Movies Graded

Director: Steven Caple Jr. Stars: Michael B. Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, Tessa Thompson Runtime: 130 minutes Synopsis:  Adonis Creed returns to the ring to face Viktor Drago around 30 years after their fathers' famous fight.  Performances: 8/10 Why? No real complaints here. Stallone proved that his excellent take on the most famous boxer in cinema history - which earned him an Oscar nomination 2 years ago - was not a fluke as he once again delivered an emotional, down to earth performance that served as a beautiful send off for the character (he announced yesterday on Instagram that he was retiring from the role). Thompson was great as usual and the return of Dolph Lundgren as Ivan Drago, who in my opinion is the greatest opponent Rocky ever faced, gave me chills. Florian Munteanu, who played his son and main antagonist Viktor, was also phenomenal in the role, capturing the coldness and determination his father showed before him. Finally, Michael B. Jordan did not

Director: Peter Farrelly Stars: Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali, Linda Cardellini Runtime: 129 minutes Synopsis:  An Italian-American bouncer is hired to be the chauffeur of a pianist who comes from a very different background. Based on true events. Performances: 10/10 Why? Hands down two of the best performances of the year. Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali, who respectively play the vulgar Italian-American Tony and the piano virtuoso Dr. Shirley not only deliver performances filled with heart, emotion, and humor, but also have undeniable chemistry that made their relationship such an interesting one to watch. From Mortensen's perfect Italian accent to Ali's chilling speech under the rain, the pair proved once more that they're two of the best actors working today, and I think it's safe to assume that we're going to see both of them competing for the golden statue come award season.  Screenplay: 9/10 Why? When Peter Farrelly was announced a

Director: Desiree Akhavan Stars: Chloe Grace Moretz, Steven Hauck, Quinn Shephard Runtime: 91 minutes Synopsis:  A teenager is admitted into a gay conversion therapy center. Performances: 7/10 Why? Pretty good, even though I felt at times that they sacrificed emotion for the sake of realism. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially considering the fact that Akhavan chose to present the story in a very sincere way, but I can't help but feel that showing a little bit more emotion could've helped better depict the characters' struggles.   Screenplay: 7/10 Why? Making a film about sensitive subjects such as the one tackled in this production is never easy to do. "The Miseducation of Cameron Post", however, manages to present and depict the social issues at stake in a beautifully raw and realistic way. The message is delivered in a very subtle way, which is rare to witness in movies dealing with heavy themes such as this one. Having said

Director: Corin Hardy Stars: Demian Bichir, Taissa Farmiga, Jonas Bloquet Runtime: 96 minutes Synopsis:  A priest is sent to Romania by the Vatican to investigate the mysterious suicide of a nun. Performances: 4/10 Why? Apart from Taissa Farmiga who was fine as Sister Irene, the cast never seemed even interested in delivering solid performances. Bichir and Bloquet sleepwalked through most of the movie, while Bonnie Aarons, who played the Nun, appeared to be under the impression that the film was a parody centered around the character made famous in the second installment of the Conjuring franchise (and she wouldn't be very wrong, if I'm being honest).  Screenplay: 2/10 Why? In a year described as being golden for horror movies with notable releases such as "Hereditary", "A Quiet Place", or "Suspiria", "The Nun" came to remind us that Hollywood still produces bad horror flicks only made to generate a lot of revenues

Director: Phil Johnston, Rich Moore Stars: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot Runtime: 112 minutes Synopsis:  Following an incident that resulted in the breaking of a crucial piece in Vanellope's game, Ralph takes her to the Internet to find a replacement and save the game.  Animation: 9/10 Why? I mean, it's a Disney animated movie. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the animation's going to look gorgeous.  Performances: 9/10 Why? Again, no complaints here. Veterans and newcomers alike perfectly voiced their characters. Numerous cameo appearances were also very much welcome and left me with a smile on my face. Screenplay: 6/10 Why? I watched the prequel to that installment about two years ago, and still consider it to be one of the best Disney films, animated or otherwise, to come out in the past decade. It perfectly blended nostalgia, humor, and heart and left me wanting more. When the sequel was announced, I was beyond excited t

Director: Steve McQueen Stars: Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki Runtime: 129 minutes Synopsis:  A group of women plan a heist to pay a debt their dead husbands left behind. Performances: 9/10 Why? Even though the film had a lot of characters in it, each actor fully committed to their role. There wasn't one single bad performance, and I'd even go as far as saying that Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Daniel Kaluuya, and Robert Duvall may all get a couple of nominations and why not wins come awards season. Screenplay: 7/10 Why? If you watch the movie expecting the big action heist ride promised in the trailer, you'll be disappointed. If you go in expecting another Steve McQueen film similar to his previous work ("12 Years a Slave", "Shame", or "Hunger"), you'll also be disappointed. "Widows" falls somewhere in between those two categories, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. The charact

Director: David Mackenzie Stars: Chris Pine, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Florence Pugh Runtime: 121 minutes Synopsis:  Based on a true story, follows Robert the Bruce as he leads an army to claim the Scottish throne.  Performances: 6/10 Why? I honestly couldn't look at Robert the Bruce without seeing Chris Pine doing an accent. I'm not sure if the problem comes from his casting rather than his performance, but I do know that it's one of the reasons why the movie, unfortunately, didn't satisfy me as much as I wanted it to. The rest of the cast, despite not delivering performances I'd consider to be layered and memorable, did a decent job with what they were given.  Screenplay: 4/10 Why? Finishing the movie was a struggle, and its script was the main reason why. The film felt like a rushed miniseries where all the episode were cut together and as a result, featured way too many story arcs and characters. And not one of them was properly and carefully 

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen Stars: Liam Neeson, James Franco, Zoe Kazan Runtime: 132 minutes Synopsis:  An anthology film comprised of six different stories all set in the Old West. Performances: 9/10 Why? Despite no one getting more than half an hour of screen time, every single actor managed to shine in a way. Whether it's by nailing the comedic timing or by delivering heartfelt performances, I found myself surprisingly caring about all the characters featured in every single story.  Screenplay: 8/10 Why? Anthology films made up of various stories are always a gamble to make since it's near impossible to tell multiple stories where all of them are equally entertaining. There will always be segments superior in quality than others. And that's the case in this latest Coen Brothers western. Now don't get me wrong, all 6 stories are extremely well written with layered characters and comedic moments you just can't find anywhere else nowadays,

If you still haven't seen the second installment in the "Fantastic Beasts" franchise, this is your final warning: The next lines are going to be filled with spoilers about the film so I would suggest closing the tab immediately and come back after watching it. This is not going to be a review (which you can find here ), but rather a spoiler-filled discussion about the events that took place in the movie and I invite every single one of you Potterheads to share your thoughts about the theories I'm about to develop and take part in the conversation by sharing your own theories and speculations. Without further ado, let's dive back into the Wizarding World created by J.K. Rowling over 20 years ago in an article where I'll be discussing each subplot I found to be worth talking about in its own paragraph. Queenie's turn:   One of the biggest questions I had before the release of "The Crimes of Grindelwald" was how Jacob was going

Director: Jon M. Chu Stars: Constance Wu, Henry Golding, Michelle Yeoh Runtime: 120 minutes Synopsis:  Follows Rachel as she travels to Singapore to meet her boyfriend's deeply rooted family. Performances: 5/10 Why? The only performance I actually felt was up to standards was Constance Wu's. She manages to showcase a whole range of emotions in her portrayal of the lead character, Rachel, whose journey starts with her being happily in love to seeing her confidence get absolutely shattered by the actions of some of her boyfriend's family members. I didn't get that from the rest of the cast, unfortunately, as I thought their performances were either one-dimensional, goofy, or just plain silly. Screenplay: 4/10 Why? Other than the fact that it incorporates Singaporean traditions and dishes pretty well, I found the script to be rather lazy and generic. It follows the exact same formula every romantic comedy ever made follows without managing to present

Director: David Yates Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler Runtime: 134 minutes Synopsis:  Newt and his friends must come together to defeat the villainous and powerful Grindelwald. Performances: 7/10 Why? Too many characters are thrown in the movie, and some don't really get a chance to shine. The returning cast did a decent job reprising their roles even though I found myself not entirely getting the chemistry that made their relationships work so well in the first movie. As for the characters introduced in this movie, they didn't offer anything memorable that defined their personas. Except for Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. Love him or hate him, the man was for me the highlight of the sequel as he completely disappeared into his role. Screenplay: 7/10 Why? As a Potterhead, there is no denying that the story told was interesting to say the least, merging both easter eggs and references, as well as a narrative that left me wanting more. Wh

Director: David Yates Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol Runtime: 133 minutes Synopsis:  Follows magizoologist Newt Scamander as he runs around New York trying to find the magical creatures accidentally set loose. Performances: 8/10 Why? There wasn't one single bad performance. All the actors and actresses perfectly embodied characters that had the herculean task of following some of the most beloved characters in cinematic history (Harry Potter and his entourage). They obviously may still not be as popular as their counterparts, but they did a great job giving us a taste of their personalities and made us care enough about them to get excited about the sequels.  Screenplay: 7/10 Why? Much like " Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ", this prequel was fixated on setting up a universe we're going to spend 5 movies in. However, since a lot of it was already tackled in the Harry Potter series, it mostly focused on develo

Director: Julius Avery Stars: Jovan Adepo, Wyatt Russell, Mathilde Ollivier Runtime: 109 minutes Synopsis:  A group of soldiers is given the dangerous mission to destroy a Nazi base in a small occupied French village where shady things are happening underground.  Performances: 7/10 Why? They all knew exactly the type of film they were in. Some of them took their roles a bit more seriously than others, but it worked well given the half A half B nature of the movie. I quite enjoyed the performances overall.  Screenplay: 8/10 Why? The script excels at balancing horror, drama, action, and comedy, which is no easy task at all. It's definitely not perfect and I did feel at times that it didn't know what it wanted to be, but the things that worked for me worked really well. The chemistry between the characters, which I find to be crucial in this type of films, was handled with great care, as was the tension. The second half of the movie takes an unexpected turn (

Director: Fede Alvarez Stars: Claire Foy, Sylvia Hoeks, Lakeith Stanfield Runtime: 117 minutes Synopsis:  Famous hacker turned vigilante Lisbeth Salander finds herself facing yet another threat.  Performances: 5/10 Why? They're not bad, they just pale in comparison to previous takes of the same characters. The actors, Claire Foy ahead, are all incredibly talented performers that were given poor scripts and poor character development that made their performances rather two-dimensional. The casting of these actors didn't help either. As a huge fan of Netflix's "The Crown", I couldn't shake the image of Foy as Queen Elizabeth II off my head whenever I saw her on screen, which was distracting to say the least.   Screenplay: 2/10 Why? Where to begin? I've watched all 4 previous movies based on Millennium novels and read all the books of that inspired them. Lisbeth Salander is one of my favorite literary characters and her previous portray

Director: Pawel Pawlikowski Stars: Joanna Kulig, Tomasz Kot, Borys Szyc Runtime: 88 minutes Synopsis:  A love story taking place in various European cities during the Cold War. Performances: 8/10 Why? Despite the film's dialogue being in various languages I'm not fluent in (except French), the main two actors were able to deliver their lines not only through words but also through facial expressions, which I loved. Their line delivery in the only language I'm fluent in wasn't as authentic as I hoped it would be, which leads me to believe that the same can be said about the other languages, but since I wasn't focusing on that at all I can't say that it bothered me even a little. Screenplay: 5/10 Why? Loosely based on his parents' story, "Cold War" is obviously a very personal film for writer/director Pawel Pawlikowski. In fact, it was so personal to him that I sometimes felt that he wasn't watching it unfold from the audie

Director: Michael Powell Stars: Karlheinz Bohm, Anna Massey, Moira Shearer Runtime: 101 minutes Synopsis:  A serial killer, whose weapon of choice is a camera's tripod, films the face of his victims as he's killing them to capture their genuine expressions of terror. Performances: 9/10 Why? As with most movies that came out during that era, the acting didn't age as well as some other elements of the film. However, I can't say that it bothered me as it gave the picture authenticity and truly reminded at all times that I was watching something made almost 60 years ago. And even though it's mainly the delivery that feels at times dated, the same cannot be said about the mannerisms and facial expressions of the actors. Karlheinz Bohm gave a performance that should, in my opinion, be remembered as an all-time great, perfectly blending both creepiness and psychopathy, yet somehow managing to highlight a tortured and painful past that will make the audien

Director: Marc Forster Stars: Ewan McGregor, Hayley Atwell, Bronte Carmichael Runtime: 104 minutes Synopsis:  A now grown-up Christopher Robin stumbles upon an old friend who needs his help. Performances: 5/10 Why? Ewan McGregor is without a shadow of a doubt one of the best actors working today. However, I had a hard time connecting with him as the titular character in "Christopher Robin". And while a lot of it had to do with the fact that he lacks development, McGregor didn't really help making the iconic character as fascinating as he needs to be. The rest of the cast didn't exactly shine as well, except maybe for the actors voicing Winnie-the-Pooh and his friends. Screenplay: 3/10 Why? Yes, it has cheesy dialogue, sloppy comedy, and underdeveloped characters, but my biggest issue with it was the fact that it didn't know what its target audience was. It's quite obvious that the writers wanted to tell a more adult and to some extent re

Director: Bryan Singer Stars: Rami Malek, Lucy Boynton, Gwilym Lee Runtime: 134 minutes Synopsis:  A close look at Freddie Mercury's personal life and relationship with other fellow Queen members. Performances: 9/10 Why? It's one of those performances that will be remembered for a very, very long time. Rami Malek's take on the extravagant Freddie Mercury was career-defining. The actor known for playing Elliot in "Mr. Robot" has a very easily recognizable face that I feared would've been distracted. But Malek disappeared into his role from the very first second until the very last. His performance alone is worth the price of admission, and I really hope that the backlash the movie's getting (it's currently sitting at 58% on the Tomatometer, a score I don't understand at all) won't affect his chances at the Oscars. The rest of the cast was good as well, but the spotlight belonged to one man and one man only. Screenplay: 7/10