Grant's Movie Log

The Shape of Water (2017)

(81%)



I had high expectations going into The Shape of Water following the slew award nominations that it received. And, unfortunately, it didn't quite live up to them. It's a visually stunning film; there's no doubt about that. And Guillermo del Toro once again proved that he is a great director (and possibly the best when it comes to monster movies), but the story was ultimately disappointing to me. It was extremely simple and didn't have a whole lot of depth to it. Yes, it's interesting to see a woman fall in love with a non-human being, but take away the fact that it wasn't human and it was not a a very far throw away from a typical love story. At the same time, the slightly lackluster story doesn't take away from some incredible performances in this film, from Sally Hawkins to Michael Shannon...they are all fantastic. But, I still can't get this film to a B+ or an A simply because the story just didn't do it for me. And I'm incredibly disappointed to say that.

I could watch Shannon play the same role for the rest of his life. Him and those cheap-ass candies. I love'em!

The Post (2018)

(90%)



The Post may be one of the most heavily cast films in quite a while. Almost everyone in the film is well known for one project or another, and two of the greatest actors alive are playing the two lead roles. It is obvious that this was an all out attempt to win all of the awards, but surprisingly the film doesn't appear to be a favorite for really any of the major awards. And that's surprising to me, very surprising, because I found this film riveting from start to finish. The matter at hand couldn't be more relevant today, and the way Spielberg decided to present the story takes what could be a rather slow and boring film and turns it into a highly re-watchable film. I will say that I might be a bit more interested in the subject matter at hand than most people, which may factor into my fondness of this film, but I still think most people will enjoy it. 2018 is off to a good start.

Another enticing review, Grant! I'm really looking forward to this.


Why is that? I'm really interested in journalism, especially because sadly it seems the age of journalism is DEAD!

I don't quite understand why I wasn't impressed with The Post. The sets, the clothes, the casts, all of those resplendent, show car quality 50+ year old autos. It checks every box, except the one next to my heart .

These comparisons are probably off-base, but I think I compared it to the Paper or Spotlight, which seemed to be more engaging for me.

American Psycho (2000)

(78%)

There's something genuinely fascinating, and disturbing, about Christian Bale's character in American Psycho. He truly puts off the vibe that you'd expect from a deranged serial killer, but because of the kind of people (Wall Street/rich men) he is surrounded by nobody picks up on how crazy he really is. They either don't care, or they're so concerned with themselves and their own lives that they don't even notice. And even when he tries to come clean, nothing happens. But, even with such an intriguing character at the center of this film, there's something about it that just doesn't quite do it for me. It definitely has to do with the story, but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. It really is a fine film, and I enjoy watching it, but it's hard to not feel like it could have been better in terms of the plot.

Dunkirk (2017)

(90%)

I'm convinced that Christopher Nolan is one of the only directors working today that could pull off making a film like Dunkirk. Centered around an event during WW2 that not a whole lot of people know about, sparse dialogue, extensive action scenes/cinematic shots, and no true main character–but it all comes together to tell an incredible story? Yeah, you're gonna need someone like Nolan for that kind of film. And, boy, he delivers. The visuals are stunning, the dialogue is precise, and there is character development (which is one of the main complaints I've seen about this film). A film doesn't have to have loads of dialogue to develop its characters, and it doesn't have to focus on one character. Dunkirk uses primarily action for character development, with dialogue as a secondary device. And no, we're not meant to care about one character in particular, we're meant to care about all of the characters as a group. All of that aside, Dunkirk also just has a great story to it. The idea of essentially being stranded on a beach, surrounded, constantly bombarded by bombs, with no real hope for a successful rescue is truly maddening. I can't imagine what the soldiers felt like after going through all of that, but at least we get to see their story. Will Dunkirk do down as one of the best war films ever? Probably not. But I think it should.

Hostiles (2018)

(86%)

Hostiles is not one of those movies that you walk into expecting a happy, fun time. It was very clear from the trailers that this was going to be a hardcore Western, and it is just that. It is about a Union solider (who specializes in killing Indians) transporting an Indian Chief back to his home, after all. The tone is set in the very first scene and it stays for the entirety of the runtime. It's a film about brutality and the cost of it. It gives a realistic portrayal of how hard and unpredictable a journey could be back in the western days. It also shows how even the most dedicated adversaries can become trusting companions under the right circumstances.

This is a long film, and I could feel how long it was due to the slower pace, but that's not entirely surprising considering it's a Western. Plus, I think that the slower pace worked for this film. It helped make me feel like I was actually on a long journey with the characters, and the extended amount of time with them made me truly care for them by the end.

I also have to give major props to Christian Bale for his performance in this film. I truly think it's worthy of an Oscar nomination, but he didn't get one. The rest of the cast was great as well.

In the end, I think that Hostiles is a fantastic Western. Unfortunately, the longer run time and the brutal story makes it hard for it to appeal to a huge audience, but there's no doubt in my mind that Western fans will find that this film will satisfy their need for a solid, new Western.

I dont know why I had never heard of Hostiles. Looks interesting.

Interesting. So far I've only heard of Grant's Tomb. Grant's Movie Log is a new thing to me.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

If you're into Westerns, you should give it a shot.

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

(56%)

Selling The Cloverfield Paradox to Netflix was a smart move by Paramount. They didn't have to worry about losing any money on a film that was rumored to not be that great, and instead they made a guaranteed profit, albeit a small one, from it. Netflix knew exactly what they wanted to do with it, too, as they had a commercial during the Super Bowl that said the film would be on Netflix right after the game. So I bet they got a lot of people to watch it, at least way more than who would have seen it in the theaters.

So I watched it, of course, and it's by far the worst film in the franchise. It almost feels like that this was originally a B-level sci-fi movie and they decided to make it into a Cloverfield movie towards the end of production. There's a scene towards the beginning of the movie, that seems pretty shoehorned in, that is the primary tie to the Cloverfield universe. Take that scene out, and the only indicator that this is a Cloverfield movie is the very last scene of the movie (which I won't spoil here). Of course, that could also be said about 10 Cloverfield Lane, but this ain't no 10 Cloverfield Lane. The characters aren't particularly interesting or engaging, and there are a lot of story elements throughout the movie that genuinely do not make sense and are never explained. The story itself had potential, but it never really took off and became the enthralling sci-fi story it could have. There's also some very sloppy editing at times, and I'm pretty sure I shook my head once or twice.

But still, despite all of that, the movie is watchable. You're not going to be checking the time every five minutes or feel like completely exiting out of the movie. To me, it's the equivalent of a mediocre episode of Black Mirror. It's not absolutely terrible, but it's not going to impress you, either.

Baby Driver (2017)

(90%)

Baby Driver is a film that doesn't come around all that often. It's not an out of the box idea, by any means, but the acting, soundtrack, and quirkiness of it all come together to form an extremely entertaining movie. The scenes where Baby is behind the wheel as the getaway driver are some of the best chase scenes I've seen in a long time, especially the opening chase scene. The action is also great, and the entire cast does an incredible job. With that being said, though, I did find some of the dialogue a bit blocky...but when that's my main complaint I'd say that I just got done watching a pretty damn solid movie.

I am a bit skeptical of Sony's potential plans to make a sequel, but no matter what happens with that Baby Driver will go down as one of the best movies I saw in 2017.

The 15:17 to Paris (2018)

(32%)

The 15:17 to Paris is one of those movies that I'm not quite sure why it was made. Is it a heroic story? Yes, but the actual story is an event that lasted maybe 10 minutes. So to make an entire film about it, and cast the actual people from the event in the movie... Let's just say my expectations were pretty low going in, and it didn't even meet them.

The acting in this movie is quite painful to watch at times. I don't think this is entirely the fault of the actors considering how few takes Clint Eastwood has been known to take, but it really sticks out like a sore thumb at times. You can also tell that the actual people from the event had never acted before this movie, although they weren't as bad as I was expecting them to be. But, the acting isn't even the reason why this movie is a stinker. This movie is a stinker because 96% of it doesn't matter. None of the plot matters that much when you reach the end. It's as simple as that. It's all just fluff until you reach the final 20 minutes of the movie, and not good fluff at that.

I wasn't gonna mention this originally, but there were also some fairly random religious references throughout this movie that felt quite out of place to me and the person I saw the movie with. Just felt shoehorned in.

Decided to also incorporate a fresh/rotten counter into this thread as well (it'll be updated on the master list post, and I'll probably occasionally make a separate post like this about it). Rotten film = 59% () or lower, Fresh film = 60% () or higher.

The counter is separated by pre-2017 films, 2017 films, and 2018 films for right now. It's simply just a count of how many films from each of those that I have rated as fresh or rotten.

Pre-2017 Film Count
Fresh: 27
Rotten: 2

2017 Film Count
Fresh: 29
Rotten: 4

2018 Film Count
Fresh: 2
Rotten: 2

nice review man

The Dark Knight (2008)

(95%)

The Dark Knight isn't just an amazing superhero film; it's an amazing film, period. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is the greatest portrayal of the Joker in history, and I'll be surprised if anyone matches it any time soon. And say what you will about Christian Bale's Batman voice, but he plays the role very well.

I actually think that the first third of this film is a bit slow, but once it starts moving it gets moving. I do wish that the final fight with the Joker was a bit better, but there are really no flaws with this movie...just tiny little things that don't have any serious impact on how good it is. The acting is absolutely incredible, the story is riveting, and it's a Nolan film so of course it looks great. I'll never get tired of watching this film.

How many times have you watched this? It is a great movie, but it has fallen into diminishing returns on each re-watch for me.

Since it came out? Eh, I'd guess 10+.

John Wick (2014)

(83%)

John Wick could have easily have been a bad movie. I mean, think about it, if you were to listen to a pitch for a movie that was based around a former assassin who goes on a killing spree because his dog got killed...you probably wouldn't have high hopes for the movie. But, John Wick is about as good as it could possibly be. The action sequences are simply some of the most entertaining I've seen in the many movies I've seen. The world itself is also very interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing the spinoff TV show about the hotel if it ever comes to fruition. There are some cheesy moments, and the story is pretty typical for an action film in the end, but it blew away my expectations when I saw it back in 2014 and I still enjoy watching it to this day.