ENTER THE MOVIES
  • Welcome!
  • All Movie Reviews
  • Some Discussions About.....Things
  • Reel Talk Pod
  • Contact me!

3/24/2018

Movie Review: Pacific Rim: Uprising

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture

Someone forgot about the Kaiju

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018): Jake Pentecost, son of Stacker Pentecost, reunites with Mako Mori to lead a new generation of Jaeger pilots, including rival Lambert and 15-year-old hacker Amara, against a new Kaiju threat.

Hey, Oscar! I have a really good idea for a Pacific Rim sequel. Now, bear with me for a second because FOR SOME REASON this is really hard for Universal//Legendary to wrap their minds around: in a universe dominated by giant robots fighting giant monsters....you ready for this idea? This is going to blow you away: why don't we make a film with a bunch of giant robots fighting a bunch of giant monsters? WHOA. I know, I'm a genius. Wait......you want to first make a Pacific Rim installment featuring a bunch of boring lore and bad character development, and exactly ONE giant action sequence? Are you sure that's what you want to do? Are you SURE? I guess so, because that's exactly what we have here, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA? Haven't we learned anything from the Alien franchise? You don't marginalize the best aspect of your world in a sci-fi movie! For some reason, there's exactly one giant action sequence in this film. That's inexcusable and completely mind-boggling! It's tough to look past this horrific miscalculation, but even if you do.....there's not much to keep anyone engrossed in the sequel to 2013's Pacific Rim. 

For the record, I enjoyed the first film, but I do think it's a tad overrated. But at least in the original Pacific Rim we had a significant amount of giant action sequences featuring robots and monsters, which were, amazingly, the best part of that movie. I wish I had been in the writer's room as they were conjuring up the script for the sequel. Somebody should've done us all a great service and been in that room to say NO when the idea of having one giant action sequence in this two hour movie was pitched. And accepted! UGH.
Picture
Where's Danny DeVito when you need him?
I don't understand why Universal/Legendary thought this was a good idea. What's even funnier is that the marketing team behind the film understood the draw of Pacific Rim better than the studios did. After all, they marketed the CRAP out of the one giant action sequence we did get. Yes, there are a few other sequences of robots fighting other robots, but.....that's not why we're here, guys! We're here for robots fighting monsters. That's it! That's all you had to do! You had one job, and you couldn't do it. 

So, what do we get instead? A lot of boring "world-building." The lore of this film is not very interesting, sadly. Early on there's a few good moments that I enjoyed, particularly around the introduction Amara, played well by relative newcommer Cailee Spaeny. She's a pretty awesome female protagonist that reminded me a lot of the badass Izabella from Transformers: The Last Knight. (I know, interesting analogy, but she was the best part of that film) But, unlike in Transformers, where the young actress Isabella Moner is uncomfortably objectified by some the men of the film because Michael Bay can't help himself, Amara is just.... there. Never once did someone remind her that she was a woman. Never once did someone hit on her in a really uncomfortable way. She was just the protagonist alongside Jake Pentecost. (John Boyega) I really appreciated that, and I hope we reach a point in film where all female characters (and characters of color, for that matter) are not type-casted for specific roles tailored to them. Instead, they're cast simply to play "the protagonist." So kudos to director Steven S. DeKnight and co. for writing Amara the way they did. Sadly, though, they couldn't break free of this trend completely, as one of the other three women in the film, Jules Reyes (Adria Arjona) is only there to be oogled at by the male leads. One day.... Anyway, I did also love John Boyega's performance. The dude is so charming and charismatic, and he tries as hard as he can (along with Cailee Spaeny) to carry this film. Hopefully he decides to pursue the action star route outside of Star Wars, because I would be VERY ok with that. The rest of the cast is whatever. There is a mildly interesting twist with one of the cast members, but otherwise they're pretty forgettable. Burn Gorman/Charlie Day are nowhere near as good together here as they were in the original, but I'm not too mad about that. Especially given the fact that I'm still mad at Charlie Day for enthusiastically showing up in I Love You, Daddy. STILL MAD AT YOU, MAN.

When we did FINALLY get to the giant monsters vs giant robots action sequence, I had a ball of a time. There's no denying that it's so much fun seeing a big budget action film with giant robots fighting giant monsters in a huge city. (Tokyo, in this case) At one point one of the robots (though I've already forgotten which because who cares) uses some gravity weapon to bring down skyscrapers on a Kaiju, and I couldn't help but grin from ear to ear. We don't need those, right? And hey: they did give us a throwaway line about how the entire city of Tokyo was evacuated in like 5 seconds, which is absurd obviously but enough for me to just turn the brain off and have a good time watching all the destruction. (Looks at something like Batman V. Superman) But, in order to get to that awesome final sequence, you have to sit through what basically amounts to 90 minutes of dull dialogue and lazy lore. (That was coincidental, I swear.) Is it worth it? I say no. Wait until the final sequence hits YouTube in a few months, and just watch it there. Otherwise, don't bother with this garbage. Let the Asian markets carry it to a decent gross, and hopefully in the third installment the studios will realize that Alien-ing this franchise is NOT the way to go. Hard pass.

The Critique: Despite a thrilling final sequence and great performances from John Boyega and Cailee Spaeny, Pacific Rim: Uprising lands with a thud thanks to dull dialogue, lazy lore, and nowhere near enough giant robots fighting giant killer monsters.

The Recommendation: Check out the final action sequence on YouTube whenever it gets there, otherwise stay away.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 4/10 Below Average



​Image Credit
https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNjIzMzY1NTQ3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjg4OTQ2NDM@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,743_AL_.jpg
​https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btT1T9qpQZWhNlK/giphy.gif

Share

0 Comments

3/20/2018

Quick Reviews, Winter 2018: The Commuter, The 15:17 to Paris, Game Night, Red Sparrow, Thoroughbreds, Gringo

0 Comments

Read Now
 

The Commuter

Picture
The Commuter (2018): A businessman is caught up in a criminal conspiracy during his daily commute home.

This movie sucks. Liam Neeson had been on a nice run with these winter action movie releases from director Jaume Collet-Serra. The duo had previously teamed up for Unknown, Non-Stop, and Run All Night, all at least somewhat enjoyable films. This one, though, is a dud. After the polarizing The Shallows from this director, we get a lifeless, predictable, corny action flick from the two that was not fun or enjoyable in any way. Honestly, this one should've been left on the cutting room floor. Ok. Maybe that's a little too harsh. It starts out interestingly enough! The initial premise is just as interesting as Non-Stop's was. But the execution of it is SO. BAD. The great Vera Farmiga and Sam Neil are given absolutely nothing to do, and the other riders on this train, outside of Jonathan Banks (who, of course, gets off right away) are bland and uninteresting. Patrick Wilson and Elizabeth McGovern are here too, but blink and you might miss them. Liam Neeson is doing his best Liam Neeson impersonation, which is the best part of the film, but....man. The action set pieces here look baaaaaaaaaaad. Towards the end the train blows up (because of course the train blows up) and this whole sequence can put itself somewhere between "The fight with Electro in The Amazing Spider-Man 2" bad and "The Rock in Scorpion King" bad. It borders on hilarious, and of course Liam Neeson is being hero shielded throughout it in absurd fashion, just so he can uncover this VAST CONSPIRACY in the waning moments of the film during a "hostage situation" which was just stupid. Like the rest of the movie. Personally, I hope Neeson and director Jaume Collet-Serra team up again. But, for now? Just go and watch Non-Stop again.

My Number: 3/10

The 15:17 to Paris

Picture
The 15:17 to Paris (2017): Three Americans discover a terrorist plot aboard a train while in France.

Talk about a misfire. The latest from director Clint Eastwood, The 15:17 to Paris is a complete mess of a film. While the movie does feature the actual heroes from the events on the train, this also means that it features people who aren’t actors and have no prior film experience. It’s a good idea, but the execution of this idea is not just bad, it's totally nonexistent. The screenplay from Dorothy Blyskal didn’t help either, but Eastwood makes the strange decision to put these novices on screen together with no experienced actors alongside them to play off each other. For most of the film, it’s just them and their life. Nothing else. EVERY scene felt like the flower scene from The Room, and that is not (necessarily) something you want to strive for. But the dialogue is awful, and it’s delivered by people who have no prior experience in film, so they can’t look at a bad line and say, “I don’t think this will work, let’s try this.” There’s also this long opening sequence with child-actors and Judy Greer/Jenna Fischer that was almost as hard-to-watch as the later parts of the film that feature the heroes themselves. I don’t know if they filmed this sequence after the rest of movie, and by then Eastwood and co. already realized that they had a bad film on his hands, but there’s no reason for this sequence to have been as bad as it was. Even experienced guys like P.J. Byrne, Tony Hale, and Thomas Lennon were terrible, as if all their scenes were shot only once and Eastwood said, “Ok! Pack it up, guys! We got the shot!” There’s a good short here-if the train sequence was all we got, starring the heroes, it would’ve been enjoyable. But as a feature-length film? Heck no. STAY AWAY.

My Number: 1.5/10

Game Night

Picture
Game Night (2018): A group of friends who meet regularly for game nights find themselves trying to solve a murder mystery.

Hey, look! It's a modern American comedy that isn't terrible! Been a while since we've had one of those. Don't worry, though: while it's not terrible, it isn't great, either. I laughed a good amount, which is really all that matters in a comedy. Even though not all the jokes landed with me. The core idea of this story is pretty interesting and is executed decently well. It keeps you guessing on whether everything that's happening is real or not all the way until a hastily added epilogue, (which is easily the weakest part of the film, despite having the funniest joke in the movie that you saw in all the trailers) which made the story fun and engaging. Rachel McAdams is the star of the show here, as her innocent/desensitized approach is a breath of fresh air for American comedy. (Don't worry, Jason Bateman does his best to offset her....he's just Jason Bateman) The rest of the cast isn't given a lot to do, but guys like Jesse Plemons, Billy Magnussen, and Lamorne Morris do shine with what they are given. Also, Kyle Chandler is pretty good. Another reason this film is getting the praise its seeing is because it's more than lightly edited improv! There's some noticeable effort put in to the editing/cinematography/score departments of the movie. That doesn't mean they are executed well, but as so many American comedies become lazier and lazier in their execution, I will appreciate when a film at least tries. (Sad how low the bar has become for the modern American comedy) There's a big longshot in this film that was nice to see, despite being poorly executed. End of the day, this is the first American comedy I feel like recommending in over a year, which is nice. Just don't go in with very high expectations, because the bar is just that low nowadays.

My Number: 6/10

Red Sparrow

Picture
Red Sparrow (2018): Ballerina Dominika Egorova is recruited to 'Sparrow School,' a Russian intelligence service where she is forced to use her body as a weapon. Her first mission, targeting a C.I.A. agent, threatens to unravel the security of both nations.

This movie freaking SUCKS. It's so self-serious, and it's based around a story that is completely absurd yet somehow manages to play out almost EXACTLY like you expect it to. Jennifer Lawrence is......fine, but her Russian accent is pretty mediocre. Yes, she goes all-in for this role, but it feels somewhat hollow to me given the fact that the bare-all aspect of her performance was used in the marketing campaign. (Have you followed her press tour at all leading up to the film?) But the biggest problem with this film is the first thing I said: it is SO FREAKING SELF-SERIOUS. This movie seriously thinks it's the most important thing to ever happen to cinema since color. There is no humor in here whatsoever, and that would be ok if there was any semblance of adequate character development at all for, well, ANYONE. Even Dominika (Lawrence) does things that seem inexplicable in a vein attempt to keep the audience guessing on her true motivations. I even forgot what her mother looked like (the entire centerpiece of the film's plot) at one point because characters are introduced and then dismissed so quickly. (Did you know Mary-Louise Parker was in this? Blink and you might miss her!) It also didn't help that we were moving locations so rapidly there were moments I didn't even know what continent we were on. One second we're somewhere in Europe, the next we're back in Russia. The transitions were.....rough. And OH MY GOD THIS FILM IS 140 MINUTES LONG. WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA? This felt like a Transformers movie more than anything else. There's a good montage at the beginning, and the final twist is somewhat unexpected, but in between there's 2 hours worth of incoherent nonsense. Trust me: it's not worth it. 

My Number: 2.5/10

Thoroughbreds

Picture
Thoroughbreds (2017): ​Two upper-class teenage girls in suburban Connecticut rekindle their unlikely friendship after years of growing apart. Together, they hatch a plan to solve both of their problems-no matter what the cost.

This movie is NUTS, and I love it. After making the rounds (with a bit of buzz behind it) in the festival circuit in 2017, Thoroughbreds finally got picked up by a distributor and went nationwide. I am SO glad it did, because if you want to watch a film that is wildly unpredictable, completely over-the-top, and balls-to-the-wall crazy, this is it. Like, stop what you're doing RIGHT NOW and go watch this. Well, maybe finish reading this first and THEN go and see it. Maybe? Oh, they're gone already? Cool. I know you're still here, Oscar. Thanks man. Anyway, the film stars Anya Taylor-Joy and Olivia Cooke and is the directorial AND writing debut for Cory Finley. To say I can't wait to see what this guy does next is an understatement. He crafts a wonderful cynical satire here, as Amanda (Cooke) and Lily (Taylor-Joy) have everything they could ever want, yet they feel the unquenchable urge to kill Lily's stepfather (played by another favorite actor of mine, Paul Sparks) because he sucks and is bringing them down. We can all relate to that, right? (Looks at Oscar) The dialogue here is amazing, and the deadpan delivery style of Olivia Cooke sells it. I haven't really seen Cooke in anything until now, but boy is she on my radar after this. (Just in time for Ready Player One in a few weeks!) The late Anton Yelchin is also in this, (that's how long ago this thing was actually filmed) but sadly he isn't given that much to do, as the story focuses on Lily/Amanda. He's almost like a token male, which would be fine were it not for the fact that this is Yelchin's final role. Fortunately, though, Yelchin's character, Tim, does have the best moment of the film as he wanders through Lily's extravagant house in awe as "Ave Maria" plays in the background, so at least there's that. But, I can't fault the film for not featuring him more. This is definitely a guilty pleasure piece....it is a little pretentious, the ending is a little too neat for this story, and there are some big jumps in logic that you have to take, but.....man. If you're into some crazy American Psycho-esque dramas, this sucker is for you. (I know, lazy analogy as it's on the poster, but it's used for good reason.) Fortunately, I am one of those people. We don't get nearly enough films like this made nowadays. 

My Number: 8/10

Gringo

Picture
Gringo (2017): GRINGO, a dark comedy mixed with white-knuckle action and dramatic intrigue, explores the battle of survival for businessman Harold Soyinka (David Oyelowo) when he finds himself crossing the line from law-abiding citizen to wanted criminal.

This movie...... What is its purpose? Why is it even here? I have zero clue. Is it a comedy? Ok, fine. Then why is everyone so unlikable? Richard (Joel Edgerton) and Elaine (Charlize Theron) are total jerks, and you hardly get any laughs out of them because they are such terrible people. And not in the It's Always Sunny kind of way because they aren't the ones who find themselves in a traumatic situation of their own making. That belongs to Harold. (David Oyelowo) He's kind of a likable guy, but his character arc is pretty absurd. Sunny (Amanda Seyfried) is the most likable person in this and she's only in the film for like 15 minutes. Is it a drama? Ok, fine. Then why are these events so bombastic? Harold goes con-man to crybaby, to killer in the span of 111 minutes, and we're supposed to accept this? Who thought this was a good idea???? I went into this with low expectations, but I had some hope. Joel Edgerton has been in some baaaaad movies over the past year or so, but I was really thinking that this was more of a passion project for him and his brother Nash Edgerton. (He was the director) You accept every role you're handed by the studio so you can get something like Gringo funded with total creative control. But....if this is what you're going to come up with, it's officially time for me to hit the panic button on your career. It's boring, unfunny, and just dumb. Also, it's 2018 guys: STOP HAVING THE FEMALE CHARACTERS ONLY THERE TO SERVE THE MEN. Seriously! Bonnie (Thandie Newton) is such a shallow character. She is Harold's wife, but of course she's having an affair with Richard because....reasons? Who needs an explanation on that? And then she's gone. Like. That's her character. "Wife, has an affair for no reason, men no longer need her so she's gone." Sunny is in the same boat, which is a shame because her boyfriend Miles (Harry Treadaway) is an extremely bland character. Sunny should've been both of those characters: she seems to be enjoying Harold's company, but maybe she has ulterior motives? Intrigue... WHOA. Way more interesting than this garbage. And of course Elaine is a character with motivations that you see in a porn film that men love to fantasize about. "Oh, professor, I'll do anything to get an A!" GTFO. 2018 is here, and I'm done with these stereotypes. Avoid this dumpster fire at all costs. It should've never been funded. End rant. There are a few funny moments, but all they do is show what could have been.

My Number: 3/10

Share

0 Comments

3/13/2018

Movie Review: Annihilation

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture

Not quite the follow-up we were hoping for

Annihilation (2018): A biologist signs up for a dangerous, secret expedition where the laws of nature don't apply.

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this film. In this case, I think that's a good thing. Annihilation is a bold film. Director/writer Alex Garland has crafted an ambitious sci-fi film that embodies its genre to the fullest extent. I will warn you: if you're anything short of a die-hard science fiction fan, you will likely not enjoy this. It's a deep watch in every sense of the phrase. It's ambiguous and very science-y, (for lack of a better word) which a lot of people will enjoy, including me. I was completely engrossed, and there's no doubt the execution of this complex premise is fantastic, even though the film can come off as self-aware. Alex Garland knows how to craft n engrossing sci-fi film, and he knows it. For better or for worse. One thing's for sure, though: can we get more films like this, please?

There are some shortcomings here for sure. Alex Garland knows how to make a good genre film, but his “character development” writing is not as strong. In fact, it's pretty disappointing. Natalie Portman plays her character marvellously, but there are certain aspects of her origin story that make very little sense, and certainly aren't relevant to the overall story. In Garland's previous film, Ex Machina, the viewer knows very little about the characters involved. This is a strength of that film: it gets its characters right into the crux of the premise with very little setup, which allows Garland to focus on the AI instead. In Annihilation, though, we spend a good amount of time developing characters (Portman most of all) before they begin the primary mission, and during this first act the film does leave something to be desired. And once they do get into the primary mission, the film has a tendency to come off as pretentious and self-aware. There's still a lot to like here, but I think a lot of people will be turned off by its indulgent storytelling style.

That said, I'm not really one of them. I had a blast and was totally engrossed by the concept of this film. It is absolutely spectacular to look at too, featuring beautiful cinematography and spectacular production design, with a good score and sound design to boot. While this will be a decisive film, there's no doubt there will be a consensus with how it looks. Once the main characters finally enter The Shimmer, that is. Also, I really enjoyed the dynamics between the characters once they did enter The Shimmer, and how it affected them individually was really interesting to me. However, it all leads up to this climatic third act that will be really decisive depending on which side of the fence you fall on. Initially, I really enjoyed it, but the more I've thought about it, the more I'm “on the fence” versus anything else. I think there's a way to better execute the finale, but regardless, it's definitely resonated with me more so than most big budget sci-fi films out there. (Looking at you, superhero movies. How about that totally unnecessary shot, eh Oscar?) The finale here worked for me until the final shot, which adopted the “gotta leave this on an unnecessary (and unexplainable) cliffhanger” kind of ending ripped straight out of Inception. But I had enough fun to look past this. End of the day, this is a good film that is quite thought-provoking (for better and worse) that did have a real shot at greatness. Sadly, though, it is held back by a decisive third act, disappointing character development, and an overarching self-indulgent style. See it if you're a fan of sci-fi, but everyone else? Stay away.

The Critique: While boldly original, Annihilation's overall pretentious and self-absorbed manner in which it tells its engrossing story holds it back from the greatness it could (and should) have achieved. 

The Recommendaiton: For hardcore sci-fi fans only. Not much else to like here for everyone else.

Rewatchability: Moderately High


The Verdict: 7/10 Good.


Image Credit
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI2Mzk1MjA2NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjcwOTc3NDM@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1383,1000_AL_.jpg

Share

0 Comments

3/10/2018

Movie Review: A Wrinkle in Time

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture

Creative to a fault

A Wrinkle in Time (2018): After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.

​I really don't know what to say about this film. On the one hand: it's REALLY messy. The film bites off WAY more than it can chew and feels frantic, chaotic, and incoherent. On the other hand, it is really creative and has a lot of visually stunning setpieces. This feels like 2018's version of Cloud Atlas: director (and real-life warrior) Ava DuVernary swings for the fences with this version of A Wrinkle in Time and this kind of over-the-top big budget film is rarely seen in Hollywood nowadays. Especially with someone like Ava DuVernay leading the way. I'd say if you have kids, you should go without question: support the personnel behind this film and the choices made and your kids will have a ball as they see their imaginations come to life. I was in a full room for this, and the children around me were enthralled, to say the least. Juuuuuust don't think too much about it, because it is pretty absurd.

Let's go against my usual MO and start with the bad. The film does bite off WAY more than it can chew. The pacing is disastrous, and every scene feels like it should be its own movie. This really tanks individual character arcs, to the point that even the main characters can be pretty forgettable. The character Calvin (played not-so-well by Levi Miller) is the quintessential example of this. Calvin's arc is practically nonexistent to the point that I actually forgot all about it before the movie ended. At the end Calvin reminds us of his arc and I said to myself, "Oh ya, that was a thing!" This guy is one of the three main human characters in this story! I mean, I get that Levi Miller didn't portray him particularly well, but he didn't get any decent writing behind him, either. (He's the "token white guy" that's just there to "look pretty" and support the protagonist, so I can't complain about that being a white male for once.) Also, the other male character, Charles Wallace, wasn't played very well either. Poor Deric McCabe. He wasn't very good, but he didn't have any good dialogue to work with either. Hey, a note to any prospective screenwriter out there: if you're going to have novice child-actors in your movie, you have to give him some good dialogue to say that they would actually say. Here it is obvious that an adult is writing their lines. From the actual first line spoken by Charles Wallace, I was thinking to myself, "Nope. No child would ever talk like that." The biggest problem with this film, though, is also its greatest strength for a younger demographic: the setpieces. We'll get to the positives of them in a moment, but the negatives are impossible to ignore: each setpiece feels like its own movie, and we're never in a new setpiece long enough to truly appreciate it. We travel to 3 (I think?) different worlds throughout the brisk 109 minute runtime, but we never spend any more than 10 minutes at any of them. Because of this, the "rules" of these worlds feel haphazard, and only there to service the overall story. Never once did I think to myself "Oh, how are they going to get out of this?" because I knew a convenient "rule", like flowers being able to band together (really?) to break someone's fall would come in and save the day. 

THAT SAID. This is also the part that kids will love, because they aren't thinking about the "rules" of an individual world when they see it. They'll just be in awe of these setpieces. I don't blame them: the worlds we visit throughout the runtime are breathtaking. The visuals are incredible, and I did wish we had spent more time investigating these landscapes. Oprah Winfrey literally towers over everyone as Mrs. Which, (my favorite part, by the way) and Reese Witherspoon and Mindy Kaling clearly had a blast portraying Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, respectively. And Ava DuVernay found herself (and Hollywood) a STAR in Storm Reid. Her portrayal of the main character, Meg, is the hero we all need, and one that I think a lot of people (myself included) can relate to. If there's one thing to come out of this film, I hope it's the rise of Storm Reid. Meg is a strong protagonist that doesn't need men to come in and save the day. I loved how she even used science to get out of certain situations, even if that science was.....shoddy, to say the least. I haven't felt this excited about a child-actor since Jacob Tremblay burst onto the scene back in 2015's Room. For all the film's faults, and for all its shortcomings with the other two main characters, it did manage to knock its main character out of the park. Expect  Disney to milk that for all it's worth.

In conclusion, while A Wrinkle in Time does bite off more than it could chew, (I think it could've benefited from being split into two films, believe it or not) it does so from the stance that Ava DuVernay and company left it all out on the table. I respect that, and I think because of this the film is still worth a watch, even if it is on Netflix/Disney's upcoming streaming service in a few months versus in the theater. There is a difference between "swinging for the fences" (ex.: Cloud Atlas) and "throwing a bunch of ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks." (ex.: Last Flag Flying) The former is much more enjoyable to watch, but it's also much tougher to do. Unfortunately, "swinging for the fences" and missing still leads to the same result as "throwing a bunch of ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks" and missing. The former just managed to look a lot cooler as it unfolded.

The Critique: A Wrinkle in Time is creative to a fault. Incoherent (but beautiful) setpieces dominate this overly ambitious film, and poor dialogue sinks the performances of two of its three child-actors, despite the excellent performance of its third, Storm Reid.

The Recommendation: I do think it's worth seeing if you have kids. It's going to be better than a lot of the kids movies that are out there. Everyone else? Buy your ticket for A Wrinkle in Time at the theater to support it, then go and sneak into Black Panther again.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 5/10 Average



Image Credit
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/a-wrinkle-in-time-storm-reid-reese-witherspoon.jpg

Share

0 Comments
Details
    Picture
    "Like" Enter the Movies on Facebook for the latest and greatest on all things movies! OR ELSE FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A KILLER RABBIT. Sorry about this one, guys. Not my decision. He volunteered. And is just absolute dynamite!
    Click Here!!!!


    Genre

    All
    Action
    Animated
    Cannes 2019
    Comedy
    Drama
    Flash Reviews
    Horror/Suspense
    Musical
    Noir
    Quick Reviews
    Raw Thoughts
    Retro Review
    Romance
    Science Fiction
    Short Films
    Sports
    Throwback Tuesday
    Video Review
    Western

    Date Reviewed

    September 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Home
All Movie Reviews
Some Discussions About.....Things
Contact Me!
ABOUT JOSEPH

​I believe you've gotta have fun with everything you do. Otherwise, what's the point?

​Also, say anything bad about Greta Gerwig or 
Timothée Chalamet and I will fight you with some very strong emotions.
  • Welcome!
  • All Movie Reviews
  • Some Discussions About.....Things
  • Reel Talk Pod
  • Contact me!