Acrimony

image source

Acrimony is the other Tyler Perry movie that came out this year. It centers on a woman named Melinda Gayle (played by Taraji P. Henson). Much of the movie is framed around Melinda telling her history and story to a court appointed therapist. Of the two Tyler Perry movies, this is clearly the better of the two (even if it’s still bad). Much of this goes to the performance by Taraji P. Henson. This woman sells her emotions, especially anger. The movie truly starts to come to life when she is onscreen. It’s hard because she spends most of the movie’s first act narrating. Now, I don’t want to discredit some of the other performers, especially The Flash’s Danielle Nicolet as Melinda’s best friend Sara. This woman does what she can with her unfortunately limited screen time in the film. One of the things this movie made me realize is that Tyler Perry isn’t just a bad director, he’s also a bad screenwriter. A lot of the movie’s dialogue is clunky exposition. There’s also a lot of examples of telling over showing. In other cases, the constant narration would actually explain the visuals we were seeing onscreen. Like every other Tyler Perry movie, this movie crawls along at a snail’s pace. It is dull and plodding. However, it still moved along much faster for me than Nobody’s Fool did because I didn’t find Acrimony insufferable to sit through One of the things I have also come to realize about Tyler Perry’s movies is that they offer no surprises whatsoever. You know that this movie is a mix of the only two kinds of dramas that Tyler Perry ever seems to make. Sappy erotic films where the husband is going to physically and/or emotionally abusive. The other is movies about women wanting to be empowered and want revenge against the man who torments them. The film’s score is generic. It isn’t awful necessarily. However, it feels emotionally manipulative, like it’s solely there to make you feel something. This movie is split up into parts. I don’t know why. It serves no purpose. It isn’t even remotely necessary. If anything, it actually breaks up the movie’s overall flow, and can actually take you out of the movie. I’ve talked a little bit about the use of narration. There’s actually a bigger issue with how it’s used than just stating the obvious. It is actually incredibly distracting. Overall, for as much as I’ve bagged on Acrimony because I didn’t like it, that doesn’t mean I hated it. The best way to describe this movie is mediocre. 

5 / 10    

Nobody's Fool

image source

Danica (played by Tika Sumpter) is a success-driven woman that is conned by her mother, Lola (played by Whoopi Goldberg) to pick up her sister Tanya (played by Tiffany Haddish) when she gets out of jail. Once Tonya finds out Danica has an online boyfriend she has never met, Tanya sets out to prove Danica is being catfished. This is one of those movies I really wasn’t looking forward to because I am not a fan of director Tyler Perry. Yeah, this film is plagued by all of the problems. I hate all of these characters. They don’t do much of anything besides yell and talk all over each other. To be fair, they talk all over each other less than they did in Boo! A Madea Halloween (the last Tyler Perry movie I saw). The writing is not good. For example, Tanya admits that she has seen the movie Bridesmaids and the TV show Catfish, but doesn’t know what Skype is. To give an example, Skype was first released in 2003, but started getting popular in 2011 (the same year that the movie Bridesmaids was released). Furthermore, the plot has a lot of contrivances. There are points where the movie could have easily ended, but some new plot twist just keeps it going longer than it needs to. It also makes Danica come off as thoroughly unlikable at every occasion possible. The movie was honestly predictable for most of the movie. One of those plot conveniences also ties into my all-time least favorite cliche (the third act misunderstanding). Why does every filmmaker seem to think romantic comedies need this bullshit? The jokes very rarely land. The one point I legitimately thought was funny was a scene between Whoopi Goldberg and Tiffany Haddish. I will be the first person to admit that I am not the audience for most Tyler Perry movies, so take these criticisms with a grain of salt. As much as I don’t particularly like the characters, I will give the performers some props (especially Tiffany Haddish, Omari Hardwick, and Whoopi Goldberg). One of the things that this movie tries to sell is a budding relationship between Danica and Hardwick’s character (named Frank). The problem I have with this is that Frank has a lot more chemistry with Tanya than he does with Danica. A moment of dread came over me once I realized I was only a third of the way through. The guys from Catfish show up, and they play themselves. These two are fine, even if they aren’t the greatest actors in the world. Okay, I won’t sugarcoat this. Nobody’s Fool is one of the most agonizing watches I had for the year, even if I can admit it had its couple shining moments here and there. When it isn’t annoying me, it’s just incredibly dull. I can already say that this movie is guaranteed a spot on my worst of the year list.

2 / 10  

Gotti

image source

Gotti is one of the most haphazardly structured movies of the year so far. It feels like they wanted to do a bunch of different wraparounds, but they couldn’t decide which one they wanted to go with, so they chose to do all of them. The movie literally opens with John Gotti (played John Travolta) talking to the audience House of Cards style. One of the opening lines of the film is something along the lines of: “In this life you either end up in jail or dead. I did both.” As far as I’m concerned, this confusing line set the tone for the mess that was about to come.  From there, it jumps between Gotti as old man (with iffy makeup on) in prison talking to his eldest son and Gotti making his way through the ranks as a middle aged man. Gotti also narrates the movie at random points. The movie also uses new broadcasts as transitions between scenes from time to time. I don’t know why. It doesn’t add anything to the movie, and wouldn’t change anything if it was removed entirely. Most of the blame for these decisions should go to director Kevin Connolly. This movie looks cheap. At no point did I ever think to myself: “this looks like it belongs in theaters.” The movie kind of just crawls along. Even the moments that are supposed to be tense are filmed in such a way that I really could never bring myself to care about anything I was watching onscreen. This movie also glosses over a lot of things. There’s a point where Gotti’s friend Angelo (played by Pruitt Taylor Vince) yells at Gotti’s son. He says: “The proudest moment of your father’s life was watching you graduate from military school.” I just thought: “Wait. What?” The acting in this film is truly awful. Almost everybody speaks with exaggerated accents. It doesn’t feel natural. It feels more like actors saying lines like how a stereotypical gangster might say a line. The one exception to this is Stacy Keach (though even he can’t necessarily make all of his dialogue work). But, the crown for awful acting has to go to John Travolta. It kind of sucks because I know Travolta can be a good actor, and I think he could have done a good job in the role of John Gotti in a much better movie. In all honestly, there are very few things about Gotti that actually work, and I have no intentions of ever watching this movie again in my life. 

1 / 10 

Billionaire Boys Club

image source

Billionaire Boys Club is one of those movies that seemed like it came out at the worst time it possibly could. It’s one of those movies whose release was affected by elements entirely out of its control. The movie was filmed in 2015, and was scheduled to receive a wide release. But, when sexual allegations were made against Kevin Spacey, the film’s release was changed to that of a quiet on demand release alongside a very limited theatrical release. The movie is based on true story. In the 1980s, Joe Hunt and Dean Karney (played by Ansel Elgort and Taron Egerton respectively) start a ponzi scheme that gets them entangled in a series of lies that ultimately leads to dire consequences. This is one of those movies that was seemingly released to seething hatred. It has an 8% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 30 on Metacritic. Don’t get me wrong, this is a bad movie. However, I didn’t find it nearly bad enough to get worked up about. The acting is easily this movie’s greatest strength. It’s actually well-acted. Say what you will about Kevin Spacey as a person, but you can’t deny that the man is a phenomenal actor (and this is really no exception). As far as I’m concerned, Emma Roberts is this movie’s standout. She lends her character some charisma. The directing in the film is sort of standard. Director James Cox shows some semblance of competence behind the camera. The problem is that nothing about it really stands out. Anybody really could have directed it. Everything that has to do with the writing is really where this movie falls apart. The only reason some of these characters can be remotely entertaining is because they are played by actors who clearly have charm and charisma. With the exception Roberts’ character (named Sydney), they are all really unlikable. An argument could be made that this was supposed to be the point. Unfortunately, this movie needed a filmmaker who could specialize in despicable yet charming characters (think Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino). I feel that this leads to my next problem with the movie. It just meanders for a good chunk of its running time. Billionaire Boys Club is one of those movies that had so much potential. It has an interesting story that doesn’t feel like it’s particularly well explored. The movie wastes an all-too talented cast. What we got in the end was a dull, third rate Wolf of Wall Street knock-off. It’s far from the worst thing I’ve ever seen, it’s just middling. 

4 / 10 

Fantastic Beasts : The Crimes of Grindelwald

image source

One year after the events of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Newt Scamander (played by Eddie Redmayne) is tasked with finding Credence (played by Ezra Miller) by Albus Dumbledore (played by Jude Law) before he can be recruited by Gellart Grindelwald (played by Johnny Depp). The acting may just be this movie’s greatest strength. Returning cast members such as Redmayne, Miller, and Dan Fogler once again offer strong performances with solid emotion. These characters have grown and developed. However, it’s the performances by newcomers Jude Law and Johnny Depp that truly stand out to me. Depp as Grindelwald feels like a very different beast from Voldemort. If Voldemort was a Hitler-like figure, Grindelwald feels much more like a Charles Manson-type. He knows how to be persuasive, often acting much more like a charismatic cult figure. Jude Law shows shades of the Dumbledore that we will come to know, but still manages to add his own energy to the role that really cannot and should not be denied. The visual effects are solid, even if they aren’t necessarily the best effects in the franchise. However, in a lot of ways, the movie’s plot is what lets the overall product down a touch. At points, the film feels overstuffed. There are flashbacks used in the film that don’t really feel like they come into the story naturally, and they actually kind of muddle things. There are points where I feel that this movie borders on relying on the easter eggs hinting at the greater Harry Potter universe. It may never truly cross that line, but it does come dangerously close to doing so. Actually, I like a lot of these easter eggs in terms of the story. There are characters in this film who act more as protagonists within the story, especially knowing that particular characters end up in more antagonistic roles later down the line. The film’s ending does have me curious as to what’s to come for the Fantastic Beasts franchise, especially because I don’t know if I necessarily like the twist reveal or not just yet. From a character standpoint, I wish J.K. Rowling (who once again wrote the film’s screenplay) would have given Grindelwald and Dumbledore more to do. The two men who truly stood out just weren’t in the movie nearly enough in my opinion. Overall, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is an interesting movie for me. I think it is the weakest movie in the franchise. But, I also have to wonder if the third Fantastic Beasts film will make me enjoy it a lot more in hindsight. As it is while I watch and review it in the moment, this film is still a fun enough ride, despite its glaring flaws.  

6 / 10  

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

image source

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 is probably my favorite of the Harry Potter franchise. At this point, Harry, Ron, and Hermione must return to Hogwarts in order to destroy the final horcruxes. This is all done as the final battle looms closer and closer. The first thing I want to say is that the pace is fairly quick. It feels like once it starts, it just keeps going. That doesn't mean there aren't any moments to breathe. There are (and they actually help serve the story in most cases). It's probably the most action-oriented film in the franchise. I feel that it is important to note that this is also the most emotional film in the series for a multitude of reasons. On one hand, this looked like it was going to be the end of the Wizarding World franchise. It wasn't easy to say goodbye to these characters I had watched for the past decade. Every actor brings their A-game in this movie (something I would come to expect from this franchise). However, as far as I'm concerned, Alan Rickman is the movie's MVP. Hands down, this has to be the man's best performance as Snape. My favorite scene in the whole movie is the point where we, the audience, learn Snape's motivations. We are given the revelation that Snape truly was a tragic figure the whole time. We understand why he simultaneously hated Harry and tried to protect him throughout the series. Rickman sells every aspect of the character despite his limited screen time. I feel that the movies other standout is Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. As usual, she sells the psychotic villain. But, she really did a good job playing Hermione pretending to be Bellatrix Lestrange. It added a comedic layer to the film that really worked, especially knowing how wrong it easily could have gone. This movie makes a point of saying that Voldemort is more dangerous than ever simply because he's vulnerable. This is easily one of my favorite aspects of the movie. More often than not, the danger of a villain is emphasized when they appear to be invincible. But, because Voldemort is vulnerable, it arguably makes him more unpredictable. I also respect that they were willing to show some of the Hogwarts students die during the Battle of Hogwarts (with the battle taking up a good chunk of the film's running time). Once again, the film is really nice to look at from a visual standpoint. The CGI has a reached a point where I feel that it is at its best in this movie. Overall, Deathly Hallows - Part 2 does a fantastic job wrapping up the series. It answers the questions you wanted answers to, as well as questions you didn't know you wanted answers to, and is the perfect end for the franchise because it feels like a finale.

10 / 10 

Robin Hood

image source

After having seen 2018’s Robin Hood, the first logical conclusion I could come to was that this film should be studied. It’s difficult for me to explain. The best way I can describe this movie is that, at least it’s an interest kind of bad. For starters, all of these actors are trying. This is a talented cast (including the likes of Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx, and Ben Mendelsohn). Even Jamie Dornan isn’t that bad in this movie. It sort of surprised me because I’m used to seeing him act dull and lifeless in the Fifty Shades movies. Mendelsohn is clearly the best part of the movie, even if it does look like he’s just sort of on autopilot. This movie is poorly paced, and horribly edited. I mean it is done to a point where I wasn’t sure what was going on half the time. The attempts to update this movie are laughable. The movie relies on gimmicks that have been old for about five years. For example, the movie has a lot of 300-style slow-mo action scenes. At least, the ones that I could make out were like that. The rest of them were a nauseating, shaky cam-laden mess. The filmmakers don’t really do anything new with these moments. Either way, it feels like more of the same, and kind of leaves me wondering why I should care. Some of the choices they make with the characters were different, to say the least. I think they wanted to make the Sheriff of Nottingham a paranoid xenophobe in addition to the greedy nature of his book counterpart. But, that was done better when the character was played by Alan Rickman. The movie opens with narration, and it serves absolutely no purpose. It’s something you could cut out of the film entirely, and it wouldn’t change the film either way. It’s also that generic “you don’t know the story” narration when a movie wants to show that it’s edgy. There were points where I did find the movie kind of dull. To be fair, there really weren’t that many to me. The big ones were the moments where I had to put up with the stupid love triangle, something that is quickly becoming one of my least favorite cliches. I also got this sense that they wanted to this movie where they made Robin Hood into a superhero. I don’t think the filmmakers realize that that is the basic story of the Green Arrow. Perhaps, the most misguided effort of this film is that it had aspirations to be another cinematic universe, without ever taking into account that Robin Hood is not a character (or world of characters) that this idea was ever going to work with. I almost want to recommend Robin Hood as this sort-of Frankenstein’s Monster of a movie. It’s stitched together by other, better stories and ideas. It just happens to be such a spectacular failure that it almost needs to be seen to be believed. 

2 / 10   

Outlaw King

image source

After the death of his father and an incident following William Wallace's defeat, capture, and execution, Robert the Bruce (played by Chris Pine) rebels against King Edward I (played by Stephen Dillane). His people crown him to be the "king of Scots." However, since Scotland is under English rule, this marks him as an outlaw, hence the title. This leads to a series of battles in order to achieve freedom. First things first, I legitimately enjoyed this movie. But, I will be the first to admit that I can't speak to how historically accurate the movie is. The acting in the film is genuinely good from all parties involved. Chris Pine is excellent in the lead role. He truly sells being a husband, father, and king who is just trying to do right by his people, even when he is told he made the wrong decision by his own council. Florence Pugh is also strong in the film as Robert's wife Elizabeth. She is English, but she willingly supports her husband's decision. I also love the chemistry between Pugh and Pine. The two are stuck together in an arranged marriage. Things are seemingly made more complicated by the fact that Robert has a daughter. But, the two actually come to love each other. The final performer that I truly feel deserves praise (and the man I feel is truly the standout performer of the movie) is Aaron Taylor-Johnson as James Douglas. In the beginning, he attempts to pledge loyalty to King Edward in an attempt to return dignity to his name. When this fails, he pledges his loyalty to the Bruce. Seeing this man go from broken low-life to a hardened warrior is excellent. Part of what I feel helps with these three characters (and performances) is that they have the most depth to them. The battle sequences are amazing as well. The cinematography (another legitimate highlight of the film) is a huge help. There's this incredible style that gives the battle scenes something of an epic scope and feel to them. The opening scene is an excellent one-take shot. Or, at the very least, it is filmed so seamlessly that it looks that way. On the other hand, there are some legitimate problems with this movie. As great as the battle sequences are, they have their moments where they lean a little too heavily on shaky cam for my tastes. Near the beginning of the film, I was worried about the time leaps. I wasn't sure that the filmmakers had a good grasp on the passage of time. However, I was able to get over this very quickly. While I feel that Robert, James, and Elizabeth were well developed, I don't think there was particularly strong development given to any of the rest of the characters. There were times where people died, and I just couldn't bring myself to care. Overall, Outlaw King worked as a solid film, despite its noticeable rough patches. 

6 / 10 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

image source

I feel like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 is arguably the most divisive movie of the original Potter franchise. Hardcore Potterheads (myself included) seem to like it. But, more casual fans and non-fans seem to see it more as meandering and dull. Honestly, I like this movie a lot. I also don't mind the slower pace. The reason for this is because they still have some legitimately good action moments in the movie. It also works for me because it allows our heroes to have some breathing room, and actually forces them to deal with all of the real world consequences that hunting for the remaining horcruxes would offer. Granted, I'll admit the dancing scene may have been a little too much. The beginning sets up the kind of movie you're going to get pretty well. This is arguably the most mature Potter movie. The consequences are clear, and they are actually bigger than any past movies in the franchise. For one thing, this movie actually has a body count, even going so far as to kill off one of the series' more established characters. The climax of this movie takes place at Malfoy manner, and it might be my favorite part of the movie. For one thing, Helena Bonham Carter hamming it up as Bellatrix Lestrange will always be enjoyable to watch for me. But, it's not just her. The acting on everyone's part is strong once again. It also helps seeing and knowing that the three leads have had years to really grow into the roles they play. This is the one film I can think of where it actually makes sense from a storytelling standpoint to do the whole "split the last book into two movies" thing. The book is somewhere between 700 and 800 pages, and there was a lot that really needed to be wrapped up. However, I will also be fair and admit that it doesn't feel like a complete story (even if it really isn't supposed to be a complete story). Do they add things into the movie that maybe don't need to be there? Yes, but in a way they still make sense to me. The big thing is the projection of a fake Harry and Hermione kissing. It made sense to me from a storytelling standpoint. The horcrux was trying to protect itself, and was also trying to feed into Ron's own anger, fear, and insecurity. As per usual, the visual effects and production design are awesome (even if the later movies seem to lack the warm feel the look of the early movies gave you). I don't think this is the greatest Harry Potter movie, nor do I consider it my personal favorite. However, it is still a damn good movie in my opinion.

9 / 10 

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

image source

During Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, he begins having secret meetings with Dumbledore. The two are doing this to discover secrets about Voldemort as preparation for the all-too-close final battle. The first thing that stuck out to me about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is that you really still can feel Voldemort's presence even he though he never appears in the movie. The movie also really builds on Harry and Dumbledore's relationship. I really buy that Dumbledore acts as Harry's mentor, and this is the film where you start seeing the endgame coming into sight. I like how this movie really fleshes out Malfoy as a character. Up to this point in the franchise, he hasn't really acted as much more than a bully. Now, he's just a couple of years from being done with Hogwarts and has a chance at being a death eater, and is given a task that he actually seems conflicted about. It's also effective from a story standpoint because we're given hints about this task, but we're never outright told until the end of the movie. I like this because it makes him a villain with dimension to him. Jim Broadbent appears in another bit of perfect casting as professor Slughorn. As is the case with most of the franchise, the movie's visual effects are legitimately on point. The scene in the cave is probably the best in the movie. It's the first time we really see a vulnerable side to typically stoic Dumbledore, and it's the first time we're given legitimate hints to Dumbledore's backstory beyond being the only wizard Voldemort has ever feared. The battle at the end is kind of nice. I will admit that it did leave me wanting a touch more, but it didn't bother me too much because it's the start of the real stakes that are yet to come. At points, this movie might come across as dull, especially for non-Harry Potter fans. The truth is I don't mind it because I know what's yet to come in Harry Potter's story. One of the things about this movie that does make me think is that I do have to wonder if I can look past some of this movie's flaws just because I have the full context of Harry's story. There are a couple of problems I have with the movie because they are things that I didn't particularly love in the book itself. Namely, the idea of the half-blood prince actually doesn't have much context in terms of the actual plot. Yes, I know who the half-blood price is. However, much of this is used for Harry to cheat in potions class. Personally, I would have gone with something that ties a little more into Voldemort and his secrets. However, to be fair, that is a minor issue for me, a nitpick at best. Overall, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a solid entry into the Harry Potter franchise, even if I don't necessarily think it is the best movie in the series.

8 / 10     

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

image source

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a western anthology film from the minds of the Coen Brothers. The tales that this movie covers include a singing cowboy named Buster Scruggs (played by Tim Blake Nelson) who just so happens to be the fastest gunslinger in the west, a cowboy played by James Franco whose attempt to rob a bank goes very wrong, a story about two traveling companions played by Liam Neeson and Harry Melling (better known as Dudley from Harry Potter), a prospector played by Tom Waits digging for gold, a woman named Alice who sets out for Oregon with her brother and is possibly intent on getting married, and a story about five strangers riding in a stagecoach together. For those who don’t know, I am a fan of the Coen Brothers. I’ve enjoyed practically all of their films that I have seen, including the likes of Hail, Caesar, O Brother Where Art Thou, and the remake of True Grit. I even liked their much-maligned Ladykillers remake. These are two talented filmmakers with their own unique style. I bring all of this up because even I didn’t really know what to make of this film. In many ways, I found this movie legitimately difficult to get through. The first major problem I have is that I don’t think this movie needs to be two hours and ten minutes long. This feels especially true when you consider that the first three of the six stories in this film cover roughly the first third of the movie. Some these stories do feel like they have fat on them that probably could have been trimmed down a touch. I wouldn’t mind some the pauses in the film if it had been one continuous story, but in my eyes, they feel unnecessary here. This feels especially true of the story entitled The Gal Who Got Rattled. It is the longest story in the movie, and  Don’t get me wrong, there is good stuff in this movie. Some of the performances work (primarily those of Liam Neeson, Harry Melling, and Tom Waits). On the other hand, James Franco’s performance in the film didn’t work for me. I actually like the guy as an actor, but he’s just not the guy you think of when you want someone who’s supposed to play a cowboy. I also found the first story, which is the film’s title story, to be annoying. This was largely due to Tim Blake Nelson’s performance, another actor I normally like in anything he’s in. I get what they were trying to do, but it just didn’t work for me. The film also looks nice, especially when you get some fantastic landscape shots in the film. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to like The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, at the very least. Ultimately, this is just one of those movies that I didn’t really agree wit the critics on.

4 / 10