guskeller Reviews

Jurassic World Dominion (2022)

Missed opportunity

[5/10 · 10 June 2022]

Jurassic World: Dominion misses its opportunity. The story is needlessly convoluted, sidelining the dinosaurs (and their release) for a mediocre corporate scheme. There are multiple narratives that don't intertwine until the third act. Jokes misfire, plot points are convenient, and motivations are flimsy. Action sequences are messy and unrealistic, defusing their suspense. There are cheesy one-liners, lame fan service attempts, and inept villains. Still, the biggest issue is the missing protagonist or theme. Dominion is overstuffed, with no primary message. Plus, the actors are dull, especially Pratt. Only Goldblum is any fun. Overall, Dominion is emotionally draining and cluttered.

Technically, Dominion is inconsistent. There are abundant animatronics, but the CGI is occasionally goofy. Reuniting the original cast is impressive, but less charming when they're past their primes. The cinematography uses decent lighting, angles, and extended shots. However, the sound coasts off of the originals without adding anything new. There is generic music, impersonal production design, and scattered direction. Tonally, Dominion attempts everything and lands very little. Lastly, the editing is bloated, boring, and unfocused. The film never gains momentum and feels like a chore. Whether it's excessive exposition, contrived drama, or numbing action, Dominion isn't engaging.

Writing: 2/10 Direction: 3/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Acting: 4/10 Editing: 3/10 Sound: 6/10 Score/Soundtrack: 5/10 Production Design: 5/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 4.9/10.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Minimal effort

[4/10 · 31 May 2022]

Revenge of the Sith fittingly concludes a disastrous trilogy. Although it has a protagonist arc, its writing remains abysmal. The tone is erratic, dialogue is blunt, character choices are confusing, and the narrative is needlessly convoluted (a flaw worsened by the prequel's predictable nature). Specifically, side characters and plotlines are unproductive filler. Really, this story should've focused on Anakin's unraveling, allowing him to evolve naturally. Instead, he's consistently angsty and deprioritized behind illogical politics. Thus, Anakin's descent is faint and the script is disengaging. Despite centering around a downfall, Revenge of the Sith fails to emotionally connect.

Meanwhile, familiar technical issues continue. Revenge of the Sith has some cinematic lighting and composition, but its visuals are predominantly stale. Dream sequences provide insert edits and abstract sounds, but they're sparse. Fundamentally, Revenge of the Sith presents minimal effort and basic craft. The production design remains sterile, the atmosphere lacks detail, and the pacing is monotonous. Plus, CGI overuse is still distractingly obnoxious. Clearly, the goal was merchandising, not artistry. Therefore, Revenge of the Sith is predictable, apathetic, and pointless. Ultimately, there's more entertainment in a single scene of the original trilogy than this entire film.

Writing: 3/10 Direction: 1/10 Cinematography: 3/10 Acting: 4/10 Editing: 3/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 2/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 3/10

Overall Score: 3.9/10.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Entertainment failure

[3/10 · 30 May 2022]

Attack of the Clones amplifies its predecessor's mistakes. Anakin has mild depth as the protagonist, but he's generic and static. He never develops or shows layers behind his angst. Instead, his repetitive dialogue announces his feelings. Plus, his romance with Padme is cringey because there's no emotional connection. They have no chemistry, influence, or warmth. Meanwhile, the plot is disengaging. Politics are silly, information is limited, and the result is emotionally inconsequential. Viewers won't care when the narrative is needlessly illogical, confusing, and unrelatable. Furthermore, the actors struggle with this trite material. Thus, Attack of the Clones is lifeless.

Technically, Attack of the Clones is painfully dull. The exception is John Williams' score, which struggles to overcome every boring scene. The sound design is iconic, but utilized without intention. Also, the editing and cinematography are incredibly plain, never conveying meaning or influencing emotions. Additionally, the production design is fully cartoonish and sterile, abandoning Star Wars' gritty origins. This issue is exacerbated by floods of CGI, making the film look fake, empty, and stifled. Finally, the tone is a mess. Corny humor neighbors tragic drama, creating emotional whiplash. Overall, Attack of the Clones fundamentally fails as entertainment.

Writing: 2/10 Direction: 1/10 Cinematography: 2/10 Acting: 4/10 Editing: 2/10 Sound: 6/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 2/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 2/10

Overall Score: 3.4/10.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

A boring mess

[4/10 · 29 May 2022]

The Phantom Menace is a boring mess. Its plot is overstuffed with dry exposition and convoluted politics. The characters are generic and shallow. There's no main protagonist or sincere drama to connect with. Dialogue is stale, relationships are cold, and motivations are impersonal. Overall, the script lacks humanity and relatability. Some viewers might force investment because of the Star Wars brand, but that external factor is the only reason to care. Plus, the acting is stiff, rarely elevating the flat material. Particularly, the child performances are grating and distracting. Simply put, The Phantom Menace emotionally flops.

Technically, The Phantom Menace is mixed. The sound design is iconic, using familiar blasts and hums. John Williams' timeless score is equally recognizable. Still, these aspects lose impact when serving an emotional void. Meanwhile, the editing and cinematography are lifeless. No techniques are utilized for tempo or visual suggestion. Furthermore, instead of feeling tangible and lived-in, the production design is fake and empty. Lastly, the overuse of sterile CGI undermines immersion. Ultimately, The Phantom Menace frequently contradicts itself, aiming for a grand epic without providing dramatic or atmospheric detail. Consequently, it lands as hasty and hollow.

Writing: 2/10 Direction: 1/10 Cinematography: 2/10 Acting: 3/10 Editing: 2/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 3/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 4/10

Overall Score: 3.7/10.

The Bob's Burgers Movie (2022)

Meets expectations

[7/10 · 28 May 2022]

The Bob's Burgers Movie meets expectations. It's funny, purposeful, and developed enough to maintain investment. Fundamentally, it's a murder mystery, but also intertwines Bob's money issues (which is the emotional force). Plus, Louise is intrinsically motivated to prove her bravery, making her the main protagonist and giving her the clearest arc. Bob's Burgers doesn't have the tightest crafted humor, but these dynamic characters help it connect emotionally. The film is still lighthearted and silly (with skilled setup and payoff), but it peppers in enough drama to create substance. Thus, Bob's Burgers succeeds because it delivers a sincere combination of laughs and relatability.

Technically, Bob's Burgers is proficient. Surprisingly, there are musical numbers that heighten the soundtrack, cinematography, editing, and direction. There is dramatic lighting, framing, and camerawork. Also, passing cuts, smash cuts, and time lapses help the comedic rhythm. Furthermore, voice acting is ranged, animation is personal, and CGI is supportive. Punchlines are heightened by exaggerated music, transitions, and surrealism. Overall, the filmmaking reinforces the humorous mood. It isn't high art, but it possesses consistent craft. Therefore, Bob's Burgers is a fairly enjoyable experience. Viewers should expect skilled comedy and decent emotions.

Writing: 7/10 Direction: 6/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 7/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.2/10.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

A flawed improvement

[8/10 · 27 May 2022]

Top Gun: Maverick is a flawed improvement. Its story is straightforward, which works. Maverick has one last mission, his relationship with Goose's son is complex, and his romance has baggage. None of this is inventive, but it's enough to fuel the climax. However, Top Gun: Maverick changes paths and loses steam. A dramatic peak is nicely set up, yet the film backtracks on that, introducing a new layer to the mission. This second climax is action-packed, but also fatiguing and muddied. Had Top Gun: Maverick kept its bittersweet climax, it would've been more meaningful. Instead, its emotional mediocrity feels like a missed opportunity.

Meanwhile, Top Gun: Maverick has solid filmmaking. First, visuals are polished (utilizing focus, lighting, and mounts), acting meets the material, and the tone is clear. The soundtrack balances nostalgia, and the production is authentic. Plus, the editing employs montages, dissolves, and energetic action. Next, the sound design mirrors emotions, using symbolic echoes, silence, and J-cuts. Finally, the effects are the star of Top Gun: Maverick because its stunts are impossibly real. Overall, Top Gun: Maverick advances its drama and thrills, but still lacks a core message. Unfortunately, without a conscious theme, it feels like war glorification.

Writing: 5/10 Direction: 6/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 9/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 10/10

Overall Score: 7.6/10.

Top Gun (1986)

Style without substance

[7/10 · 26 May 2022]

Top Gun is style without substance. It has crafted action, but a generic script. The protagonist, Maverick, is a hotshot who plays by his own rules. He has something to prove and suffers losses, but never grows as a character. Instead, formulaic plot points and shallow drama simulate thematic progression. This also applies to the contrived romance. The awkward chemistry and unrealistic dialogue play out like an uninformed fantasy rather than an authentic courtship. Cruise just isn't as charming as the script intends. Both his stiff acting and the forced material are to blame there. Overall, Top Gun's emotions are manufactured cliches.

Conversely, Top Gun is technically proficient. Its flight visuals are cohesive and engaging, utilizing various mounted camerawork. Its editing is well-paced and energized during action. The aircraft sound design is realistic, detailed, and immersive. Meanwhile, the music is dated and overdone, but fairly iconic nonetheless. Plus, the production design is elaborate and believable (using real fighter jets, bases, and gear). Finally, the effects stand out because the authentic pyrotechnics and stunts maximize excitement. Therefore, Top Gun is ultimately polarized. The emotions don't work, but the action does. Thus, viewer enjoyment will depend on what they value.

Writing: 4/10 Direction: 7/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 6/10 Editing: 7/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 7.2/10.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Pretty good

[7/10 · 25 May 2022]

The Simpsons Movie is pretty good. It's more of an extravagant episode than a transcendent culmination because (despite its crafted comedy) it's missing heart. Specifically, the humor works because jokes are layered into synergistic flurries. Meanwhile, there's abundant setup, making the comedy feel earned. Still, The Simpsons lacks sincere emotions. Main characters arc, but they're also unrelatable because they've become so exaggerated. That's convenient for gags, but undermines the drama. Furthermore, the film touches on social and relational issues, but never emphasizes a true message. Thus, while The Simpsons Movie is enjoyable, it also rings hollow.

Technically, The Simpsons Movie optimizes its humor. The editing uses fadeouts, match cuts, and pacing for punchlines. Plus, the cinematography delivers comedic composition, angles, and lighting. Generally, this non-dialogue based comedy is refreshing. Furthermore, the voice acting is iconic, the sound realism is balanced, and the classic theme song is utilized. The CGI effects are less than personal, but they support the amplified humor. Lastly, the production art style is probably the most recognizable part of the franchise. Overall, its dramatic beats and filmmaking are inconsistent, but The Simpsons brings enough diverse comedy to overcome its flaws.

Writing: 7/10 Direction: 6/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.3/10.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Deceptively insightful

[8/10 · 24 May 2022]

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is deceptively insightful. While many will hate the film, its awareness is admirable. Specifically, it's about parents overreacting to a vulgar movie. Since South Park garnered similar uproars, this plot is clearly satire. Beyond being meta, South Park champions themes of censorship, scapegoating, and violence. Essentially, it's social commentary, showing that responses to vulgar media can be more destructive than the vulgarity itself. Since South Park is harmless (besides some outdated slurs), its backlash was misguided. Ultimately, South Park simultaneously advocates for free speech while testing its boundaries. Thus, it deserves credit.

Meanwhile, South Park has witty craft. First, its simplistic animation is endearing and iconic. Ironically, this earlier art style is more appealing than its sleeker evolutions. Next, the sound, editing, and visuals utilize overheads, crossfades, and silence for comedic effect. Plus, the pacing is active and the sound is engaging. Lastly, the music is the surprise highlight of the movie. South Park is an unlikely musical, providing multiple original hits that are still relevant parts of pop culture. Overall, South Park is a polarizing experience that will evoke reactions from all viewers. Some will detest it, others will find it hilarious, but nobody will be bored.

Writing: 9/10 Direction: 8/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 7/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 10/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.7/10.

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022)

Surprisingly effective

[7/10 · 23 May 2022]

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is surprisingly effective. It could've been a cash grab, but the film actually puts forward interesting efforts. First, Chip 'n Dale creates a universe where animation lives in reality. Cartoons, CGI, claymation, and puppets all intermingle with humans, supplying plenty of gags and giving the film a creative edge. Plus, the emotions are decently motivated. Chip holds a grudge against Dale, and Dale lives in the past, romanticizing his fading fame. These aren't original character arcs, but they're sufficient. Additionally, meta humor about show business, reboots, and animation solidifies Chip 'n Dale as fairly engaging entertainment.

Technically, Chip 'n Dale has key strengths. Generally, the cinematography is unremarkable (with some motion and sight gags), editing is standard (with solid pacing and flashbacks), and the soundtrack is adequate (using familiar tunes as punchlines). Conversely, the acting has comedic timing, sound gets abstract, and the cast is recognizable. However, Chip 'n Dale's utilization of diverse animations gives the film life. Meanwhile, its inclusion of pop culture references is enjoyable (without feeling excessive). Overall, Chip 'n Dale impresses because it supports clever ideas with acceptable filmmaking. It isn't a must-see, but Chip 'n Dale is likely to satisfy.

Writing: 6/10 Direction: 7/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 6/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 6/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 7.0/10.

On the Count of Three (2021)

Time well spent

[8/10 · 22 May 2022]

On the Count of Three conceals surprising heart under dark humor. Despite being legitimately funny, the film examines deep topics and finishes bittersweetly. The characters and dialogue are natural and clever, yet significant. For example, mental health, politics, and abuse are casually yet respectfully considered. Also, the acting is ranged, delivering unlikely comedy, sincerity, layered trauma, and varied mental states. This contrasting wit and tenderness synergizes, making each more impactful. Overall, On the Count of Three provides abundant substance in digestible ways. Never sanctimonious, unfocused, or predictable, it's an honest and motivated perspective.

Meanwhile, On the Count of Three supports its material with sharp technicals. The direction balances a specific tone and optimizes its weighty climax. The editing punctuates jokes, hooks with a timeline jump, and paces emotional beats. The sound provides juxtaposed tranquility, heightened anxiety, chaos, and sentimental silence. Plus, music is eclectic, effects are adequate, and the cast mixes newcomers with veterans. Finally, the cinematography employs meaningful framing, composition, angles, and focus. Each technique supports the drama, underscoring feelings with space and style. Ultimately, On the Count of Three is crafted and vulnerable. Undoubtedly, it's time well spent.

Writing: 9/10 Direction: 9/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 7/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 7.8/10.

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)

Mild

[6/10 · 21 May 2022]

Downton Abbey: A New Era is simple escapism. The script emphasizes quantity over quality, parading numerous trivial plotlines rather than digging into any particular idea. The excessive cast of privileged protagonists go through minor inconveniences before everything predictably works out. Stakes are low, drama is mild, and messaging is insincere. Characters are hollowly pleasant because, ultimately, nothing is consequential. Easy entertainment has its audience, but some viewers might want tonal range, character depth, strong themes, or significant tension. The acting is charming enough and the soapy plot keeps moving, but Downton Abbey is more of a getaway than a journey.

Technically, Downton Abbey: A New Era is equally plain. The mood is monotonously cheery, the cinematography and sound convey no meaning (because there's nothing to convey), and the editing of redundant plotlines is tedious. There are no artistic choices, just straightforward presentations. Meanwhile, the music is adequate, and the effects are nonfactors. The production design is the only surefire standout because it's era specific and reflects the extravagant wealth of the protagonists. Overall, Downton Abbey: A New Era will please fans of the series and those seeking mild distractions. However, anyone looking for enlightenment, excitement, or emotion should pass.

Writing: 4/10 Direction: 5/10 Cinematography: 5/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 6/10 Sound: 5/10 Score/Soundtrack: 6/10 Production Design: 7/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 5/10

Overall Score: 5.7/10.

Men (2022)

Atmospheric, meaningful and emotional

[9/10 · 20 May 2022]

Men is atmospheric, meaningful and emotional. Its protagonist (Buckley) is processing the trauma of a toxic relationship, yet she's haunted by constant echoes of that toxicity. With every interaction, Buckley is reminded of the enabled dehumanization that surrounds her. Men builds tension and drama naturally. It has capable characters, significant subtext, and consistent payoff. Notably, the final act becomes very symbolic and thematic, which will frustrate some viewers. Still, examining the trained inheritance of misogyny deserves recognition. Plus, the entire cast delivers. Specifically, Buckley ranges across anger, dismay, strength and resignation. Thus, Men is emotionally striking.

Technically, Men is beautiful. Its tone is unsettling, yet intimate. Visuals employ lighting, contrasting colors, confining composition, focus, reflections and creeping movement. Editing uses methodical pacing, synergized timelines, match cuts and surreal montages. Effects are intense and visceral. Lastly, the score and sound are driving forces. Folk songs, ominous choirs, and vulnerable pianos set moods. Meanwhile, ambient nature, abstract silence, J-cuts and echoing motifs underscore themes of heritage, disconnect and repetition. Overall, Men unites impressive filmmaking, deep emotions and weighty messages. Its manifestation won't please everyone, but its ambition is undeniable.

Writing: 8/10 Direction: 9/10 Cinematography: 9/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 10/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 8.7/10.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Mysterious, spiritual, and concise.

[9/10 · 19 May 2022]

Annihilation is detailed. Its story is mysterious, spiritual, and concise. Scripts rarely pack deep meaning into straightforward narratives, but Annihilation is perfectly distilled. Characters have distinct motivations, themes are subtly intelligent, and tension builds steadily. The dialogue is natural, yet significant. Plus, the bittersweet ending supports the overall thesis. Combining tangible reality with psychological imagination, Annihilation's writing is quintessential sci-fi. Furthermore, the acting meets the material. Isaac embodies daze, Leigh is thoroughly cold, and Portman shows vulnerability. Together, they honor the plot's extravagance and core relatability.

Technically, Annihilation is meticulous. First, its production finds stunning union between beauty and terror. Its alien land feels oddly intuitive as it reconfigures the familiar. Next, the striking imagery uses refracted lighting, suggestive composition, focus, and purposeful angles. The editing synergizes timelines and utilizes match cuts. The soundtrack uses juxtaposing melodies, fitting synths, thematic songs and ominous tones. Finally, the sound gets symbolic and the effects enhance the atmosphere. Overall, Annihilation creates mutual support between its artistic filmmaking and thoughtful messages. Undoubtedly, it will stick with viewers long after the thrills have subsided.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 9/10 Cinematography: 9/10 Acting: 8/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 9/10 Score/Soundtrack: 10/10 Production Design: 10/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 9.1/10.

Ex Machina (2014)

Peak Sci-Fi

[9/10 · 18 May 2022]

Ex Machina is peak minimalist sci-fi. Thought experiments through futurism is everything science fiction is about. Plus, its contained nature allows Ex Machina to delicately elaborate on characters, themes, and psychological dilemmas. The film is rarely flashy, but it's captivating because it strikes viewers on the deepest level: their consciousness. Beyond its meditations on creation, morality, and control, Ex Machina is ignited by electric performances. Gleeson is an evolving lead, Isaac brilliantly masks callousness behind wit, and Vikander is a vivid union of humanity and technology. Together, they're an elevated whirlwind of exceptional material. Viewers will undoubtedly grow from this experience.

Meanwhile, the filmmaking of Ex Machina is elegant. The cinematography uses physical distortions, lighting, and composition to subtly convey meaning. The editing is slow-paced, allowing dialogue to breathe. The production design is sleek, yet grounded. The special effects are elaborate but never overbearing, always supporting the narrative. The sound design gives the film symbolic climaxes and a polished tone. Finally, the direction unites everything into a potent mood of longing. Longing for freedom, connection, or meaning, Ex Machina is a quiet storm of cohesive reflection. Overall, this is a film that leaves a lasting impression.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 9/10 Acting: 10/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 10/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 10/10

Overall Score: 9.4/10.

Petite Maman (2021)

Quietly touching

[8/10 · 17 May 2022]

Petite Maman is quietly touching, amplifying the mother-daughter trope with a potent metaphor. Marion is a child whose mother leaves to sort out her emotions. However, Marion then meets the child version of her mother and develops a friendship. Despite its surreal premise, the story unfolds casually, like a slice of life. The dialogue feels natural, yet delivers poignant quotes. Plus, because the plot is so focused, emotions and relationships are thoroughly emphasized. Furthermore, the acting is deeply vulnerable and incredibly impressive coming from such young actresses. Filled with bittersweet innocence, Petite Maman will evoke feelings in all viewers.

Technically, Petite Maman is intentionally subdued. Extended shots, autumn colors, golden lighting, and composition produce realistic visuals that are subtly artistic. Similarly, the soundtrack and editing are stripped down, utilizing ambiance and minimalism to encourage an organic atmosphere. There are some overt tactics, but generally, Petite Maman creates space rather than forcing moods. Moreover, the production design is simplistically cozy (while hinting at reminiscence themes), and there are no effects or side characters. Overall, Petite Maman shows how less can be more. Using sobering restraint to build powerful nostalgia, Petite Maman discreetly strikes through the heart.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 9/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 8/10 Production Design: 7/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 8.4/10.

Senior Year (2022)

Half-baked

[4/10 · 16 May 2022]

Senior Year is half-baked. Following an adult who returns to high school after being comatose for decades, she grapples with her old life and her new reality. This premise has comedic potential, but as a skit rather than a narrative. The script attempts numerous devices, yet amounts to nothing. Her romance is obvious, drama is insincere, motivation is weak, characters are inconsistent, and messages are muddled. Plus, the conclusion is rushed. Ultimately, every plot point is a superficial illusion. Really, Senior Year is a vehicle for Y2K references, wokeism jokes, and Rebel Wilson antics. That's occasionally amusing but mostly pointless.

Technically, Senior Year is lifeless. The soundtrack is a nostalgia blast, but that's where the fun ends. The effects provide glossy graphics but also unconvincing cheerleading stunts. The visuals are basic and sterile. Also, there are blatant product placements, the acting is forced (and sometimes grating), and the directorial style is nonexistent. The editing has a little energy during dance sequences, but also fumbles the pacing. Furthermore, the cast is fairly unknown and underutilized. Overall, Senior Year offers slim craft and hopes to entertain with its humor alone. Unfortunately, that humor is limited, and the film falls flat.

Writing: 2/10 Direction: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Acting: 4/10 Editing: 5/10 Sound: 4/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 3/10 Casting: 4/10 Effects: 4/10

Overall Score: 3.9/10.

The Survivor (2021)

Fresh perspective

[8/10 · 15 May 2022]

The Survivor provides a fresh perspective on a known atrocity. Narratives surrounding the Holocaust are often meaningful, but this adds tragic layers of survivor's guilt and complicated love. Ben Foster (who is underappreciated) gives a conflicted and vulnerable performance while also sacrificing his body for the role. The third act awkwardly shifts away from boxing and the dialogue is straightforward, but the plot remains extremely humanizing. By maintaining a small scale and examining the protagonist's complexity, The Survivor makes unbelievable horrors relatable and recontextualizes a desensitized story. For that, the film stands out and succeeds.

Technically, The Survivor is mixed. The production switches eras and settings. The effects enhance aging and violence. Plus, there are emotional songs sung by characters, and moments of cinematic focus, angles, composition, and motion. Still, it's the sound (using abstract stings, J-cuts, and silence) and the editing (using smash cuts, match cuts, and wipes) that are the highlights here. Conversely, the lighting makes mistakes, the pacing is clunky, and the production is overly clean. Overall, The Survivor possesses strengths but never transcends its parts. It has important source material and a powerful lead, yet The Survivor's safe filmmaking limits its ceiling.

Writing: 9/10 Direction: 6/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 7/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 7.5/10.

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

Witty and unique

[9/10 · 14 May 2022]

Sorry to Bother You is witty and unique. The story is absurd because its sobering social commentary is more disarming when hyperbolized, evoking relatable laughter. The plot of a struggling man choosing between personal stability and collective progress is a trope, but highly relevant. Plus, Sorry to Bother You differentiates itself with exaggeration, biting comedy, and political weight. Racism, classism, and social norms are directly challenged, yet the film miraculously maintains its playful tone. Furthermore, the acting perfectly matches Sorry to Bother You's delicate balance of humor and drama. Overall, this script is incredibly funny, intelligent, and powerful.

Technically, Sorry to Bother You is visionary. The cinematography uses dynamic lighting, focus, composition, dolly zooms, and colors. Its sound gets symbolically faint, its editing has flavorful match cuts, and its soundtrack is eclectic. The effects employ prosthetics, CGI, and claymation, heightening the surreal atmosphere. Also, the production design is cartoonish, mirroring the satirical themes. The cast is deep, and the direction is effortlessly cohesive. From figurative representations to clever transitions, the filmmaking is truly creative. Its strangeness may confuse some, but viewers who appreciate irreverence will love Sorry to Bother You wholeheartedly.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 10/10 Acting: 8/10 Editing: 9/10 Sound: 9/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 9.0/10.

Firestarter (2022)

Flatline

[5/10 · 13 May 2022]

Firestarter is mixed, containing interesting ingredients that don't meaningfully integrate. First, the premise is promising, looking at superheroes on a smaller scale, with a somber tone, and in a horror/fugitive genre. However, the script disappoints its potential with obvious exposition, unnatural dialogue, and cliched tropes. Plus, the pacing is awkward, decisions are contrived, and motivations are unclear. Furthermore, the falling action is lacking because characters were underdeveloped. This is all worsened by the disinterested acting of Efron and the limited range of Armstrong. Ultimately, the emotional beats are impotent, making Firestarter a monotonous flatline.

Meanwhile, Firestarter has sporadic technicals. The visuals utilize variety, composition, and focus. The editing has strong smash cut sequences. The sound highlights superpowers with abstract stings, echoes, and cracks. Plus, the John Carpenter soundtrack is successfully moody (and the only emotional force in the film). Conversely, the production design is sparse, the effects are inconsistent, the cast is unremarkable, and the direction delivers a fragmented project with a dull tone. Action lacks excitement, drama lacks vulnerability, and the experience lacks momentum. Firestarter isn't terrible, but it isn't effective. Overall, it's forgettable.

Writing: 3/10 Direction: 4/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Acting: 5/10 Editing: 7/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 4/10 Casting: 5/10 Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 5.4/10.

A Hero (I) (2021)

Powerfully personal

[9/10 · 12 May 2022]

A Hero carefully contemplates morality. The film deepens a simple story with shifting perspectives and evolving context, building friction between well-meaning people. Nobody is villainous, nobody is pure. Each character is imperfect with understandable motivations, which makes A Hero highly relatable. Touching on debt, ownership, and publicity, A Hero's thematic core centers around the meaning of justice. Ultimately, the bittersweet ending delivers insight into what really matters when discussing ethics. Right and wrong can be incredibly difficult to categorize, but there will always be moments of beauty that are universally agreed upon.

Technically, A Hero is naturalistic. Its visuals emphasize people and their conflicting emotions. Every shot subtly underscores drama through lighting, framing, and composition. The sound is rich with city life, the music is exclusively diegetic, and the reserved editing allows actors to anchor scenes. Plus, the production is realistically impoverished and lived-in, reinforcing themes of humanity and scarcity. No technique is obvious, but each supports the authentic atmosphere. Finally, the tone is delicately constructed, slowly building tension until its cathartic release. Overall, A Hero is powerfully personal and genuinely thought-provoking. It requires patience, but that will be rewarded.

Writing: 10/10 Direction: 9/10 Cinematography: 9/10 Acting: 10/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 9/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 7/10

Overall Score: 8.7/10.

Green Room (2015)

Explosive

[8/10 · 11 May 2022]

Green Room is an experience. It's a captivating bottle story, but the film is so vivid, it's as much a feeling as a narrative. The plot follows a band that unexpectedly plays at a white supremacy bar. There, they witness a murder and are suddenly trapped in their room while the culprits surround them. The writing is contained yet high stakes, which is riveting. Every decision counts, every conversation impacts, and every moment carries weight. There's stressed negotiation, shocking violence, and potent emotion. Plus, the acting is dynamic because characters have specific voices and vulnerabilities. Collectively, these factors unite for a haunting ride.

Technically, Green Room is deliberate. Each calculated aspect drives the endless tension. The imagery uses colors, composition, and framing to guide the mood. The pacing is relentless yet never feels exhausting, hitting a sweet spot of consistent, engaging intensity. The sound is visceral during violence, the production design is authentically grungy, and the music is subtly ominous. The special effects are key because they are ruthlessly lucid without being desensitizing. Lastly, the direction captures a palpable tone of mounting anxiety, which highlights the film. It may be too gruesome for many, but Green Room is powerfully executed and an explosive journey.

Writing: 9/10 Direction: 9/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 7/10 Effects: 9/10

Overall Score: 8.4/10.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Singular

[9/10 · 10 May 2022]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a singular experience. Surreal, uncomfortable, and insightful, it seemingly endorses depraved behavior but actually addresses significant issues. First, by openly embracing its bias, Fear and Loathing highlights the honesty missing from supposedly objective journalism. Next, Fear and Loathing examines the exclusivity of the American Dream as its protagonists continually return to horrific escapism, attempting to cope with that harsh reality. They prefer drug-induced nightmares to political ones. Ultimately, Fear and Loathing suggests that drug culture is an unfortunate response to social climates, the underbelly of systemic corruption.

Technically, Fear and Loathing is a visceral force, creating a psychedelic atmosphere with numerous tactics. Dutch angles, low angles, wide lenses, and rocking motions twist every shot. Echoes distort sound, jump cuts disjoint editing, and various effects (CGI, green screens, projections, and prosthetics) enhance hallucinations. Plus, lighting and frame rates are exaggerated. Truly, Fear and Loathing parades abstract techniques. Furthermore, the relevant music amplifies emotional states, and Depp naturally captures layers of discontent and disregard with his voice and physicality. Overall, Fear and Loathing is a unique perspective and a special work of art.

Writing: 9/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 10/10 Acting: 9/10 Editing: 10/10 Sound: 9/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 9/10 Effects: 10/10

Overall Score: 9.3/10.

X: First Class (2011)

Driven by drama

[8/10 · 9 May 2022]

X-Men: First Class succeeds by emphasizing characters, exploring Xavier and Magento's backgrounds, friendships, and ideologies. Plus, this origin story starts them off from relatable places and makes them more human. The main plot and villain aren't unique, but they tie in with the themes and motivate our complex cast of protagonists. Oddly, that plot isn't important because character arcs and relationships are the true core of X-Men: First Class. Thankfully, the acting (especially Fassbender) elevates the material and gives the film real emotions to connect with. Consequently, X-Men: First Class is driven by drama and has lasting impact.

Technically, X-Men: First Class is tastefully restrained. The editing has flavorful montages, meaningful match cuts, and passing transitions. The sound is complex and symbolic. Fantasy elements blend with the era through detailed production designs. The effects are mostly CGI, but do include elaborate make-up and prosthetics. Also, the cinematography informs through focus, composition, and movement. Meanwhile, the music is forgettable, but supports the delicate tone. Overall, this controlled filmmaking creates a grounded atmosphere that enhances the material. All told, X-Men: First Class isn't a universal must-see, but it proficiently delivers memorable emotions.

Writing: 7/10 Direction: 7/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 7/10 Production Design: 8/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 8/10

Overall Score: 7.5/10.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Lazy

[4/10 · 8 May 2022]

Fantastic Four has forced plot points, corny dialogue, generic relationships, and a hollow story. Plus, the climax is underwhelming and characters don't arc. First, the script glosses over conflicts and pads the runtime with filler. Entire scenes are dedicated to failed jokes and thrills, stalling the narrative. Next, since real drama is avoided, dynamics are shallow. Johnny is impulsive, Sue and Reed conflict, and Ben feels grotesque, but that all miraculously resolves without true motivation. Lastly, Fantastic Four's lighthearted tone is excessively cliche because the writing isn't substantial, interesting, or unique. Consequently, the movie is emotionally void.

Technically, Fantastic Four is mixed. The atmosphere is dull, the editing is diluted, and the music is dated. Also, the production design is unconvincing because lighting is overdone, extras are sparse, and sets lack detail. Conversely, there is decent camerawork (focus, dolly zooms, and movement), the cast has memorable members, and the sound is complex (despite being occasionally silly). The effects are mainly dated CGI, but the make-up and prosthetics deserve credit. Lastly, the acting is repetitive, but that's the material's fault. Ultimately, Fantastic Four's subpar technicals and lifeless script deliver a lazy film that falls completely flat.

Writing: 3/10 Direction: 3/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Acting: 3/10 Editing: 4/10 Sound: 5/10 Score/Soundtrack: 3/10 Production Design: 3/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 5/10

Overall Score: 4.1/10.