). Obi-Wan’s extremely quotable “You were the chosen one!” monologue at the end of the movie in particular was well written and masterfully performed. The pain and misery McGregor displayed added so much to the movie. But all of Palpatine’s dialogue was fantastic, whether it was his Darth Plagueis monologue, or the “Do it!” line, or his speech when he became Emperor. I also love John Williams’ score, especially the “Battle of the Heroes” piece. My only legitimate critique is Hayden Christensen’s performance, once again. He wasn’t atrocious like he was in “Attack of the Clones,” but there were times where the viewer can’t help but cringe when he delivers a line or makes a facial expression. Nonetheless, I still adore this movie and think it’s extremely underrated.
2. Star Wars: A New Hope
This is the movie that made me love movies. The story behind the making of this film is truly inspiring. A young, bold writer/director scrambling to make a film with a budget that’s too low and a cast & crew that laughs at the film as they work. Rewrites & reshoots cursed the film’s production, but somehow George Lucas, John Williams, and the editing team saved this movie during post-production and turned it into one of the most fun and rewatchable films ever made. The beautiful score, exciting action, flawless special effects, compelling characters, and George Lucas’ incredible world-building makes this one of the greatest sci-fi and fantasy films of all time.
1. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
What can I say that already hasn’t been said? The lightsaber fight between Luke & Vader might be my favorite in all of Star Wars (it’s between that and Obi-Wan vs. Anakin in Revenge of the Sith). Irvin Kershner’s direction, the cinematography, and Lawrence Kasdan’s dialogue were the best in the saga. The old & new characters were well-fleshed out and the world-building was as impeccable as the film before it. This is a true classic with one of the greatest twists in cinema history, and it might just be the best sequel ever made.
Introduction – I have always been a huge Star Wars fan. I remember watching the “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” television series when I was very little and loving it (I still adore the show today) and then watching the original 1977 film with my father. It is the movie that got me into movies, and the franchise has been near and dear to my heart ever since.
Like many others, when I first heard a seventh Star Wars movie was going to be made, I was ecstatic. When I finally got to see Episode 7 in theaters, I initially loved it. However, years later, as I look closer to what Disney has done to Lucasfilm after George Lucas left, I’m disgusted. To provide more context, after the prequels, fans started to hate George Lucas, many saying he ruined their childhood. I won’t argue that the prequels are perfect because they are far from it, but the level of hate was complete overkill. Lucas still made this property that has reached the hearts of so many people around the world in the first place. Just because the prequel trilogy wasn’t as good as the original trilogy, it still was unjustified for people to bully Lucas and others who participated in the making of those movies. I recommend everyone to see the making-of documentary for the Phantom Menace (it’s on YouTube) because it shows that people worked super hard to make that movie and none of them treated Star Wars as a property; they saw Star Wars as an experience. I’m explaining all of this because one of the main reasons why George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney in 2012 was the constant hate and pressure from the fans (and the $4 billion he was paid, but he was already extremely wealthy).
GEORGE LUCAS SIGNING THE SALE OF STAR WARS TO DISNEY
It is sad to see Disney stomp on the legacy of the franchise and use it as a money-making machine. Disney has 0 respect for the property, and simply bought it to make as much money as possible. I challenge anyone to tell me that the Disney sequel trilogy has any of the heart and soul that George Lucas’ original six movies did. George Lucas even said, “I sold [Star Wars] to white slavers,” referring to Disney. Episodes 7-9 carelessly ruin the entire Star Wars story. I’ll go through how each of them damages the saga in ways no other Star Wars content has ever done.
Episode 7: The Force Awakens – This movie is practically a shot-for-shot remake of A New Hope, and normally I can ignore that in movies, but the problem I have with it is that it makes the story of the original trilogy pointless. The idea that the First Order emerges out of the Empire’s ashes is insulting, because it makes Luke, Han, and Leia’s struggle to take down the Empire in the original trilogy meaningless. It didn’t matter that the Emperor died and Darth Vader became good again; the efforts of our heroes were all for nothing. It would be better it we got to see our heroes turn old and struggle to rebuild a Republic after all of the destruction caused by Emperor Palpatine, or seeing Luke train a new batch of Jedi, or, what would’ve been the best idea, is to let the Skywalker story end at the end of Return of the Jedi.
Episode 8: The Last Jedi – What Rian Johnson did to Luke Skywalker is unforgivable and makes no sense. Originally, Luke was a hopeful and optimistic character who saw the good in people, even in his father, who was the second worst person in the galaxy. Luke represented what a true Jedi should be. However, Rian Johnson decided to make Luke a curmudgeonly old man who tried to kill his nephew because he thought he might turn to the dark side (which is senseless because as previously mentioned, Luke saw good in Darth Vader, who was a mass murderer). Rian Johnson had Luke drink milk from a space walrus and die from exerting too much energy by force-skyping Kylo Ren at the end of the movie. What a way to ruin such a beloved character. Even Mark Hamill, the actor who plays Luke, hates what was done to his character. In many interviews he talked about why he despised the treatment of his character. In an interview for ABC news (a Disney-owned company by the way) he stated, “I told Rian, ‘I fundamentally disagree with everything you decided about my character.'”
COMPILATION OF MARK HAMILL DISAGREEING WITH WHAT WAS DONE TO LUKE SKYWALKER
Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker – Every choice this movie made destroyed whatever remnants weren’t already demolished by episodes 7 & 8. Bringing back Palpatine ruins not just the originals, but the prequels too. George Lucas himself confirmed Palpatine had died, but of course, the great people at Disney didn’t care. By Palpatine living, the turn of Darth Vader to the light side and his sacrifice to save the galaxy is pointless. The prophecy throughout the first 6 movies that Anakin Skywalker would bring balance to the force is now gone, because he simply did nothing; Palpatine survived. The movie justifies this only with a single line from Episode 3 (an actually good Star Wars movie): “The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.” In addition, Rey’s ability to heal people with the force and Kylo Ren’s sudden ability to bring Rey back from the dead is idiotic. If that was an ability for all this time, why didn’t Yoda or Obi-Wan revive Padme from dying after giving birth to Luke & Leia? Why didn’t Luke heal Anakin on the Death Star after being electrocuted? Why didn’t Obi-Wan revive Qui-Gon after his death? I know some might say the ability was never discovered until this point, but that makes even less sense. Rey only trained with the force for a year, and both her and Kylo Ren never had any training or prior knowledge of the ability to revive others until they actually did it. The reason Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side in Episode 3 (the decision that set up the whole Star Wars conflict) was to prevent Padme from dying, and it wasn’t possible by using the light side. But when Kylo revived Rey, he already turned back to the light side, so he must have used the light side of the force instead of the dark side, which contradicts everything.
George Lucas never should have sold Star Wars to Disney. It was a mistake.
However, I will mention good Star Wars content has been made under Disney. The Force Awakens, while a bad Star Wars movie, was still a really good film. “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” is, in my opinion, the best Star Wars film since Revenge of the Sith, but it’s disappointing that I say that because it isn’t one of the core 9 movies. I also really like the Mandalorian, but at the time of writing this, the show only has 8 episodes, so it is too early to tell if it will be consistently good.
Please comment or like this post if you would like me to write more of these analyses (I might write about how Rey is a Mary Sue).
“Se7en” was released in 1995 and was directed by David Fincher, and it stars Brad Pitt, Morgan “the Voice of God” Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Kevin Spacey. The movie follows two detectives named David Mills (Pitt), a rookie, and William Somerset (Freeman), a man in his 60’s who has only one week left before he retires. The two are paired together in order to find a genius serial killer who murders people based on the seven deadly sins: gluttony, greed, lust, pride, wrath, envy, and sloth.
One of the best aspects of this movie is the tension and the constant grimy & violating feeling, which is due to the masterful direction by David Fincher. The movie is a phenomenal thriller; something intense or gruesome is happening in every single scene, and even when a scene may seem calm and lack a sense of danger, the tension is somehow still there. Besides the direction, another aspect that increases the grimy and dark tone of the film is the dreary setting. The film takes place in a notoriously violent city where there is almost always a mugging or murder on most of the streets, and none of its citizens want to be there. The script takes the interesting choice of never exactly saying what city the story takes place in, and that’s for the better because the setting feels more like something out of a legend or myth. In addition, the movie has so many gory and disgusting scenes, and while that may be fun in some movies like “Robocop,” in “Se7en” the images shown are horrifying and brutally realistic. The images stay in the heads of viewers even after the end credits, which is clearly the impact Fincher was going for.
The performances in the film were fantastic across the board. Brad Pitt played his character with cockiness and humor, but as the film went on, he showed how vulnerable his character is. Morgan Freeman’s performance served as a brilliant example of how living in an environment like that can damage a person and change who he/she is. However, my favorite performance was that of Kevin Spacey, who portrayed the serial killer, John Doe. In real life, Spacey is a disgusting and despicable person who I despise greatly, but as a critic, I must separate the art from the artist. As soon as Spacey showed up in the movie, he dominated the screen and savored every line of dialogue he had. John Doe was slimy & maniacal while being charismatic at the same time.
The script of “Se7en” (written by Andrew Kevin Walker) may be the best part however, since the overarching story was so efficiently developed and disturbing, and the film succeeds in impacting its viewers in ways no other movie has. The movie is also very rewatchable since the writer put so many details into the story and crafted a beautiful arc for the characters, specifically David Mills. The ending was brilliant as well, and while I don’t want to spoil it for those who haven’t seen the movie, I will say it is extremely shocking & is one of the best endings of all time.
“Se7en” is one of the best movies of the 1990’s, and is my favorite thriller of all time. The extremely dark tone of the movie may be a turn-off for some people, but I strongly recommend watching this film so others can have a cinematic experience like no other.
“Enola Holmes” is a Netflix original film that was directed by Harry Bradbeer and stars Millie Bobby Brown, Henry Cavill, Sam Claflin, and Helena Bonham Carter. The movie follows Enola Holmes (Brown), the little sister of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes (Cavill) as well as Mycroft Holmes (Claflin). She enjoyed a happy yet secluded childhood alone with her mother (Carter) before her mother abruptly left without saying a word. Enola goes on a journey to find her mother and gain independence from her two brothers, but she finds herself intertwined in a political conspiracy along the way.
The best part of the movie is Millie Bobby Brown’s performance as the main character. Brown was extremely charismatic in the role and she brought some fun & excitement into the movie that wouldn’t be there without her. The movie takes a risky choice of having Enola break the fourth wall and speak to the audience during many scenes, and normally I would be annoyed when movies do this (except for “Deadpool”), but Brown was so likeable as the character that I thought it worked very well. I thought Henry Cavill was surprisingly good as Sherlock Holmes. His version of Sherlock Holmes was more muscular than fans are used to, but he still sold the intelligence of the character and his unhealthy addiction to solving mysteries pretty well. Certain performances felt very phoned in, like Helena Bonham Carter’s, while other performances were flat out terrible, like that of Louis Partridge, who played Enola’s love-interest. However, I did enjoy much of the cinematography and the direction. The movie’s setting in 19th century London felt very lived-in and immersive, mainly due to the decent direction.
The movie’s real problem is the script, and oh boy, was it a bad one. My first issue with the script was that the storytelling was so incredibly unoriginal and cliche to the point where the movie felt more like a spoof than its own story. I could name forty other movies with the exact same plot; it was extremely lazy storytelling. My second problem with the movie is the writing of the characters. With the exception of Sherlock Holmes, all of the characters were horribly written. Almost every character that was intended to be likeable was quite the opposite, normally because they had no personality traits or they were just flat-out annoying. The two worst written characters were Enola Holmes and her mother, Eudoria Holmes.
“Star Wars” analogy that explains what a “Mary Sue” is.
Even though Brown was excellent as the character, Enola was still written as an extreme “Mary Sue,” meaning that her character was perfect and lacked any flaws. A character with no flaws is super boring because he/she breezes through every challenge easily, and is also unrelatable to viewers. In reality, every person has flaws, and nobody is able to overcome all obstacles in his/her path at all times. Seeing Enola solve all the mysteries within minutes, even before her genius brother, was insulting. Enola knew how to fight and overpower armed assassins, she knew multiple codes, read almost every book, etc. An example of a well-written and relatable character is Henry Hill in “Goodfellas”. He was a kind & fun-loving man to his core, but since he grew up in a neighborhood full of mafiosos, he became one and later struggled with drug addiction. That is a great character since he went through struggles anyone can relate to (to a certain extent), was impacted by his environment, and often failed to see the error of his ways. People want to watch a movie where characters have to triumph over their problems and experience arcs, not a film about a character who knows everything and is better than everyone else around her despite being only sixteen.
Image of Eudoria Holmes planning bombing locations (I’m serious).
As previously mentioned, the writing for Eudoria Holmes was atrocious. The movie wants its viewers to like her so that they feel for Enola and understand why her mother meant so much to her. However, Enola’s mother justs appears neglectful and abusive because she left her teenage daughter alone for selfish reasons. Spoiler warning: The reason Eudoria left Enola behind was so she could support her own feminist movement. Personally, I’m a passionate supporter of feminism, but the problem that I have is that the film shoves political messages down the throats of its viewers in strange ways. What I mean by “strange ways” is the movie explicitly shows Eudoria making bombs and planning places to attack that are against her movement, so basically she is a terrorist. Just because she fights for a good cause it doesn’t mean her radical and violent methods are justified. Again, I am fully supportive of feminism, but I think it makes feminists look bad by portraying someone that is an actual murderer/terrorist in a positive light.
“Enola Holmes” is led by an incredibly charming Millie Bobby Brown, but her performance couldn’t distract from the script’s cliches, terrible characterization, ridiculously unoriginal plot, and the abysmal & misunderstood portrayal of feminism. I don’t recommend this movie to any Netflix subscribers. “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was put on Netflix recently; go watch that instead.
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is a drama released in 1975 which was directed by Milos Forman, starred Jack Nicholson & Louise Fletcher, and was based on the book of the same name by Ken Kesey. The movie is about a clever and charismatic con-man named R.P. McMurphy (Nicholson), who gets transferred from prison to a mental hospital after tricking the state into thinking he has a mental illness so he can get out of work detail. Initially he thinks he will have a more peaceful experience in the hospital than in prison, but he sees how poorly the patients are treated by the head nurse, Mildred Ratched (Fletcher), and decides to fight against her to give the patients a freer environment. This movie not only won five Oscars including Best Picture, but it is also one of the best movies ever made, and one of my favorites.
In today’s culture where everyone is so incredibly sensitive, I’m sure some people would find this movie to be offensive without reading a synopsis or watching the trailer. People jump to conclusions, and if this was released today, I believe there would be a lot of controversy over the film just because it features fictional mental patients. When “Joker” came out in October 2019 there was controversy over that film, with many news reporters saying that it was “dangerous,” even though it was depicting a mass murdering comic-book character and no one was hurt as a result of the film. If that would be controversial, then this certainly would be too. The author of the novel wrote the book based off of his experiences working at an actual mental hospital and his conversations with the patients, so it wasn’t as if the author knew nothing about mental health and was making fun of people with mental disorders. In fact, I would say that this movie has one of the best themes in a film of all time, which is that society needs to take better care of people with mental disabilities, give them respect, and treat them like normal people instead of children or monsters. With that said, let’s continue.
Firstly, the screenplay of the movie is brilliant, because the movie is able to balance so many characters and give all of them their own qualities and moments in the spotlight in a runtime of 2 hours and 14 minutes. What adds onto the story is Milos Forman’s haunting direction. Whenever something shocking or inhumane or frightening happens, Forman makes sure that it is completely in camera and as disturbing to the viewer as possible. There is one painful scene involving electroshock therapy, and another scene with a character being choked, both of which are examples of how powerful and uncomfortable the movie can be, and when the viewer is that affected, you know there is an extremely talented director behind the camera.
While the film has a beautiful, well-written story and brilliant directing, the main reason this movie is so fantastic is its ensemble cast. The acting is superb (especially Nicholson’s and Fletcher’s) and the cast might be the best ensemble of any film. The film depends on the performances of the cast more than anything else, especially since a lot of the qualities of the characters are shown visually rather than through words. For example, Danny DeVito’s character, Martini, has a constant smile on his face even in melancholy times, Will Sampson’s character, Chief Bromden, doesn’t speak for most of the film, and Nurse Ratched’s evil can be seen through her cold eyes.
Speaking of which, Louise Fletcher’s performance as Ratched is, in my opinion, the best performance by an actress of all time, and her character is one of the best villains of all time. Period. At first glance, Ratched looks like a kind woman, but if the viewer looks deeper, he/she will see the scheming look on her face and her cold eyes. Fletcher played Ratched with a hauntingly calm voice and an emotionless demeanor. What is dangerous about her is that she is a nurse who lacks emotion and sympathy. She has no boundaries and isn’t afraid to say things extremely sensitive to her vulnerable patients, eventually causing one of them to have a terrible fate at the end of the film. Ratched likes everything to have order and she doesn’t want the patients to have a lot of freedom, so she is really what the conflict of the movie depends on. I can watch Ratched stare someone down for an hour and not get bored.
This is one of those movies, like “The Godfather,” “Star Wars,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Schindler’s List,” and others, that pushes the boundaries of storytelling and proves how effective movies can be. It’s important that this movie stays relevant due to its important themes and its masterful filmmaking behind and in front of the camera. As soon as you finish reading this review, please go watch this movie. You won’t regret it.
“Bill & Ted Face the Music” was directed by Dean Parisot and stars Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter in their most excellent roles. In this film, Bill and Ted are middle aged dads still trying to write the song to save the world while also trying to reconnect with their wives and daughters. I’ve been an avid fan of the first two “Bill & Ted” movies ever since I first saw them; they were both lighting in a bottle. The concept that two idiotic surfer dudes with an extensive vocabulary are destined to save the world through a single song sounds ludicrous, but the first two movies sold it with clever comedy. So naturally, I had a lot of anticipation for this movie.
The best thing about the film is the chemistry between Reeves and Winter. Even though it has been thirty years since the first film, their friendship is as strong as it has ever been. I can’t possibly imagine anyone else in these roles, and that is very rare for me to say. Besides them, most of the other actors were decent. The recurring characters like Death didn’t have as much screen time as I wish they would, but they were still enjoyable in their roles. A risk this movie took was introducing the daughters of Bill and Ted, but I think it paid off for the most part. The characters were likeable and worked well with their fathers. Samara Weaving played Bill’s daughter and she did a satisfactory job at encapsulating him, but the other actress, Brigette Lundy-Paine, was absolutely flawless in the role as Ted’s daughter. She is exactly like young Keanu Reeves from the first two movies. She had the exact same mannerisms as him, even simple ones like the way he turns his head.
Another positive is just that the film is so much fun. Seeing these two characters get out of bogus situations always leads to a good time. The Bill & Ted Franchise almost has that old Disney-like quality to it because the movies have a feeling of pure joy. Also, the film is really funny. There are too many Adam Sandler movies (he has made some great ones in the past) and unfunny remakes nowadays, so it is refreshing to see a legitimately funny comedy.
I don’t really have many significant gripes with the film, but I do have little nitpicks about some of the film’s logic. There was a Robot character in the film that I found incredibly annoying and he kept weighing some of the movie down for me. Fortunately, the character wasn’t in many scenes. The last ten minutes were when problems arose for me. Without spoiling anything, I will say that the ending undermined the original movies because it made Bill and Ted’s three adventures seem meaningless. The ending was also extremely abrupt, and I hate abrupt endings. I don’t need a Lord of the Rings forty-minute-long type of ending, but there needs to be a decent amount of closure. This film just ended with a single voice over line and a cut-to-black. To sum up the ending, Preston/Logan > Wyld Stallyns.
I recommend this movie because of how entertaining and fun it was, and we need movies like this in these tough times. Although the final act left a sour taste in my mouth, I enjoyed the film overall.
I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion. Many people feel that this is the best comic book movie of all time, but I don’t see it that way. Obviously, Heath Ledger is mesmerizing as the Joker, the cinematography and effects are great, the dialogue is compelling, the pacing is immaculate, etc. This is an “A” film with a brilliant Joker, but as a BATMAN movie, it’s a failure. Batman is my favorite comic book character, and to see him be so misrepresented in this movie is insulting to me, and I don’t understand why other fans don’t see how Christopher Nolan doesn’t understand the Batman character. This is one of the most overrated movies of all time. Here are my four reasons why “The Dark Knight” isn’t a Batman movie:
1. Batman Isn’t Smart Enough: In the comics and in the animated series, Batman has always been one of the smartest characters in the DC Universe. However, in this movie, he relies on Lucius Fox for all of his technology. This makes him look like a freeloader who can’t create his own gadgets. Lucius, although being a character from the comics, contradicts the intelligence of Batman. Without his intelligence, Batman is just another crimefighter, like the Punisher or Daredevil. Batman without intelligence is like Wolverine without claws or Superman without flight. He isn’t Batman.
2. Batman Isn’t A Good Enough Fighter: I don’t see how anyone can defend this movie’s action. Yes, Nolan understands that action should be shot wide and without quick-cuts or shaky cam, but he doesn’t realize that intensity is needed in action scenes, especially with Batman. In “The Dark Knight” Batman just seems to jab people like a rookie middleweight boxer, not the tactical, stealthy ninja he is supposed to be. Sure, he uses some cool technology (made by Lucius) in some scenes, but again, whenever he engages in a fistfight, he looks like he has no clue as to what he is doing. Good examples of Batman’s fighting style are the Batman: Arkham video games and “Batman v Superman.” In those he was stealthy, quick, and brutal. I do think Christopher Nolan has become a better action director overtime, but in this movie, he did a poor job at creating thrilling fight sequences.
3. Gotham Doesn’t Look Like Gotham: In the comics and the animated television shows, Gotham is a grimy, filthy, dark, and polluted city. It is supposed to be a place where the readers or viewers would think to themselves, “This looks extremely dangerous; I would never want to be anywhere near here.” However, in “The Dark Knight,” it looks like Manhattan at its best. In Nolan’s world, it appears to be a clean and civilized city; it looks like somewhere that one would want to live, or at least take a tour through. Nolan’s Gotham doesn’t give the needed sense of danger or tension. A film that nailed the look of Gotham was “Joker”. It was almost everything it should be, and the team behind the film knew the most important thing about Gotham: the city is its own character. Gotham’s appearance should represent the filthiness and corruption of the city and many of its citizens, not a tourist attraction.
Batman heroically saves children.
4. Batman is Lazy and Doesn’t Like Crime Fighting in this Movie: People don’t realize this. On the surface, Batman’s motivation in the movie is to protect Harvey Dent from the Joker. However, Batman’s intentions are selfish: he does this because he believes that Dent can eliminate the organized crime in Gotham, allowing himself to retire after crime fighting for only two years. First of all, Dent only put away parts of the mafia, not most of the street gangs or many of the criminals. Plus, Batman’s parents were killed by a random, petty thief, not a mafioso. Second of all, Batman should know that he is always needed and there will always be plenty of criminals that only he can fight. In the comics, Gotham is almost hopeless; crime will always be prevalent in the city. Lastly, Batman would never want to retire. In The Dark Knight Returns, which is widely considered to be the best Batman graphic novel of all time, after retiring for about ten years, Batman put on the cowl once again in his fifties. Batman loves being Batman. He would never retire as long as there is crime of any kind. He isn’t just a billionaire who dresses as a bat and fights crime for a few years, hoping to retire as soon as possible. Batman is a flawed hero who wants to save the people of Gotham from the crime and corruption that poisons the city. To do that, he can’t retire so quickly. He wants to make sure that no child has to watch their parents get shot ever again; not just for two years. However, Nolan doesn’t understand that, and this infuriates me as a Batman fan.
If the main character wasn’t called “Batman” I would easily adore this film. If you are a diehard Batman fan like I am, I suggest you pretend this is just a thriller that happens to have the Joker in it as well as a random masked vigilante. “The Dark Knight” still has its flaws as a film, but I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a great thriller.
“All the President’s Men” was directed by Alan J. Pakula and was written by the legendary William Goldman, who wrote such classics as “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” a film that I love. It stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, who both are brilliant actors. “All the President’s Men” is about the true story of the two reporters who uncovered and wrote about the story behind the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post. This movie is widely considered to be a masterful political thriller and it is even rated as the 77th best American movie of all time by the American Film Institute. However, I found this movie to be a little disappointing, which was surprising considering the talent behind and in front of the camera. I feel that the stars have been in better projects, and William Goldman has written better films. I still enjoyed the film, but it is a bit overrated.
I’ll start this review with the positive aspects of the film, the first being the directing. Alan J. Pakula was an absolute master. He directed the movie in such an intense way, and he made simple scenes like a conversation in a parking garage or Robert Redford’s character writing down notes enthralling. Pakula enhanced the script due to his strong direction, and he rightfully got an Oscar nomination for this movie. Also, all of the actors were on point; Hoffman and especially Redford gave fantastic performances. They didn’t overact in the roles like other actors might have, and they seemed like real reporters. I bought that they were desperate reporters trying to uncover the Watergate scandal. Another aspect of the film that I liked was the cinematography; almost all of the shots were extremely original and gorgeous. There were beautiful shots of Washington D.C., unique P.O.V.’s of typewriters, and amazing wide shots with everything in focus, like an Akira Kurosawa film.
The film’s largest problem was its pacing. The first thirty minutes were compelling and moved fast, but then the rest of the film (except for the last fifteen minutes) sometimes moved as fast as a tortoise. The movie wasn’t so boring that it was a challenge to sit through like “Citizen Kane,” but there were some sluggish moments. If the movie was twenty or thirty minutes shorter, the movie would have been more thrilling. The two scenes that I mentioned above (the parking garage conversation & the research scene) were both in the first thirty to forty minutes. Earlier in this review I mentioned how the director brought some intensity, but it wasn’t present throughout the whole film. There were some moments dispersed throughout the movie with the tension and intensity of Pakula, but there was not enough of it. My final significant critique was that the film ended too abruptly. There was a lot of adrenaline in the final fifteen minutes, and instead of continuing the thrills, the movie just ended. All of a sudden, after (spoilers) the main characters’ lives were discovered to be in danger, the film showed a speech by former president Richard Nixon and just ended. Plus, it ended with the lazy cliché of “black screen with words describing what happened after the events of the film.” That is my second least favorite move cliché, only after dream sequences.
I know it may seem in my review that I complained about the film more than I praised it, but I truly do think it is a good movie. The directing, performances, cinematography, and story were all great, but the pacing of the film was flawed. I recommend this movie to fans of these actors and to people who are interested in the Watergate scandal.
