Moving right along on my journey through Clint Eastwood-directed films, this one is unsurprisingly a Western... something I thought the last movie was going to be, but wasn’t. As someone not very well-versed in Western cinema, I was definitely looking forward to the first Western Eastwood directed, as well as starred in. This movie has something of a fantastic, kind of weird, kind of mysterious premise as this stranger wanders into this old town. Nobody knows anything about him other than the fact that he is... dangerous. Not someone you wanna mess with, and he uses his power over this town as leverage. They want him to protect them, and he agrees to do that only if they first do a bunch of bizarre things for him first.

He legitimately kind of messes with this town. He makes them turn the little short guy into both the mayor and sheriff. He forces a guy to tear down his own barn to help build picnic tables. He makes them literally paint the town red. He’s a weird dude, but he’s such a manipulator, too. And the whole thing revolves around an unspoken act that happened in the town prior to his arrival there. Explaining much more than that would... well... spoil you. Yes, even half a century after its release, there are things that I could spoil.

I think there’s a reason why Eastwood played in so many spaghetti Westerns. He just has a way about him that is just so hard to explain. He’s imposing, and he looks darn good as a cowboy standing in the middle of a ghost town in the Old West. It’s not the only thing he can do, as proven in a million other films, but it’s just what he feels born to play. He does a pretty solid job as The Stranger, but I would argue this film is less about this character as much as it is about the mystery that surrounds this town and, overall, the reason he wound up there in the first place. It was by no mistake. He didn’t just drift in, as the title might like you to think.

But it is a weird film overall. His manipulation of the town is great, yes, but the things he makes them do... I just don’t fully understand the point of it all. I get the overall reason for the manipulation, but I don’t understand the smaller tasks. Those are the moments in the film that feel random and feel like it’s just doing things to pad the runtime. As if the writers asked themselves... what other random thing can this guy do to these people? I wouldn’t have been very surprised if he forced them to run around town in matching Easter Bunny outfits. There just wasn’t very much rhyme or reason behind the actions.

Technically, I think the movie looks pretty great; it feels authentically like what I expect a Western from the ‘70s to feel like. However, I’d be remiss not to say in general... I’m only fine with it. I didn’t love the movie. I didn’t hate it. I think out of all 40 or so movies that he’s directed... this will ultimately be a film that gets left in the dust of the desert it takes place in. It does have a pretty strong premise that makes you kinda, sorta wanna watch the whole thing at least one more time to catch any and all Easter eggs in the film. But even so, I don’t see myself watching it a second time.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 34/50 or 68%

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 28/50 or 56%

• Total Combined Score: 62/100 or 62% (or 3/5 on Letterboxd)

I’m starting off a brand-new filmography marathon, this time with Clint Eastwood’s directed films. I’m not diving into his acting filmography, at least not yet. Though, obviously, he likes to direct himself in a lot of his movies, so there is that. This is Eastwood’s directorial debut, and what a film it is. Apparently, he had the chops to direct right from the get-go. I was expecting a western this early in his career, but no... we have a tense psychological thriller that I honestly believe a lot of people are going to connect and relate with, especially if you’ve ever had an abusive relationship or a stalker.

Now, movies centered around stalkers have been around forever. Some of the best films out there on stalkers I’ve technically yet to see, but know enough about... like Single White Female, for instance. But for 1971, this is actually a very early stalker movie that plays out relatively modern, and it’s not your typical stalker fare, either. The two of them kick things off with a one-night stand, and you don’t always get that with stalkers in other films. Often, stalkers watch from afar before slowly becoming more dangerous. Because in this scenario, you have this woman who is obsessed with this radio host... which, I suppose that bit is normal... but after their one-night stand, she gets this idea in the back of her head that they’re already in a relationship... even though she agrees it’s a no-strings-attached thing.

I feel like this part specifically is going to speak to people. More than once, I’ve run into people who believe in “friends with benefits,” but are quick to get entangled and catch feelings anyway... and things get to be dramatic. Not necessarily to this film’s level, but similar.

Personally, I am a big fan of the slow burn of this film. You know almost from the get-go that something is wrong with this woman, who seems to have some severe insecurities which blossom into a nightmare by the end of the film. She just gets to be crazier and crazier, and Jessica Walter... who I know later in life as Lucille Bluth in Arrested Development... does such a remarkable job as a psycho. In fact, if we’re being honest, this movie came out 7 years before Halloween with Michael Myers... and this might be a hot take, but she is far scarier than Michael Myers, especially in that first movie. Jessica Walter as Evelyn really does get to be violent, and you see her violent rage. You see what she does, and that was one of my complaints about Halloween... in that slasher movie starring Michael Myers, you never see anything happen. It’s all basically off-screen and implied, and I figured that’s just because of what was allowed and what wasn’t... but apparently not! Evelyn in this movie is unhinged, terrifying, and kinda realistic. More than once I had to ask myself... is this movie about my ex? Yes, really.

However, when it comes right down to it, narratively... as with a lot of other directorial debuts... it’s an overall simplistic plot with not a ton of character development. You have a simple, moderate local celebrity and you have a psychotic woman. When this film came out, filmmakers weren’t so interested in providing the villain of the story with an extensive background or development where you actually care about who they are psychologically and how they got to that point. I would have to say the same goes here about Evelyn. I think the movie would have been better if it kind of broke down why she is the way she is... make us care about her, but also feel torn because she’s still psychotic. She’s still a terrible human being and should be stopped at all costs... but understanding a character on a deeper level makes things that much better. Even Eastwood’s character is rather flat. He’s just a DJ. He’s Eastwood, so you’re not going to complain that much about it. I feel like a lot of his roles are going to be exactly that, but I don’t know that much about him other than him being a DJ who runs into a psycho girl. I know he has an ex that he’s trying to make things right with... but past that, who he is as a person... I don’t know much about. And the rest of the movie plays out similarly. It’s just a guy and a psycho girl who is obsessed with him and slowly becoming more and more unhinged while he tries to deal with it. They kissed. They kept it simple, stupid.

Technically, I don’t see so much of a director’s flair or vision. It is a competently put-together film, which is a good thing. Sometimes a director’s first effort behind a camera doesn’t come off as well as you might expect. However, this is a solid effort, a very tense, engaging thriller that is performed adequately, and I consider it to be rewatchable.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 37/50 or 74%

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 39/50 or 78%

• Combined Overall Total Score: 76/100 or 76% (4/5 on Letterboxd)

Subscribe now

52-WEEK MOVIE CHALLENGE #7 - A FILM ABOUT AN INFAMOUS GANGSTER

Over the years, I’ve come to be known as the guy with a huge number of hot takes about movies, but none of them are usually as pronounced as my distaste for mobster films in general. One of my biggest hot takes was that I was once known as the only guy who hates The Godfather, and that’s honestly a stretch. I don’t hate the film, but I certainly don’t like it... and to some, that equates to hate. I can look at The Godfather and recognize its technical brilliance. A lot of the things it does feel very much like a masterpiece to me: the musical score, the cinematography, the performances, production design, wardrobe choices, and practical effects. That film is memorable in a lot of areas that I downright admire, but I just don’t like it because I don’t like mobsters. There are a grand total of two mafia-type movies I’ve enjoyed in my life that I can think of: Road to Perdition and the most hated of the trilogy, The Godfather Part III. The reason why has a lot more to do with morality, character development, and purpose. Most mafia films kind of feel aimless to me, and The Godfather is the biggest example. It spans many years, and never has a great transition to remind people we jumped as many years as we did. The Irishman did something similar, and I hated The Irishman. I had never seen Goodfellas until now because of my distaste for the genre. I’ve also never seen Scarface or Public Enemies. The list goes on. I don’t think it’s impossible for me to like one, I just think I’m insanely picky. However, I had heard Goodfellas is a masterpiece going in. I also heard some people preferred The Godfather while others preferred this. That was probably the most compelling argument. I was very interested in seeing which movie I personally preferred... and the answer isn’t really that easy.

What I personally hated about The Godfather, this film fixed tenfold, primarily in the narrative structure... but what I loved about The Godfather was entirely missing from this film. I really don’t think Goodfellas has the sweeping grandiose cinematography or epic score of The Godfather or anything like that. It doesn’t FEEL like a masterpiece in the same way, but I did like the structure because this was following a story I could understand. Nobody had thick Italian accents. The politics were a lot clearer and more understandable, and because of that, the characters were automatically a lot more relatable and realistic in my eyes.

Yet, the problem I ended up having with the film is the same problem I have with most mafia films. Nothing really happens. I mean, a lot happens, don’t get me wrong, but in terms of character development, this character played by Ray Liotta learns practically nothing in the two-and-a-half-hour runtime. It doesn’t need a happy ending, I couldn’t care less about that. However, I do like character development. I like goal-oriented storytelling, I like obstacles... because otherwise, it feels aimless to me. I get that it’s based on a true story and that’s a big part of it, but it really did feel like a random collection of events that happen in the movie... with a crap ton of narration. Have I explained yet how much I don’t like narration? Sometimes it works. Sometimes it’s too much, and in Goodfellas it was nonstop. My wife heard me watching the movie, didn’t know what it was, and was like, “Whatever you’re watching sounds like the most boring thing in the world.”

I sound like I’m crapping on the movie, and I’m really not. I think in general, the movie is made well enough. The performances are all pretty good, and the casting is even better. I like the casting in this film far more than the casting in The Godfather. I think the politics and paranoia of living in an organized crime family were depicted a lot better here. Joe Pesci is downright insane and unpredictable. Love him here. De Niro actually feels like a tough guy for once. I grew up watching him in funnier roles like Meet the Parents where they more or less make fun of his tough guy persona. Here, it was legit. There are long one-take shots that are impressive, along with some visual effects during some of the killings that were pretty darn solid.

I don’t actually hate this movie. It is just unfortunately among a million other mafia films that I just don’t like. My end score is actually pretty good for me, all things considered.

• Unbiased/Technical Score - 33/50 or 66%

• Biased/Entertainment Score - 33/50 or 66%

• Total Combined Score - 66/100 or 66%

Leave a comment

I think it’s safe to say no matter who you are, in one way or another, we’ve all grown up with Steven Spielberg because he’s just... been around forever. The man is a master, and while not every single film of his is perfect, even some of his worst stuff is still technically pretty good compared to people who are, well, NOT Steven Spielberg. As much as I’d love to sit here and tell you everything the man means to me, this ranking is bound to be long enough as is as I go through every last Spielberg movie out there and rank them from worst to best. Fair warning, there will be some hot takes in this list that people will disagree pretty heavily with, and that’s okay. We all have different tastes, but I think we can all collectively celebrate Spielberg as a whole.

35. 1941 (1979) - 27%

This 1979 film is pretty rough all around. It’s a mess and the only real comedy Spielberg ever made. Apart from the first scene where Spielberg makes fun of his own movie, Jaws, alongside John Williams making fun of his own soundtrack and the actress making fun of her own skinny dipping scene... the rest of the movie is all over the place, unfunny, and just misses the mark entirely. Funny enough, every single comment on my YouTube video covering 1941 was actually sticking up for it, making me think my opinion, and apparently the rest of the world’s opinion, might actually be wrong.

34. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) - 51%

I know a lot of people look at this movie with a soft spot, and there are indeed moments that I think are memorable, absolutely. It’s just when it comes down to being an Indy film, it feels like a parody... George Lucas clearly got his hands dirty with unneeded CGI moments. The swinging on the vines, the nuking of the fridge, and the alien story just feel like missed potential. I feel like my score for this movie would have been significantly higher if it wasn’t called Indiana Jones.

33. The Adventures of Tintin (2011) - 60%

Originally, Spielberg wanted this to be live-action, but was convinced otherwise by Peter Jackson, who said you will not be able to do it justice without it being animated. Over the years, even when Spielberg is only a producer, I’ve learned you don’t veto ideas that Spielberg has. They are usually better than yours, including you, Peter Jackson. This film would have benefited from a live-action retelling, as I feel like the animation here only really works if you’re already familiar with the source material and can appreciate it... plus it sometimes looks weird. The story is fine, the treasure hunting stuff is fine, but I just didn’t care much past that.

32. The Fabelmans (2022) - 62%

This is going to be the first hot take of the ranking. A lot of people hold this film in high regard, and I do understand why. When I split the score between my unbiased and biased scores, you can see that. My unbiased technical score was 41 out of 50, or 82%, because it IS a well-made, well-rounded film with great performances and a decent coming-of-age narrative. It’s my biased score, or entertainment score, that dragged that down. My biased score ended up being 21 out of 50, or 42%, because a lot of the movie just didn’t interest me all that much, and entertainment value is very big with film. So, when the two scores come together, that’s how you get the 62%. It is what it is.

31. THE BFG (2016) - 62%

Even though I gave this and The Fabelmans the same exact end score, the biased score, or the entertainment score, was slightly higher for The BFG, while I think The Fabelmans is technically made better. But with a tie, the entertainment score always beats the technical because it’s what you’d rather watch between the two... but that doesn’t make this movie very good. The BFG is a story I grew up with and loved to death, but the adaptation is... not really that interesting. People call it live-action, but it’s like 80% animation and the narrative does almost nothing for 70% of the thing. Some call it boring and I kinda have to agree, and the girl is annoying.

30. Lincoln (2012) - 63%

If ever you wanted to see a movie that is the golden standard of Oscar bait, it would be this film... a film that is technically VERY well done, and very much deserving of its Oscar win, but also endlessly boring in the same breath. Guys, my technical score for the film was 44 out of 50, 88%. That’s SOLID... but my biased score was 19 out of 50 because I just couldn’t care. Seriously great performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, who disappears in his role, but this is literally the movie I always use as an example of why my rubric is important, and why entertainment matters at the end of the day. You can have the best movie ever made, a technical masterpiece, but if nobody cares, then nobody cares.

29. Bridge of Spies (2015) - 64%

This section of Spielberg movies are all very similar in that when you watch them, you can tell they were all graced with Spielberg’s masterful eye and are put together with such grace and beauty... but they all kind of feel similar in the fact that they are... well... boring. I do prefer Bridge of Spies over the last couple of films because there’s a courtroom drama aspect of the film, which I’m biased for and love when stuff like that happens, and the real Cold War spy stuff was indeed intriguing, but it’s still a film that’s met with a groan from me whenever I hear I should probably rewatch it.

28. The Sugarland Express (1974) - 67%

Spielberg considers this his true directorial debut. It was actually his second film overall, but the first released theatrically. This movie is fine. There’s nothing outlandishly terrible about it. It’s a true story about a woman that defies all logic by kidnapping a cop in order to get to her child who is about to be taken away into the foster system. My main issue with the film comes down to how... normal it is. This is a film that not only was directed by Spielberg, but also had the first collaboration with John Williams... but... you can’t really tell. For the most part, I can’t sense Spielberg’s work here, nor can I sense Williams’ score. It’s just an average movie.

27. Disclosure Day (2026) - 67%

I found this film to be one of his better and more entertaining films of the last decade for him, but it’s hard to compare it to everything else he’s ever done and not see how weak it is compared to his classic alien films. It just doesn’t compare and feels more average than it probably should.

26. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) - 68%

This movie is often compared to The Last Jedi of the Star Wars films, in that a lot of people either seem to love it or hate it. While I don’t hate it, it’s definitely nowhere near the first and third Indy films. Short Round is annoying, and the narrative doesn’t seem very similar to what I personally expect out of Indiana Jones. It’s fine, it has some really fantastic moments overall, but it’s not my Indiana Jones.

25. Empire of the Sun (1987) - 70%

Another movie I’d mostly consider fine, but it has a lot of fantastic visuals, particularly the fact that it focuses on a boy in the middle of war, going from place to place after being separated from his parents, and everywhere he goes, he ends up bringing a little bit of joy to everyone he meets. Along the way, there are these shots of this little child next to something much bigger and imposing, something that could technically kill him, like a soldier on a hill, or a plane, as he aspires to be a pilot one day. Not a bad film, but not one I need to revisit.

24. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) - 71%

This movie I remember watching as a kid and loving, but I think the most memorable aspect of it was always the final fifteen minutes or so, which wasn’t even really Jurassic Park, but rather Godzilla... just with a T-Rex roaming around California. Fun scene, and I will admit having Jeff Goldblum as the star of this film was a nice add. However, the film lacks significant logic between characters, the narrative has a weak foundation, and the girl defeating the raptor by using her gymnastics skills feels like a precursor to Shia LaBeouf swinging on vines in Crystal Skull... it’s just a weird movie. Spielberg himself said he felt like he made a silent film with this movie. Instead of music, you just get a lot of dinos roaring and little else: little substance, little character development, and he was right. Still a fun movie in a certain light.

23. War Horse (2011) - 72%

This film feels kind of, sort of, like Empire of the Sun, only instead of a child going from place to place in the middle of war, you have a horse. I personally prefer War Horse as it does a better job of unifying and humanizing all of the players of war. This is something Spielberg is actually really good at in multiple films. In War Horse, this horse ends up going from one side to the other in war, and everybody treats the horse the same, because horses don’t have a political affiliation. They don’t have a country to call home technically, so when the enemy sees a horse, they don’t think enemy. They see a majestic creature that they can comfort and love, and this horse becomes a unifying element of the film that shows we all bleed the same, and war, well... sucks. For everyone. I did like that about the movie, but let’s be honest... it’s a horse movie... and it can get a little boring sometimes.

22. Duel (1971) - 72%

Duel is Spielberg’s first true film. It is his directorial debut, no matter how he personally feels about it. It was made for TV and is ultimately about a killer semi-truck. This movie is great. It’s a lot of fun, and very clearly a blueprint for what we would later see in Jaws. There are visual storytelling tricks Spielberg uses to emphasize fear, anxiety, and claustrophobia, all while clearly showcasing this truck as a terrifying monster. It’s great. The only reason why it’s not higher on the list is because it’s also a bit empty and shallow. The characters are relatively empty, there isn’t much character development, and the story is pretty repetitive, which knocks down the overall score at the end of the day.

21. JAWS (1975) - 77%

This is going to be a massive hot take, probably the biggest of the ranking. Alright, hear me out. I’ve always had a bias against movies that take place in and around the water. Sometimes they can impress me, but for whatever reason, a lot of them... I don’t care for. Jaws is no different. It’s still a great film. It’s still probably the best shark movie in existence, but I am not as allured with the story as everyone else seems to be. Also... what is up with that one guy’s thick accent that nobody can understand?

20. Always (1989) - 80%

Apparently, this is a movie that some refer to as “bad” Spielberg. I do not agree. Now, I don’t exactly have the best excuse to enjoy Always other than to say this is one of those random movies my mother recorded on VHS and I grew up enjoying the idea of a ghost of Richard Dreyfuss whispering into the ear of a young pilot and convincing him to do certain things. It’s a film I have a fondness and warm place in my heart for, but sure, it’s not exactly top-tier Spielberg. It’s not Top 10 and its barely even Top 20, but I do like this movie for what it’s worth. It’s got heart.

19. The Post (2017) - 83%

In terms of true story Spielberg movies, this is certainly one of the more surprising entries on the list, which I only saw for the first time this year. It tells the story of the Pentagon Papers that were leaked to the press, exposing the fact that we were in the Vietnam War for, eh, no reason... and we stayed there for as long as we did to save face because the US are sore losers. It’s a fascinating journalistic thriller that tells the precursor story to the Watergate scandal that would break not too long after by the same newspaper and journalists. It’s a solid film all around, but still not exactly the example I give out for what makes Spielberg... Spielberg.

18. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) - 84%

This is a movie that I think a lot of people are split on. Some love it, some hate it, but it’s certainly an interesting entry that plays out like a tragic, dark fairy tale of a boy seeking to become a real boy, not unlike Pinocchio, in order to gain his mother’s love, who is just incapable of loving a machine. The film plays out lighthearted at times, through the perspective of a child, with innocence and awe and wonder, in the middle of an ugly world filled with contempt, hatred, and vile, despicable people. If you haven’t seen it, it’s one I definitely suggest you check out.

17. The Terminal (2004) - 84%

This scored the same as A.I., but out of the two, this is the one I definitely prefer to watch. It was one of my earliest physical media purchases when I was younger and I remember playing it a lot. You have Tom Hanks, who finds his new home in an airport terminal when the war breaking out in the real world strips him of a home to return to. It’s light. It’s funny. It’s charming. Tom Hanks does a very good accent. The characters have great chemistry, and the soundtrack actually stands out as pretty darn memorable. I personally love The Terminal. Actually... from this point on, I love every movie on this list.

16. Ready Player One (2018) - 86%

I really like this movie because of the sheer amount of pop culture references and IP in the film. It’s legitimately impressive. There are so many things going on in this film that even if you paused it and played it frame by frame, I’m pretty sure you’d still miss something. There are hundreds of pop culture references throughout the film and it really felt like the screenwriting was in love with those references, honoring them instead of just using them for fan service. This was based off of a book by Ernest Cline which I did read, as well as the sequel book, by the way. This is a fun movie.

15. Munich (2005) - 87%

If you’ve seen the movie September 5, then you are already familiar with what Munich is about, as they are both about the same thing: the terrorist attack at the Summer Olympics. This film is about the aftermath, where a group of assassins were tasked with tracking down and eliminating those terrorists. This... happened in real life. But what Spielberg is able to do, once again, is humanize both sides and ask multiple questions about humanity and morality: if what they’re doing was the right thing or not, or if it’s mostly decided with emotion rather than intellect. It’s a great, tense thriller and is easily one of Spielberg’s better films.

14. Amistad (1997) - 88%

Amistad was a story centering on African slaves that were apprehended and taken through a ruthless court trial where Americans had to either prove or disprove the slaves as legal or illegal property. It’s a pretty different kind of legal drama, but it was a good example of how the rich use their money and influence to be absolutely trash, garbage human beings.

13. Minority Report (2002) - 88%

Definitely one of my favorite Spielberg films all around. This is a movie I’ve seen many times over. Along with The Terminal, this was another one of the earliest films I ever bought on physical media. It’s a strong Tom Cruise individual film on its own, with a very unique narrative that is written extremely well from start to finish. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s an endlessly entertaining one.

12. War of the Worlds (2005) - 88%

Tom Cruise’s other Spielberg film, back to back with the same score if you believe it or not... but ultimately the movie I prefer out of all three 88%-scored films. It’s just a great, thrilling, scary at times alien film. It looks great, the pacing is wild, and it’s the best iteration of the story that I’ve personally seen. It’s just an iconic film and once again, one of Tom Cruise’s best standalone films.

11. Catch Me If You Can (2002) - 91%

This film is yet another one of the physical media movies I bought when I was younger. I guess I was just really into this era of Spielberg, but this is the craziest true story ever told, crazier still to learn it’s all made up and not actually a true story... but that doesn’t stop it from being a really great, well-put-together, exciting, funny, thrilling, sexy at times drama. I love the music here, and the performances from DiCaprio and Hanks. It’s just a diamond of a film.

On to the TOP 10

10. The Color Purple (1985) - 91%

This movie is a masterpiece, it really is. It’s emotional, it has weight. It was nominated for 11 awards at the Oscars, and it was unheard of, but won absolutely none of them. Talk about snubbed. Whoopi Goldberg puts on a performance of her life, and I definitely got misty-eyed a few times on this one. It’s a solid film.

9. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) - 92%

I think a lot of people can agree that Raiders and The Last Crusade are very worthy films that deserve to be in the Top 10, but the two are often interchangeable as to which one is better than the last. I do love this movie, especially the final part of the film, and of course Indy’s relationship with Sean Connery.

8. Hook (1991) - 92%

From what I understand, this might actually be a hot take. It blew my mind only a couple months ago when I first heard this isn’t supposed to be considered a good movie. I just can’t fathom why. Hook is the embodiment of who I was as a child: someone who didn’t want to grow up. But instead of it being a cartoon, which we all knew was fun, but fake... Robin Williams as an adult Peter Pan was just unique enough, and fun enough, and brought just enough magic and wonder and awe to the screen, as well as the soundtrack... that I just can’t dislike it. This movie is literal magic.

7. West Side Story (2021) - 93%

I’m as surprised as you are. Look, there’s just something so lively and engaging about West Side Story. Spielberg was able to take something so beloved and respected and pay tribute to it in a way no other filmmaker would be able to other than Spielberg. Not only did the set designs, costumes, hair and makeup, and the way the camera moved match the look and vibe of authentic 60s films, but the music was on point, the singing was perfect, and the dance choreography was out of this world. It is very easily one of Spielberg’s best.

6. Jurassic Park (1993) - 94%

Please, I beg of you to remember, most movies on this entire list are rated on average 9 out of 10. So is Jurassic Park. Just because it’s not number one on my list doesn’t mean I don’t love it. I do. I adore Jurassic Park. This is the golden standard of dinosaur cinema. The excitement, the score, the visuals, the magnetic chemistry between the heroes. It is everything you want out of a Spielberg movie and more.

5. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - 94%

Here we are with the final Spielberg-directed Indiana Jones movie on the list, the OG. This is pretty much as perfect of an adventure film as you can get. Indiana Jones is one of the most iconic film characters of all time, and the story of tracking down the biblical Ark of the Covenant is so unique, so original, and so much fun.

4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) - 95%

Spielberg is no stranger to alien films and even TV series. It’s one of his best expertise in film. E.T. is such a fantastic family film specifically, a perfect blend of lighthearted, comedic, cute moments as well as dark, somber, and even scary moments that kids will appreciate for the rest of their lives.

3. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - 96%

Once again, we are dealing with Spielberg’s obsession with what is found beyond the veil of outer space with what I consider to be the golden standard of alien films. This is what everyone has been trying to emulate for decades and never ever really succeeded with.

2. Saving Private Ryan (1998) - 97%

This film is undoubtedly the best war film I’ve ever seen. Period. It’s hard to watch. It’s brutal. It’s realistic. Gritty. Raw, and honest. It shows the worst parts of war alongside some of the best displays of humanity that separate us... from them. It shows how we are willing to risk 8 soldiers for 1 man. It’s a beautiful, destructive piece of art and film.

1. Schindler’s List (1993) - 98%

This is definitively the best Spielberg movie ever made, period. I don’t care if it’s hard to watch. Rewatchability is only one factor in a film. That doesn’t change how relevant and important this film is to both art and history. It’s less of a film and more of a special look into the past. A horrific but integral reminder of where we once were, and are always possible of returning to if we aren’t careful. But in true Spielberg fashion, it’s also a delicate balance between the atrocities you can hardly watch through the fingers on your face... and how powerful humanity can be, and how much of a difference one person can make. Truthfully, I couldn’t care less what the rest of my list looks like from 2 to 35. Just because Spielberg is as good of a filmmaker as he is. But nothing beats Schindler’s List.

Alright guys. That’s it. That’s the list. Leave your thoughts in the comments down below on how you rank these films.

This is the second time that I watched the movie, and I’ll be honest, it was never a film that I was in love with or cared to see again, and there are a few reasons for that. For the most part, I was never really a Mario guy. Growing up, I was much more into Sega, whether that be Genesis, Game Gear, Saturn, or Dreamcast. I had it all, and Sonic was my guy. So, you better believe when they came out with all of those Sonic films and a TV series that I was gung-ho to watch those. Especially because it also had my guy in there, Jim Carrey. Mario? He’s alright. I’ve played some of the games, but it was never my go-to. That being said, I think it’s a character that deserved his own movie... especially after whatever the heck the 1993 film was. For that reason, I do believe this film has everything that you want out of a Super Mario Bros. film or even a Nintendo property.

Overall, you have to at the very least admit the film looks great. The animation is smooth, and the color palette is vibrant. The sheer amount of recognizable characters, inside jokes, locations, nods to certain games, and in general, Nintendo IP, is out of this world. The film literally has everything you could ever want from a Mario movie crammed into a 90-minute runtime as possible... minus Yoshi. You got the Mario Kart stuff in there, the Donkey Kong stuff, Luigi’s Mansion... the list goes on. There are well over 100 shout-outs and Easter eggs to Mario... stuff, which on one hand is really cool, and on the other hand... is very clearly weak writing.

Look, I ended up saying something extremely similar the first time I reviewed this, but it seemed to me that what was more important to them while making this film was fitting in those moments of Mario property rather than telling a good story. Instead, the story was secondary. They seemed to ask themselves: Now that we have all of this Mario property, characters, locations, and ideas crammed into one film, what kind of story do we want to tell that makes sense with it all? And so they just kinda threw in a random story to connect those dots... and you can tell. In that sense, narratively, the film is a little bit of a mess.

Then again, it’s also a kids’ film... and I have to take that into consideration. Kids aren’t going to care all that much for a film to have a good story. More often than not, you’re going to have kids that want to see all of the shout-outs and Easter eggs. They’re going to want to point to the screen and say, “I understand that reference!” Even certain adults that grew up with the games as they came out are going to appreciate those nods. I’m not going to look past that. That’s all important. But I guess I was always going to take issue with it as a Sega guy.

One thing I wanted to mention is the cast. I remember distinctly sighing and rolling my eyes at Chris Pratt being cast as Mario. I had felt it in my bones that that was a poor choice because, at the time, he was being cast in literally everything. I was pretty sure that if he was to say “It’s-a me, Mario,” that he would say it as... “It’s... uh... me... Mario.” I heard it in my head. But his voice acting isn’t bad in this movie. No, it’s not all high-pitched and goofy as you expect from a Mario voice, but it’s also not straight Chris Pratt either. He’s got some Brooklyn in there, and he does do the real high-pitched stuff too as his commercial voice... which, he does a great job with both variations of the voice. I’m glad he did the original Mario voice as well, because I think it’s easy to tell that it would be really annoying to have to listen to that for 90 minutes. So, even though I’m still not convinced he was necessarily the best choice for Mario, I think he does the best with the character that he could, and it was never anything that bothered me.

Charlie Day as Luigi... again, kind of the same thing. I love Charlie Day. I think he does fine as Luigi, but in my opinion, it’s a role that could be filled by anyone. Same as Anya Taylor-Joy as Peach and Keegan-Michael Key as Toad. These are famous actors. They are cast because they’re famous actors. Jack Black as Bowser... I did like. That one, for whatever reason... makes the most sense out of all of them, and I can’t really picture anyone else in the role.

• Unbiased / Technical Score: 39/50 (78%)

• Biased / Entertainment Score: 35/50 (70%)

• Total Overall Score: 74/100 (74%) or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd

“The real hotel is literally a time capsule... It makes sense why they would choose this hotel for a story about time travel.”

The reason I chose to re-watch this film is because recently, I chaperoned for one of my son’s field trips to none other than the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, where this film was primarily shot.

I’d seen the film years ago, of course, and the hotel in particular stood out as one of the biggest and most impressive hotels out there. The balcony itself is the longest in the world, and as soon as I turned on the film, I was impressed to see just how identical it was nearly 50 years ago as it is today. It makes sense why they would choose this hotel for a story about time travel because the real deal is literally a time capsule. It is on an island that bans motor vehicles, so you have to get there on a ferry and then you travel either by walking, riding bikes, or getting driven around by a horse carriage... exactly as you see in the movie.

Fun Fact - The Walking Escorts: The production was granted special permission to bring a few essential motorized vehicles onto the island to haul heavy camera equipment. However, the city enforced a strict rule: the trucks were absolutely not allowed to move any faster than a human could walk. To guarantee compliance, a crew member was legally required to walk directly in front of each vehicle at all times.

And all of the rooms Christopher Reeve walks into in the movie were rooms I did as well... other than the actual guest rooms, obviously. Same wallpaper, carpets, color schemes, and drapes. He ate in the same dining room I did and sat on the same croquet field I did. It was unreal experiencing that hotel in real life because it’s easily one of the most recognizable and memorable hotels and island experiences I’ve ever had... but how is it as a movie?

Honestly, I’ve always admired this film for its approach to time travel. Not only is this the most non-sci-fi time travel film that has ever existed, but it was really unique in its approach... saying our perception of time and reality is adjustable by meditation and sheer willpower. He just has to lie down and believe he’s back in time... and he is. I love that. I love that so much that I used the premise for a quick scene in my brothers’ and my movie Buck and Drake - Buck to the Future. It’s played off as more of a joke, but I’ve always loved that idea and it’s never really been done again since.

The romance is also very strong. It is said from Jane Seymour herself that on set, she and Christopher Reeve truly fell in love for real. What you see on screen... it was all real, and I do believe that. Though, narratively, if we were to be fully honest, Christopher Reeve’s character is insane and kinda stalkery to go through these lengths after getting obsessed with a picture of a woman. In fact, both his character and hers are relatively weak characters because once they are in each other’s lives, nothing else matters. Nothing. They aren’t sustainable people without the other person. I understand that that’s romantic, but... from a writing perspective, it’s often considered weak and underdeveloped character writing.

Also, I’m mixed on Jane Seymour’s controlling manager. I get the point of him. I get that he’s trying to control her every action because that’s good for business, but the man is literally a mustache-twirling villain. That’s what he looks like, that’s what he sounds like, and that’s what he acts like. I don’t think his character was all that necessary.

What I can’t avoid mentioning, however, is how this film is arguably Christopher Reeve’s most popular non-Superman role and film. I can’t think of many things he’s done in his career other than Superman, this, and the remake of Rear Window. His career eludes me, but people do know of this film.

Obviously, you don’t need to have the personal experience of the hotel to enjoy this movie, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t constantly pointing at the screen saying, “I know that, I was there!” about a hundred times, annoying everyone around me. I had forgotten how much the hotel and all the surrounding elements were used in the movie.

• Unbiased / Technical Score: 41/50 (82%)

• Biased / Entertainment Score: 43/50 (86%)

• Total Combined Score: 84/100 (84% or 4/5 on Letterboxd)

If you’ve been following my reviews for a little over a year, you would have realized that I’ve been going through and covering each and every single Steven Spielberg film on my channel in preparation to see his newest film, Disclosure Day. Now, in terms of anticipation, this was a movie that was definitely up there for me. For the last decade or so, the idea of watching a Spielberg film has been kind of a mixed bag. While there are a few winners, a lot of them tend to be stuffy, Oscar-bait type of films. Movies that, sure, are made extremely well... it is Spielberg, after all... but the magic, the wonder, the awe... I’ve been missing that from Spielberg for a very long time. I didn’t really know what I would find with Disclosure Day... but I did know Spielberg was going back to his roots... back to the aliens... and if there was one subgenre that he’s known for that’s almost always a winner... it’s science fiction and aliens. From Close Encounters to E.T. to War of the Worlds and his mini-series in 2002, Taken. So many of these are gold standards of what I think of when I think Spielberg in general, but really, it’s also what I think of when I think alien cinema. In 2026, he is back. We got more alien stuff... during a time it couldn’t be more relevant, with the current administration literally disclosing UFO footage and paperwork from decades past... so... does it live up to the hype?

I want to say yes. I want to say Spielberg is back, baby... but as strange as this sounds... Disclosure Day doesn’t feel like Spielberg’s typical DNA. There’s something about it that feels absurdly average... like something a lot of other directors could pull off similarly. With Spielberg’s biggest hits, you know nobody could pull off a lot of what he’s done in the past other than him. Both in style and directing, and even choices he makes as a producer. Disclosure Day just feels like another random alien-themed blockbuster that, granted, is made pretty darn well overall and has a few great ideas in there, but I really... truly don’t know what it is about the film. Is the magic gone? Is that what it is? Where a lot of what he’s done with alien films in the past have had this... unspoken level of magic and awe... is it just gone here?

Is the story simply too predictable overall and nothing new? I wish I could tell you for sure what it was... However, I guess it’s probably important enough to tell you the film isn’t bad, and it’s nothing I watched and had a horrible experience with. The movie is good. It’s interesting more than anything else. It has some pretty great, grounded performances from a strong cast that, granted... I also don’t think the casting choices were necessarily the right ones. Like, Colin Firth as the bad guy... weird choice. Even Emily Blunt as the meteorologist... she looks the part, but I didn’t fully believe her character the entire time. But who they got for these roles did an okay job overall. Nothing stood out as horrific or anything.

The main draw of the film is how all of these characters play a vital role into the overall narrative of the film. What is going on. Why is this happening. Why is this day of disclosure happening now... and all of these characters are individually going through things in their own personal lives that, as the film progresses, start to intertwine. This is when you find what their purpose is in the disclosure. This, hands down, is the most interesting and original aspect of the film. I won’t go into what makes each of their characters special, but trust me when I say they’re all unique in a very specific way. Without each of them doing their own thing to help with the progression of the story, the story doesn’t happen. So, I did like this aspect of the film.

Pacing-wise, I think it’s a well-crafted film that more or less swims by with ease. It has a few action set pieces that are a lot of fun. Some, even, that are funny. I can easily say that in terms of Spielberg’s latest decade in his career, this is one of his better, more entertaining films, but out of his entire filmography, it has to be the weakest of the alien films. I wish there was something more unique and special about it, but again, I can’t put my finger on what it is in this film, but nothing surprised me. Actually no, one thing surprised me. In a world where we are just oversaturated with fake videos being produced by AI, a ton of which we can’t always immediately accept as fact... I don’t know what these people are thinking they’re going to accomplish. In today’s day and age, if anybody plans to leak aliens to the press, complete with video footage proof... I just can’t see everybody accepting it. I see a lot of people saying “AI slop.” People are quick to be disbelieving, especially in today’s day and age... so the fact that nobody in this movie questioned what they were looking at... bothers me. It doesn’t reflect reality right now.

Overall, I can say I’m a little disappointed in the movie, but it could have been a lot worse. So let’s count our blessings and talk end score.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 35/50 (70%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 32/50 (64%)

• Total Combined Score: 67/100 (67% or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd)

I chose this film as the next part of my 52-Week Movie Challenge under the prompt for Week #6: A Romance Centered Around Food/Cooking.

As I’m sure we’ve all heard before, some of the most classic clichés out there combine romance with food:

• “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.”

• “Love at first bite.”

• “Sugar, spice, and everything nice.”

• “They’re the peanut butter to my jelly.”

All the way back to that classic Lady and the Tramp spaghetti kiss scene... it’s a thing. So, to see it as this week’s prompt wasn’t that crazy, but it really stumped me. I couldn’t think of many movies that fit the bill.

So, upon doing my research, the film that I decided on ended up being between two movies. In one corner, we had Chocolat, a film that is said to prefer the romance bit about it over the food. It’s an award winner and one I’d never seen before. However, I thought it was probably more important to talk about a film that prefers the food over the romance, and that is how I wound up with No Reservations... where the kitchen is a huge part of the movie.

Though, to be absolutely honest... the film I probably should have watched was undoubtedly Chocolat.

That’s not meant to be a dig on the movie at all. No Reservations is one of those movies you watch and end up enjoying it for what it is... but it’s nothing that reinvents the wheel or is unpredictable. This is typical 2007 rom-dram flair stuff, filled to the brim with stereotypes and tropes that we’ve seen... a lot.

Zeta-Jones, of course, is an actress that I think a lot of people enjoy watching. She does a pretty good job here. I also really like Aaron Eckhart. He’s a charismatic guy; I wish we saw him in more movies. The two of them do decent while sharing the screen. Abigail Breslin as the niece... her story is the most compelling compared to the romance, as it’s dealing with grief. Now... the sister passing away at the beginning of the movie and Zeta-Jones suddenly forced to be a guardian... while it is tacky, overdone, and cliché... I did like this. Whenever it hit those notes of grief and mourning... the film had a lot of heart and emotion, and I felt it, and more importantly, I cared.

Unfortunately, even though it was kind of the point, I found myself not caring so much about the food part of the narrative. I feel like this is partially due to recency bias and other shows featuring kitchen nightmares with emotional baggage, such as The Bear... which obviously... is far superior to No Reservations when it came to making food an interesting plot device. Thankfully, the chemistry between the two leads is strong enough to entertain and keep audiences invested long enough not to hate it, but it never truly crosses the threshold of something to love, either.

This is a date night movie through and through. It doesn’t offer enough for me to care to rewatch it or recommend it to others. It’s adequate for what it was attempting to do. Overall, I’d mostly just kinda call it safe. Safe performances, safe concept, safe technical areas like cinematography, editing, and writing. Everything feels... just so safe.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 31/50 (62%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 31/50 (62%)

• Total Combined Score: 62/100 (62%) | 3/5 on Letterboxd

Out of all six movies I’ve watched for the 52-Week Movie Challenge, this film is currently in dead last place in the ranking.

So, the podcast that I’m a producer and editor on is covering the Mario films—primarily the two animated films—and decided to throw in the live-action version for good measure. And what a decision it was. I have seen this movie once before, which for most people is enough times. It’s just an overly weird film and often regarded as about as polar opposite as a video game adaptation can get from the original source. But I would technically argue: how are you supposed to do a live-action Mario? Those games didn’t have much of a story or lore or anything. They had bright, colorful characters that bounced on turtles and traveled via pipes... and even Nintendo themselves have confirmed that his trade skill is indeed plumbing. So to make him a plumber makes sense, and to have this character randomly find himself in a strange alternate dimension of... just fever dream crap... it’s about as Mario as Mario can be in my opinion, if it were converted to live action.

Now, the story of what happened behind the scenes is arguably more interesting than the movie itself. Originally, the first draft of the script was something Nintendo loved. It was light, it was fairytale-esque, and they bought the rights right away. Then the directing duo of Rocky and Annabel came in. They... actually hated that script that Nintendo loved. So they immediately threw it in the garbage. Instead of that, they wanted to come in with something deeper, darker, serious in tone, and even with touches of horror. They wanted hard PG-13 to light R. They wanted something in the vein of Blade Runner or something... but then the studio heads found out what was going on. And they freaked out, and tensions were high on set. The studio forced them to do rewrites. They wanted more goofy things—more lighthearted stuff that families can enjoy overall. And so they did rewrite it.

They rewrote the script to Mario... every single day. So you had Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo... they stopped trying to memorize their lines because by lunchtime, they would have new and different lines. They started drinking between takes to get them through the headache of the production, and Hoskins has later on gone on to explain how deeply upset he was at the whole thing, calling the entire project, essentially, the biggest mistake of his life.

The entire movie is just the weirdest, most bizarre film out there. You have human villains that you’re supposed to believe are evolved from dinosaurs, and these humans hate the humans in Brooklyn because they’re evolved from apes... and to rule both, he needs a shard of a meteorite or something. It’s a very odd duck of a narrative, and then you see he has the power to evolve or devolve people further to help realize his vision. You have Dennis freaking Hopper as Koopa. I don’t know what to call this movie other than weird. I can’t even call it bad, because I actually don’t think it IS bad. It’s just weird.

Narratively, it has a very typical, run-of-the-mill fetch mission where Mario and Luigi have to do one thing, then go to another place to grab something else, and then complete another mission before they can do what they came for... very video game logic. You have Mario and Luigi literally wearing the iconic costumes of the video game and they look so stupid, but I’d have to argue that is... sort of... part of the charm. If they looked good, it wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the movie, which is... like I said, a fever dream.

The illogic of the film really only works because the insanity of its existence allows it to. This movie is a prime example of something that is just... it’s so bad that it’s good. Even when you’re looking at what’s technically going on behind the scenes, there’s a lot of work going on with costume and makeup, with practical set designs and worldbuilding. The musical soundtrack by Silvestri is actually pretty strong. The cast of characters specifically—whether you like them or not, whether you think they were performed or adapted very well or not—is beside the point. They are all pretty memorable, and you’d be able to pick them out in other movies or TV shows, individually as well as in a group. I actually think on a lot of different technical areas, the film fumbled its way accidentally into being kinda decent. It is one of the only movies I can think of that is accidentally fun... when everything about it shouts it’s a horrible movie.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 40/50 or 80%

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 34/50 or 68%

• Overall Total Score: 74/100 or 74% (or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd)

I have absolutely no room to say anything or make the comparison myself, because I’ve never seen it... but doesn’t this film’s concept feel like a serious version of Sharknado? Instead of a tornado tossing sharks into a town, you have a hurricane? I think, in general, the more appropriate and accurate comparison would undoubtedly be Crawl. That was also a serious disaster movie that flooded streets and homes, except it had alligators show up instead of sharks... and honestly, I really liked Crawl. So, ultimately, what I was hoping for with Thrash was a good, tense shark film. Did I get that? Kinda, but not really.

This is a film where, for the most part, what you expect is what you get... which is a basic shark thriller. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not the best shark thriller out there, and it’s certainly not the worst either. It’s got some fair performances, as well as some really strong set designs with the standing water in the town. The sharks don’t look terrible either, and narratively, you’re following around two groups of people who are both stranded in their homes. They’re basically playing “the floor is lava” and standing on furniture to avoid the sharks swimming in the houses, and as the floodwater rises, so does the threat itself.

To humanize the characters and make you care about them in general, you have a very pregnant woman who is about to pop. Obviously, labor carries a lot of blood, which naturally attracts sharks. Her main speed bump to getting out of there is this other woman who suffers from agoraphobia, who would rather stay in her house and drown than leave for safety. And look, I understand agoraphobia. I am prone to it myself if I don’t force myself to leave the house every now and again, but if your house is being swallowed by flooding and sharks, the agoraphobic argument isn’t very strong.

In general, this is a film that I think works well enough for what it was going for, but it doesn’t really offer the audience all that much more to chew on than... shark terror. The human characters do have depth to a degree, but not a ton of it. It really just jumps—or rather, dives head-first—into the terror of it all and lets the characters do their thing, try to survive, etc. The film just tries to have a good time and suck the audience into feeling afraid of sharks in general. Despite being a film featuring a ton of water, Thrash ends up being as shallow as a kiddie pool, and hence, there’s really not much more to discuss about the movie in terms of a reason why you should watch it.

Thrash is definitely much more in the vein of a “watch if you have nothing else to do” movie. Put it on while you’re doing chores if you need background noise, because this is one of those films where you can miss a good chunk of it, come back an hour later, and really... narratively... you won’t be missing much. It’s not a terrible film or anything. It doesn’t strike you as, “God, I have to turn this off.” It has moments that are good, and like I said, the set designs are pretty solid and the performances are strong enough. It’s fair. It’s just nothing spectacular.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 28/50 (56%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 26/50 (52%)

• Total Combined Score: 54/100 (54% or 2.5/5 on Letterboxd)

I chose this as the next part of my 52-Week Movie Challenge, under the prompt for week 5: A 1995 Film Starring Angela Bassett. You know, this challenge has been pretty specific in the past. I thought the first week was overly precise by having me pick a Susan Sarandon film that was released in the ‘90s, but this week? I had to choose a movie specifically from 1995 that also starred Angela Bassett? Are you kidding me? I went into this thinking there couldn’t be more than two, and there are. There are four movies she starred in this year. That’s a huge accomplishment for one person.

None of the choices available were movies I’d seen in the past, so I had my pick of the litter. There was even an Eddie Murphy as a vampire film I nearly chose... however, when I searched Angela Bassett on IMDb, before I even went into her profile, IMDb lists one title next to her name, which I assume is her most popular, or famous, or something... and needless to say, Strange Days is the one title next to her name on IMDb, which so happened to be 1995. On IMDb, it’s also the highest-rated 1995 film of hers as well... so I knew I had my movie.

Now, the first thing you should know about Strange Days is that it is purely 1990s cyberpunk neo-noir, straight up. It has that look and vibe, and hence... it’s a bit aged and a bit cheesy here and there. Now, cyberpunk isn’t really my go-to genre, since it can feel a bit... odd overall, but I also can’t help but feel they are extremely unique in the same breath. Personally, I think they work best when there’s no definitive year that it takes place, because that’s what ages these things the most. For Strange Days, it takes place just before the year 2000, which is crazy because that’s only five years after its original release date. The writers thought it was realistic to say in five years, we would have tech that could record memories and experiences? I don’t know. All I know is they should have kept the year out of it and just said... in the near future.

Narratively, what I liked about this film is that it kind of reminded me of Minority Report. Not in solving a murder mystery through precognition, but rather solving a murder mystery through a different type of futuristic tech that kind of deals with supernatural sight as well.

Real quick, though. Since the prompt for this week was ultimately about an Angela Bassett film, I have to say... her importance in this movie is not a ton. I think intrinsically, her character is the audience. She’s the grounding, realistic, normal person in a sea of these... cyberpunk crazies. She doesn’t want anything to do with the futuristic tech. She helps make logical decisions throughout the movie... so in that sense, I would say her role is important, and she actually won a Saturn Award for Best Actress for her role here, but most of the film is indeed focusing in on Ralph Fiennes as he tracks down what happened with this murder victim, all while being taunted by the murderer who clearly feels invulnerable. That mystery is definitely unpredictable for the most part, too. I think the writing of the film is a lot of fun and pretty smart overall.

There’s some technical achievements in this film that I think are important to note. First of all, the story came from James Cameron, who also technically edited parts of the movie as well as being integral for inventing yet another device and tech, specifically for the first-person POV shot stuff. The film would later be recognized as prophetic for VR specifically... and while this tech specifically was never used again for any other movie, later tech that made things quite a bit easier was naturally available, like GoPro stuff that they used for Hardcore Henry. Also, the first 15 minutes of the film is a one-take, including a stuntman that literally jumps between buildings without a harness or safety wire. I feel like that’s an overlooked thing these days, but that’s kind of insane, especially for 1995.

Overall, this is an interesting movie. I appreciate it for the high-octane premise and murder mystery. I like that there are all of these moving parts that you might not be able to separate right from the get-go. I think certain things about it are definitely aged. Overall, I think it’s unpredictable, but maybe certain things about it are easier to guess than others. I think the cyberpunk-ness of it does work to an extent, but it’s also a product of its time and cheesy. Though, being mid-’90s, I feel like that was inescapable. Overall... I’m glad I saw it. I don’t necessarily think of it as something I’d recommend, but it wouldn’t hurt.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 38/50 or 76%

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 36/50 or 72%

• Overall Score: 74/100 or 74% or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd

Out of the 5 movies I’ve seen so far on this challenge, I have it at 4th place.

Day four of GenreBlast Film Festival 2026 is here! While I haven’t been able to check out every single release this year, the films I have seen have all been diverse in quality, creativity, and overall experience.

One of the titles I was probably most interested to check out was a little film called Still Ohio for a couple of reasons. The premise felt time-loop adjacent, which of course is one of my favorite subgenres out there. Beyond that, I was reminded of something my kids once told me while we were on our own road trip through Ohio. They were under the absolute belief that if you drove through Ohio, you’d get stuck... like you wouldn’t be able to leave, and you would literally be stuck in an infinite loop. Turns out this was a huge viral thing that I’d never heard of before. I remember looking back at my kids and asking them, “What are you even talking about?” Now, here we have a literal film playing out that exact premise! My kids would be thrilled.

Instead of the film playing out like a traditional time loop, as I half-expected, Still Ohio feels much more in line with something out of The Twilight Zone. Written and directed by Kaylin Allshouse and starring Fernanda Lopez as Ana, this indie horror-thriller follows a college girl trying to fix her relationship on a road trip, only to end up stuck in a creepy spatial loop. The group runs into a gas station, and then when they leave, they drive past the same rotting deer carcass before driving right back to that exact same gas station over and over throughout the runtime. Every time they walk into the station, the building itself rots more and more. Vegetation begins to grow through the aisles, the bathrooms get dirtier, and the patrons become increasingly agitated and violent. It’s actually crazy. What it reminded me of was a road trip to hell where the road itself was purgatory. So, while the road may have been looping, the degradation was completely linear. That was a really cool touch.

Let’s not forget that, as usual with most of these GenreBlast films, the budget for Still Ohio was likely pretty low. However, they were one of the smartest filmmaking teams this year when it came to balancing their budget. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: lower-budget projects can benefit deeply from a time-loop or time-loop-adjacent structure. They really only have two or three locations to shoot at over and over again... this gas station, the dead carcass, and random stretches of road. That’s it! They redress the gas station setup continuously to make it appear as though time has passed, and it works extremely well.

The production and set design in Still Ohio were very impressive for what they were able to accomplish with so little. The performances were really strong overall, and the group’s chemistry together was consistently on point. I even liked the mystery at the heart of the film regarding one of the mirrors in the gas station and how it somehow has mystical properties of its own.

At the heart of the story, I want to say this entire thing functions as an allegory for a couple of deeper messages... like how being in the wrong relationship can cause you to make really poor decisions and spiral. I will say the ending feels as though it thinks it’s smarter than it is... and maybe it is! Maybe it’s brilliant, but the ending certainly lost me a little bit as it tied up all of the loose ends. The allegory, if that’s what it really was, could have used maybe an extra scene or two to drive everything home.

Overall, I had high hopes for this one, and for the most part, it was a good time! I don’t know if it’s too early to crown this as the best film I’ll watch at GenreBlast 2026 or not, but as of right now, it’s my favorite that I’ve seen.

• Unbiased / Technical Score: 37/50 (74%)

• Biased / Entertainment Score: 41/50 (82%)

• Total Combined Score: 78/100 (78% or 4/5 on Letterboxd)

We are onto day three of the 2026 GenreBlast Film Festival! Sunshine Girls is the first feature film to play today, and if you’re into science fiction or dystopic nearby-future storylines that make you think a little bit, this one’s for you... and it’s a bit of a trippy one.

It makes zero sense. I’m going to say that right off the bat; it makes absolute zero sense, even if you’re high on all the drugs simultaneously. But believe me when I say... it believes in itself. It has a ton of confidence, and I feel like the fictional science behind the script makes a lot more sense to the writer and director of the film, Madeleine Hicks, than it does to me or anyone else.

Like I said, as well, it does make you think. It has some very clear, on-the-nose references to dissatisfaction, especially on how some people try their whole lives to have children and can’t, while there are others that can easily do so and choose not to... and how that’s just not a fair trade-off.

I personally feel as though there should have been more power plays here, though. You’re talking about a potential end-of-the-world event where we know we can save the planet with the help of women, and yet pretty much everything the women do in the film is voluntary. I would have expected a lot more strings being pulled by men in the film... you know, men deciding what women should do with their bodies. That would have been extremely relevant, but there’s also barely any men in the movie at all. There are a few things in the film that remind me of titles like The Island with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, but just not enough. Instead, the film attempts to play its hand with a romantic subplot between two of the girls at the clinic... and it’s a fine romance. I don’t hate it. The lead girls have decent onscreen chemistry, but I still felt as though there was a lot of untapped potential for the dystopic worldbuilding and the political elements of the story... and it just didn’t go there.

Obviously, Sunshine Girls is a microbudget film, so a lot of the potential and originality is sort of muddled down by the constraints of the budget. But for what it is, it does still make you stop and think. In general, I like the core idea of giving birth to air, despite how preposterous the entire thing is on paper. Because a lot of the film centers around certain quick flashes of memories, I did think the editing flowed together really nicely.

So, for me, the main strength about the movie comes down to an original premise, decent editing, and ultimately the potential of what it could be. However, a lot of everything else kind of gets buried beneath the lack of budget. Modern moviegoers watching the film will likely feel an urge to turn it off for having the “amateur” feel that a lot of low-budget films get. It doesn’t always have the pristine aesthetic that a lot of top-of-the-line equipment offers with lighting and color grading, and at times it has technical issues, but not because it didn’t try. You can easily tell a lot of visual sequences were made with a genuine artistic vision behind the lens, but once again, the constraints in the overall budget limit that vision from coming through. Just because I could see what they were going for doesn’t automatically mean it was completely successful.

Unfortunately, a great vision and premise can only get you so far. I certainly enjoyed it for what it was, and I can see other people watching it and feeling the exact same way, so I’d never judge you if you personally love it.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 30/50 (60%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 31/50 (62%)

• Total Combined Score: 61/100 (61%) | Letterboxd: 3/5 stars

Little bit of backstory before I dig into the film. My house growing up, Michael Jackson was... big. To say the least. Lots of people know my earliest memories involve a camera in my face, while my brothers and I would film endless short films where I ended up often being the star of the films. We were the Gilleand Brothers, and in a way, the acting and directing version of the Jackson 5... or at least that’s how I saw us. My oldest brother was a Michael Jackson impersonator, and apart from home movies, we’d also have little music videos with him in the front. That’s where he would be the star. He would go on to teach me a lot of the same moves, and I’d go on to learn some of MJ’s toughest dances, like Dangerous and Thriller... and that’s when the student would become the teacher... and I’d go on to teach him what I learned so that we would do these events where we’d all dance.

That was a lifetime ago, but it goes without saying that I’ve heard everything Michael Jackson ever did. I’ve sat down at the TV waiting for the next music video Michael would release on MTV. I was shocked along with the rest of the world in 2009 when we first heard the news that Michael Jackson died in the middle of preparing for a comeback tour, and then later watching This Is It...

Needless to say, I’m not your typical film critic that was a fan of Michael Jackson’s... his music, in a big way, defined a huge chunk of my life. I have a dad bod with a beer belly, I’ve lost my hair, and I get tired very easily these days... but if an MJ hit plays on the radio, I find the energy to dance along... and I’ll be honest, that energy came back a lot when watching Michael.

Jaafar Jackson embodies his uncle so well here. He is downright possessed in ways I don’t think I fully understand. His voice is so good I was convinced it had to at least be partially adjusted by AI, but apparently not. But even if it was, the dance choreography is spot on, Joseph Jackson is one heck of an imposing figure, and the legacy and spirit of Michael Jackson is alive and well throughout the film from beginning to end. I had a huge smile on my face watching this movie.

Now, it has a problem that everyone likes to point out... saying it idolizes the pop star and conveniently leaves out the biggest hurdles MJ ever had to face, especially with the child abuse allegations and lawsuits. Some think they will be touched on with a possible sequel, but I’m not sure we’ll ever see that... but if it happens, I’m sure the filmmakers will handle it with grace and in a way that delicately portrays both sides with dignity while still showing Michael Jackson as the human being he was.

However, I would have to argue that if this movie just showcased Michael as an idol... then that’s not a bad thing. Michael WAS an idol. For so many people, he went far past brilliant... or genius... and he shot straight for a god among men. People fainted when he sang. We’ve all seen those videos. There has never been another human being before or after Michael. Other artists may get more awards or numbers on the Billboard Top 10, but there’s something innately unique about who the King of Pop was that is beautifully and organically one-of-a-kind, and Jaafar portrays that concept perfectly.

People like Michael Jackson are impossible to get exactly right. It was a difficult balance for Jaafar to juggle without feeling like a poor imitation or Pennysaver version. I was worried that the end result would feel more like a bad cosplay than anything else, but that’s not the case. Jaafar does amazing. There were moments here and there where you can tell he’s definitely not Michael Jackson. But the mannerisms, the attitude, the cadence, and everything else is spot on.

My only complaint comes down to story. This film is definitely more of a concert film than anything else. It feels very much like a documentary without narration or interviews. Just a look into the life of Michael Jackson and his rise to fame and hurdles of escaping his father’s controlling clutches. It certainly felt light, as it was missing gravity. Obviously without Janet Jackson in the mix felt wrong as well, but she opted out of being portrayed, and they respected her wishes.

Overall, fantastic movie and so far... it’s in my top 3 of the year at number three. I haven’t seen everything out there yet, I’m sure this won’t stay top 3, but it may stay top 10. We’ll see.

• Technical Unbiased Score: 47/50 (94%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 44/50 (88%)

• Total Overall Score: 91/100 (91%) | 4.5/5 on Letterboxd

  (Currently 3rd best of the year on my ratings)

DEMONETIZE was a supernatural horror comedy film that was released in 2026, written and directed by Alexander Boyd Watson. It stars co-writer Janine Hogan as Jane, alongside an ensemble cast featuring Sean Carrigan as Martin, Matty Cardarople as Terrence, Chad LeBaron as Paul, Alice Wen as Brie, and Lexi Collins as Tara. It’s basically about a washed-up paranormal investigator who locks a bunch of obnoxious, clout-chasing influencers inside an actual haunted house for an overnight cash challenge, only for real, bloodthirsty ghosts to show up and start horribly slaughtering everyone one by one while they’re all still idiotically trying to record content, chase views, and survive the night.

We are on day two of the 2026 GenreBlast Film Festival. DEMONETIZE is a film that is a lot of things, but the main thing you should consider before watching it is that it’s built around being a fantastic horror comedy satire that plays off of a lot of different references. If you aren’t familiar with the references, you may not fully appreciate everything about the movie, but I do think it has a lot of stuff going for it, especially in the beginning of the movie, when you are getting introduced to the story and characters.

The story itself will feel remarkably similar to another classic story you may already be aware of... The House on Haunted Hill. While not an official parody of the story, you’ll note that it does start off with a cash prize offer from a guy that is challenging a group of individuals to stay the night at a haunted house. The money is if they survive the night. This is the exact same setup of Haunted Hill.

Then, you have the characters, who are all caricatures of different types of content creators... from tech reviewers, to TikTok dancers, to OnlyFans creators, to the really over-the-top obnoxious ones that are clearly modeled after Jake Paul. Don’t believe me? There’s a moment where he is trying to sell tickets to his boxing match with a retired UFC fighter. I also appreciated that one of the other characters was significantly grounded, as she is exhausted of living that kind of life and is rusty trying to get back into the swing of things. I think that’s something all content creators do go through pretty regularly, so it was nice to see that being recognized in the film.

Last, but not least, is the host of this event. The paranormal investigator was very clearly inspired by the host of Ghost Adventures, Zak Bagans... who famously bought a house in Gary, Indiana that he called “Demon House,” which he made a documentary about and mysteriously destroyed after an experience that even HE, in all his years of paranormal television, couldn’t talk about. In this film, this paranormal investigator did the exact same thing when he bought the house.

Now, given the entire film, for the most part, takes place entirely within a single house, I can tell that they saved a significant amount of money in their micro-budget. The movie itself actually looks legit. You can’t always tell the budget is as small as it is. The quality is crisp and clean. The performances are all pretty strong. Some are obnoxious, but in the same breath, they’re kind of supposed to be, right? To a lot of people, influencers are almost like aliens in the way they act and talk and behave. They’re just too… chipper, you know what I mean? I can’t exactly say much about it, though, since I’m also technically an influencer, as I influence people to watch movies.

Where I think the film sometimes falters is ultimately in the pacing department. I really dug the first act of the film, even leading into the second. But after that point, the film does start to lose me a bit. It starts to lose its grasp a little bit on the balance of both comedy and horror that it began with so well, and it gets a little lopsided as it has more and more horror-adjacent moments while the film plays on. I’m not sure if it narratively makes sense not to do that, but everything that had me nodding my head in its brilliance kind of got lost towards the end, and I realized I didn’t care so much about how it would end anymore. It’s a bit bittersweet for me, because I do think there were some very smart ideas and even smarter writing as the film opened up, but it ultimately turned into a missed potential sort of ordeal.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 32/50 (64%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 36/50 (72%)

• Total Combined Score: 68/100 (68% or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd)

I probably would have never seen this movie if it weren’t for the main stars of the film: Charlie Cox and Zooey Deschanel. I love both of them. It’s been forever since I’ve seen Zooey in anything, and Charlie Cox, of course, is hugely popular as Daredevil right now. So to see him in a rom-com, of all things, was very interesting to say the least.

But really, the main people that were going to watch this movie... why are they going to watch it? It’s a dog movie, and as a dog movie, it is what you expect it to be. It is very on the nose. They are laying everything on thick. This movie is not a very good movie in terms of anything. I wouldn’t have been that surprised if it was released on the Hallmark Channel, because it kind of has that same fluffy nature to it.

When you look at the poster, what you see is what you get... the good, the bad, the messy, everything about it.

So let’s talk about the positives of Merv. It is cutesy-poopsie. Literally, that is what this movie is. The strongest positive of Merv is just the fact that it’s cute. It’s not just a dog movie. Technically speaking, it’s a dog holiday movie, which is even more fluffy and daffy than what you would normally get with a dog movie. You already know from the fact that it’s a holiday film that the dog is probably not going to die at the end. So really, it’s just going to be about this couple spending time together while the dog does cute doggie things.

And that is exactly what happens in this movie. And that’s it. That is the only positive that I can say about the movie: it’s cutesy-poopsie. And that is not the only thing a movie needs to be in order to be successful, to be good, and to be worth watching.

Now, I wouldn’t say that the rest of the movie is negative. It’s not, actually. This is a very safe movie. A lot of the stuff that happens throughout the movie is neither here nor there. It completely goes over your head; it doesn’t matter.

However, there are a lot of negatives. So let’s go ahead and talk about the negatives for Merv.

Like I said in the beginning, this is a movie that just lays everything a little bit too thick and spoon-feeds the audience way too much from beginning to end. There’s a lot of stereotypes going on in the movie, including a token Black guy who also acts as the comic relief. He just shows up every now and then, pokes his head in, cracks a few jokes, and then disappears again.

While they’re on this beach vacation, there’s this stereotypical hot girl that accidentally stumbles onto the main guy of the film. “Oops, oh my goodness, you’re so cute, want to go to a party of mine?” And then, of course, that makes Zooey Deschanel’s character very jealous. Then the same thing happens at the party, where a very typical hot guy stumbles onto Zooey’s character, and then Charlie Cox gets all paranoid and delusional. The whole movie is just a bunch of these moments that we’ve seen a million times, and it doesn’t matter. Nobody cares, because there’s also not a ton of chemistry between the two leads.

Should there be? I guess maybe that would have made the movie just a little bit better, but barely. Because at the end of the day, you can’t escape all the stereotypes. You can’t escape the horrible dialogue choices throughout the movie. It’s completely predictable. You know exactly how it’s going to end. It really just comes down to the question of what’s going to change to get them together.

One thing they tease throughout the movie and take forever to answer is: what was it? What was it that happened that made them break up in the first place? Once you find out, is it really dramatic, deep, emotional, and resonating? No. It is, you guessed it, stereotypical... something that you hear a lot of times in movies. And you don’t care, because you don’t really believe it, because the entire thing is just cutesy-poopsie the entire time.

And it is what it is. Look, I’m not going to say this a million different times, okay? The movie is what it is, but a movie cannot survive on just being cute alone. It has to actually make choices that are good. It has to be different; it has to be unique.

It blows my mind that movies like this get greenlit all the time for no real reason other than to be cute. Meanwhile, there are literally websites you can go to where scripts have been sitting around for decades collecting dust, waiting to be greenlit, and so many of them are so much more original and far more interesting than anything like this. So it kind of blows my mind that you can get a movie like this greenlit for no other reason than:

1. It’s cute.

2. They cast people like Charlie Cox, who is currently popular, and Zooey Deschanel, who was an “it girl” at one point in her life, so we recognize her.

This is not a movie that is important to watch. Like I said, though, a majority of the film is made up of safe decisions, meaning that technically there’s not a lot of bad negatives going on... it’s just that a lot of stuff goes over your head, and there are more negatives than there are positives.

So at the end of the day, my end score is 42%... 42 out of 100 possible stars, which is a 2 out of 5 on Letterboxd.

But yeah, that’s it. That’s all I got. Have you seen Merv? Are you a fan of this movie, or do you have a guilty pleasure when it comes down to cutesy-poopsie dog movies? Let me know in the comments section down below, because I do believe that there are some cutesy-poopsie dog movies that are worth a watch, but they need to be different. They need to stand out in some way or another. Leave your thoughts about that in the comment section below.

So, this marks the first film in my official coverage of the GenreBlast Film Festival 2026. I’m always excited for GenreBlast, as it’s easily one of my absolute favorite festivals in existence for showcasing up-and-coming talent in independent filmmaking. Though, like everything else in the world, it’s like a box of chocolates... you never know what you’ll get. There will undoubtedly be some winners and some losers in the mix. Where does Hollow Lake land? If I had to wager a bet, I’d place it mid-range in the whole list of available titles, but still within the winners category.

Audiences should know this is an extremely steamy, sensual, sexy horror thriller in the LGBTQ market. Homophobic people are most certainly not welcome here and should avoid the movie at all costs. Then again, if you’re homophobic in 2026, you need some therapy. I think there was one straight character in the entire movie, and no women. The rest of the characters are raging homosexuals, so prepare to see a lot of kissing, canoodling, gyrating, and other sexy things in the movie for the first hour or so. If you’re lucky, you might be able to see a butthole or two if you’re into that kind of thing (wink).

It should also be driven home that GenreBlast is a festival that features a lot of indie, low-budget flicks out there. So, if you’re turned off by lower production or sound quality, there are undoubtedly elements of the movie that you’ll deem problematic. I’ll get into that in a second.

However, I think it is much more important to mention that once the film gets into the meat and potatoes of its story, I really enjoyed what was going on here. The slasher element of the film in the third act was particularly brutal with some surprising use of practical effects and gore. Mix that between these characters that slowly grew on me throughout the movie, and their range of character dynamics helped me care deeply about who died when. There’s a great balance between horror and comedy, and the message at the heart of the film about how the decisions we make have profound consequences is not lost on me. The killer of our story seems to be a clear metaphor for temptation, guilt, and consequence all rolled into one. In real life, we may never be hunted down by a slasher with a lust for blood and violence, but we will make decisions in life that affect us and everyone around us in significant ways... sometimes permanently, and often not in a way we would be proud to admit. There are bits and pieces of this script that I think are subtly brilliant.

However, it’s not without its set of flaws, either. Narratively, the killer of the film... whether he was meant as a metaphor or an idea... is a moot point when he doesn’t have the strongest foundation. At the end of the day, he wants to kill because these guys pulled him into a threesome and then said, “Kay, thanks, bye,” sending him on his way. From that moment on, he’s like... I guess I will just kill them all in the most brutal of ways. I do believe he was meant as more of an allegory than anything, but narratively, he was a bit one-sided and hard to take seriously.

That being said, my favorite character and performance in the entire movie was undoubtedly our killer, Cody. While granted, I would have liked to see him a bit more fleshed out and complex, Elias Alexandro did a particularly impressive job acting creepy in his role. In more ways than one, he reminded me of the guy who played Hannibal in the forgotten prequel film, Hannibal Rising. Which... not a great film, but the performance of that Hannibal was definitely equally creepy, and both get under your skin a little bit. Sometimes, I will say Elias lays it on a little thick, but I do think it works, as every character in the film also lays it on really thick.

Between our group of heroes in the story, my favorite was undoubtedly Justin, played by Roger Conners. While he was technically one of the smaller roles, his performance was the most flamboyant, fun, and full of life. Even though among the four of them there wasn’t any specific grounding character, his was easily the closest that fit that mold, as he certainly voiced reason and dignity to each and every single character throughout the film. The rest of the characters all have these significant flaws that they’re allowing to dictate their every action.

I also said that there are elements of the film on a technical level that some people are going to deem problematic. This is true. Apart from in general being lower budget, which is going to throw a lot of people off automatically, the version I watched has some issues in the sound department. I did watch a review screener, and sometimes those don’t reflect the final published version, so take this with a grain of salt... but there were significant differences in audio levels between takes, and sometimes in the middle of a conversation, as if they’re switching microphones and choosing the best take. There are these random pops and ruffling sound effects that I heard that were unnatural... kind of like a microphone rubbing against fabric. Some lines of dialogue seem to cut in or out when the camera cuts, which seems to be an error in audio transitions at the bare minimum... and listening to this in a pair of headphones makes everything all that much clearer for me. Once again, this might not be true for everyone. It might be an unfinished version that I watched. I may never know. But as a critic, I felt it important to mention what I experienced, in case I’m not the only one.

At the end of the day, I found the movie to be a great start for the festival. There are a couple of other movies scheduled to air on the first day of the festival as well. I will not be watching them, as they are sequels and I’m unfamiliar with the series up to this point for them. But I will be back tomorrow with a few movies to talk about for this year’s GenreBlast. So stick around for those reviews. Make sure to hit that subscribe button so you don’t miss my coverage.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 33/50 (66%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 31/50 (62%)

• Total Combined Score: 64/100 (64%) — 3/5 on Letterboxd

So, with West Side Story, my journey through Spielberg films is now complete. You can go back and see my review for every Spielberg film on my channel if you want. Soon enough I’ll be watching Disclosure Day and I might even throw together a ranking video, but I’m kinda glad I finished up on West Side Story. Spoiler alert: as my ranking stands right now, West Side Story is among my list’s Top 10 Spielberg films.

This is a good time. It is authentically 60s. The moment you turn the movie on, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. The aesthetic, the camera used, the set designs... it feels very much like a film that would have been made back in the day. Not only that, but you can replicate cameras. You can replicate sets, but one thing that’s a bit harder to copy these days is directing style. There was a way movies were made back then that I haven’t seen a director emulate for a very long time, and West Side Story does it perfectly. Also, something about the performances of everyone in this film feels very much like the energy and snappy, go-getter stage acting that you would often get with older films. I almost had to double-check that I was watching the correct version of the movie. Sure enough, this film can be found currently on Disney+, and there’s no doubt about it... Spielberg has a real love for the film.

Speaking of Spielberg, this film marks his first foray into musical films, and you could have fooled me. He approaches the craft as if he’s directed hundreds of musicals and this is just... another one. It is put together so well. You just don’t get this level of devotion into musicals anymore. Not from directors. Not from performers. Not from the dance choreography. Holy crap, the choreography! I can’t not praise this. It was very impressive from beginning to end, and they had a huge task in front of them. They had to get these gang members to jump and twirl gracefully while looking like a threat. Sometimes it’s silly, but only if you think about it too much. It fits the mold of the film extremely well and becomes what I consider to be an instant classic. Stephen Sondheim, who wrote the lyrics for the original stage play, saw the film days before he died and said he preferred this version over the original. Even though that’s controversial, I understand why. Just because it’s a musical doesn’t stop Spielberg from being a masterful filmmaker. Having his name behind ANY musical would probably elevate it to some degree. This is one of the best musicals in the last decade by a clear mile.

Sometimes, Spielberg does this thing where he either makes me fight back tears or get misty-eyed. I will say this didn’t quite make me cry, but I was constantly covered in goosebumps. I have very little to complain about.

Ansel Elgort is great. Rachel Zegler is great. I don’t know if I fully buy into their chemistry, since that part of the story is very rushed, but through the beautiful cinematography, pristine soundtrack, and jaw-dropping choreography, you end up really pulled into the story and their love in a way I just don’t think you would if it weren’t a musical. Obviously, if it weren’t a musical, it would just be Romeo & Juliet... but I don’t know... I think it goes a little bit deeper than that. Because it gets pretty deep when it comes to racism during a time where people can watch this and understand and relate with it. Romeo & Juliet is simply a classic yet tragic love story with two families that hate each other. This story, even though it is a musical, is quite a bit more grounded in reality.

I really don’t have anything to complain about with this film. Any and all negatives that I’ve compiled really came down to minor, trivial things that aren’t worth noting. Simply moments in the film that aren’t technically perfect, but also not technically bad. Boring stuff like that. Let’s go ahead and look at my end score.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 46/50 (92%)

• Biased or Entertainment Score: 47/50 (94%)

• Total Overall Score: 93/100 (93%) or 4.5/5 on Letterboxd

52-WEEK MOVIE CHALLENGE #4 - AN ANIMATED FILM WITH A ONE-WORD TITLE

For this prompt, I had a pick of the litter. There were so many one-word titled animated films in existence, but it really just came down to two for me, and they were both Pixar films. Either I would watch the most recent film released, Hoppers... which I have yet to watch and probably will very soon... or Ratatouille, which is the only other Pixar film that, for whatever reason, I’ve never seen, nor have I really ever been interested enough to check out. I knew it would ultimately be a challenge or a series along those lines that would get me to watch it. So, here we are. What was my experience?

Well, the best way I can put it is: what I expected out of it... I got, more or less. It’s an adequate animated film, coming a little over a decade into Pixar’s history. It arrived after Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles... right smack dab in the middle of their peak popularity, I would say. It’s a film that is cute. It has a lot of heart. I would say it’s original and even a little bit bold to tell the story of a cook who is also a rat in a well-respected restaurant environment. As we all know, rats in any kind of restaurant are a cause for concern, as they carry diseases. And they’re just kinda icky all around. So Pixar created the ultimate dichotomy of opposites here by crafting Remy the Rat... the one creature that is unlike the rest... but will it count in a film where this restaurant is trying to impress the harshest food critic the world has ever known?

I get what this film is doing, and it does do it well overall. I liked the fact that this rat can puppeteer this cook by holding onto his shaggy hair... even though that doesn’t really make sense. I like that the film doesn’t shy away from the fact that rats in a restaurant are a very bad thing. I liked that because it’s still keeping in touch with reality in maybe a slightly meta nod. I think the animation is really good. I think the jokes are solid, and the performances are as expected, which is a good thing for Pixar. I like that this is a one-off that isn’t attached to any other Pixar project, and that it’s about food and takes place in Paris. A lot of that feels very unique for Pixar. It works. The movie as a whole works.

However, I feel justified in skipping it for the last twenty years because... I still don’t feel like I got anything out of it. Everything that I expected from it... or maybe heard about over the years... I got. Nothing felt new, or different, or interesting enough to keep my attention. Nothing made me think about what would happen next. It was very... average overall. It was very expected, predictable, and... fine. I’ve seen a lot of great Pixar. I’ve seen a few not so great to downright bad Pixar films as well... but this has got to be the... most “fine” Pixar film I’ve ever seen, if that makes any sense.

It’s not even that I have suggestions or an idea on how to make it better. Because what they did with what they had was great. The camerawork following the rat from his perspective was pretty solid. The animation of rat movements wasn’t that bad; it didn’t feel too terribly humanistic. The graphics are good, and the story is straightforward. Nothing stands out as horrible, but I would also argue not a ton stands out as terrific and one-of-a-kind, either.

• Technical/Unbiased Score: 40/50 (80%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 34/50 (68%)

• Combined Total Score: 74/100 (74%) or 3.5/5 on Letterboxd

How are you supposed to follow up a masterpiece? I guess that’s the first question on everyone’s mind when they go in to watch 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Initially, I’d imagine the same thought was swimming through the filmmakers’ minds as well. This movie didn’t come out for nearly twenty years after its predecessor, but in actuality, the book on which it is based, 2010: Odyssey Two, was released in 1982. So, the filmmakers actually jumped on the source material as soon as it became available. After the second book was released, Arthur C. Clarke went on to write two more novels in the franchise that were never adapted to film... probably because of how poorly this film performed at the box office. Previously, I watched and reviewed 2010: The Year We Make Contact on my YouTube channel around three or four years ago. My overall thought back then was that it was a good movie, but nowhere near the same ballpark as the original. I was only giving letter grade scores when I reviewed it then, and my end score was a B-. Upon a rewatch, I can tell you that I was way too generous.

On the surface, though, I can fully understand what my line of thinking was. The film contains a narrative structure with a purpose that is actually solid, easy to understand, and easy to digest, which is very different from 2001: A Space Odyssey. We have the scientist from the first film during the moon segment who heads up to space with a Russian crew to find out all the answers left behind from the first movie. These questions include... what happened to the ship on its mission to Jupiter? What happened to Dave Bowman, who disappeared? What happened to HAL 9000, which malfunctioned and caused the deaths of the crew members? What was the monolith doing on the moon and later hovering over Jupiter? To its credit, 2010 attempts to answer as many questions as possible, but in doing so, fails to understand what made its predecessor so impactful in the first place. 2001 was so weird and obscure that people kept going back to it to try to find answers, and the more they did that, the more they discovered without the need for this film at all. Beyond those original questions, 2010 also introduces more questions that it thinks are as thought-provoking as the first film... but really aren’t.

I’d argue the narrative quest these characters find themselves on isn’t terrible, and the team is comprised of interesting individuals. One of them is the man who created HAL 9000, who goes on the mission with them to find out what went wrong with HAL. Was it an AI going rogue after all, or was it human interference that caused HAL to do what he did? They answer this question, and while it makes sense, I don’t love their explanation. I prefer what 2001 gave us with HAL. That movie gave us tension and mystery, while this film gives us a stale excuse that waters down the purpose and effectiveness of the first film at every possible angle.

Even with the visuals... this film was indeed released almost twenty years after the previous installment, and somehow it looks like it was released twenty years before the first movie. The graphics in this movie are god awful. Look, when they are walking around the Discovery spaceship, I liked that because they were piggybacking off of what the first movie did. That spaceship is iconic. Everything out in space, though? Forget about it. Space in this film looks like puke. The planets look superimposed in MS Paint. The astronauts look very green-screened in. The tethering line attached to the astronauts looks like a cartoon line drawing that’s animated like a flip book. It’s crazy that the original film was released in 1968, a year before we actually went to space and landed on the moon... and this was released in 1984. Absolutely insane.

I guess the main positive of the film would have to be that it’s pretty loyal to the source material, or so I hear. It’s more loyal to its source material than the first film was to its own... but the first film is still very complementary to its novel, so who knows. Overall, I don’t exactly hate this movie. If you don’t compare it to the first movie, then I would argue it’s not really all that bad of a film. But in the same breath, you need to watch the first movie to even understand anything about this film, since it answers all those questions left for interpretation. It’s impossible not to compare the two. Even when you compare one little thing with this film to the first one, it’s just night and day how much of a copycat this film feels like, and how much of a penny-saver version it feels like. It’s almost like when you go back and watch Donnie Darko, and then you watch the sequel they made years later called S. Darko. It’s night and day. It’s set in the same world or the same universe with some of the same characters, but it’s clearly just trying to piggyback off of something that is a masterpiece, and clearly does not have the same spirit or identity as the original source.

With all that being said, let’s take a look at my end score.

• Unbiased/Technical Score: 33/50 (66%)

• Biased/Entertainment Score: 13/50 (26%)

• Total Combined Score: 46/100 (46% or 2.5/5 on Letterboxd)