Reviews

I knew very little about A Beautiful Mind before I saw it, and I think that made watching it a far better experience. I would highly recommend to anyone watching this film for the first time to not read anything about it before seeing it. You should go into it with no prior knowledge about it whatsoever. That is what made it, for me, an amazing experience. So, I would suggest that you not read this review unless you have seen the film.

This movie is based on the real-life story of John Nash, a brilliant but antisocial and slightly arrogant mathematician. It follows his story, beginning when he is at Princeton University as a graduate student. Here, we learn much about his character and several of the characters that will appear later in the film. We then move five years forward in time, when Nash is now teaching at MIT. There, he meets a student, Alicia, who will end up being his wife and a huge part of his life. Nash also meets a Department of Defense agent, William Parcher, who asks him to decipher secret codes hidden in magazines and newspapers that he says the Soviets are secretly communicating through. Nash now has to hide his work from his wife and everyone around him as he secretly works for the government.

However, there is really a second plot that starts up right around when Nash is chased in a car by the Soviets and nearly killed. He becomes increasingly paranoid, and his wife eventually decides to call a psychiatric hospital to get Nash help. It is then that we see that Nash has not been working for the government after all. He has been unknowingly creating hallucinations that only he can interact with. Parcher does not exist, and his roommate from when he was at Princeton, Charles, who he had considered his best friend, was not real either. Nash had been putting his top-secret letters into a mailbox at an abandoned house. They had never been opened. The remainder of the film focuses on Nash's struggles to get better and learn the difference between what's real and what's just a fragment of his imagination.

The story of John Nash is absolutely incredible, and the film follows it right up to the point where he wins the Nobel Prize for some of his revolutionary work. It's a movie that you just can't stop watching. Your eyes are glued to the screen, you are on the edge of your seat the entire way through. It is over two hours, and there is really no action or "excitement," but it is never dull, never boring, and it feels much shorter than its runtime. Nash's story is amazing and I'm so glad it was converted into a film.

Ron Howard is a fantastic director, and he really shows it here. This is almost definitely his best work as a filmmaker. This film has some of the best storytelling I have ever seen. Howard's method of keeping the audience engaged and even second-guessing themselves is incredible. The way he only shows everything from Nash's point of view for the first half of the film is masterfully done, and because I didn't know anything about this movie before watching it, he had me completely fooled when the big reveal came. And wow, what a twist. It might be on the level of "The Sixth Sense." It's that good. But what I was saying was that the audience is kept completely within Nash's head right up to the twist. We see as he sees, so we are as fooled by his hallucinations as he is. It's all set up so perfectly so that the illusions and the real people never have to encounter each other. Nash can't tell the difference, so neither can we. It's perfectly executed. Ron Howard's direction is what made the reveal as impactful as it was, making the film infinitely better.

James Horner's score for this film is also amazing. It truly captures, and even enhances, the beauty of this story. Music is such a huge part of creating the mood of a movie or scene, and Horner's score pulls all the right emotions out of you. He is especially talented at composing themes that match the film perfectly, and he definitely did it again with this movie.

As a character, John Nash is crafted very well. He is brilliant; you could probably say he's a genius. However, he is also extremely arrogant when it comes to his intelligence, and he seems to feel that he is vastly superior to his peers. He constantly feels that he is wasting his time when forced to communicate with those that he feels are lesser than him. He also has many issues socially, and tends to keep to himself; he really doesn't have many friends at all, and those that he is friends with, he is not that close with at all. The film portrays Nash as highly intelligent, but also flawed and lacking social skills, and I think that this makes him, as a character and a person, much more interesting.

I also liked the way Alicia, Nash's wife, was portrayed as incredibly important in Nash's life. As we can see from Nash's acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize, she was the one who was there for him when he was struggling with his own mind, and this was a huge factor in his eventual success. She was shown to be loyal and caring to her husband, and without her, Nash would likely not have even survived for long in the condition he was in.

Russell Crowe is unbelievably good as John Nash. It is shocking and a bit sad to find that he did not win the Oscar for his performance here. I mean, that's just further proof that the Oscars have very little credibility. The fact that he won the year before, or maybe some other factor, obviously affected the decision, and that's just unfair. The best performance should always win, regardless of circumstances; otherwise, what are we really honoring with these awards? Anyway, Crowe's performance was perhaps the defining trait of this film. His complete transformation into this role is nothing short of outstanding. If you've seen Crowe in other movies, you can tell that this is not the type of role he is naturally good at, but he rose to the challenge and blew me away. I mean, let's be honest, this role would have been a challenge for anyone. This was a very difficult character to become, but Crowe did it to absolute perfection. He captured every facet of Nash's personality perfectly, from the social awkwardness to the utter brilliance. Truly an incredible performance in every way possible.

Jennifer Connelly is also great as Alicia, backing up Crowe's performance well. She put a lot of heart and emotion into the role, and it really showed in the final result. Ed Harris plays a very convincing Parcher, Christopher Plummer is excellent as Doctor Rosen, and Paul Bettany is very good as Charles. It was overall some great acting from everyone throughout the film.

A Beautiful Mind is, quite simply, a beautiful movie. Incredible storytelling and direction, as well as magnificent acting, especially from Russell Crowe in the lead, make this a truly unforgettable and amazing film.

Now, I'll start off by saying I was never really big into Pokémon, so this review is from the point of view of someone who watched this purely as a movie. There is no influence of nostalgia, and I had no previous connections to any of these characters going into the film. I don't know if this has a huge impact on my opinion of Pokémon Detective Pikachu, but I found it difficult to see what all of the hype is about.

Originally, I thought the basic concept behind this film was interesting. Basically, Pokémon live in the same world as we do, and humans collect them and force them to battle each other. It's essentially a gladiator fight but with Pokémon (and the loser actually survives, at least from what I could see). Anyway, this guy Howard Clifford has created Rhyme City, a place where humans and Pokémon can coexist, and this is where our story takes place. Not a bad idea for the basic setting of a Pokémon film, and it did set up for some fun moments. In fact, this movie is at its best when it is simply bringing these Pokémon to life, creating some very cool scenes.

It's when we go beyond the basic concept to the actual story of this movie where things start to go downhill fast. Tim, the protagonist here, seems to be a normal guy (at least, normal for this Pokémon world) except for the fact that he doesn't have a Pokémon companion. I guess it's a "thing" for people in Rhyme City to bond with a Pokémon, kind of like a pet, and the human and Pokémon go everywhere and do everything together. However, also like a pet, humans have no mean of understanding their Pokémon, though it seems the Pokémon can understand them. Anyway, Tim gets a call from the police telling him that his dad, a detective, has died in a car crash, along with his Pokémon. Tim gets the keys to his dad's apartment, where he goes to look around at what he may have left behind. Here he finds Pikachu, a Pokémon that he can mysteriously understand, but no one else can. This sets the plot in motion, where we find out that Tim's father may not have died after all. Tim and Pikachu team up to discover who is behind all of this, and where Tim's dad is.

Now, maybe that doesn't sound too bad (though I found it to be a pretty weak premise). But the farther along we get through the story, the more ludicrous it gets. I mean, maybe I should have known what I was getting into with a Pokémon movie, but some of the things in this film were just flat-out ridiculous. This was also an incredibly predictable movie. Almost every major "twist" I had predicted from the very beginning of the film. It's one of those movies that make the most predictable move every single time; it's almost like they were trying to use as little creativity as possible. The plot here isn't just bad, it's outright horrendous.

The ending of this film is also just terrible. A Pokémon is used as a deus ex machina. A hopeless situation is reversed completely in a matter of seconds. We literally hear the line, "I will undo everything that has been done." Again, how unimaginative can you get? There was so much creativity when it came to bringing this weird, interesting world to life, and then it all vanished as soon as they had to actually write the script.

I was shocked when I learned that this film was only 104 minutes long. I was so incredibly bored at so many points that it felt well over two hours. That is, of course, never a good sign; you never want a movie to feel LONGER than it actually is.

This film had a $150 million budget, and it was very apparent watching it. The CGI is stunning; the Pokémon look amazing and Rhyme City is beautiful. The problem with the film is certainly not the visuals; it is, in fact, visually a very impressive movie. However, like so many great-looking films these days, there is no substance in the script to make the visuals be much of anything beyond something pretty to look at.

The character of Pikachu was actually quite dynamic and fun to spend time with. Beyond him, however, the rest of the characters are incredibly bland and one-dimensional. The main protagonist himself is unlikeable and does nothing to justify his screen time; he is simply an uninteresting character. The character of Lucy is one of the most annoying on-screen presences I've seen in a while. Again, an unlikeable character that I had no incentive to root for. When you find yourself not caring whether or not the main characters will succeed, there really is no longer a point in watching the movie. In that sense, the makers of this film failed miserably.

The one bright spot here is Ryan Reynolds as the titular character, Pikachu. He brings loads of energy and enthusiasm into this role, and even though we can't actually see his face, I could see that he was really into this character. I applaud him for that, especially considering he may have actually saved this from being among the worst films of the year with his performance. Perhaps the one thing keeping me awake was the energy Reynolds brought into each scene. There was a noticeable change in the mood and atmosphere when Pikachu enters the film; it goes from boring and lifeless to vibrant and even a little fun. I don't even want to think about where this film is without Reynolds.

As for the rest of the cast, it felt like they were straight out of a Nickelodeon show, other than Ken Watanabe (who I wish had a much bigger role). There are several "actors" in here that I don't see having much of a future in the acting business. Justice Smith was just not good. His performance was lifeless and created a character that I found it very hard to like. It was even worse because his performance was very important for the film. He really had to nail his role for the movie to work the way it was intended, but he came up way short of where he needed to be. No one else stepped up either, so the film was put almost entirely on the shoulders of Ryan Reynolds, and despite his talent, he can't carry a movie by himself.

Before I end this, I would like to say that this whole Pokémon movie concept was actually really cool, and I might watch a sequel to this if they can apply more imagination to the script, and maybe cast better actors. It just seems a shame to waste this cool, interesting idea on whatever this film was. Maybe they'll figure out how to properly do this some day.

Overall, Pokémon Detective Pikachu is a massive disappointment. The film's budget allows for some incredible CGI, and Ryan Reynolds provides a fun, energized screen presence. But an unimaginative plot and bland, unlikeable characters make for a decidedly boring movie.

Quentin Tarantino returns to write and direct his ninth film, this time taking us back to Hollywood in the year 1969. This is a movie that I have been curious about for quite some time now, ever since the first trailer came out. After finally going to see it, I can definitely say it did not disappoint.

The film follows the paths of a fading television star, Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Dalton is struggling to remain relevant in this new Hollywood that he can hardly even recognize. Now, if you're looking for an intricate, fast-moving plot, this is most certainly not the movie for you. As Tarantino has stated, this film is almost more of a day-in-the-life of these characters, meaning there really is no specific plot that you can point to. Instead, Tarantino uses this movie as an opportunity to completely transport the audience back in time to this unique and fascinating time period. I guess you could say there is no real story at all. I'm sure you know, however, that a key event this film contains is the infamous murder of Sharon Tate and her friends. This event is kind of used as a way of letting us know where this is all going. We know what the film is leading up to, we know where this will end, and Tarantino uses this as a way of pulling the story together and connecting everything. However, just to ensure that there is no confusion here: this movie is not about the murders. The film follows Rick and Cliff as they make their way through 1969 Hollywood; as many have stated, it is a love letter to this time period and the Hollywood that no longer exists more than anything else. Many have wrongly assumed that this is a movie strictly about the murders, and I can assure you, this is not true at all.

Now, of course, the night of the murders does eventually arrive. Tarantino once again provides his own little twist on history. Sharon Tate and her friends survive the night. In fact, the killers never even end up in her house. Instead, they end up in the house of Rick Dalton, and in a few gruesome minutes, Rick, Cliff, and Cliff's dog brutally take out all three of the would-be murderers. The reasoning behind the killers being in Rick's house in the first place is ridiculous. However, I still loved the ending. Tarantino takes his time with Manson's followers before the final scene, building up an intense hatred that the audience feels for the killers by the time they enter Rick's house. This allows for an incredibly satisfying and almost comical scene, despite the brutal violence on display. All of the built-up tension is finally released as this fight breaks out. This is not an ending that will please everyone. I, however, found it to be a satisfying and entertaining ending to the film.

For a Tarantino movie, this film is decidedly light on the violence. He is able to restrain himself almost entirely until the last 10 minutes or so, when his classic over-the-top style of violence kicks in. That's when it gets so ridiculously excessive that you almost have to just laugh; for the most part, it seems that it actually is meant to be played for laughs. Despite the lack of the usual Tarantino violence outside these 10 minutes, I still found it to be quite an enjoyable film, if slightly less entertaining.

This is a film that does move very slow at times. At 161 minutes, you have to be really into the characters and setting for it to not get boring. Fortunately, that was the case for me. I was completely immersed in the story of these two characters, and because of that, I had a good time with the slower pace. Again, this is kind of a day-in-the-life of these two Hollywood actors, and I really had an appreciation for this style of telling a story. If you're not up for that type of thing, this is simply not the movie for you.

Despite the limited violence and slower pace, I still think there is a good amount of entertainment value within this film. There is plenty of humor throughout the film, and it ends up being an overall pretty funny movie. This keeps the film from getting boring and provides for a more lighthearted atmosphere throughout the movie. Of course, when addressing things surrounding Manson and his followers, the mood becomes more fittingly dark, but most of the movie has an almost playful feel to it, and it's just fun to watch.

The thing Tarantino was most focused on in this movie was providing an accurate recreation of 1969 Hollywood, and he really goes all out in making it feel as authentic as possible. He makes you feel as if you are truly watching events from 1969. He has many long car rides throughout the movie where it just shows the characters driving through Hollywood, with the radio blasting 60s music and the wind blowing through their hair. These were cool scenes that added to the authentic feel of the film, but there may have been one or two too many of these scenes, as it started to get a little excessive at points. You kind of get the sense that there was no one attempting to restrain Tarantino, no one that would simply tell him "no." I feel like this film could have been even better if there were more people attempting to restrain Tarantino a bit. His direction of this movie was still fantastic, but he may have been a bit too self-indulgent at times.

Adding to the authentic 1969 feel of the film was the outstanding cinematography. The way everything is filmed, you feel like you're there, like you're back at this time in history that is now long gone. Like I talked about, the car scenes, though perhaps a bit excessive, were some of the best looks we got at this completely different world. The transformation of Hollywood Boulevard was incredible as well, and just the overall production design made everything feel 100% authentic. Transporting the audience back in time was most definitely the film's greatest feat.

With Rick Dalton, Tarantino crafted an interesting, if not entirely likable, character. Rick feels incredibly sorry for himself all the time, but we, as the audience, do not necessarily sympathize with him, as he does not prove to be the kindest of people; in fact, he seems to be a bit of a self-centered jerk who cares about pretty much no one but himself. He does, however, seem to be of some joke that goes throughout the whole film. He smokes cigarette after cigarette, despite the obvious damage to his lungs. He becomes a raging alcoholic with random emotional outbursts for no discernible reason. There isn't much at all to be liked about his character, and I think that was intended. I think this was, however, a very well-written character that was enjoyable to watch, even if we don't have any strong emotional connection with him.

As for Cliff Booth, he is a character that the audience does connect with and care for. When he arrives on Spahn Ranch, he does indeed go out of his way - potentially putting himself in great danger - to make sure that an old man that lives at the ranch is ok, and not being taken advantage of. This for me showed that he was a caring and thoughtful person, and made him a far more likable character for me. Anyway, Cliff is the stunt double and partner of Rick, and does everything both with him and for him. He doesn't ask for anything in return, and certainly doesn't get anything in return, but he doesn't seem to care one bit. He is overall just super laid back and attempting to enjoy life in the ways that he can. In this way also, he is a very likable character. Overall, besides the one seemingly out-of-place element of Cliff supposedly killing his wife (couldn't tell if that was real), he is a very likable character, and it is great to see him (and his dog) as the heroes of the movie when we reach the end.

Now, as for Sharon Tate, the fact that she is in this film at all is very controversial. However, I thought her portrayal on-screen was managed very well, and the audience sees her in a positive light for the person she was rather than the horrific ending to her life. Her character in this story represents hope and potential for a great future, and I think that is a great way to honor who she was.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton is great as always. His role was a particularly difficult one because he was essentially playing two characters. He was playing Rick the person, but also playing Rick when he was acting in a movie. Of course, he can't just act the same way that he himself acts, he has to act the way Rick would act. This is an incredibly complex and challenging task that most actors would not be able to pull off, but DiCaprio does it nearly flawlessly. As Rick himself, he is totally believable in every way, and has some truly great scenes where he really gets into that character.

Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth is charming, likable, and funny. He totally pulls off the performance in all the best ways. The thing he really does well with is the humor. So many of the jokes in this film come from Cliff, and Pitt is really what makes so many of them land effectively. Pitt and DiCaprio both absolutely nail their roles in this film, helping it succeed in a big way.

Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate was also excellent. It's always a delicate situation when you have to portray a real-life person, but Robbie handled it very well and was able to succeed at playing Sharon probably better then anyone else could have. She brought a likable, fun-loving personality to the movie that was enjoyed by everyone.

I have to say, overall this film had an incredible cast, and everyone else also did very well. Truly great work from everyone that appeared on-screen.

Overall, Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood is a very good film from Quentin Tarantino, who pulls it off again. It's sure to get several nominations come award season and maybe even win a few. The incredible acting and great directing and cinematography successfully transport the audience back to 1969 in a very enjoyable film.

Where do you even start with a film like this? There are so many layers to The Godfather, so many little intricacies among the plot, that it is simply impossible to fully analyze this film in one review. With this in mind, I'm just going to give some of my thoughts on the film here.

The Godfather does not really have one focused plot line that you can point to. It really just focuses on the inner dealings of the Corleone crime family. There are many things going on, but at its core, it is a film about this family. Through this, though, there are a few stories told. We see the fall of the once immensely powerful Don Vito Corleone, and then, as it would appear at the end of the film, the eventual rise of the family again under its new leader. We see the transformation of Michael, the Don's youngest son, throughout the movie, as he goes from the young man that wanted nothing to do with his family's illegal business to the man in charge of the whole thing. We also witness the terrible and bloody gang war that the Corleone family becomes deeply involved in. Ultimately, The Godfather tells an incredible story, or multiple connected stories, revolving around the Corleone family, as we learn about the inner dealings of this crime organization along the way. From the opening scene, I was completely pulled into the story of this family, and didn't return to reality until the end credits started rolling. It was truly an intriguing and fascinating tale that I couldn't get enough of.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the film was the story of Michael Corleone, played by Al Pacino. His eventual rise through the ranks to the new head of the Corleone crime family is so intriguing because of his transformation as a person that was required to make this happen. He becomes more and more morally corrupt as the film goes on, until at the end he becomes the cold-hearted, ruthless leader of the crime family. The film does an excellent job of illustrating what you have to become to rise to the top in a business like this, and shows how these leaders end up having to lose a bit of their humanity to be able to do the things that are necessary to keep their power.

Francis Ford Coppola's masterful direction is one of the main factors that made this film as iconic as it is. The overall mood of each scene is done perfectly; nothing ever feels out of place, everything always feels like it was done exactly as it should be. In fact, I can't really think of anything at all that should have been done different. The one thing throughout the whole film that was messed up slightly was when Sonny was beating up Carlo in the street. You see one punch that clearly was way off, yet Carlo still reacts as if he were hit. It's a very minor detail that can be missed quite easily, but it pulls you out of the film for a moment. Once you get a visual reminder that these are all actors on the screen, it can throw you off just a bit for the rest of the movie and taint your enjoyment of it. Of course, this didn't happen as everything else was done to perfection, so nothing really bad came of this one minor hiccup. The film is still a masterpiece, and a few seconds of confusion won't ruin that.

The iconic cinematography of this film is also such a key part of it. The low-lighting used in many of the scenes captures the mood of so many of the moments, especially in the first sequence of the film. Vito Corleone's daughter is having a wedding outside, and the sun is shining and everyone is dancing and happy. Then, throughout the wedding, the scene will switch to inside, where Vito will be talking business with someone. In these moments, the background is so dark we can barely see the characters. This important feature draws attention to how dark and shady the family business is, in contrast to the overall upbeat and hopeful tone of the wedding. There are many more instances quite like this in the film, but I am not going to point them all out, as, like I said, it is impossible to talk about all of the details of this film in one review. In short, the cinematography and use of lighting are used to perfection to help the viewer derive the mood of the situation from scene to scene.

The score of this film is just as iconic as everything else about it. The music is fittingly dark and used to appropriately set the mood at the right times. It is perhaps one of the best scores ever composed for a film; if not, it is certainly one of the most iconic.

The movies epic 175 minute runtime does not feel excessive or unnecessary like some 3-hour films can. Instead, it feels just right for the story it is telling, and somehow manages to never overstay its welcome. The lengthy runtime feels completely justified due to the overall nature of a film like this, and there is really nothing I can think of that could be taken out without negatively affecting the final product.

The acting in this film is absolutely outstanding. It's stunning how great the cast is at times. Some of the most interesting characters ever created were brought to life by these incredible performances.

Marlon Brando is on a whole different level is this film. There are so many times you can't even believe he's acting. His iconic voice and line delivery has created some of the most iconic and recognizable quotes ever. The performance he gives is chillingly effective and almost frightening, and fittingly so. It is simply one of the best displays of acting I have ever seen.

Al Pacino is also outstanding in this film. I believe he had the most screen time in the movie (despite his best supporting actor nomination), and he does a great job of living up to that. It is really his first iconic role, and it ended up becoming perhaps his most iconic role. Perhaps he doesn't outperform Brando, but he certainly does as good as anyone possibly could at living up to the standard that Brando sets from the opening scene.

James Caan and Robert Duvall do not disappoint either, giving strong performances to back up Brando and Pacino. In fact, there is not a single member of the cast who I think underperforms. At the very least, everyone did their job well, with many going above and beyond to make this movie the incredible achievement that it is.

And then there's the big question: does this film stand the test of time? The answer is yes. The Godfather is a timeless classic that I really don't see ever falling off. Many of the themes are still relevant today, and even without that, it is worth watching simply for the incredible cinematic achievement that it is, and the filmmaking lessons that can be learned from it.

The Godfather is, in short, an epic masterpiece of a film. The direction, story, acting, cinematography, music; all are outstanding and iconic, and they all come together to make this incredible, nearly flawless movie. This review really only scratches the surface of all this movie has to offer, as there is just so much under the surface to be uncovered through deep analysis of this film. Because of this, I would recommend multiple viewings of the film to ensure you are getting the full experience and not missing anything. I know that I will certainly be watching this many more times in the years to come. It is almost undoubtedly one of the best films ever made, and one that everyone has to see at least once in their lives.

The Manchurian Candidate is a film that I knew nothing about going into. I would highly recommend that anyone else do the same, as I think it really enhances your enjoyment of the film.

The movie starts with an American platoon in the Korean War being captured and taken away. The soldiers then return home and mysteriously don't remember much of anything except that Raymond Shaw had heroically saved all of their lives. Shaw is awarded the Medal of Honor for his supposed brave actions. The plot picks up when we learn of the strange recurring nightmares that Bennett Marco, one of the members of Shaw's platoon, has been having. In this dream, Shaw kills two members of his own platoon as a demonstration in front of an audience of old ladies. Marco's thoughts are dismissed by Army Intelligence, who think he's just going crazy. However, the movie gets going once Marco learns that another member of the platoon has been having the exact same nightmares as him, and now knows for certain something is wrong.

The rest of the film mostly follows Marco as he investigates what has been going on with Shaw. The more he learns, the worse the situation seems to get. Director John Frankenheimer does an excellent job of not revealing too much about what's really going on, and we slowly find out bits and pieces as the film progresses. There isn't much that happens throughout the film that isn't necessary to the plot, which is a relief, as an overly long film of this nature would be exhausting. At a 126 minute run time, just over 2 hours, it's almost a perfect length for the story it was telling. The only thing that could maybe have been removed was Marco's love interest, Eugenie Rose. I cannot recall any real significance that she contributed to the plot; if anything, she significantly slowed things down in a way that almost hurt the film. Other than the one completely unnecessary character, though, I feel that the movie was perfectly executed, and the story told in a very effective way.

Due to the subject matter of this film, it can often be quite disturbing. This movie is ultimately about the brainwashing of soldiers. It succeeds in showing the fragility of the human mind in a way that really makes the viewer think. It also has some political intrigue, and raises some questions that may have been ahead of its time. Senator John Iselin is an example of how easy it is to rise in the political world by simply attacking your competitors and playing to the fears of the general public, whether or not what is being said is actually true. There was, of course, no truth to anything he was saying, but the media ate it up and used it as headlines everywhere, swaying public opinion about certain people or groups. There are many thought-provoking themes surrounding this throughout the movie, many being still relevant today.

The film does have a few pacing issues. Right around the time Marco meets Eugenie Rose, the pace drastically slows down. It is overall a slower movie, but at that point, it just slows to a crawl. There were about 15 minutes or so where I could have fallen asleep, and that is something that rarely happens with me. I just feel that the whole character of Eugenie Rose was so pointless to the overall film, and could have easily been taken out with no real consequences. Other than this part, though, the slow pace did work quite well.

The black-and-white visuals took very little away from the film; if anything, it felt more charming and fit the mood of the movie much better than color might have. It was quite refreshing to watch, especially because of how heavily visual effects are relied upon today. This film had no real CGI, no flashy explosions, just an intriguing story that kept your attention almost the whole way through. This kind of quality storytelling is so much more uncommon today.

As for the cast, the acting was excellent in this film. Frank Sinatra in the lead role as Bennett Marco was very enjoyable to watch. Laurence Harvey plays both sides of Raymond Shaw well, being fittingly creepy as the killer. Janet Leigh gives a good performance, but, as I mentioned before, she was quite underused and had no real purpose in the film. Angela Lansbury gives an incredible performance here as Raymond's mother, as she completely transforms into her manipulative, power-hungry character. Without her perfect portrayal of this complicated and very important character, the film could have quite easily fallen apart. Her performance is easily the best and most believable of the entire cast.

The Manchurian Candidate is overall a great film. It's a bit slow for my personal taste, but I can appreciate the great storytelling and excellent acting, among other things, that make this movie the timeless classic that it is.

I wanted to love No Country for Old Men. After seeing that it won best picture and best director, I thought it would be amazing. However, I only found it to be good, certainly nowhere near the "masterpiece" that some claim it to be.

I found the biggest issue with the movie to be the plot. It doesn't all necessarily make sense, and in the end seems incredibly pointless. Josh Brolin's character, Llewelyn Moss, stumbles across a drug deal that had gone terribly wrong, and he appeared to be the only one alive on the scene to take the now unsupervised two million dollars. He takes the money for himself, which leads to an incredibly bloody hunt Javier Bardem's character Anton Chigurh leads in an attempt to get the money from Moss for the people who had hired him. This is the basic plot of the film. Chigurh, however, is a complete psychopath who essentially kills for fun. So, the longer the chase goes on, the larger the body count. The plot, however, seems to wander quite a bit, and seems more focused on how sadistic and twisted Chigurh is, rather than the actual story that was set up. It seems to me that the plot is just there to get us from one bloody scene to the next, and is just an excuse for all of the extreme and excessive violence. If the film was more focused on the plot, it could have made for a much more interesting film, though it still dod end up having many intriguing moments.

We also have so, so many things going on at once in this movie. Outside of the main plot, we have Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Bell, who is tracking this case as well as questioning his purpose at this point in his career. This, of course, leads to many sentimental moments as he thinks about the amount of violence going on that he is unable to stop (he is just a little late on the crime scene several times in this film, and unable to prevent the violence). It felt like this part of the movie was slightly disconnected from the rest, and though it provides some thought-provoking messages, it doesn't really justify its inclusion in the film. We also get Woody Harrelson's character showing up later in the movie, who seems to be against both Chigurh and Moss. We don't spend much time with him before he is just another one of Chigurh's victims, though. He really only showed up to give both Moss and the audience an idea of just how bad Chigurh is. Other than that, there isn't much of a purpose for his character in the film. As you can see, the movie gets sidetracked from it's actual plot in so many ways and is just overloaded with plot points and characters that don't necessarily add anything of value to the film.

I have to say, the film's ending was the biggest disappointment and made me question the point of the movie in the first place. It takes a wild turn in the final half hour when Moss is suddenly killed. This is for some reason off-screen, and just doesn't make sense for the movie at all. With that, the movie is basically over, but then there's more, because of course it's not good enough to just kill Moss, his wife must die as well. Oh, and her mom. A depressed Bell retires after realizing there's simply nothing he can do against the violence that he tried so hard to prevent. And then, for no particular reason, Chigurh gets in a brutal car crash, and then just... walks away? At this point I'd given up on any kind of closing for this movie, but then we get the strangest ending ever: Bell talking to his wife about his odd dreams. So many people have talked about the "deep meanings" behind all these moments, but that's not what I got out of it at all. Instead, I just sat there confused. Nothing about the end of the movie made sense, and I just sat there wondering what the previous hour and 40 minutes or so was for in the first place, as it didn't seem to matter at the end.

The directing style of the film is slow, gritty, and intense, from the dialogue to the way it's shot. This sometimes works well enough, but the movie can often feel a bit lifeless. This feeling is further enhanced by the lack of music in the film, which doesn't seem to have the same effect they intended it to have, and just ends up making it feel dull. Still, I mostly enjoyed the directing of this movie, and there was some great cinematography through it all, but I just couldn't help but feel that it was lacking something that might give it more life.

I have to say, the suspense scenes is this movie were excellent. The camera angles and lack of sound except for tiny noises were perfectly executed and have you on the edge of your seat the entire scene. There are many sequences just like this that work really well.

The acting in this film is nothing short of outstanding. Josh Brolin gives a very strong performance in what I would say is the leading role (though it's hard to really say). He is perfectly believable as his character, who is selfish and not entirely likable, but just enough so that we want him to survive the terrible situation he's in. Javier Bardem is incredible and gives an unsettling sense of realism to his psychopathic character. He is a genuinely menacing villain that strikes fear into the audience. Tommy Lee Jones is also very believable in his role as the aging sheriff questioning the future of his career. Woody Harrelson gives a great performance as well, albeit with much less screen time than those mentioned above. Overall, the all-star cast does not disappoint.

No Country for Old Men is overall a solid film, though slightly overrated. It is far from the spectacular film I have heard many claim it to be, thanks to an overall lifeless feel to the movie, an unfocused plot, and a largely disappointing ending. However, the direction, suspense, and acting were all spectacular, and the villain was incredibly menacing and well-written. Through all this, the film ends up being good despite the several problems it has.

I got some enjoyment out of Clint Eastwood's The Mule. It's certainly not a classic, but it's not exactly a bad film either. It's just a little bit above average.

The plot of The Mule is, overall, quite simple. Earl, a man in his 80s struggling for money and detached from his family, stumbles across a job as a drug mule. Earl is clueless for the first two or three runs, until he becomes curious and looks in the bag that was put in his trunk. By this point, it's a little late to turn back, and Earl is stuck doing this highly illegal job (and making a ton of money in the process). It's an interesting plot line and is enough to keep you engaged with the film. We also learn about just how separated Earl has become from his family, and the plot works that in there to add some emotion throughout the movie and it's ending. And throughout all this, two police detectives are working to catch the person transporting all of these drugs around. They keep getting close but never seem to be able to catch Earl due to his unpredictable routes as he takes many detours on the way to his destination. This was a clever plot point that I found quite amusing. Basically, Earl would go random places on his runs because he wanted to enjoy himself, and in doing so, unknowingly kept the police off his trail. That is, until the ending, of course.

The simple but clever plot kept the film afloat, but it was definitely dangerously close to putting its audience to sleep. It is a VERY slow moving film at times. You have to have some endurance to make it through this one without wanting to take a break. Eastwood definitely went for a slow movie in his directing of this film, as he often does, and that may be enough to turn a lot of people off. It mostly worked for this particular movie, but without the interesting plot line, it would have been an incredibly boring film.

The Mule has a great cast, and they all play their characters well. There were no particularly spectacular performances that stood out, but they all got the job done well. Clint Eastwood brings plenty of charm to the character of Earl, despite the fact that Earl is not the kindest person. He is perfectly believable in the role as the naive and slightly arrogant grandpa working with the young people. Bradley Cooper fits right in as the cocky police detective that thinks he can easily catch the drug courier (and then has a bit more difficulty than anticipated). Cooper's partner, Michael Pena, feels like much more of a background character throughout the movie, but he plays the part well also. Overall, good acting and characters that you surprisingly care a little bit about help push this film up out of mediocrity.

The plot line about Earl's family was also a nice touch. The ending was really nice to watch, seeing Earl finally make peace with the people that had hated him for so many years. The film doesn't necessarily have a happy ending, but it is peaceful, seeing Earl doing what he has always loved: planting and tending flowers (despite the fact that he is doing this in jail).

Despite the slow pace (that can often feel dull), The Mule is a solid film. When the right type of person is watching, it might even be really good. I'm not sure I'm that type of person, but by no means is this a bad film.

Starting off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien and all of his work. I have always been fascinated with the way that he tells stories, and this film gives some insight into what he was like, as well as the events and people that influenced his stories.

Being a biopic, this film does not have any real focus or plot line, rather it follows the life of Tolkien from his school years to the war, and then a small amount of time after the war. It moves in a bit of a weird way, as most of the storytelling of his younger years seems to be in flashbacks he is having during a critical point in the war. We visit moments of his life in the years before the war before moving back to where he is in the war, searching for one of his best friends, hoping to find him alive. The film seems to be building up to the time when Tolkien will find his friend, but then this never happens, and the war is suddenly over and Tolkien is back home. We then get very little time after the war before the film ends, and most of this time is spent showing Tolkien talking with the mother of one of his friends who died in the war. We then get a look at Tolkien coming up with the stories of Middle Earth before the film ends a bit suddenly.

The main focus of Tolkien was the friendship he had with his group of friends. I really liked the way they depicted this as the most influential thing in Tolkien's life, as you can tell from his stories that he truly values friendship and knows the importance of it. The film shows where this strong feeling comes from for Tolkien, which I think is really important. I also liked the focus on his fascination with language, albeit mostly later in the movie. Language is such an important piece of Tolkien's work (he came up with entire fictional languages by himself!) The plot point about the relationship between him and his future wife is also done very well, and shows the influence that she and their story had on his writing. There are many emotionally moving moments around this story that can be truly great to watch. However, I do feel like there were elements of his life that seemed quite important that felt skimmed over, as if there was more to tell but they either ran out of time or just didn't feel the need to include it. For example, the professor that he meets at Oxford seems like he had a huge influence on Tolkien, at least from this movie he does, but we spend very little time with his character which was quite disappointing.

Both Hoult and Collins give great performances in this film that do the characters they are playing justice. They both create very likable personas, and you want to see them succeed as you watch the movie. Tolkien's friend group is also portrayed very well throughout the film and holds their own acting-wise as well.

The pacing in this movie is, however, a bit off at times. It seems like we might spend a ton of time on one very small thing in his life and then just skip over a few months, or even years of his life. When making a film about someone's life, it can be very difficult to work around problems like this, but it felt like it could have been done a bit better. At times there isn't much excitement going on for extended periods of time. As a Tolkien fan, I was not bothered and found most of the film quite interesting. Someone who is not familiar with him or his works, however, may not.

Tolkien works well as a film showing the early years of the life of the titular writer. The actors nail their performances, and Tolkien fans will have a good time with it, despite some pacing problems. However, it doesn't really offer enough for non-fans to get into the film, so it would likely be boring to anyone not interested in Tolkien or his work. Otherwise, it's a good depiction of the life of one of the greatest writers ever.

Evan Almighty has a surprisingly small number of laughs for a comedy. Maybe it got a little chuckle out of me once or twice, but that was about it. For the whole movie.

Now, the film didn't exactly make up for the lack of comedy with the plot. It's about as generic and boring as you can get. It's essentially retelling the story of Noah's Ark with a modern day background. Noah's Ark is a rather dull story for a movie, which is why I'm confused as to why it was used as a plot for a comedy film. They don't exactly make it more exciting either. A good amount of time near the end of the movie just shows Evan building the Ark, first alone, then with his family, with reporters surrounding it and making comments on what's happening. This is supposed to be a kid's movie, but I don't know any kids that would find that exciting to watch. Aside from that, there's a subplot about Evan's job and a subplot about his family. Evan is a US congressman that has just arrived on the job. Beyond that, there really isn't much to care about other than the fact that he has to spend time away from his family working a lot as a result of this important job. This subplot also introduces most of the side characters, which do nothing of importance in the movie whatsoever, other than Congressman Long, who's illegal activity ended up leading to the flooding of the lake at the end of the film. However, I would imagine this plot line would be quite difficult for any kids to follow, which again makes me question what the target audience of this film was. As for Evan's family, they are pretty much there just to show that he has a family that he doesn't spend much time with, and because the original Noah had a family. It's pretty much just setting up a message about spending time with and supporting your loved ones. This is a nice message, but it doesn't carry much weight with it due to the limited amount of time we spend with their characters. The ending is also very anticlimactic, and everything just seems to go back to normal very quickly, despite the massive amount of flood damage. The fact that somehow no one is injured in that whole event is just too far-fetched, even for a movie like this.

Most of the characters outside of Evan have little to no depth and seem to make decisions and have emotions based on plot convenience rather than what makes sense. Morgan Freeman as God just ends up seeming ridiculous and doesn't end up being as funny as it could've been. In every scene he's in, Freeman just gives off the energy of someone who doesn't want to be there, and just seems bored. After watching the movie, I don't blame him one bit. I also don't understand how you can get a talent like Steve Carell and not make the movie at least mildly funny. I'm not sure why he ever decided to accept this role.

Overall, Evan Almighty is a comedy with very little humor. It feels lifeless and is ultimately a boring film, brought down by the terrible script and the very short runtime that leaves little room for character development, or anything of substance. Boring for both kids and adults, this is definitely one you can skip.