PK CS

This movie is bad. Just plain bad. I am not one of those book fanatics who try to analyze adaptations and compare them to the original material. Personally, I think that's dumb. Plenty of adaptations can still be good regardless of how closely they followed the book, graphic novel, etc. I will say though that "The Darkest Minds" is among my favourites in the YA dystopian genre. The book that is. "The Darkest Minds" movie is not. Oh, and by the way, just because the people producing the movie have directed good things (Shawn Levy directing Stranger Things) does not mean that the movie will be good. Another example is Christopher Nolan producing all the Zack Snyder Superman movies (which are garbage by the way). There were quite a lot of problems I had with this movie. I mean what could I expect from a director who's only other credit is freaking "Kung Fu Panda"? Not even the original, like the second or third one. Not saying those movies are garbage, but directing what's supposed to be a dystopian United States with a bunch of children with super powers using them to take down governments is a big jump from a family-oriented animated flick. One big issue was lack of character development. We get little to no time to actually focus on any of the characters and thus the movie gives no room to actually care about the characters. I mean, I read the book and cried at the end of one of them and I still felt distanced from all these characters. Imagine what people who haven't read the books thought. It's like this movie created a bunch of annoying people with generic tropes, plopped them in front of us and said, "You see these? Love them." It doesn't work that way movie. Also, the movie is incredibly generic. I'm staying away from the word "formulaic" because I believe a movie can be formulaic, but also sort of build off from it (Edgar Wright's "Baby Driver" is a good example of that) but with "Darkest Minds", you could literally take a checklist of generic, cliché tropes, and check all of them off, and that's the whole movie. There was no innovative tie-ins, no subversion of expectations. It was simply just boring. And the acting is bad. Really bad. No one was convincing. Maybe I'll give the guy who played Chubs a point because he said some good lines, but that's about it. There were also some stupid details that will make me sound like a nerd but here we go: 1) Why, when anyone uses their power, do their eyes light up the color of their power? For one, I thought the colors were a government construct used to identify the powers of the kids? Also, couldn't they have just sat Ruby in a room and asked her to do something smart and look at her eyes? No one freaking thought of that? What? 2) In the first car chase, why would Liam explain that Chubs couldn't see when Chubs had his freaking glasses on??? That was probably the easiest thing to fix. Just take his glasses OFF. Overall, this movie was a major disappointment and I hope the people who made this movie feel bad for it. FINAL RATING: 1/10

Bread makes you fat? This is one of Edgar Wright's best. "Scott Pilgrim" is truly one of the (if not the) best graphic novel adaptations I have ever seen. I listened to the director's commentary and (fun fact), for scenes that took place in the music store, they actually organized all the posters in the background to make it look more like the original comic. It's these tiny details that make the movie great. That opening title card, with the long hallway with Sex Bob-Om at the end? That was done practically. The wall that Knives and Young Neil are sitting at actually moves backwards that far. That scene where Scott is peeing, then steps into the school hallway? They actually moved that entire room around into an entirely different set. So much effort was put into this film that it is a real shame and, quite frankly, a surprise that this movie initially flopped at the box office. That scene where Scott sees Ramona in the library and then it suddenly cuts to him in band practice? If you look closely, Stephen actually yells at Scott while he's still in the library. Yes, he actually was in the library for that literal one frame just so the movie could have a really cool transition. I could write an entire essay just about the transitions in this movie alone, but I won't do that here. I will just say that they are incredibly inventive and clever. Edgar Wright transitions are pretty much as identifiable as the ones from Star Wars. Anyways, "Scott Pilgrim" is funny, awesomely stylized, and incredibly well acted. Michael Cera is perfect as Scott and Mary Winstead is perfect as Ramona. This film has a pretty fast pace, but it's also very well paced. The challenge was equally spacing 7 distinctive fight scenes without feeling overbearing and it is pulled off great. Normally, cinematography shines in action movies generally only in the action scenes (Leigh Whannel's "Upgrade" is a good example of that) but "Scott Pilgrim's" cinematography shines throughout. There's a saying among fans of Edgar Wright that he never uses the same shot twice, and that's very true for "Scott Pilgrim". In order to further the experience that we are watching a literal graphic novel brought to life he adds a TON of variety to each close-up shot, and every other one as well. Even illustrations straight from the graphic novel are used in different sequences. The soundtrack is awesome with songs written by Beck (I think, but on the CD Beck performs the songs so Beck is connected to the soundtrack somehow). Brie Larson covers Metric and it's pretty epic (I actually like her cover better). And we're even treated to little bops by Michael Cera himself. The whole movie is a jam. All in all: fantastic movie, fantastic writing, fantastic transitions and camerawork. Brilliantly executed and overall just a fun experience. FINAL RATING: 10/10

THIS IS WHAT VENOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN! Venom should've been an R-rated affair. But it wasn't. Sony HAD to make it PG-13 because they wanted the largest demographic they could get. Upgrade is an upgrade from Venom. (lol) Anyway onto the actual review: Upgrade is good. It's a bit of a slow start, but then makes for a real heart-pounder. From the man that started the "Saw" franchise, you can bet that there are some pretty violent and gory parts. Here are some of the things I really loved: 1) The action cinematography - During fight scenes, the camerawork is so meticulously coordinated and fun to look at and just adds so much to the movie. 2) Logan Marshall-Green - kind of like a low-budget Tom Hardy but only better than Tom Hardy because this movie was much better than Venom. (Tom Hardy was too good for Venom anyway, but that's another movie.) Anyway, Logan is great at acting like he isn't controlling his own body. His movement is fluid, yet robotic, and paired with the great cinematography (that's done practically, by the way), he really does good. Thumbs up Mr. Green. Things I Didn't Like: 1) The twist - it didn't exactly make sense. Won't spoil it here, but when you watch the movie, just think about it and it won't really add up. 2) The rich weirdo emo dude - He wasn't great, but you don't see him that much. 3) All the other cinematography - Outside the action scenes, the camerawork is pretty... mehh…. To be honest, I wouldn't call it good. Everything just constantly seems so up close and claustrophobic in places that feel like that are bigger than they actually are. But maybe that's subjective, I don't know... For being a low budget film (It was around $4 million), they really pulled off something good here. This movie is hyper-violent so I don't recommend it if you hate blood, but if you're a big action fan, I would say that this is a must see. FINAL RATING: 8/10

What "Us" did wrong was that it tried to be more "abstract" and metaphorical but only in the final arc of the film. Not to say that there wasn't any metaphorical message within the film -and there was- it was simply how the movie presents us with said message. When it comes to abstract or experimental movies, they generally sway away from any sort of structure or plotline and it generally becomes more of an "experience" than an actual story you're following. Now, if they had done that (but throughout the entirety of the film) I probably would've liked it WAY much more than I actually did. See, prior to the more artsy, abstract-y parts, there is a TON of hinted exposition as to why the "Tethered" clones are here. And when I say hinted I mean that it's set up like they're going to explain it, then they just don't. So by the end, there is a whole lot of stuff that simply goes unexplained and leaves you really confused. There is actually a strange ratio I noticed between easily noticeable plot-holes and meticulously place subtle "hints." I will give the movie the fact that it is very detailed in dropping little clues that could hint toward where the story is going (and there very fun to point out on the second watch), yet the story itself doesn't really go anywhere. To me, the script itself just felt so rushed and not a lot of care was put into properly explaining what it presented. (I'm just repeating myself at this point, so I'll move on.) Now, there are some things that "Us" does extremely well: Lupita N'yongo is amazing as her dual character. She really feels like two different people and is just all-out great at being generally creepy with her "Tethered" character. The kids don't do too bad, and the husband was pretty okay, but Lupita stole the show definitely. The cinematography and camerawork was great. A lot of great composition and framing. Jordan can really place a camera. (Personally, a shoddily written movie can have great cinematography and I will probably like it more than I should. You can love a movie from a technical aspect.) The soundtrack is pretty good. There's a great, creepy orchestral rendition of "I've Got 5 On It" by Luniz. Some people say that the frantic pizzicato within horror films is somewhat of a cliché but I thought that it really fit well with the tone of the movie. And I think that about wraps it up. "Us" is a fun experience. It's a little confusing and not very scary (more of a thriller), but I hope you like it as much as I did. FINAL RATING: 7/10

This movie is fantastic. "Isle of Dogs" is Wes Anderson's second stop-motion project and it really shows how much he has grown since "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Everything in this movie is so gosh darn symmetrical. It is beautiful to look at. The sushi making scene is so much fun to watch. I swear I could give this movie a 10 on aesthetic alone. I appreciate that the film made the decision to have the human characters speak Japanese (since the story is set in Japan). While there are some sequences where we get no translation of what the Japanese characters say, there is a great balance and variety between how their lines are translated. This movie also has a great sense of humor. I am aware not everyone loves deadpan humor, but if it's your thing you will love this movie. It's subtly placed and it demands your attention, but when it came it always made me laugh. It's nicely paced, nothing feels forced or slow. The framing and cinematography are amazing (obviously). This movie also strays (haha dog pun) away from being a kids' movie. There are parts that take a more darker turn than an average family-friendly flick and, to be honest, kids will probably find it boring. Going into this movie expecting an action-packed adventure will leave you disappointed. Go watch "Minions" or something. All in all, Mr. Anderson did a fantastic job. He created a funny movie, with a great yet simple story, that is beautiful and emotional. I should also note that the movie is cleverly named to sound like "I love dogs". Get it? Isle of Dogs = I love dogs? And the love of dogs really shows. If you're a dog lover, this is a much watch. This is a must watch regardless, anyway. Thank you, Wes Anderson. FINAL RATING: 10/10