Serenity

Serenity is like if a 13 year-old boy got bored reading Moby Dick and read the cliff notes, which were still to boring, so he "fixed" it to make in more interesting. Avoiding spoilers, I will say that had I not already known about the twist, I could have never seen it coming; mostly because it makes no sense and has so many logistical errors. The acting is fine, I guess. I hate Hathaway and McConaughey has never impressed me, but they do alright. The cinematography is fine and the score is cheesy and indulgent, but no one is going to be talking about anything other than the plot. Before the story goes careening off in a wildly different direction, I guess I was kind of interested, but I wasn't invested in any of the characters; not a single one is likable or realistic. When things begin to go off the rails, it raises a lot of questions that are never answered. They address the big issue, but there are so many things that make no sense. Things are too complicated for their writing to address. I really don't want to spoil anything, but a fair comparison would be like if at the end of ET, we find out that the whole thing is a prank on Elliot by his brother. Okay, interesting, but how did he get all the government tech and employees? What was the space ship? There are far too many simple elements that they just can't tie up. Obviously, this is a hyperbole, but it's the kind of incompatibility within the story. It feels like they really wanted to pack the film with symbolism, but it comes at the expense of coherence and believably.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is 18 years old and it's hard to separate it from the rest of the (what has now become) Wizarding World of Harry Potter. The great thing about this film is that it still feels grandiose and awe inspiring. We get so many beautiful and deep locations that are very memorable, probably even more than what story points happen there. There aren't any performances to complain about, the score is wonderful, and of course the plot is great. The issues fall more on the technical side of the movie. For the most part, the CGI stuff isn't bad, except for one very, very bad set of character models. Every time they try to use CGI models of the characters, they look terrible. Just in case there is someone who doesn't know what happens in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, I'll keep the specifics vague, but the best example is CGI Neville. The other big issue is how choppy the movie is. Chris Columbus has explained why scenes are so choppy (child actors are inexperienced and can't work as long so he had multiple cameras going and jumped back and forth to capture the expressions he was looking for), but the story itself feels very choppy. It doesn't quite feel like a full movie, but more like a a series of scenes. There are no scenes that are not entirely plot focused and there are no side plots. Hermione will say "we need to go to the library" and then we cut to them at the library. I understand that it is already a two and a half hour movie, but other than the few Quidditch spots, we never get to look around and round out the world. We are constantly jumping from place to place and scene to scene with zero breaks. We see the trio in Transfiguration and cut to them in Potions and cut to them in Charms. There are never any transitions or even transitory scenes. The only time we even see characters in the hallway is when they are giving us exposition and we have no idea where they've been and where they are going. This really distorts time in the film. We have no idea how much time is between scenes. It's the first day of school and twenty minutes later it's Halloween, then another fifteen and it's Christmas, and then we have no idea even what season it is until it's time for them to go home. The two and a half hours do fly by and feel like much less, but a huge part of that is because scenes are never contextualized and we just shoot through the story. I had a few other issues, mostly "Why don't the just..." things like " Why does Ron have to be on the horse?" and stupid logical errors like when they are walking up the staircase and it pivots to another platform, they walk up it and Harry says something along the lines of "It feel like we aren't supposed to be here" and Hermione says they aren't, because this is the fourth floor and it's off limits. They were already going up the stairs to the fourth floor when the stairs moved, the only thing that changed was where on the fourth floor the stairs let them out, which is just around the corner from where they lead before. They act surprised that the stairs have now put them on the fourth floor, but that is what those stairs have always done. It's been long enough for them to know their way around, so they know where those stairs go, they know they are going up to the fourth floor. Also, why wouldn't they just stop and wait for the stairs to move back? There are only two platforms that that staircase pivots between, so just wait until it moves back. You know, stupid things that you aren't supposed to care about, but I'm a nitpicking bastard and I can't help but notice. There are few movies that are so captivating and awesome that they draw you in and you don't even notice that two and a half hours have gone buy. It definitely has issues, but it is so easy to get engrossed in beautiful locations like the Great Hall and the Forbidden Forrest and characters that are so solid that you now who they are within their first three minutes. Seriously, even if you have never heard of the very idea of Harry Potter, you feel like you have known Hermione forever after her first scene on the train. Snape walks from the door of his classroom to the front and you know exactly what kind of person he is. The only real issues stem from the young cast being inexperienced and the fact that it was made in the early 2000's. Until 2060, when we are knee deep in season on of Harry Potter on HBO, there will never be a film that can capture the wonder and beauty of Harry Potter.

Hider in the House

Hider in the House is just a group of camera men following Gary Busey around for a couple of days. I know it says it's a movie, but I'm pretty sure it's a documentary. Seriously though, Hider in the House is nothing like what I thought. I still liked the movie, but I though it was about a family who eventually discovers that somebody is living it their walls. Hider in the House is actually from Gary Busey's point of view as he lives in a hidden room he built in their attic and you spend the next hour and forty minutes grimacing, just waiting for the climax. All of the acting was good (the boy was surprisingly good), although I'm still not convinced that Busey was acting. There are a lot of bits where it's so unrealistic that it pulls you out a little bit, but there are also parts that are hilarious, even though the movie is played seriously. Busey is constantly staring through the middle of a window, pacing back and forth across the creaky floor of their attic, no one notices that there is an attic window that they can see from the outside that they can't see inside (it is literally never mentioned) no one notices the light in his room shining the window, the hidden door, or the air vent, and no one ever sees his face through the vent. There are multiple times where characters do things that make no sense, but if you take it upon yourself to not take the film seriously, it's pretty fun. It's very stupid and unrealistic, but the central idea of the film is so compelling that I was willing to overlook most things just to see how it plays out. It's not really a horror film (I guess it's suspense or maybe a thriller), but I watched it on the same day I re-watched The Conjuring and Hider in the House has way more tension. Is it a good movie? Absolutely not; it's completely ridiculous. It is, however, a blast if you are willing to laugh when a man with some kind of mental issue is stuck in a hidden room when the exterminator comes to spray, thinking the noises in the wall are from a rat and not a full grown Gary Busey. This is one of those movies you will be introducing friends to, just to see the look on their face when adult Gary Busey sits in a stranger's attic coloring pictures of his childhood. Classic.

The Conjuring

James Wan knows his audience and The Conjuring will probably satisfy that audience; I don't believe that it will check off everything on his audience's lists, but they won't be disappointed. As a film though, there are far too many uses for me to overlook. Wan does some pretty cool stuff with his camera work, but towards the beginning, there are three or four sequences where the camera bobs around and the angle rolls. It's not one of the times where we are seeing something the characters recorded; it's just a regular shot, except that it looks like it was filmed on boat, rolling with the waves. The acting is pretty good for a horror movie (probably because the four main characters are actual dramatic actors and not Instagram models they hired via Skype), except for the younger child actors. There is some terrible CGI (mainly the bird scene in the later half) and clear ADR. The biggest issue is the story. The validity of the "Based on a True Story" line isn't relevant to the actual quality of the movie, so I won't address it. The Conjuring is a very simple story that they needlessly try to complicate by introducing irrelevant details and shoehorning in openings for spinoff properties. The main story thread is the cliche of "family moves into house and it turns out that it's haunted" and continues to follow every other cliche they could think of. One of the first scenes is the "Dogs can sense paranormal stuff" cliche and we quickly move into scenes where ghosts do things that don't make sense in the world of the movie. Why would a ghost manifest hands to hold out and clap together (can ghosts even clap?) when the character can't see anything anyway. There are so many times where the ghosts do things that are going to have no effect on the people, but only exist to get a cheap jump scare. They present Lorraine Warren as a medium and she quickly establishes that there are like seven different, unrelated ghosts in the house. Okay, I guess that's fine; it's your movie, but most of them are inconsequential to the story and (again) only exist to provide opportunities for more cheap jump scares. The entire "fear factor" of the movie is the anticipation of jump scare that you know are going to happen. None of them are surprising and, in fact, I was actually surprised more often when they didn't do the jump scare I though they were setting up. There are plot holes, pointless scenes, and lame dialog, and they still try and play the movie 100% serious. You can't have a movie overflowing with cliches, plot holes, terrible CGI, cheese and goofy scenes and tell us the movie is serious business. They show us the Annabelle doll twice (clearly to set-up its solo series) and expect us to believe that people had kept a doll with blood drawn on and scars carved into its creepy, pale face. They have the Warrens essentially tell us the issue in the house is a demon, but quickly move on to it being a ghost they have to get rid off. Fine, but what about the other ghosts. The youngest child has a new friend that no one else can see (because cliche), what about him? All the other ghosts and such just get pushed aside after they pick their "big bad". The other ones are just momentary distractions that offer a couple of jump scares. They don't even get creative with the jump scares, which is made worse because there is never anything else to be afraid of. The house is old (they do a good job making everything authentic to the time the movie takes place), but it's not particularly creepy. I never had the sense of dread a horror movie is supposed to give you; it only has lazy jump scares. The actors did good and James Wan's directing gives The Conjuring an artistic flair, but the script sucks, the cameramen for the first half were bad, and the rest is lazy.

Baby Blues

All I wanted from Baby Blues is another killer doll movie, whether is be like Chuckie or even Annabelle, but it's not. Baby Blues is about a cursed doll who's power is to curse movies with awful and unnecessary CGI. Seriously, they animate a leaf falling, a guy breaking through a car window, and so many other things that would be much easier and look much better with practical effects. Wouldn't it be so much easier to drop a real leaf instead of animating a terrible looking CGI leaf? This is confusion is the main theme of the movie. Is it supposed to be a comedy? There are objectively stupid and goofy lines and scenes that seem to be attempts at humor shoved between ultra serious ones. The acting is pretty bad, although I guess Raymond Lam is okay, but every character is badly written and motivations make no sense. Characters just kind of do things. Even the characters relationships make no sense. There is a homeless man that lives across the street in a ramshackle shelter, who the male main character calls his uncle, his wife and sister in law seem to have no idea who he is and the male main character certainly doesn't act like that's his uncle. Even the audio is wrong as the dialog often doesn't match the character's mouth movements. Audibly, I can't tell it's ADR, but visually, is clearly doesn't match. The story itself is probably the worst part and everything I've mentioned so far is absolutely terrible. A young couple moves into a new house and the old tenants left behind a single box of random things (just because I guess) and the wife decides to keep a weird looking doll from the box. The trailers and even the back of the Blu-Ray make it seem like the doll is going to run around and kill people like a Good Guy Doll, but instead it kind of just psychically makes bad things happen? Nothing it does is cool or interesting. None of the movie is scary or compelling. Everything is just awful. Could it have been made with the intention of being a "good bad movie"? Sure, maybe, but it isn't; it's just a bad bad movie.

Burning

Burning is one of those movies where you just have to "get it" to fully appreciate it. I don't "get it". What I do understand is that Burning is a beautiful story full of heart and pain with wonderful shot composition and a great performance from Steven Yeun. I feel like I'm missing at least half of the metaphors and symbolism and although I don't mind having to piece together a film afterwards, Burning is pushing it. With the acting, I have the same issue that I have with Train to Busan (another South Korean film), in that I can't exactly tell if I'm seeing bad acting or if that's just how South Koreans are. Yoo Ah-in usually has a vacant look on his face and although there are moments of brilliance, he's mostly just a blank slate saying lines in monotone. Jeon Jong-seo might be as much of an issue with the way her character is written. She plays Shin Hae-mi, who get very little characterization and randomly shoots from energetic story-telling to depression, both of which Jong-seo plays very exaggerated. She isn't even as much a character as a plot device to drag the other two mains along. I can recognize how unique the story is and masterful the directing is, but the plot is just too symbolic for me and the performances (other than Steven Yeun who is perfect) are lacking.

The Crazies

The Crazies is an average outbreak movie with blank slate characters trying to survive in a bland world. A small town in Iowa is shaken when the townsfolk start to become violent and our group wants out. That's about the breadth of the entire story. I love Timothy Olyphant and he does what he can with what he's given, but none of the characters are really characters and none of the story beats are anything other than little pushes to keep the story going. There aren't any fun kills and the gore level isn't enough to raise the entertainment value. The only thing I can credit The Crazies for is not being like every zombie movie (The Crazies isn't a zombie movie, but the comparison is obvious) and keeping the location small. We never have giants waves for crazies running down main street and we don't have to sit through a scene of crazies pushing up against a building's window pounding on the glass. The crazies are smart and still seem to be themselves, just thirsty for a little indiscriminate murder. The last half hour is lame and the ending is eye-roll inducing, but they are serviceable. The Crazies is a painfully average horror movie that is fine way to kill 90 minutes, but it's not creative or thrilling enough for you to remember you even watched it a month later.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

ET is on of those movies that doesn't really transcend time like some of Steven Spielberg's other movies (like Jurassic Park). The story of a young boy who finds an alien who was left behind and has to help him get back home is classic and heart felt, but I feel like tastes and standards have changed too much for ET to hold up over fifteen years later. All of the effects are just terrible. The alien puppets and costumes look awful and there are so many times you can tell the actors are either against a green screen because you can even see a slight white outline around them. The acting isn't really great either. Henry Thomas, who plays the main character Elliot, is bad. Surprisingly, the only time Thomas doesn't do a shit job is when he has to be sad, which is usually where child actors are the worst (Thomas actually was cast because of an audition where he had to improvise an emotional scene reminiscent of a big scene in ET). Drew Barrymore (who is roughly seven here) is so damn cute and isn't overused so her character was easily the highlight. As I said, the actual story of ET has a lot of heart but for 115 minutes, it's lacking punch. There are a few iconic scenes, but it was easy for me to realize why I barely remembered anything about this movie I saw in 1990-something. Very little happens and what does escalates way too fast. It's almost two hours long and we barely get any characterization for any of the characters and nothing ever felt real. We get minor defining details about Elliot, but the rest of the movie is undefined. It's not presented as being from Elliot's point of view, but it feels like it was because we get no science or government information when they are introduced and we instead get extended scenes about Elliot being picked on. I love Science Fiction and Fantasy because I can fully immerse myself and get lost in the world, but ET almost seems designed to prevent that. It's a very kid-friendly and simple story that follows a strict, straight path and never deviates to flesh out the story or explain anything. They had almost two hours to build a world, but instead spent it all on sentimental cheese, which is something I hate. I can't stand "feel good movies" and saccharine, unearned emotional scenes and ET is trying to hit all those notes. In 1982, I could see being awed by the CG highlight scenes (like the iconic flying bicycle scene), but in 2019, they look amateur. Maybe it's the overabundance or Spielberg schmaltz and the bare story or maybe it's a lack of nostalgia for the movie on my part, but ET just didn't really work for me.

Captain Marvel

Putting aside the absolute bastardization of the comics (especially the Skrulls, who have damn near limitless potential), Captain Marvel is still the second worst MCU movie; two hours of bland, poorly acted Girl Power being hammered into your head over and over. Ms. Marvel Carol Danvers was occasionally interesting, but MCU Captain Marvel Carol Danvers is a cardboard cut out that they cart from scene to scene. Here, Brie Larson has zero charisma and is a terrible actress. The only other movie I remember her in was Kong: Skull Island and she wasn't as bad there, but still pretty bad. Ignoring all her extra-curricular bullshit, she is incredibly miscast as Carol Danvers and without anyone to carry her through, the movie flounders. Jude Law is a good actor, but he never really seems to understand his character, which is fair; I didn't understand it either. Captain Marvel is a big fan of telling us and not showing us. We're supposed to buy into Danvers be resilient, but instead of building a character, they show us a montage of Carol getting up off the ground. The writers refuse to let things build and grow and they seem to be totally averse to subtlety. Carol's entire backstory is told through ham-fisted flashbacks, mostly of terrible "Stupid girl, you can't do boy stuff; you're a girl" lines. They literally have a douche bag frat bro say "It's called the cockpit of a reason". They won't even put the effort into building the Girl Power plot, instead constantly forcing in reminders that some guy told her she couldn't do something. Captain Marvel is perfect example of what a Marvel movie can become if it gets "too Disney". It's painfully unfunny, even more so than the very worst "jokes" from Thor: The Dark World or The Incredible Hulk. I see people praising the film being set in the 90's, as if the forced nostalgia would somehow make the movie better? People actually cheer when Carol falls into a Blockbuster. There is a stark difference between how a show like Stranger Things uses the 80's nostalgia and how Captain Marvel does. Nothing here feel natural. It doesn't feel like the time period is at all important; it's just there for sad 35 year-olds to say "Haha! I remember Radio shack; that was a store! Oh man, she's wearing a Nine Inch Nails shirt; that's a band I've heard of!" The only things I can give them credit for are the CGI de-ageing (which is pretty good. I even forgot it was happening after fifteen minutes) and being better than The Incredible Hulk. The only reason to see this film is if you want to see all the MCU movies. You learn nothing important to the universe and if it wasn't part of the MCU, no one would be remotely interested in seeing this movie. Being the first female led Marvel movie does not make it a good movie. You don't get points for doing something first, if you do it wrong. I have a lot more faith in the Black Widow movie (which I guess is still on Disney's docket) because, while I'm not a huge fan of this version of the character, Black Widow is a character; she has actual emotions and Scarlett Johansson can pull off great performances. There is still hope that Marvel can do a solid female solo movie, but Disney probably has too many fingers in the batter for that to happen.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Three Billboards is great movie, but I was definitely left wanting more from the story. All of the acting is perfect (except for all of Woody Harrelson's voice overs which are devoid of emotion) and the cinematography isn't bad. The trailers paint a picture of either trying to solve the mystery behind who killed Frances McDormand's daughter or Frances McDormand Vs the Ebbing Police Department. What we get is a sprinkle of both, but not enough of either. Three Billboards is almost two hours long, but it feels like the fist hour and half are an extended pilot and the last thirty minutes were a hastily drawn conclusion. It was never boring, but I don't feel like I watched two hours worth of story. We mostly get Frances McDormand in grief and anger and a few other side-plots that spin off but are largely unimportant. It's not really about the case. It's not really about the billboards. It's mostly about grief with a few other scenes thrown in. It's unpredictable and defies cliches, but we get so many scenes that just don't matter. I guess I want more focus? I want to see the police pressured into the case or at least get more about why it's gone dormant (we get a bit from Woody, but it's minimal) or I want more anamosity between Frances McDormand and the cops. I love these characters and the underlying story is compelling, but it doesn't play out how I wanted it to. You can probably put most of the blame on the trailers or me expecting a movie to be exactly like the trailers say it will be and you'd probably be right,.