|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 6.9Jan 14, 2018The Post is, in most ways (I'm not going to go into any controversies this movie may bring up) an average movie. Everything about it was just,The Post is, in most ways (I'm not going to go into any controversies this movie may bring up) an average movie. Everything about it was just, okay.
Acting: Tom Hanks was definitely not the perfect actor for the role. Ben Bradlee was a meaner, cigar-smoking guy, yet whenever Hanks appears on screen, I see Tom Hanks. He does try to fit the character more, but in the end, he's still Tom Hanks.
Miscellaneous: The thing about this movie is that Spielberg obviously had to make 2 hours of talking interesting. Hence why most of the scenes in this movie involve choreography. In nearly every scene, people are circling each other or moving around in some way, to give the scenes energy that they would lack if they were just talking about newspapers. This makes it feel all the more unrealistic and even makes it feel like a play. Characters will often speak in perfect order, starting right after the last one stops. The whole movie is so Hollywood and polished that it feels completely unrealistic. I also felt it lacked complete emotional investment. Sure, seeing Meryl Streep shut down the men in charge who dislike her is great and all, but otherwise I never felt much tension, even with the intense movements.
I did not love The Post, but it killed 2 hours and I don't feel they were wasted. It's worth watching just because it'll probably get a few nominations, and it is Spielberg after all. It's probably one of the most average, passable movies I've seen in a while.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.4Oct 16, 2017Battle of the Sexes is a break-neck paced, long, basic movie, with great casting and some good performances. But I couldn't help but feelBattle of the Sexes is a break-neck paced, long, basic movie, with great casting and some good performances. But I couldn't help but feel disappointed, despite not even having any expectations for this movie in the first place. It's nowhere near a terrible movie, just nothing special or anything that grabbed my attention.
Acting: The casting was perfect, as Emma Stone and Steve Carell look exactly like Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. They brought some good charm to the otherwise confusing bag of emotions throughout the film, which I will get into. Carell and his portrayal of Riggs is the best thing to come out of this movie. Every time he steps into a scene, he brings so much charm and joy. The movie wasn't funny to me overall, and Riggs wasn't especially hilarious, but he did bring the only laugh I had during the entire movie.
Pacing: The pacing is very fast paced. I don't have a problem with this, but the issue arose when it came to emotions. Things would happen so fast that I just started feeling sad in a scene, and two minutes later it's happy again and feels like a completely different movie. The scenes were too quick to completely comprehend the emotion most of the time. There were also times when I had no idea who a character was. Margaret Court just shows up, and I didn't even realize it was her until she was about to play. The movie is also very long despite its fast pacing, reaching 2 hours. I never thought such a fast paced movie could bore me, but this movie certainly did.
Humor: Towards the beginning, the movie is clearly trying to be funny, but does die down a bit and relies more on charm as the movie drones on. However, I didn't find it funny. The way the jokes were written were subtle, which is fine, but subtle to a point where it would only be funny if you knew or were friends with the joke teller.
Plot: This movie suffered from the same thing as Sully: the lack of a natural villain. Jack Kramer was the closest thing they had to a villain, so that was the best they could do, making nothing feel at stake or intense. Another big thing is that this whole story doesn't make for a great movie in the first place. The whole final match versus the two (which was the best part of the movie) was just a publicity stunt basically. So to make this into a movie, there is a lack of stakes, of intensity, and even of meaning, besides, obviously, the powerful statement of feminism and women's equality, of course. But otherwise, nothing was really at stake, as most audience members know this whole thing was just a joke. If everything else about King's and Riggs' lives that were going on at the same time were engaging and interesting, then it would be better, but the problem was that it wasn't. We get one short scene at the dinner table with Riggs' wife, who we don't see until another short scene later on, then she disappears and comes back at the end, and we're supposed to care about their marriage or whatever. We don't get to sympathize much with a man who is doing this whole thing as a joke. What I'm trying to say is, the main idea of the plot, the final game, doesn't make for a good movie, as there were no stakes and we know there are none. If the two players' stories outside of the game were more interesting, then it would be okay, but they weren't, because the movie was too fast paced to sympathize or feel for the characters, as there were too many emotions to feel in such short scenes.
Overall, Battle of the Sexes isn't necessarily a bad film, just not one that kept my attention or was interesting, no thanks to the whole idea not making a good film in the first place. Great casting and good acting, but simply too rushed in the end. And as I said, the final tennis match was the best part of the movie, mostly because I play tennis myself.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8Sep 26, 2017Mother! is a creepy, thrilling, well-executed, for the most part, movie... for the first hour. For me, the second hour, which includes theMother! is a creepy, thrilling, well-executed, for the most part, movie... for the first hour. For me, the second hour, which includes the orgy of random violence and senseless destruction, destroyed most of the things I liked about the whole first half.
Acting: Jennifer Lawrence is good, except her character doesn't have much to do or even an arc. She spends nearly the entire movie looking confused or disapproving. Javier Bardem is perfect for the role and shines in it, with his booming voice and appearance. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are also amazing. Overall the casting and acting is great, and everyone fits their roles perfectly.
Characters: Again, Lawrence's character doesn't have much of an arc, intentionally, I assume, but still, and spends the entirety of the movie asking questions and sounding worried and confused. Plot: I loved the first half of this movie. I love the kind of movies that keep you guessing and trying to figure everything out. Get Out and even It Comes at Night are good examples of this, both of which I also loved. The first hour makes you so tense, scared even, and creeped out, but in a good way. Every creak of the house, every time she is in the basement, it instills fear, even if nothing happens. I appreciated the camera angles, moving along with Lawrence to give it from her perspective, which made the house seem bigger and made you scared every time she even turned a corner, not sure what's behind it at times. But this does get repetitive throughout the movie, as it is mainly just a shot following her, a shot in front of her, and so forth. I would have appreciated more wider and further away shots of her, creating the feeling that something or someone is watching her, giving off even more creepiness. This first half of the movie was well-done, paced well, and tense, creepy, and mysterious. However, the second half ruined most of it for me. I walked into the theater expecting it to be violent from the start, as some critics have coined the movie "torture porn," so when the first hour rolled by and there was none, I was confused. But soon after, I saw what they meant. It is pure chaos, senseless violence that was hard to watch, and not in a good way. It was completely unbelievable, and I know that was intentional, but it took away from the surreal-yet-somewhat-real feel of the first half. It went completely bonkers and crazy, and just felt like I was watching Aronofsky string random violence and things together to make some kind of allegory. Which brings me to another point, the imagery. This is the first Aronofsky film I have seen, and it doesn't make me think he's a genius. Some say this movie is a movie you won't forget, and I won't forget it any time soon, but in a really bad way. I will remember this movie because of the shock-value feel over actual story-telling in the second half. I will remember it because of the senseless and random violence that ruined a movie I was enjoying. I remember a good movie, like Get Out, because of how good the story-telling, script, characters, and plot was, and I remember It Comes at Night because of the twist it put on horror movies and psychological dramas. Mother! isn't innovative just because it was a Biblical allegory, which it seems it is, because it has been done before, multiple times. Also, the twist at the end was predictable within the last 30 minutes or so, and seems smart at first, but doesn't really make sense when you think about it. It raises questions, but not good, thought-provoking questions like It Comes at Night, but rather ones that question what just happened, because it makes no sense. The story is obviously not grounded in reality, but when the entire first half of the movie can be seen as somewhat realistic at times and the second half completely ditches it, I don't know what to think of the twist. Also, I feel Aronofsky did this multiple times throughout. There were scenes and things in the first half that looked cool at the time, but when looking back on it served no purpose and was seemingly there just to look cool. I don't have a huge problem with that as long as it has at least some significance or isn't used countless times throughout the movie.
Violence: Over-the-top for no reason, crazy, random, and doesn't make for a good movie. I think Aronofsky needs to see a therapist.
Overall, Mother! started off well with a well-executed first hour that invoked fear from the lack of knowledge of the story and where it could go, but ended on a bad note with senseless, random violence that ruined my enjoyment. Every fragment of the 4, more a 4.5 in my head, was purely from the first hour. Don't take your grandma to see this movie.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.5Sep 4, 2017Good Time is an engaging, gritty movie with excellent acting. I think Josh and Ben Safdie could potentially be a future Coen brothers in termsGood Time is an engaging, gritty movie with excellent acting. I think Josh and Ben Safdie could potentially be a future Coen brothers in terms of working together.
Acting: The acting is stellar overall. Robert Pattinson was amazing, stepping way out of his romantic roles. Ben Safdie also had an excellent performance for the scenes he was in, and is a promising actor and director. Buddy Duress was good, Jennifer Jason Leigh was amazing in her two scenes, and Barkhad Abdi was good in his one scene. Overall, the casting was great and all the performances were amazing.
Characters: The movie had an abundance of characters, all very good especially because of the performances. However, I wished they would have focused more on Ben Safdie, Pattinson's brother in the movie. He was really good and they somewhat ditched him only a third into the movie for a completely different story-line.
Music: I've seen many reviewers say that the soundtrack was bad and intrusive. I found it to fit in with the movie's feel and style most of the time, but there were plenty of scenes where it did get a bit too loud and distracting. There were a few scenes where it works really well, spreading a feeling of uneasiness.
Cinematography: I don't like sitting in the front rows of movies. My neck hurts and I have to look around to see what's happening instead of seeing the entirety of the screen. However, in this movie I had no choice but to sit in the second row, as they were the only available seats. But, it worked very well with this movie, as since the movie pretty much consists of intense close-ups and constant shaky-cam, I felt completely immersed in the movie. I did get a headache by the end, but it was worth it. The movie has a distinct style that I liked, making he movie gritty, grimy, and engaging throughout. The lighting was also done really well, and I really liked some of the set pieces (Adventureland, etc.).
Script: The script wasn't necessarily really special, but considering this is pretty much his first movie with a larger budget, I think he did fine. Again, can't wait to see these two's movies in the future.
Plot: I didn't have a problem with the plot, though the pacing is off sometimes. It remains very fast-paced throughout, but it does slow down somewhat unnecessarily sometimes. It was also hard to tell what happened in a few scenes. There were a few parts where it took me a while to figure out what happened, partly because of the dark lighting, which I'll excuse because it was still done well, and partly because it was fast-paced in scenes where it actually would have helped to slow down just a bit.
Overall, Good Time was exciting, fast-paced, and fun to watch. It may give you a headache, but I think it is pretty worth it. I am looking forward to the Safdies' movies in the future, however I do hope they can end up being flexible enough with their style. Though I do like their intense, up close, intimate camerawork, it could get old after a while. I know their 2014 movie, Heaven Knows What, is basically the same style, so I hope they are open to switching it up if they have to.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.8Aug 22, 2017Logan Lucky is an enjoyable, fun summer movie for if you want to sit back, relax, and have some good laughs.
Acting: Tatum and Driver areLogan Lucky is an enjoyable, fun summer movie for if you want to sit back, relax, and have some good laughs.
Acting: Tatum and Driver are fine in their roles, but Daniel Craig is definitely the stand-out, of course. It was nice to see him play a wild, unpredictable, enjoyable character, taking a step away from the countless cool and laid-back roles during his career. He was one of the best parts of the movie, as his performance was spectacular and was enjoyable to watch. Hilary Swank easily earned the worst performance. During the last 20 or so minutes, which I will talk about later, she was terrible, speaking in a monotone voice, being completely stiff, and having an annoying smirk. Seth MacFarlane, who I don't find terribly funny in the first place, didn't really make an impact on me. He was borderline annoying, and I didn't care for the whole subplot that he was involved in.
Characters: Again, Daniel Craig as Joe Bang was easily the best performance and best character, just because he was interesting and cast well. All the other characters are fine. Nearly all of them are over-the-top or stereotypes, which I see many people dislike, but I think it worked with the sort of wacky style of the movie.
Plot: The story was fine, despite there being a few plot holes here and there. The heist was intriguing to watch and easy to follow. The last 20 or so minutes drag on for way too long, however. In the final act of the movie, Hilary Swank plays a detective, looking into what happened during the heist. It isn't interesting, and feels completely disconnected from the movie, as only 1 of the (sort of) main characters is actually in it. It could have been scrapped from the movie and made it a bit better. Another subplot that wasn't too interesting was the racing one with Seth MacFarlane's character. It never really went anywhere or added anything to the main story, and again MacFarlane was a bit annoying. The story also would have been fine without this whole part. Also, this movie is different from Oceans 11 or other Soderbergh heist movies because it focuses more on the characters and their motivations. Tatum's character and others have a reason to be doing it, and there is more of a plot outside of the heist itself. I didn't mind this, as it was different than Oceans 11 and not just following the same path. This might have been why he put in the last 20 minutes, so the movie wouldn't just end right after the heist. Nevertheless, it could have been removed and been fine.
Humor: Now, just because I found this movie to be particularly funny, especially in a few scenes that were hilarious, it doesn't mean you will. I found it to be consistently funny throughout, but others apparently didn't laugh once. Unless it's an Adam Sandler movie, I usually don't take people's words for it when they say it was or wasn't funny. But with other movies, I try to give them a chance. If someone else found it funny, good for them, but it doesn't mean me or the guy next to me in the theater will. I've also seen some reviews saying it was trying too hard to be a Coen brothers movie, but that's not the case at all. The Coens' movies are quirky while maintaining a dark element and incorporating dark humor. Logan Lucky is just wacky and not supposed to be taken extremely seriously.
Script: Not the best, but I don't think it was trying to be. Was charming and pretty funny throughout (to me). Rebecca Blunt, who made her debut writing this movie, may or not be real, but whoever it was who wrote it did fine.
Logan Lucky is a movie that you can expect to sit back and at least somewhat enjoy. Even if the jokes don't make you laugh or even chuckle, at the very least it is a somewhat respectable heist movie that isn't supposed to be too serious, at least in my eyes.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.6Aug 19, 2017Atomic Blonde? More like Atomic Bland!!!! hahahaha. Anyways, Atomic Blonde is a slow-moving, borderline boring movie with okay action for theAtomic Blonde? More like Atomic Bland!!!! hahahaha. Anyways, Atomic Blonde is a slow-moving, borderline boring movie with okay action for the most part (besides the staircase fight) and dull plot.
Characters: The characters aren't too bad: their motives are sort of there, but I don't really feel connected to any of the main characters besides Lorraine, as Theron portrayed her well and I actually felt like she was more of a real person. One problem I have with the movie is that Theron and McAvoy's characters don't really spend enough time together, and the time they do spend together they spend not liking each other. They didn't have chemistry whatsoever, so when the twists and turns at the end rolled out, I didn't feel satisfied.
Acting: As I said, Theron was pretty good, but everyone else was okay. I really like James McAvoy, as he was very good in Split, and he was fine in this I guess. I wasn't too interested in his character throughout, though.
Plot: The story was not particularly interesting to me, and somewhat boring. The worst scenes were the ones in the interrogation room, simply because they seemed neverending and were only there to describe the sometimes confusing plot. It was pretty predictable throughout, and the twists weren't particularly great. Twists like this movie pulled off should have the audience like "woooah!! (blank) was actually (blank) all along! I can't believe it!" but this movie just made me feel like "oh. Cool." The plot is a typical spy thriller movie, and it would have an excuse if it had good action, but it doesn't enough of that either.
Action: Considering the director, David Leitch, was one of the two directors of both John Wick movies, and I consider the first one to be one of the most realistic if not one of the best action movies, this movie didn't quite capture the same action. It's not even that the action was different; the action remains relatively similar to the action in John Wick. Longer takes with little cutting for the most part, realistic gun mechanics and fighting. The action is still a bit similar, but doesn't capture the same feel as it did in John Wick. There also wasn't enough to me. The movie is only 1 hour and 54 minutes, but still didn't have enough to interest me in the story and movie. Don't get me wrong, most of the action was shot and choreographed very well, and is much better than a lot of modern action movies, but I wished there was more of it. I also didn't really feel attached to the characters and plot anyways, taking away from the experience. I didn't even know who I was rooting for in a few scenes. In John Wick, you know his motivations, and you sympathize for him, making you cheer for him when he takes down multiple men. But when a character you don't really know or care for fights, it takes away from some, not all, the experience. Some action movies can pull this off, but this one didn't. But I especially want to talk about the staircase fight scene, which was all one take and was nearly perfect. It was choreographed so well and immersed me into the fighting, something the rest of the action lacked, I felt. It was realistic and violent, and all I really wanted out of this movie: awesome fighting and action, without need of much of a story. John Wick's story is basically some guys killed his dog and destroyed his car that his wife, who died, gave to him. He gets mad and seeks revenge, killing hundreds of men, making for great action. But this movie paid more attention to the plot, with a few action scenes. Of course, just because John Wick didn't have much of a plot and was still good, it doesn't mean this movie had to, but since this movie focused so much on the plot that wasn't interesting, it takes away from the experience. Also, there is one really good scene with umbrellas halfway through before the staircase fight, which also resembled the cool action movie that probably would have been better.
Music: The music is very techno-electronic and loud. I didn't really have a problem with it, except for the scenes where the music is forced in. For example, there are scenes where Theron is just walking down the street, and techno music is blaring. Baby Driver got away with playing music over mundane tasks, but it worked because it was choreographed and the music still went with the tone of the scene and movie, and was played constantly throughout. When the only time this music is played is pretty much when someone is walking or not doing much, it doesn't really fit.
Atomic Blonde was a relatively boring movie with pretty good action, though not too much of it. Also, just because a movie is an action movie, I know that doesn't mean it has to have constant action and no story, but countless times a year, action movies are released, some with good, some with bad action, that have bad or boring stories. This movie, is one of those, with good action. All I'm going to say is, you should probably James McAvoid this movie. hehehehe… Expand
Average User Score: 7.0Feb 23, 2017Split is the latest movie from M. Night Shyamalymalmaylmalmalmya, and though it is not his worst work, it is just...okay.
Acting: JamesSplit is the latest movie from M. Night Shyamalymalmaylmalmalmya, and though it is not his worst work, it is just...okay.
Acting: James McAvoy was fantastic, delivering a memorable performance. It takes a lot to pull off multiple different characters, and he pulled it off amazingly. Otherwise the acting was just okay. The main girl was fine, but one of the two girls wasn't very good, and other almost felt like she was over-acting a bit.
Characters: I wish that either we spent more time with all 23 personalities, or there were less of them, because we only got to spend a lot of time with about 5 of them. Otherwise, there's not much development going on besides the main girl and a little bit of McAvoy's character(s). The other two girls have nothing to do besides wearing nearly nothing and freaking out.
Plot: The plot is pretty basic, but I thought the movie did a great job of building up suspense at times, mostly towards the beginning as it started wearing off towards the end. Even the few jumpscares that were spoiled by the trailers still got my heart beating. Even the initial capture of the girls got my pulse to speed up, even though I know what's going to happen.
Script: Meh. Probably should have had an actual scriptwriter write the film. But it doesn't drag the movie down completely. It's passable at the least.
Directing: I think it is better for Shyamalan to be working on lower budgets in his recent films, as he becomes a bit less ambitious and doesn't try and show off. Of course, a twist is still present though not too satisfying, but it feels like Shyamalan is trying to take a step back. All the money can go to your head, especially after his initial successes.
Overall, Split is successful at creating suspense and tension, but is otherwise not terribly memorable, and I know some people who are upset at the way they portray mental illnesses as bad and dangerous, especially DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder).… Expand
Average User Score: 7.7May 15, 2017Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has a sub-par storyline and plot, simple storytelling, and overall, not a whole lot to it compared to otherGuardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has a sub-par storyline and plot, simple storytelling, and overall, not a whole lot to it compared to other Marvel movies. I won't be comparing this movie to the first one much because I hardly have any recollection of the events that took place. Characters: The acting is nothing special, but the characters are just okay. Drax is probably one of the best parts, as he is funny in a weird way. But there are parts where they attempt to make him say meaningful dialogue that just comes across as sort of awkward because the entire movie sets him up to be a near clueless, unmannerly beast, then attempts to make him deliver good insight on decisions towards the end. It's like if the Hulk gave a heart-warming, poetic, lovely speech at the end of The Avengers; it wouldn't be terrible and go to waste, but it seems out of place and out of character. The other characters are okay, and a lot of them hardly do anything besides Chris Pratt.
Plot: The story is basic, though not completely bland. I spotted the "twist" right from the beginning, and even makes me wonder if it was supposed to be a huge twist (probably not). One problem with the whole movie is that the Guardians spend the majority of the movie split up (Groot and Rocket with Yondu, and Drax, Starlord, and Gonorrhea, or whatever Zoe Saldana's name is in this). So they never really live up to their name in this movie. In fact, the whole plot is centered on one of the characters stealing something in a job they were doing, which is very un-Guardian-like. I get that they're not supposed to be taken super seriously as heroes, but at least let them work together and keep the chemistry they had in the first one.
Humor: I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and a pretty filled theater. My experience was that you either laughed a lot, or only got a few chuckles here and there. A lot of the humor is kind of absurd and just a kind of "oh, ok. I guess I could laugh at that."
Effects: The effects are pretty well done except for a few scenes here and there where they were a bit poor, but considering the amount of work that must have been put in, it was still well done.
Overall, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is nothing to get too hyped about, but is definitely worth a watch. It's entertaining enough to compensate for the simple storyline and characters (except for Yondu) and enough action to hold you over. If you liked the first one, I guess you'd like this one. It did have a good ending, however.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.7Aug 7, 2017Wonder Woman, though not a perfect movie in many ways, is still better than the preceding DCEU movies. The movie was fun in some scenes,Wonder Woman, though not a perfect movie in many ways, is still better than the preceding DCEU movies. The movie was fun in some scenes, boring and repetitive in others, and some were average and progressed the plot like it had to.
Acting: Gal Gadot is a great fit for Wonder Woman, and has a good range of emotions. Chris Pine was also good and pretty charming throughout. Chris Pine and Gal Gadot had great chemistry together, and exchanged nice, charming dialogue and sometimes even meaningful conversations about mankind and war. Every other actor and actress do what they have to, but aren't anything special.
Characters: The only people with the most characters throughout are Gadot and Pine. They spent good time developing a bond between them, and didn't force a love connection, which I thought worked out perfectly fine. However, many other characters fall flat. I didn't care for Diana's mother or her sister that much, and even got them confused constantly. They were just characters that existed to move the plot forward and weren't necessarily good or bad. Just, characters that exist. The three guys that tag along with Gadot and Pine have virtually no characters, and I don't even recall any of them actually killing anyone. They are one of the most extreme examples of supporting characters I have ever seen. They exchange some lines and have a hint of a backstory here and there, and can be a tad charming at times, but really only existed so the plot could utilize them to benefit Wonder Woman or Chris Pine. The villains are okay and have their motives, but in the end, are still superhero villains, who usually end up being forgettable or nothing special. In this case, they are forgettable, as I will probably forget the villains by the end of this year.
Plot: Of the three acts in the movie (Diana growing up and leaving the island with Pine and strolling through London, the crew fighting their way through the war to get to the Germans, and the final fight scenes and conclusion), the second act was the best. The first act didn't necessarily do anything wrong; they introduced Diana, had the basic exposition scene, had the aunt/trainer get shot and try to tell Diana something before she dramatically dies, and she leaves the island. It did everything it had to do, and wasn't necessarily boring, but just struck me as pretty basic storytelling. The third act was probably the worst for me. The twist was introduced and was okay, but then the final fight between Wonder Woman and Ares was boring and repetitive and done badly. They punch back and forth and fly through the air and throw big objects at each other, kind of like Man of Steel. It goes on for what seems like forever, and though the effects are good, feels boring and like it doesn't progress. Just the same thing over and over. The second act was the best for me because it had the best action. There were some good fight scenes that would've made the movie much better if there were more of them. It also introduced a good look at war and mankind. Since this is Diana's first time experiencing war, it is a fresh take on the horrors of warfare from the perspective of someone who is seeing it for the first time. She says stuff like "why are they fighting?" or "this is horrible." It is a good reminder that war is hell and it adds to the sinister tone of war because it is from the perspective of someone who is just now seeing it. Imagine you lived in peace for your whole life, learning to fight but never actually having to use it. Then, you jump into a world where men are shooting each other's heads off, you would most likely be disgusted or confused about why they do it. The movie did a good job of putting us behind Diana's eyes and feeling what she feels when she sees a whole village of innocents get wiped out. This made the second act the best part of the whole movie, and where most of the 5 rating comes from.
Script: The script is nothing special except for the scenes where Diana and Pine share deep insights and dialogue about the behaviors of man. It is charming at times, but otherwise is nothing special.
Zack Snyder stuff: Though Snyder only produced the movie, he still slapped his signatures all over it. The signature dark, gritty, dirty color scheme is very apparent in this movie. Dark tones and imagery can, of course, be used very well. I always felt Snyder overuses this dark tone that doesn't always work with some superhero movies. However I did like the choice of making the island very bright and happy, and then, when entering the cruel world of war, is plunged into a darker color palette. Although it still feels over-the-top at times.
Wonder Woman is an okay superhero movie with good leading characters, an otherwise forgettable cast, good action scenes, but fails to entertain through most of the movie. It was a bit predictable, but it mainly gets a low rating because of the whole last act, which I thought was done very poorly.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.7Jul 17, 2017Baby Driver is a fun, action-packed movie with amazing music and choreography. It doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the table, butBaby Driver is a fun, action-packed movie with amazing music and choreography. It doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the table, but what it already has on its plate is very enjoyable to watch.
Acting: Considering the only real acting role I'd seen Ansel Elgort in was his music video for his song "Thief", I wasn't sure if he was the right fit for this role. I just couldn't see the lovable lover from "The Fault in Our Stars" being a getaway driver. But he definitely proved that he can act, and is not bland or acts the same all the time. The rest of the acting is done very well, however Kevin Spacey was kind of bland and just behaved like a bored Frank Underwood from "House of Cards" since that seems like the only role he can get these days.
Characters: The characters are done perfectly fine; you can understand their motives easily, and they aren't too over-the-top for the most part. They do a great job presenting the moral dilemmas Baby faces, considering he's a good kid with a good heart who's now caught in debt with Kevin "Frank Underwood" Spacey. And like I said, Spacey's character is a bit bland and doesn't add much to the story; he just has to be in it because he's the boss.
Plot: Like I said, the plot isn't necessarily spectacular, nor is it supposed to be. The movie really focuses on the music and choreography, which I'll get into. Despite the plot not being anything mind-blowing, it doesn't have to be. If a movie allows the plot to take a backseat overall and still be a good movie, it's a great movie, for the most part. This movie doesn't rely on its plot to drive the audience, but rather the well-choreographed action sequences and music. This movie is also not very predictable, adding to the suspense. There are countless scenes where I have absolutely no idea what could happen, and while it's not necessarily "edge-of-your-seat" suspense, it's still intense and exciting to watch.
Action: The opening chase scene is done nearly perfectly. It's the complete opposite of the car chase in the movie "Bullitt". Instead of complete silence, music is blaring, and the chase is synced along with the music. It was edited and shot perfectly. Another great thing about the action scenes in this movie is that it doesn't rely on shaky-cam. You can pretty much always tell what is going on on-screen during the chase scenes. It also had to be edited perfectly so it would sync with the music. I can't help but appreciate all the work put into clearing the music for use, incorporating it into the script, choreographing it, and then filming it, and resulting in a really fun movie. That's all this movie is supposed to be. A fun, wild ride of a movie with added suspense so you don't get bored, and plenty of good action. It doesn't boast a good plot or even too many memorable characters, but I absolutely loved pretty much every minute just because it was so fun to watch.
Overall, Baby Driver is a great summer movie to watch with friends and have a good time. I can't imagine how hard it was to put all this together, and I applaud Edgar Wright for putting it together so perfectly. If this movie didn't have the choreographed music, it wouldn't be the same. Of course, then the movie may try to compensate for the lack of fun in the action scenes, and expand on the plot, which may or may not have worked, but I loved the movie just the way it was. It gets a 9 and not a 10 simply because it doesn't really introduce anything new besides the action and music.… Expand