's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

The Nun
The Nun (2018)
13 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes

The Nun borrows every horror cliche in the book. Camera pans and there's a nun behind the character. Camera circles around and there's a jump scare. All of the jump scares are fucking predictable. And if bad jump scares weren't enough, the movie even has bad comedy, as they insert a French comic relief character with the running gag that he's French-Canadian.

Nothing in this movie makes sense. They banish the nun with the blood of Christ. Gimme a break! The main character falls into a coffin and somehow gets buried underground.

The evil nun itself wasn't even scary. It looked like a clown and all it did was show teeth. There were many scenes where a nun just looks at a character and they get sent flying in the air. The Nun is also really bad at killing people, even drowning one of the characters was too hard.

Deadpool 2
Deadpool 2 (2018)
13 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Admittedly, I wasn't a fan of the first Deadpool film, but Deadpool was good enough that I thought the sequel could be better. I couldn't be more wrong. Deadpool is the most disappointing movie of 2018 I've seen so far.

Deadpool 2 is so aggressively meta that I failed to even laugh once (except for one of the end credit scene). Not only are many of the jokes recycled from the first film, but many of the pop culture references were flat. The movie even explained some of the jokes just in case you didn't get it.

The movie is 2 hours long and I felt that it could've been shorter. The prison scene took up far too much screentime, and the "death" scene near the end went on for far too long. Sorry for "spoiling" the movie, but Deadpool 2 already did that at the beginning of the film.

The only scene I enjoyed in the film was the prison transport fight scene, but that's it. The movie was unfunny and tonally inconsistent, the supporting characters were forgettable and the movie has almost twice the budget of the previous film, but the production value doesn't look better. I'm sure fans of the first film (and people in general) will like this film. All I can say is the comedy didn't land for me.

Under the Silver Lake
13 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Under the Silver Lake is a film written and directed by David Robert Mitchell, a follow-up to his 2014/2015 film It Follows, a really great horror movie that is also a cautionary tale about unsafe sex. Under the Silver Lake is clearly a much different movie than It Follows. You won't even know it's from the same writer/director unless you Google it. Given that Under the Silver Lake was written and directed by the same person as It Follows, I was really looking forward to seeing this film.

It was really frustrating that the release date was pushed back multiple times, but I finally got to see Under the Silver Lake about a month ago. I couldn't post my review on RottenTomatoes given that the movie wasn't released in the US until April 19. And because I only saw the movie once, there may be important details about the movie that I have either overlooked or forgotten.

Under the Silver Lake has some really great things going for it. The cinematography has a neo-noir style to the film that creates a sense of mystery as we see the main character searching for his dream girl, as well as clues and hidden messages in songs, magazines, and even cereal boxes. And because the sets are constantly changing, the movie is always visually pleasing.

Andrew Garfield's performance was very entertaining as a character who is both a charismatic stoner and a crazy lunatic. Whether he's charming his way around a woman, spouting conspiracy theories, or beating up kids, Garfield is given different scenarios where he lives up to the challenge, and remains watchable throughout the film, even though his character is a cartoon. The movie has a classic Hollywood-style orchestral score that sounds like something you would hear in film noirs of the '50s. It's atmospheric, lush, and quite dreamy, with some nice contemporary elements and use of horror and dramatic cues.

But Under the Silver Lake is also a self-indulgent, pretentious, convoluted mess of a film. It tries to be like Mulholland Drive, but ends up being more like Southland Tales. The film often introduces new characters and subplots and goes nowhere with it, leaving you with more questions than answers. Who is the dog killer? Who is the topless owl lady? Why are they killing people or animals? Why is his neighbour feeding her parrot topless? Why is any of this important?

Although I love Andrew Garfield's performance, his character was incredibly difficult to take seriously. He's unemployed, but lives in an apartment and owns a car above his pay grade (or job grade), he pursues and has sex with every women in the film even though he smells like a skunk (and all of the women are quite dim), and he's a bit of a creep, but it's supposed to be endearing because he's Andrew Garfield. If the movie was much goofier, this type of character might have worked.

Pretty much all of female characters are written to be subjects that are desirable to the main character. I understand it's supposed to be a critique on the male gaze and how females are often depicted in movies, but it often borders on exploitation. The critique isn't really effective when all of the female characters are empty. They are very much the same type of characters the movie is trying to subvert.

I don't expect movies to explain everything or have all of the answers. But when you leave audiences in the dark, it should be purposeful. One example I can think of that does this effectively is the movie It Comes at Night. It's a movie that raises many questions and little answers, but this was done to build suspense. When the characters are also given little information, it creates a palpable sense of paranoia among the characters and the audience. And it's also scarier to imagine what comes at night insteading of seeing what comes at night.

In Under the Silver Lake, the movie is purposely cryptic and convoluted because David Robert Mitchell only made this film for himself and anyone who thinks he's a genius. I can see Mitchell patting himself on the back for tricking his audience into thinking the film has hidden meanings. "It doesn't mean anything, you dumbass. That's the point!" Wow, good one Mitchell.

The movie's commentaries on Hollywood, pop culture, and gender roles are too obvious to be clever. There may or may not be more to the film under the surface that I have yet to understand, but I just don't care enough to find out. Under the Silver Lake is an excruitating exercise in meaningless that also happens to be... meaningless.

Triple Frontier
13 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Triple Frontier is easily the most boring movie I've seen this year so far. I watched this movie because it's a Netflix movie with an interesting ensemble cast, but it's baffling just how dumb it is. The characters went from experienced military soldiers to money-hungry idiots within the first half of the film. They try to steal every brick of cash hidden behind every inch of the wall with only one van, so they go over the hard stop time. To make things worse for themselves, they refuse to abandon some of the cash so that they don't fly with too much weight. And guess what? They crash because there was too much weight on the helicopter.

I checked out by this point because the characters had to travel with all the money on foot and it was very long and boring. When the most interesting question you have for the film is "Don't these characters get hungry?" after trekking through Andes Mountains for five days, you know this film is a total failure when it comes to entertainment. Towards the end of the film, the crew had to decide whether to go to their next destination with the money or with Ben Affleck's dead body. They dump all but five million dollars so that they can travel with Ben Affleck, making the whole mission futile. They could've gotten away with at least ten times the amount, and maybe Ben Affleck would've still been alive, if they weren't so greedy, especially Ben Affleck's character.

It becomes increasingly hard to root for these characters when they make so many amateurish mistakes for a professional soldier. Sure, the helicopter crash, the shootouts, the chase scenes are all necessary for the plot, but they're mostly contrived. You'd think the crew would get chased by the cartels that they stole the money from, but nah, they get chased by teenagers. Fucking pathetic! It's obvious that this movie was shelved for years because it's a fucking piece of shit. It's so embarassing, not even Paramount wanted to release this film. But Netflix dug this film up from the grave to torture their subscribers with another lackluster film. Netflix doesn't know the meaning of quality over quantity!

Glass
Glass (2019)
13 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Glass started out promising, but loses steam in the second act when all three characters are in the psych ward. I'm not against movies that are set in mostly one location, but much of the runtime was spent on Sarah Paulson trying to convince the three leads that they don't have superpowers. For most of the movie, Shyamalan tries to trick the audience into thinking that the characters are delusional, but with Glass being the sequel to Unbreakable and Glass, Shyamalan has already established that superheroes do exist. So why does he treat his audience like idiots?

Glass tries to be more ambitious, probably because it's a crossover movie, but Unbreakable and Split mostly works because they're small psychological thrillers. Glass also tries to be a superhero movie, with a third-act action set piece that are found too often in conventional superhero films, but with the budget of a TV show. These action scenes features really jarring pov shots. The movie often teases that there's going to be an epic fight scene in a tower, but with its budget, it was obviously a red herring.

James McAvoy definitely delivers an impressive performance, but he switches personas far too often and it gets constantly annoying. In Split, James McAvoy would switch personas to build suspence. In Glass, he switches personas everytime the lights flashes, and it just felt like James McAvoy was showing off his acting athletics. Bruce Willis gave up acting a decade ago. It's not even nostalgic when he reprises old characters anymore (A Good Day to Die Hard). Samuel L. Jackson doesn't get many chances to act and he isn't given much dialogue, but when he does, he's very entertaining, although James McAvoy easily outshines both of them.

The supporting characters gets nothing to do. Anya Taylor-Joy's character was only there to give James McAvoy character some emotional scenes, and her motivation makes no sense. It's hard to imagine Samuel L. Jackson having a mother that's still alive because he's so old, but he has a mother in this movie who is younger than him, and she also gets nothing do to. There's some interesting dynamic between Bruce Willis and his son, but when they're seperated, his son is very bland.

Overall, this movie was very disappointing, probably Shyamalan's most disappointing film. Yes, he has made movies that are a lot worse, but Glass is a combination of two of his best films and the results should have been fireworks. Unfortunately, Glass mostly misses the mark, as Shyamalan is more interested in setting up twists and turns instead of developing his characters. As a psychological thriller, it has very little suspense or drama. As a superhero movie, it feels very small and watered-down, and the attempts at deconstructing superhero conventions feels outdated. I'm convinced that there were a few different endings for this film and Shyamalan should've chosen a different one, as he sent off his characters in the most pathetic way possible. See this movie if you want, but just remember it's an M. Night Shyamalan movie.