Reviews

I think Ryan Reynolds is a great actor...when it comes to quirky comical characters. Who the hell casted him in this film? I just want to talk to them and understand what was going through their head other than bringing in audiences for him. Though I don't think he was the worst aspect of this film, he definitely wasn't positiv either.

So this film is based off of a Warren's paranormal case, including murderous events of a family and an apparent possesion. It's actually a really fascinating but tragic story of history and somehow this movie ended up mind numbingly boring. It moves at a snail's pace, nothing happens except for cheap jump scares and worn out plot devices. No innovation to be seen. Because this was created before the Conjuring films, it's clear that there wasn't any director that could handle any of the Warren's subject material.

Honestly, even if you're a die-hard horror fan I wouldn't suggest this to you. There's no substance to it and far better horror films do exist and they're out there! You just really have to search for them. Steer away from Americanized remakes or attempts, they usually suck and don't utilize what truly can frighten us within film. In this case the "original" film wasn't good either, so double fail.

So I like many others really love the original animated show "Avatar: The Last Airbender". It was beautifully animated, full of humor and well thought out characters. Not to mention some very relevant topics and discussion points that made it feel more like an anime rather than just "standard American television". The shows entire premise moves at a fantastic pace, making it so even the "filler" episodes that don't move the main plot along are still very enjoyable. Seriously there's not one episode from that series that I dislike.

However, moving onto this film. What the actual hell? How could a director who created one of my favorite films (Sixth Sense) make this unfaithful, ugly looking, frankly insulting "adaptation" even if you want to call it that. Right off the bat we have terrible choices for casting. Katara and Sokka are played by caucasian actors, whom bare in mind aren't even decent! Neither of them bring the essence of either character (ie. compassion, strength or humor) and they have zero sibling-esque chemistry. Aang is played by a kid who is not an actor and it shows. Then Zuko is okay, but his scar is laughable in comparison to the series which is pivotal to his character arch. Also Uncle Iroh is completely not what he should be, yes he's wise in the series but also warm and comedic.

Again I also don't understand the casting, it's like the movie is purposely putting white actors at the forefront and actors of colour as bad guys? Which isn't what the series did at all, it represented characters as representations of different countries/places (ie. Japan, Native American, Chinese, etc). It's like Shyamalan never even watched the series at all! But according to him he's a huge fan so it baffles my mind to think a "fan" could mess up this badly!

Looking past the racially insensitive casing for just a second, the CGI animals in this look awful. There aren't as many as in the series, but Appa and Momo are in the film and good god it's like a nightmare. I don't know if the movie was trying to appear "more realistic" but come on now! None of this is "realistic" to begin with. The rest of the film is awful looking too, either boring or too darkly lit or way too zoomed in. Unlike in the series which is colourful and vibrant. The costume design is ugly, looking like cheap party city costumes. Also I mentioned before that Zuko's scar is pathetic, but so is Aang's arrows. They just look...like poorly done tattoo jobs to be honest. It didn't have to be a plain set of blue arrows like in the series, but at least make them stand out and not blend into his skin like he's seen too much sun. I won't get too much into the hairstyling in this movie because ugh, what happened seriously?

There's also the horrible HORRIBLE changing of the bending capabilities. First of all, why change it so the firebenders have less power and can't just bend? That's kind of the point to begin with. Fire is a dangerous element, but if handled correctly it can be beautiful. That's LITERALLY ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRST SEASON and later on with Zuko being Aang's eventual teacher. Also the airbenders can still do that so it's not like Shyamalan was trying to "even the playing field" or whatever! Other than that, the bending moves overall are so overly complicated. Dude watch the series, it does not take 3 minutes of wiggling around to throw one boulder as an earthbender that's just stupid! It's apparent that the choreography is at its peak of looking horrendous during the final battle, it's so slowwww. Yeah just have Aang stand there for 10 minutes while everything around him is in havoc, totally makes more sense than in the series where he turns into a giant water-bended fish monster.

I understand that many won't go in caring about all this stuff unless you've seen the series (which you should go see), but even forgetting all of that this movie literally has no soul. It's somehow boring, slow, or too rushed in sections and overall awful to watch. You don't care about any of the characters (whose names aren't even correctly pronounced!) and it's just sad. You had it all there to roll with Shyamalan and you couldn't get one aspect correctly.

It's near impossible to make an entire season of a series into a movie anyway, not without missing key character development or world building. It probably would've taken 2 movies per season to get everything right, but obviously not with Shyamalan as the director. Give it to someone who knows what's appropriate to change and leave out, and also what a cultural impact the series had in the first place. Yes it's technically a "movie" so I have to give it at least 1 star, but it's barely cohesive enough to be called that.

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" follows a Valley girl cheerleader named Buffy who learns that it is her fate to hunt vampires.

I have never seen this film until this year, which I know is kind of crazy considering how large of a cult following it seems to have! Especially after the very popular TV show came out. So what did I think of it? Well it's not what I expected, but that's because I've only really ever heard of the television series which is a completely different tone. This film is VERY campy (especially the action sequences and writing) and does not take itself seriously at all. Which I actually really enjoyed! Buffy herself is quite thickheaded, but she gets stuff done! Also seeing Luke Perry in this was really nice.

The acting is pretty awful, but that's kind of the point so its acceptable in this case. I enjoyed the soundtrack, but it's my type of music so you might hate it if it's not your thing. Also the humour did have me going throughout the movie, as long as you go in without expecting what the TV series did than you'll probably take away the same experience. I also always have to applaud movies that have female leads as both badass and sexy. Buffy is this embodied and I'm honestly living for it.

Watch the film for fun and to finally see a vampire film that doesn't either take itself too seriously or fail miserably at humor.

"Snowpiercer" is a science-fiction action film directed by Bong Joon-ho, based on the French graphic novel "Le Transperceneige" by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette. The movie takes place aboard the Snowpiercer train, operating on a globe-spanning track, carrying the last remnants of humanity after an attempt at climate engineering in order to stop global warming has unintentionally created a new Snowball Earth.

Bong Joon-ho man, he's one d*** good director. He's so innovative in his story-telling and directing. This film's entire premise essentially revolves are class-structure (which he seems to love to commentate on) and environmental struggles. Both blend very well together and the story ebbed and flowed perfectly like the train it's set on. Though the last 15-20 minutes of the film kind of changes tone slightly and those would have to be the weakest points for me personally.

Seeing the change between the back "poorer class" of the train and the "higher class" front portion of the train was fascinating. Visually it was amazing, the back was so claustrophobic! Bong Joon-ho really knows how to visually represent tone within his films, which is probably my favorite thing about him. You feel despair and discomfort at the back, but as we gradually see the front as the viewer this feeling of anger sets in. Because you see how segregated society has become! The well off passengers are so care free, whereas the entirety of our main characters struggled for survival. Speaking of characters, the ones we have here and pretty great! Chris Evans is the best I've seen him and Song Kang-ho really knows how to command presence in any role. Tilda Swinton is playing a very strange character, which isn't strange for her and she's one of my favorite actors so I wish I could've seen even more from her in this. I also miss John Hurt so I was thrilled that he was in this.

The visuals and action sequences of this film make me want to revisit it again in the future. Though the ending could've used work, it's definitely still clear that the closing message of the film is around hope and life's way of finding a way to survive. Definitely watch this film, especially if you're wary of diving into Bong Joon-ho's film catalog. The film is about 80% in English so his versatility is to be admired, he never loses his filmmaking flair.

Directed by Bong Joon-ho. "Parasite" follows the members of a poor household (Kim) scheming to become employees of a much wealthier family (Park) by posing as unrelated, highly qualified individuals.

This movie exceeded my expectations. What a way to showcase class struggles and differences between the wealthy and financially lacking in brilliantly done social commentary! This movie feels like it's moving at lightning pace because of how effortlessly it flows. There isn't a dull moment to it, you're either on edge or learning more about it's well-defined characters. Each is distinct and so well performed. I recognized Korean-Canadian actor Woo-sik Choi from "Train to Busan" (he's looking fine in this too btw XD) as the brother Ki-Woo. I may be biased because I've grown to really like seeing him, but he was my favorite character in this film. I see him as the main character since he really starts the film with a conversation and ends it with a monologue to his father. Really well done, applause to you sir!

I loved seeing the scheming involved in this, with a name like "Parasite" I thought this was going to be sci-fi in nature. But it's not at all! It's more of a home invasion film where the rich owners willingly allow these people to come into their lives. The Kim family were some sneaky ba****** let me tell you and I loved it! It's like a better version of Ocean's films (sorry fans of that series), but with less heisting and more actual manual labour. But still a lot of deception, showing class division without making the rich too "villain-like". So seeing as the story/screenplay was superb, it's of course coupled with great camerawork/visual representations and an on-point soundtrack to back it up. There's some amazing parallel driven scenes that involve flooding that show that you don't have to treat an audience like they need to be spoon-fed information. Which I appreciate a lot! I'm so glad this film had a U.S. release because not having people over here see it because of subtitles...that would be tragic! I want more foreign films released in theatres over here to be honest!

This by far is one of the best films of 2019. It's thrilling, funny, tragic and very very intelligent. Please watch it if you haven't! I'm definitely going to have to check out more from the director/co-writer because he's impressed me highly and clearly is a master at his own craft. I love Asian cinema and foreign films in general, this is exactly why. You miss out on so much greatness if you stick to only "your language" while watching films. Don't be one of those people! I'm going to have to watch the movie a few more times to really pick up on everything. Also final side-note, the poster for this film is genius. You'll know what I mean once you've watched it.

A Japanese horror film part of an ongoing series. A mysterious and vengeful spirit marks and pursues anybody who dares enter the house in which it resides.

I cannot believe I've never seen this film until now, seeing as Asian horror is my thing! I haven't seen the two shorter films before this one, but it didn't feel like it was necessary anyway. I followed the story throughout, even with its non-linear storytelling. I love ghost story films and I really enjoyed this film! It's atmosphere was perfectly done and it was definitely giving me shivers down my spine at parts. It didn't need jumpscares, it had tension.

The multiple story lines made the film so interesting! If it was just one character experiencing these terrifying hauntings happening it wouldn't of flowed so well. It felt really fast, which is good because too much tension can grow to be boring. The acting was all really well done as well! In the American remake (I know, we don't talk about it but I will anyway) it just didn't flow as well. The fact that it was Americanized with it's casting ruined it from the start, but this felt authentic. So I won't be checking out any of the American sequels, seeing as the original remake was lackluster.

I also have no real drive to watch the sequels to this film, though I may watch them just out of curiosity if it's just the same story over and over again.

"Train to Busan" is a 2016 Korean drama/zombie film directed by Yeon Sang-ho. It follows a man named Gong Yoo, his estranged daughter Soo-Ann and other passengers become trapped on a speeding train during a zombie outbreak in South Korea.

I was recommended to watch this film by a close friend of mine, he knows I love horror/drama films and the fact that it's a Korean based film is even more up my alley. Then I found out this was on Netflix, so I finally got to watch it! I can honestly say this is the strongest zombie film I've ever seen, I know that's a huge statement to make since some U.S. based zombie films are well regarded. However I have my reasons, which I will get into.

First of all whatever cameras they used to film this movie I would kill to play around with! This movie was beautiful and so crystal clear in picture. There are fantastic shots done in this film and I really appreciate it for that. Also the special effects themselves were top of the line, that deer at the beginning looked fantastic. Seeing hoards of zombies running and falling over each other like a tidal wave was horrifying, there is so much great tension in this film. Also, the actors they got to play the zombies were fantastic in the way they moved and contorted. The movie also didn't need to use disgusting visuals to get it's point across, which zombie films/series do quite often.

Every character had personality. I don't personally know any of the actors in this film, but they made a lasting impact on me! Everyone was great, but the 2 that stood out the most to me were the dad (Seok-woo) played by Yoo Gong and Yong-guk played by Woo-sik Choi. Both played emotion with such expression and guttural tones that I felt their performances were the most noteworthy. Also... Woo-sik Choi is very cute, so I'll be checking him out in "Parasite" as well.

When character die throughout this movie, you feel the loss. Which is the greatest compliment you can give a film like this. The action and drama flowed very well together, even when the scenes were slower paced I was still invested. Definitely check this one out and give foreign films a chance! Don't use reading subtitles as an excuse to skip fantastic movies like this one, it just makes you look lazy!

"Cats" is a 2019 film based on the long lived 80's musical stage performance by the same name. It tells the story of a tribe of cats needing to decide yearly which one of them will ascend to the Heaviside Layer and come back to a new life.

Alright so this happened, I saw "Cats" even after absolutely hating the trailer for this movie. I don't need to explain why I think the human-to-cat CGI is visually terrible looking, because it is. Yes the musical has strange visuals as well, but it works as a stage performance. Why? Because were expecting oddness, we know these performers are humans dressed as cats. The key word is "dressed", because I fully believe that this movie would've been a lot better if the team behind it just put them in costumes and prosthetic makeup like in the musical. It probably would've been SO MUCH CHEAPER too! I don't understand what the thought process was for this, other than to try and amaze audiences which backfired horribly. So were stuck with human faces and unproportioned lips that shift due to horrible MC, human hands and feet that levitate off the ground at moments and detached looking ears and tails. It's a mess.

Moving on past the CGI because I could go on all day, I will say the sets were semi-impressive considering they were actually built. Which again furthers my disbelief as to how they built actual sets but chose to CGI skin-tight catsuits onto actors, but I digress. The musical only takes place in a junkyard, so this movie expands upon the smaller feeling scale of its source material which is nice. Also the story is quite loyal to the musical, and yes there is a story. Could Tom Hooper have stretched out the story to be more suitable to audiences? Yes, but it wouldn't of been "Cats" then. The musical is literally a character study, going through each cat (kind of like an initiation ceremony or talent competition) so we the audience get to know them through personalized song, rather than have Munkustrap (our main narrator) describe absolutely everything. It's interesting and each of the cats does have its own personality, we also get to see the smaller plot of which cat gets to be the "chosen one" and be reborn into a new life.

This kind of loose plot doesn't really work in a film, which is why noone asked for this to be made. I still don't know who was the intended demographic for this film, other than fans of the musical I guess? The casting is well done (for the most part) ,however some actors were clearly cast just to pull in more viewers and not for talent or appropriateness. Rebel Wilson was awful, very unfunny and didn't embody Jennyanydots's character at all, whom is weird and quirky. James Corden was pretty bad too as Bustopher Jones, though not quite as bad as Rebel Wilson. He presented the character more on point at least. The last bad fruit in the basket of the cast in my opinion will probably offend many. I couldn't stand Taylor Swift's Bombalurina performance in this. First of all, she's shown in the trailer quite a lot because she's a huge selling point, but is barely in the film (one song's worth and doesn't even return at the end). Secondly, her song sounded terrible and I think it was the worst in the film tieing with Rebel Wilson's. I couldn't tell if she was trying to impersonate a british accent while singing, or if her tone was just all over the place? Maybe both! Lastly, her CGI looked the worst to me out of anybodys. So that just pushed the illusion the film was trying to create further out the window.

Everyone else either did alright or surprisingly better than I expected. Newcomer Francesca Hayward did very well and I feel awful that this is her introduction into film. Jennifer Hudson killed it as Grizabella, though I wish she would've had more screen time and they changed her approach to Victoria. In the musical she's desperately trying to have someone touch her in order to be taken back into the tribe, but in this that moment doesn't happen. Which bugged me more than it probably should have. Idris Elba did well as villain Macavity and Jason Derulo was okay, he just didn't stand a chance against the live actor though in the 80's musical film. My favorite character portrayal was Mr. Mistoffelees though, Laurie Davidson did really well and I hope to see him in more! Everyone else was kind of just alright in my opinion, they either didn't bring enough character to the roll or I just didn't really care for them to begin with. The music was faithful and for the most part sounded good so oh well, though the newly added song I didn't care for because it stuck out like a sore thumb.

Honestly, if you want a true showing of "Cats" just watch the 80's musical movie adaptation. It's pretty good and close-up so you can see all of the details put into the performances. This movie will probably garner some kind of following, I've already seen fanfiction drawings of Victoria and Mistoffelees. Which probably resulted from this movie surfacing and pushing that "romance" more into the light, but it doesn't really bother me. Tom Hooper has definitely become of those directors that either makes massively successful films that acquire acclaim or real failures that people hate. Which is fascinating. If you have a morbid fascination with this film, go see it! If not don't force yourself to, you'll want to leave and regret spending money on an overpriced theatre ticket.

A 1982 Science-Fiction film set in the year 2019 Los Angeles. Here, synthetic humans known as replicants are bio-engineered by the powerful Tyrell Corporation to work on off-world colonies. When a fugitive group of Nexus-6 replicants led by Roy Batty escapes back to Earth, burnt-out cop Rick Deckard reluctantly agrees to hunt them down.

This was yet another film I had to watch for my Filmic Text class that I had never seen before. I know it's regarded as one of the "greatest science-fiction films of all time", but I'm going to argue that Ridley Scott's "Alien" is a far superior film. That's not to say "Blade Runner" was a bad film, it's not but I have my gripes with it. Let's start off with the positives though. The clear argument about humanity, more specifically what makes us human is very interesting to me. Also the replicants themselves have enough depth to them where they were interesting as well, and how it's determined if they are replicants is quite cool. The futuristic sets that mix futuristic los angeles and asian culture was a really stellar idea, though it's borders on racist at times. We really didn't need to cut to a geisha billboard throughout the film. Moving onto one of the negatives, the pacing. It felt dragged down at parts, without tension like shown in "Alien" this kind of pacing is felt amongst viewers.

Rachael's character I could relate to the most, but seeing how important her character really is to the plot she should've been present more. Also the argument of "that scene" between Deckard and Rachael in his apartment is not justified because of the year this was made. It's ironic how a film like this could have a scene like that that's supposed to be set in 2019 whereas its that year now and that would not fly in the slightest nowadays! It's way too sexual assaulty for me to be comfortable watching it, when clearly it's intended to be "romantic" by the choice of jazz music and lighting. This is the one scene that I agreed with my class that felt completely out of place and against Deckard's character thus far.

No I have not seen all versions of the film and I'm not going to. It's a little asinine to me when people claim that you "have to watch all versions" in order to grasp the full concept of the film. No I'm pretty sure I got the idea from whatever version I saw, its Harrison Ford running around being Harrison Ford. With cool visuals and relevant concept, even more so in current day than when it was released. But it has quite a few problems and I hope these were fixed in the sequel.

"Adaptation." is a metafilm directed by Spike Jonze. The film stars Nicolas Cage as real-life screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his fictional twin brother Donald. Based on both author Susan Orlean's non-fiction book "The Orchid Thief" and Kaufman's experience attempting to adapt the book into a screenplay while suffering from writer's block.

Okay so I've been wanting to watch this film and it just so happens that my professor for my Filmic Text class assigned it to us to watch and discuss. What a journey dude, I'm so glad she assigned this movie in particular! The concept is bonkers and like nothing I've ever seen before. I could see it being difficult for the "average" movie viewer to grasp, but for me whom loves strange and unique concepts it's incredible. This is definitely the best work I've seen from Nicolas Cage period. He's usually very over the top in his acting, but in this it was well casted. Everyone else is superb as well, every character jumps off the screen when introduced.

This entire movie throughout will really make you think about adapting screenplay to film. It's not an easy process and you see that here. You'll also feel depth of the passages read from the book "The Orchid Thief", wow that book must be eye opening! This movie (though not really "based" on the book perse fully) made me want to read the book! So it still accomplished that, while still keeping it's concept very much intact throughout. I seriously can't get over how genius this film is in it's writing, concept and conclusion.

I won't spoil the ending completely, but I will say it ends the way Kaufman's character portrayal in this would've hated. By the books, very formulaic and structured for profit. Which at first threw me off, but then I stepped back and realized it ended exactly how it was supposed to. It's literally a parody of itself and it's a really hard hitting statement. We get themes of anxiety, self-loathing, selling out for work, duality, soul-searching. Though strange, it's honestly something everyone should see at least once. You'll at least end up leaving the film with more knowledge about orchids then before!

Written and directed by Wes Anderson. "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (set in the fictional war-torn European country Zubrowka in the 1930s) tells the story of two people: Monsieur Gustave H., a concierge, and one of his employees, the lobby boy Zero. Showcasing the friendship they form as they team up for several misadventures while trying to prove Gustave's innocence after he was framed for murder.

So I love Wes Anderson. I was introduced to him by watching "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and falling in love with it. He's definitely got this style to him that is so up my alley it's not even funny. I CANNOT believe I haven't seen this film until recently, it's so damn good. Literally everything about it visually was perfection. The framing of the film, bright color scape, gorgeous sets. There are many moments in this film where I just wanted to pause it and stare at the screen. I'm not sure how much of this film is filmed on an actual built set, if anything was physically built for this I'll be very impressed. But either way I'm impressed honestly.

I'm a sucker for good camerawork. This movie has a lot of it, meaning every single shot is intriguing. Whip pans, quick zoom ins, tracking shots, etc. Like "The Favourite" it made me drool and I'm not ashamed of that. There's a particular shot that included a character getting into a trolley car and we see a motorbike reflected onto a window with the shade dropped down. Such clever ways of showing us what's happening in the scene without making it grossly apparent. The accompaniment of classic Wes Anderson score adds to every scene as well, heavy strings.

The way that the narration is constructed throughout this film is fantastic, it made the movie very engaging while also looking stunning. There's this quick whit to it along with fast paced story-telling. The dialogue is genius. When the movie gets going, it gets going dude! It's essentially a tale of legacy, companionship, loyalty and greed. But we also get this small subplot of a super group of hotel managers and their bellboys. It had me dying! The acting was overall good, but Ralph Fiennes really shines here. His character was so well written! Even though some of the actors didn't have much to do on screen, when they did it was apparent.

I also can't talk about this movie without mentioning the superb costume design. I really wanted that purple petticoat so bad! I know the movie got academy awards for costuming and makeup so I'm glad that got recognized. Though the ending felt slightly abrupt, the film is fantastic. Wes Anderson is a master at his craft and I definitely need to watch his other films to fully immerse myself.

A historical drama following figure Mary Stuart's attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I, Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution.

I find it funny how this movie and "The Favourite" were released the same year and around the same time. That was definitely a poor decision in marketing, since "The Favourite" is clearly superior to this film. If you disagree please let me know though! Both films literally have 2 female lead actors and are historical pieces centered around cousins as well. Really weird and ironic. In this were seeing Mary trying to one-up or overthrow Elizabeth, so way too close to the other flims concept.

So right off the bat we see Mary being walked to her execution, so that kind of threw me off from the start. If you know the historical relevance of the events then that wasn't a shock for you, but it probably would've hit a harder beat if they had left that until the end. Literally the rest of the film just doesn't do much, there's nothing extraordinarily special about it or memorable. Other than the fact that I spent 30 minutes trying to figure out if David Tennant was in this movie covered in a bush beard and wearing a jaunty hat. He literally looked like Michelangelo!

We get good acting from our 2 leads, Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie. But if they were given a better script it could've been amazing. There's pretty good costume design as well, which is very important for a period piece. But again the story was not gripping and there's erratic time jumps smattered about in this that had me confused. There's also way too much "on-the-nose" symbolism here. Other than Mary and Elizabeth I didn't care for any of the characters, other than Rizzio whom I want justice for by the way!

The only other things I have to say about this movie have to do with the camera work. It was very basic and utilized nothing innovative. Compared to "The Favourite" which had some of the best cinematography I've seen in a while, this movie is very forgettable. Wish it could've given us more, but yay to having a female director!

Based on the children's book series of the same name by Alvin Schwartz. "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" follows a group of teens having to face their fears in order to save their lives.

I did indeed grow up with these books throughout my middle school childhood. They terrified me, specifically the illustrations terrified me. Seriously look them up in their black-and-white glory. That being said, I had no clue what the plot was in this considering the book is just consisted of short stories. What it wound up being felt very "It" inspired with a small group of kids trying to escape the terror that is bestowed upon them. Pretty 'cut and paste' plot to be honest, but it had just enough to keep it afloat.

I would describe this as a good "campfire horror", meaning it's intended purpose is to be watched in the dark and with friends during a sleepover. We get good chemistry between the kids in the film and some decent horror elements. Leave it to Guillermo Del Toro to utilize practical prosthetics and effects in this. It just makes everything so much scarier that way, I'm a huge fan of practical effects. Though because of this whatever isn't practical is very noticeable.

We get some cool sequences in this movie, one non-horror example would be seeing the kids running through the drive-thru. I like scenes like that in film, it's also a smart way to introduce a new character. When it comes to the horror elements, they are pretty effective though some more than others (I found the corpse looking for her toe the most unsettling, though the scarecrow was pretty good too). Do not watch this film if you're squeamish, I'm warning you right now! We see a kid turned into a scarecrow pretty brutally, a human toe in stew, zit spiders, eww. It definitely will make you cringe.

So I'll be moving onto the more negative critiques. Horror movies tend to have cliches and this movie doesn't steer clear of them. People can be so thick, seriously that kid was stupid for coming out from under the bed! Also don't ever EVER separate from your designated group in a horror scenario! Some of the dialogue in this is so cheesy/corny I had to stifle a snort. Also there's some questionable acting from 2 of the adult actors, Stella's father and the main cop. The dad's acting is really bad at times and I don't know why? I know he's a good actor from "Breaking Bad" so maybe he just wasn't given enough to work with? The cop character is just obnoxious, so poorly written and I just wanted him to get killed off so quickly.

By the end, we are given a pretty open ending. So it's obvious they're hoping for the ability to make a sequel. I could see that happening, but I don't know how well it would be made. Either way, this movie was pretty average. Since 3 stars is average on my rating system I gave it that, it makes for a decent time and I'm sure fans of the book are alright with its portrayal of the creatures from the book.

"Ocean's Eight" is both a continuation and a spin-off from Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's trilogy and features an ensemble female cast. Led by Debbie Ocean, the sister of Danny Ocean, who plan a sophisticated heist of the annual Met Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

I have never seen the other "Ocean's" movies in the original trilogy, so from that perspective of comparison I cannot comment on it. However, I do know it was originally a male cast so this feels like a women empowerment movie. We get a huge cast of notable people set in this heist movie with not a lot of depth to it. Noone is given much to do, besides Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett whom actually acted off of each other quite nicely.

So, we start the film and I am loving the dress that Sandra Bullock is wearing as she's leaving jail. We also get to see Anne Hathaway literally looking stunning throughout this movie, hot damn she's gorgeous! But other than these two things, there isn't really much to love in this film. It's all very blah. The cuts in between certain scenes were a little too Microsoft Powerpoint looking. The soundtrack is all over the place erratic. And for the last time, stop casting Rihanna in movies! She cannot act! Her character literally made no sense, I'm sorry you can hack apartment lights now? Like what?

Like I stated before, this movie was marketed literally just as "how many famous women actors can we squeeze into a single movie? type of film/plot. Everyone is a plot device. Letting in all of these random people into the heist seems like a really stupid idea, but for arguments sake I just went with it. Some scenes are comically ridiculous and not believable at all. Though I very much doubt they were going for "realism", it can be a fun time at moments. For a film with such a large cast, we could've used for way more character group dynamic/development. It never feels like a "team effort", but detached.

I'm assuming that the George Clooney framed picture is a reference to the original trilogy? Or its the weirdest celebrity name drop ever in a movie. That brings up another point I had. Whenever films have both actors playing character while simultaneously having celebrities cameo as themselves...it sticks out so obviously to me. I cannot deal with it! So by the end I said to myself, okay the heist happened...now what? Why is there still 30+ minutes left in this film? Oh, its because James Corden had to make an appearance as the most unconvincing detective ever! I'm sorry but he makes the movie worse and he's barely in it.

Don't jump into this one expecting too much other than some kinda cool action sequences. All that's surrounding this heist is bland and kinda boring, but some of the cast brings a slight charm to their role. So I'm going to assume that the original trilogy succeeded far more than this side film. Final note, this was marketed as a "comedy". I did not laugh once during this entire damn film. Take with that what you will.

Filmmaker Morgan Neville examines the life and legacy of Fred Rogers, the beloved host of the popular children's television show Mister Rogers' Neighborhood.

Hello neighbor! This is one of the most captivating, emotionally driven documentaries I've ever seen. Even though I never grew up with the Mister Rogers show personally, but this documentary still got me very emotional! I believe fully that some people are just meant to do certain things, naturally gifted as some may say. Fred Rogers was meant to work with children. He knew how to interact with kids, it was his life's work. I've worked with children of all ages and it's not easy! So I can respect him so much, which I'll get into more in this.

"Love your neighbor and love yourself." This was a core quote from Mister Rogers. He was honestly too pure for this world and is needed now as much as back when he was making the show. Many people don't understand how influential his show was. Fred Rogers basically said to hell with racism and segregation. To hell with making people feel bad about being themselves. He accepted people exactly as they way there were/are. Showing a white and black man bath their feet together in the same pool on television was unheard of, Fred Rogers didn't care. Love everyone. So much respect.

I loved the discussion surrounding the broadcasting funding being threatened. That type of stuff interests me, way to go Mister Rogers! Seriously that man had guts for being such a soft-spoken sweetheart. Another admirable trait that was very apparent within Fred as a person was his willingness to talk to kids about difficult subjects with such dignity. This is especially important when many parents just don't know what to say about some of these topics. Death, divorce, feeling down on yourself, assassination! He literally talked about assassination on his show to kids, like they were people. No talking down to them, just real discussion. Sometimes you can't protect kids from life, but you can try. That's what the show was about.

I was surprised that they brought up the topic of sexuality and conspiracy surrounding Fred Rogers. It brought up great points about stereotyping to me as a population. There is no one way of being a "man" or a "woman". Being sensitive, compassionate and sensitive does not dictate ones sexualtiy or make anyone less of a "man". Fred Rogers was not gay, but he was all of those traits I described. He was just a kind-hearted person. I was also equally surprised that the filmmakers didn't bring up Fred's advocacy for animals. That seemed like a pretty big part of his life.

Like he probably would've done within his own show, the film discusses Fred Rogers illness and death coupled with his dead fish discussion from the show. It's oddly beautiful and I loved it. I wanted to finish with this. The real depth to "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" was most certainly not narcissism or lying to kids by saying they're all special. It was to make them feel loved and accepted by at least 1 person in their lives. So if that was Mister Rogers, well that's pretty wholesome. Make them all feel "special" and loved, what's wrong with that?