Change Your Image
shanitajohn
Reviews
Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn (2020)
Totally enjoyable
There was really only one scene early that I found too violent for my tastes, but for the most part I quite liked this movie. There's something engaging to me in Margot Robbie's brilliantly demented harlequin. Call me crazy, but I think the film did what it set out to do: be a bright, explosive, over-the-top, anti typical femme hero good time.
Learn from all the angry 1 star reviews and if you choose to give it a go, don't overthink it.
Ghostbusters (1984)
Grossly overrated
I have no idea why this movie is a cult classic. Nostalgia? Bill Murray's character is disturbing and unsympathetic, nothing made me laugh, and the plot felt like it lost its way, despite not being all that complex. I don't know, I missed the memo on this one.
Inkheart (2008)
18 minutes...
That's how long I made it before stopping this terrible movie. You can skip my review if that doesn't seem like a long enough look to form an opinion, but trust me, I read the book and 18 minutes was all it took before my patience ran out. I'm not one of those people who expects a movie to echo a book verbatim. But, come on, it has to at least FEEL like the source material. The moment I saw the PG rating, I knew the feel would be off. PG-13 at least. Call it a children's book or not, Inkheart is a dark tale at times. The protagonist is young but the dangers are made to feel very, very real. Often the heroes are down for a loooong time before the odds shift even slightly in their favor, and usually only to shift again. The character Basta is the stuff of nightmares. He thrives on fear and violence and intimidation. The moment his character came on screen I gave up on this film. If someone ever remakes Inkheart (Francis Lawrence, perhaps?) I will happily try again. The book would make and excellent movie. But this one? 18 minutes was all I could give it and that was too much.
Fantastic Four (2015)
Not sure what I'm missing.
I guess if you have no history with this franchise, you will find this to be an average, but totally enjoyable superhero movie. I did. However, if this franchise is the only thing you have to live for, this film will, apparently, ruin your life. Seek solidarity in the mouth-foamy, red-faced, vein-poppy 1-star reviews. It's kind of amusing.
For everyone else, though, the movie is fine. It's okay. Get some snacks, zone out for a bit. It's not that deep.
Mortal Engines (2018)
Offsetting the losers
Some movies attract basement-dwelling, neck-beard critics with poor grammar, stunted intellects and limited vocabularies. This is one of those movies. Not sure why.
I found it very entertaining and am happy to overlook a few missing plot points and frequently utilized storytelling devices on account of its remarkable visuals.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
So close. So close it hurts.
What am I doing writing a review for, possibly, the most highly anticipated series finale-8 years after its debut?
Well, for starters, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, I'm sure. I took the Potter train at my own pace, reading all the books and watching all the movies in the past year. Frankly, it's a miracle it wasn't spoiled for me after all this time!
But I'm adding my two cents a few years late, maybe just to validate the feelings of those who felt them first.
I was head-over-heels excited about 93% of this movie. So much of it was spot on! In fact, it was so damn near perfect, 30 minutes in, I was dying to see the end because it was proving to be such an epic, faithful recreation! But then, right as we near the close there were some huge misses. Scenes Rowling's words formed so clearly in my mind's eye, the thought that they never got to be realized on-screen as a part of this series, truly breaks my heart. For me, it all revolves around that final showdown.
1. Harry and Voldemort's final confrontation should have taken place as it did in the book, in the midst of EVERYONE. Not just the battle, the verbal beat-down. One of the most satisfying moments is Harry just laying Voldemort's dirty laundry out for all to see. As they circle each other, once and for all Harry tells all who can hear exactly how it went down. He unmasks Tom Riddle and all his lies, he vindicates Snape, he obliterates all doubt about Dumbledore's true character and plan, he sets right a lot of wrongs and god, it's so satisfying! Why we were robbed of that I'll never know.
2. Related, the final "death blow" needed to come down to Voldemort's decision to risk using the wand. It's his hubris that finishes him. He had to rise to Harry's final taunt.
3. Because no one is around in the movie version of the standoff, Harry is never celebrated by his victorious peers! Tragic.
4. Similarly, the headmasters standing ovation (which brought me to tears in the book) was completely omitted. You forget that Dumbledore lives on in the framed portrait in that office, which makes everything just so much better.
There are other things that bugged me, like, I wanted more time in the pensieve with Snape's memories. What we got from Alan Rickman was so brilliant. Also, the Nagini chase was way too drawn out. But overall, it's those 4 points made above that rob this grande finale of its grandeur.
Man. The source material is what sold all those billions of copies and made the series worth being made into movies in the first place. How I wish the filmmakers would have resisted the urge to reinterpret those crucial final moments.
Maybe in another 20 years some new director will start the whole thing over again and this time, stick the landing.
I'll be waiting.
Christmas Do-Over (2006)
Who are you people saying this movie had a "great message?!"
Okay, this movie was never going to be phenomenal. It's a TV "family" movie, meaning the actors are good but the script, dialogue and directing are all designed to make it feel a little canned. Whatever. If you know what you're getting into, it's just fine. My problem is exactly how not-great the message is. In fact, it's terribly flawed.
The "Groundhog's Day" movie model is about growth of the main character. What it kindly asks the viewer to neglect is that for everyone else, this is still just a normal 24-hour day! The just-barely-there character transformation our lead undergoes takes place over the course of-what-weeks? Months? He basically has an eternity to "get it right" and hopefully, during that time, to learn something.
What that means for the rest of the cast is that the new boyfriend-a genuinely good guy, who has been a genuinely good guy from the start-in one day, he gets cruelly replaced. It means that Jill, the ex-wife, who has supposedly had time to move on from their divorce (and who we know has had at least one year to fall in love with someone new) she now appears shallow and downright vapid! In one normal day, she can cast aside a man who, we have no reason to believe otherwise, she would have happily married that very morning.
What?!
So, here's your Christmas takeaway, or, rather, your warning: Good people, beware. A random supernatural event (that you know nothing about) may be just the thing some scumbag needs to outshine the life you lead every day.
BoJack Horseman: Free Churro (2018)
Speechless.
I don't know if I've ever written a 10-star review for an episode of a show before. But, if this is the first, last and only one I ever write, then it is enough. I have chosen well.
Will Arnett, as BoJack Horseman, is unstoppable. This episode, this brilliantly written, perfectly delivered episode, starred only one character, showcased only one voice, and even in this stripped down, vulnerable state, (maybe even because of it) was the most beautiful, most powerful, most devastating offering to-date. It was a five-year journey that culminated in a 26 minute speech that left me speechless. It wrecked me. No joke. It was so unapologetically broken, that it became, in fact, an act of bravery. I have never witnessed anything like this before and if I ever encounter something similar again, it still won't be able to hit me as poignantly as this did.
I think the question has been answered. BoJack is more man than a horse.
Never once does the show's animated nature enter the mind. This episode, which is essentially a monologue, is a doctoral level exposition into aging, into themes of hope and expectation, into the agony of grief, disappointment, love and the burden of the human condition. It was masterful.
Give Will Arnett an award. Give him all the awards.
The Maze Runner (2014)
Don't take it personally.
Yikes. Some of these reviews make it sound like the movie personally came to each of their homes and assaulted the reviewer themselves. Jeez. Let up people. I'm only reviewing this to help maybe nudge the rating to a solid 7. I found this movie quite enjoyable. Lots of suspense. Confusing at times. And more tense than the Hunger Games, I thought. And the acting wasn't bad. I thought the lead was quite good, though at first I mistook him for Logan Lerman, which may have increased my positive associations. Anyway, give it a watch. I feel like a healthy critique would put it between a 6 and an 9. Sheesh. Breathe, people.
Red Sparrow (2018)
Balancing out the "bored"
I loathe seeing reviews claiming a movie like Red Sparrow is "boring." I've seen this same word come up repeatedly, "boring, boring, boring." Doesn't matter the movie, there's always a handful of dimwits who cannot wait to bemoan their boredom. Red Sparrow isn't Marvel-exciting (forgive the compassion) but it is the antithesis of boring. I rather enjoyed watching Francis Lawrence play in this gritty arena of suspenseful dread and violence. I don't know what it will take to stimulate the porn and video game dulled synapses of these basement-dwelling entertainment burnouts (maybe a job or a trip outside, perhaps?) but see their petty, shallow attempts at derision for what they are; the desperate, attention-seeking whines of the non-achiever trying-and failing-to come across as edgy, avant-garde or beyond impressing. You bore me, neckbeards, you bore me.
If you don't like the film for other reasons, have at it, but for heaven's sake don't be deceived by this "boring" drivel. What amateur bile.
Now You See Me 2 (2016)
Now You Don't
First, let me say I loved Now You See Me. It wasn't a "guilty pleasure" or a "cheesy movie." That's something pretentious people say to excuse themselves for enjoying a film we all know ain't gonna win any Oscars. But NYSM was a good movie.
Remember how immediately Jesse Eisenberg looked you right in the eye, dared you to "look closer," then performed a simple, real-life illustration that if it worked (and it worked on me) was enough to earn your suspicious surprise and childish delight for the next hour and a half? That twinkle, that sparkle of harmless deception designed to bring joy—what Melanie Laurent's character championed for the entire first film— that's what's missing from NYSM 2.
I had hoped NYSM was a stand-alone film. I didn't want a second one to come along and upset the motivations of the first, but that's exactly what happened. Regardless, in this review I'll avoid my frustrations with the plot and focus on the other elements I felt detracted from the movie's potential. First off, the magic.
The big question of NYSM remains unanswered. NYSM 2 still hasn't decided for itself, whether or not it believes in magic. This makes it impossible for the viewer to choose if what they're seeing is supposed to be a cunning illusion or something mystical, otherworldly or paranormal. The quick-changes, inexplicable transformations and thin- air disappearances don't even attempt to poke at realism. I liked NYSM because it wasn't always blatantly obvious which "tricks" were possible to recreate live (regardless of how complicated or expensive) and which were clearly intended to work only on a film level. Early in NYSM 2, I began thinking, "that's not possible" but without any of the thrill or allure of a person who knows their senses are being made to work against them.
People whine about how much "suspension of belief" NYSM asks of them as if all movies don't require at least the slightest measure of the same thing. This franchise didn't invent magicians, hypnotists or illusionists. But, at some point it stopped caring about whether or not it stayed true to the possibilities and limitations of the art form (without supernatural intervention). This should have been impossible to do with David frickin' Copperfield advising, but apparently not. I didn't believe my eyes. Not for a second.
As far as visuals go, my only problem was that, at times, it felt like the action existed to support the special effects and not the other way around. There's a scene where the magicians must keep discreetly passing an item between themselves. It looked awesome, but went on for entirely too long. Shall I over-explain it in cumbersome, wordy detail? Don't worry, I won't.
The heaviest expositions in NYSM existed to move the story forward or to deliver the full impact of a sequence of events. It didn't feel intrusive. Somehow, both the dialogue and the exposition (of not only tricks but of motives, intentions, plot) became distracting and exhaustive. Maybe it worked in NYSM because we were learning trade secrets as part of an investigation. This time around it felt like, "Did you get it? Did you get it? Did you get it?" Yes. I got it.
Rounding out my frustrations were some poor character choices.
In NYSM, Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher) was such a strong female lead. Assistant- turned-Magician, she more than held her own in the all-male Horsemen line up. When I saw that she wasn't returning I was disappointed, but for only as long as it took me to read the name Lizzy Caplan. I adore Lizzy Caplan. Mean Girls, Cloverfield. She sealed her ownership of my heart in Party Down. I assumed Caplan was coming on to pick up Henley's reins and ride. Not so.
Lulu, the newest addition to the team, is a fine magician but she's fidgety, rambles aimlessly and is immediately too preoccupied with Jack Wilder for her own good. I didn't hate Lulu. I was just bummed that she was so flat. The movie had, like 3 female characters. It just felt like a missed opportunity. Also, I wouldn't hold high hopes for Lulu's crush on Jack. Remember Alma Drey, the Interpol agent who won Rhodes' heart by the end of NYSM? I almost didn't. I mean, gimme a throwaway line, "She's in South America." I don't know, something.
There were actually a fair amount of character development points that irked me. Things even the brilliance of Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Mark Ruffalo couldn't barrel over. I won't even touch the Shrike / Bradley story arch. But NYSM 2 finally takes things too far by casting Woody Harrelson as his own identical twin brother, Chase McKinney ...
HOW did things GO SO WRONG for this film!!??
Do I love Woody Harrelson? You're GD right I do! Did I ever want to see him act alongside himself as his own bizarre, quasi-effeminate twin brother? No. No, I did not. It's bad enough that this film couldn't get away from familial power struggles if it locked itself in a safe and sank to the bottom of the Thames. But this twin business, unforgivable.
So, there it is, another 5 of 10-star review from a die-hard fan of the first installment. Hollow magic, drawn out special effects sequences, cringe-worthy dialogue and exposition, almost none of the dazzling stage time the Horsemen established in round one and finally, poor character choices ending with the McKinney twins.
I wanted so badly to love NYSM 2, but as I feared some really poignant things got wrecked and left behind in the path it cleared for a third movie. Oh, well.
I assume they'll just call it NYSM 3.
But if the original was truly "Now You See Me," sadly, the sequel is "Now You Don't."