Search this site

I'm genuinely torn on this one. It's gotten a lot of love, and I didn't connect with it the way most people seem to. There were plenty of funny moments, and it leans into a weirdness that's usually right up my alley, so it's not the tone that lost me — it's the characters, who felt a little too over-the-top for their own good. Seth Rogen playing a stoner was never a surprise; it's basically been his default mode for three decades now, and while that's not a knock on him, I think a different casting choice might've served the role better. The last 20 minutes were pretty funny. "Joe and Angela's marriage is on thin ice. When their upstairs neighbors visit for a dinner party, the night spirals into unexpected places. Have they reignited the spark or lit the match that burns it all down?"

The acting and cinematography in these early-'70s films still shocks me every time. There's a long-running debate over which of the first two Godfather films is better, and I tend to side with originals in any series, so it's no surprise the first one edges this out for me, mostly because I found Michael's rise more captivating. That said, this is still a phenomenal film. The dual timeline works: young Vito's rise in 1917 Hell's Kitchen, played by Robert De Niro, is the highlight for me, and Pacino delivers another strong performance as Michael. What really stood out here, though, was the supporting cast — they felt even more elevated than in the first film. "The compelling sequel to "The Godfather," contrasting the life of Corleone father and son. Traces the problems of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in 1958 and that of a young immigrant Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) in 1917's Hell's Kitchen. Michael survives many misfortunes and Vito is introduced to a life of crime.)

Everyone's shocked when I say I hadn't seen this series yet, I guess I was just waiting for the right moment to finally dive in, and I'm glad I did. From beginning to end, the acting is unreal. Pacino and Brando are both easily 10/10, carrying every scene with a stillness and intensity that doesn't feel like acting at all. The way it's shot gives it an almost documentary quality at times, which pulls you deeper into the family's world rather than distancing you from it. The character arcs are the real standout here, the shifts from good to bad, the slow unraveling and rebuilding of loyalties, all feel earned rather than rushed. It's the kind of slow-burn character study that films like Goodfellas would later riff on, though this one set the template. What surprised me most is how little it's aged; for a film from 1972, it doesn't feel dated in the slightest — the great ones really do hold up forever. I'm already looking forward to the second one. "Widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, this mob drama, based on Mario Puzo's novel of the same name, focuses on the powerful Italian-American crime family of Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando). When the don's youngest son, Michael (Al Pacino), reluctantly joins the Mafia, he becomes involved in the inevitable cycle of violence and betrayal. Although Michael tries to maintain a normal relationship with his wife, Kay (Diane Keaton), he is drawn deeper into the family business."

Going into Michael, I had seen a mix of great reviews and terrible ones, so I wasn't sure what to expect. After watching it, I came away thinking it was an above-average biopic. The biggest strength of the film is the performance portraying Michael Jackson. It captures his presence well, and the musical sequences are easily the highlight of the movie. Those moments are entertaining, well done, and make up a large part of what makes the film enjoyable. My biggest issue is that the story covers such a large span of Michael Jackson's life that it skips over a lot of important moments. The film focuses heavily on his relationship with his father, but there was so much more to his life and career that could have been explored. Because of that, the movie feels very surface-level at times, leaving a number of interesting details unexplained. Overall, I think Michael does a good job as an entertaining musical biopic, even if it doesn't dive as deeply into its subject as I would have liked. "The story of pop superstar Michael Jackson -- from his extraordinary early days in the Jackson 5 to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fuels a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world."

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is a well-produced sequel that clearly leans into the nostalgia of the original, and I think that will go a long way for fans. Seeing these characters again is enjoyable, and the production quality is solid throughout. That said, I thought it was an above-average movie, but nothing particularly special. While it was entertaining enough, it didn't really do anything that stood out or made me feel it was a necessary follow-up. I could have done without it, but at the same time, it doesn't take anything away from the original film. "Miranda Priestly struggles against Emily Charlton, her former assistant turned rival executive, as they compete for advertising revenue amid declining print media, while Miranda nears retirement."

Thief is a 1981 film that had its moments and featured a solid overall plot. James Caan delivers a strong performance, and the story does a good job of keeping you invested as it unfolds. That said, you can definitely feel the film's age. The acting style and filmmaking techniques feel noticeably outdated by today's standards, which made it a little harder for me to fully get into at times. While I can appreciate it as a classic, I don't think it completely lived up to the reputation it has built over the years. Overall, it's still a solid crime drama that's worth watching, especially if you're a fan of older heist and crime films. "A highly skilled jewel thief, Frank (James Caan) longs to leave his dangerous trade and settle down with his girlfriend, Jessie (Tuesday Weld). Eager to make one last big score in order to begin living a legitimate life, Frank reluctantly associates with Leo (Robert Prosky), a powerful gangster. Unfortunately for Frank, Leo wants to keep him in his employ, resulting in a tense showdown when he finally tries to give up his criminal activities once and for all."

This 1991 film surprised me with just how much I enjoyed it. I'm always a fan of stories that use the older character looking back on their life through flashbacks, and I think older films often handled that storytelling style especially well. This movie is a great example of why that format works. The performances are excellent across the board. Kathy Bates is wonderful as Evelyn Couch, while Mary Stuart Masterson brings plenty of charm and energy to Idgie. The story is engaging from beginning to end, balancing heartfelt drama with memorable characters and meaningful themes. As the past and present intertwine, the film never loses its impact, and each flashback adds something worthwhile to the overall journey. Overall, Fried Green Tomatoes is simply a well-made film with strong acting and a solid story."On one of trapped housewife Evelyn Couch's (Kathy Bates) Wednesday nursing home visits, she encounters Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy), a colorful old woman who brightens Evelyn's outlook by sharing tales from her past. As Ninny recounts the exploits of her free-spirited sister-in-law Idgie (Mary Stuart Masterson), owner of a small Alabama café in the 1920s, and the bond Idgie shared with her friend Ruth (Mary-Louise Parker), Evelyn gains the confidence to change her own life for the better."

It seems like almost every action movie these days earns strong reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, making those scores harder to trust. Lately, Letterboxd has become my go-to source for movie ratings, and even its 3/5 average for this one feels a little generous. I found the acting to be atrocious, which made it difficult to stay invested from start to finish. While the overall storyline is serviceable, several of the characters are so over-the-top that it's hard to take them seriously. It reminded me of Mortal Kombat in the sense that it feels geared more toward a middle school audience than viewers looking for a more engaging fantasy action film. "The Sword of Power leads Prince Adam back to Eternia, a world shattered under the fiendish rule of Skeletor. Joining forces with Teela and Man-At-Arms, Adam must embrace his true destiny as He-Man -- the most powerful man in the universe."

It's hard to make a genuinely funny comedy these days, and this is another example of one that falls short. The acting is intentionally over-the-top, which could have worked if the movie had fully embraced its ridiculous premise. Instead, it gets stuck somewhere in the middle, never committing to being an outrageous comedy in the style of a classic Will Ferrell film while also trying to inject more serious elements. If it had leaned further in either direction—fully absurd or more grounded—it could have been a serviceable comedy. As it stands, it never quite finds the right balance, leaving the humor feeling inconsistent and the overall experience forgettable."Desperate to save a struggling country club and earn his father's respect, a washed-up tennis pro is compelled to break a sacred vow and do the unthinkable: play pickleball."

I made it about 25 minutes before giving up and skipping straight to the ending just to see how it wrapped up. I almost never do that, but the acting was simply too weak to keep me invested. The fight scenes were decent enough, but everything surrounding them felt flat. The dialogue and performances made it difficult to take the story seriously, and the film seems clearly aimed at a younger audience. It feels like the kind of action movie parents might be comfortable letting their middle school-aged kids watch, rather than something designed for longtime fans looking for a more engaging experience."Johnny Cage joins other fighters in the ultimate, no-holds-barred battle to defeat the dark rule of Shao Kahn, a powerful tyrant who threatens the very existence of the Earthrealm and its defenders."

Cool Hand Luke (1967), starring Paul Newman, is widely regarded as a classic, and I can understand why. I'm sure the story and its themes felt fresh and innovative when it was released. The film itself has aged surprisingly well from a technical standpoint. The cinematography and overall production quality still hold up today. Unfortunately, the story didn't quite live up to my expectations, especially considering its outstanding Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd scores. That said, I still think it's worth watching. With so much praise surrounding the film, it's one of those classics that's worth experiencing for yourself to see whether you agree with the overwhelming acclaim or end up feeling more like I did. "When petty criminal Luke Jackson (Paul Newman) is sentenced to two years in a Florida prison farm, he doesn't play by the rules of either the sadistic warden (Strother Martin) or the yard's resident heavy, Dragline (George Kennedy), who ends up admiring the new guy's unbreakable will. Luke's bravado, even in the face of repeated stints in the prison's dreaded solitary confinement cell, "the box," make him a rebel hero to his fellow convicts and a thorn in the side of the prison officers."

Steven Spielberg is one of those directors where I'll watch anything he makes, but this one left me with mixed feelings. From a production standpoint, the film is excellent. It looks fantastic, and Spielberg's direction is as polished as ever. The acting was also great. The issue for me was the execution. The first half builds a lot of suspense without offering enough answers, but it also isn't engaging enough to make that mystery consistently compelling. I found myself waiting for the story to really take off. Thankfully, the final 30 minutes deliver. The ending is sharp, satisfying, and ties everything together in a way that made the slower build feel more worthwhile. Overall, I still enjoyed the film, but I think you'll get much more out of it if you're a fan of science fiction. If sci-fi isn't your genre, the slow pacing may be harder to overlook. "A meteorologist and a cybersecurity expert find themselves at the centre of a movement to expose the government's cover-up of extraterrestrial secrets."