Category Archives: Movie Review

Detective Pikachu movie review

Posted on by
1

Gonna catch an uplifting time at the cinema with Detective Pikachu! Whether you are first generation Pokemon fans (mid 20s-mid 30s) or the more recent generation of fans, you are sure to have a great time at this movie. That being said, you definitely need to be familiar with Pokemon if you are going to get the full enjoyment out of this live-action animated story. I describe the movie in this way because the plot and characters are right out of a typical animated movie. Do you need to have reached high levels in Pokemon GO or have books of trading cards to enjoy this movie? Certainly not. Even with a little knowledge, you will wax nostalgic and “feel it in your jellies.” At the root of this movie is the theme of reconciling father-son relationships. That being the case, it would have made far more sense to have opened on Fathers Day weekend as opposed to Mothers Day weekend. There are lots and lots of movies about mothers and daughters/sons, but far fewer about fathers and their kids. Therefore, releasing this movie on Fathers Day weekend would have made more sense.

A major challenge for the screenwriters was to write a movie that was entertaining for both 20/30s and kids. Would I love to see a Deadpool version of Pikachu? Sure! But that would have excluded the kids, so the fact it was entertaining for me and appropriate for kids and entire families was an accomplishment! After that abominable Sonic trailer, I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect in this movie, even though the clips from the trailer looked good. Suffice it to say, the CGI design of the Pokemon and the production design of the setting worked together very well! All the practical and digital elements complimented one another. Although the plot was developed well enough for this movie, the dialogue suffered majorly. Most of the lines are uninspired, unimaginative, and vapid. However, there is a moment that a certain theme song is kind of sung, and it is brilliantly delivered! Well, that’s pretty much it for this review. To be honest, there isn’t much here to dissect. So do yourself a favor, and catch this movie in theatres this weekend.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Long Shot” full movie review

Posted on by
1

Old fashioned rom-com meets political satire in this reverse Pretty Women that’s clever, heartwarming–oh yeah–and hilarious! After years of absence, the American romantic comedy has been slowly making a comeback in recent times; take last year’s Crazy Rich Asians for example. Directed by Jonathan Levine and written by Dan Sterling and Elizabeth Hannah, this edgy, smart comedy uses its two charming yet unlikely lovers as a conduit through which the socio-political state of America is explored in unapologetic, candid ways. Starring Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen, this movie demonstrates that real issues facing us today can be acknowledged but never become the central focus of the movie. It is the superb chemistry and character development of Theron and Rogen that carries this movie. Simple plot, complex characters. Although there are very Rogian moments, Theron and supporting actor O’Shea Jackson Jr, playing Rogen’s best friend, help to balance him out. Thanks to the outstanding comedic writing powered by external and internal conflict, this movie elevates the rom-com to rise above the predictable to deliver an endearing story that is equal parts whimsical and plausible. Theron and Rogen deliver stellar performances that carry the movie from start to finish. And you know what, it looks like they are having a great time!

When Fred Flarsky (Rogen) learns that his independent newspaper has been bought out by a media conglomerate, he quits instead of having his voice silenced or conformed to fit the new business model. By sheer happenstance, Fred runs into his childhood babysitter Charlotte Field (Theron) the current Secretary of State at a party to which his best friend (Jackson Jr.) brought him to cheer him up. When Field decides to prepare for a presidential run, she hires Flarsky to punch up her speeches because she likes his honesty and chutzpah. Little did either know that this business partnership would ignite old flames that would give way to political and relational conflict.

Not to oversimplify, but everything in this movie works. And that is rare for a comedy to work this well for me. If you’re familiar with my writing, you’ll know that I do not watch many romantic comedies, and seldom truly adore one; but, I sincerely enjoyed this movie. Levine demonstrates a commitment to effective directing that builds upon the impeccable casting and solid screenplay. Long Shot is one of those rare comedies that gives us captivating characters from the onset and a plot that, albeit unlikely, could very well exist in real life. Whereas it would have been so easy for the focus of this politically charged fish-out-of-water meets romantic-comedy to be overly concerned with the politics to the point that the characters and plot suffer, the story is consistently character-driven by using the plot to explore socio-political commentary that ultimately fuels the conflict. Topics such as the environment, racism, religion, and feminism are highlighted but never steal the spotlight from the journey of Flarsky and Field. And the screenplay gives us some thought-provoking reversals that go to show that the very group that claims to be the most tolerant of differences might actually be the least tolerant of all. The fact that Field is a woman and must play by different rules than male politicians is acknowledged but doesn’t become the focus either. In short, this movie has a well-defined central character (Charlotte Field) with a clearly defined external goal (to become President), fueled by an internal need (connection, both with herself and a partner) and motivation to achieve the goal (to make a positive difference for the American people). That is why the writing works as well as it does. Everything else is icing on the cake–and it’s delicious icing that is neither too stiff nor too sweet.

Pretty Woman works as well as it does, and has found itself a beloved movie not because of the social commentary but because the audience fell in love with the stars and desired to see them find happiness. The same can be said of Long Shot. I was hesitant going into the screening since I am not usually a fan of Rogen’s comedy; but I was confident that with Theron, an actress I have long since found to be outstanding in talent, beauty, and philanthropy, Rogen’s over-the-top self-deprecating acting would have a equally charismatic actress to balance him out. The relationship between Field and Flarsky is so incredibly genuine. No pretense here. Both of them say precisely what they think, not shying away from feedback or rebuttals that could mean the end of the friendship, partnership, or careers. Combining Field’ workaholic, domineering, savvy Secretary of State turned presidential candidate and Flarsky’s radical, uncouth, abrasive journalist turned speechwriter provides audiences with a refreshing take on a staple genre of motion pictures. They have have different ways of showing it, but both characters are Type As that are stubborn, idealistic, and seek to do the right thing by the American people–Field as a politician and Flarsky as a journalist.

All throughout the movie, conflict arises out of Flarsky’s reactions to Field’s platform and policy changes; furthermore, additional conflict arises out of Field’s reactions to the choices made by Flarsky as they could damage her chances at the presidency. Despite all the conflict, it comes from being committed to a passion, and it’s that unapologetic passion that draws them to on another. That, and the fact they are childhood friends, and are affected by the power of nostalgia. The TV celebrity turned President of the Unites States is definitely built from tropes and characteristics of our current POTUS, but never feels too much or forced. Likewise, the character of the media mogul is clearly derived from Rupert Murdoch. Both these oppositional characters are entertaining without ever going over the top to make a point.

Although it is Rogen who is first billed, and therefore is likely the intended central character (from the perspective of Lionsgate), it is Theron’s Field who is the central character of this story. Just because you are introduced to a character first, doesn’t always mean that they are your central character. In a manner of speaking, Rogen plays the role of Field’s conscience, a sort of moral/ethical compass that doubles as a vessel through which Field rediscovers her ambitious youthful self and all the convictions therein. Rogen is not the only conscience/moral compass in the movie, he too has one in the form of his best friend. The best scenes in the movie are those where heated arguments or passionate disagreements take place. No real surprise there, but these arguments always have something to teach the characters and, by extension, the audience. One of Flarsky’s purposes is to remind Field why she got into politics (even during her time running for student council) at such a young age and that she should never compromise on her convictions–stay true to herself. Furthermore, he is also the vessel through which Field rediscovers and connects with her needs as a human, as a women. A need to reconnect with her playful self that will ultimately unleash who she truly is. Likewise, Flarsky’s successful best friend surprisingly emerges as his conscience. Only instead of providing moral/ethical direction in the world of politics, it is on a more relatable sociological level. Flarsky is confronted on his gross intolerance of all those with whom he disagrees in terms of religion, love and support, and even racism. He buys into the stereotypes just like those he accuses. Great scene!

Thinking of this movie and Pretty Woman, I am left with this one being the superior movie. Not knocking Pretty Woman, I still respect it, but Long Shot takes what Pretty Woman did right, and elevate it to the next level. One of the biggest differences between the two is the style of comedy. Long Shot is definitely a hard R comedy whereas Pretty Woman is more “family friendly.” You can enjoy both equally! A movie about underdogs, this movie may very well be an underdog at the box office in May, but it’s certainly worth the watch if you’re in the mood for an edgy adult comedy.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Avengers Endgame Full Movie Review

Posted on by
6

By Raul Navedo of the Minorities Report Podcast

“Part of the journey IS the end.” And what an end we’ve been gifted with. We live in a world that has had to endure Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, TDKR, and Justice League. Where your average ensemble film can’t get pacing and structure right because of how many A-Listers have to share a narrative. A place where “spectacle” tends to trump storytelling. It’s no wonder why we walk into things like this with some concern. Worried that we will be let down like so many times before… But I can now say, not this time. This time we can walk out of the theater like Judd Nelson and throw that fist in the air, and I hope some of you do, because our beloved Russo Bros. have brought an epic and satisfying end to one of the greatest journeys in cinematic history.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the breakdown because we all know it and if you don’t, then this is not the place for you. You clicked on the wrong “Avengers” from the wrong decade… Our team is back to kill Thanos and try to correct what he did. Some of our heroes are in VERY VERY VERY low places, and I’m not just talking about their gut; but they have to get it together for a long-shot opportunity to regain the people they have lost while making up for the years humanity can never get back.

Guys, I don’t know if you are aware but our current MCU universe is made up of 28 (from my quick count) lead, non-supporting, characters that make up our heroes. Extend that to supporting and we are at 40, but let’s stick to 28, shall we? To consider what the Russos had to work with to balance screen time to appease the fans of all of these franchises. Breaking down each storyline and finding ways to–not only represent them well–but end them well with a conclusion that is both epic and satisfying. Funny and heart breaking. Some would say it’s too much for one person to handle… Luckily we got two!

The plot was handled so well even though there was so much to work with, and I know it was a three hour film; but honestly, it could have been longer. One of my biggest issues with the film is the pacing in the first hour. It is a bit rushed; but then again, if you consider where they need to get and all they need to do then you understand why it is so. However, if you add another twenty minutes to the film, that first third will feel a lot better. For the general public, a three hour film is too much to handle. So, I get it. The pacing seems to settle significantly once a certain character pops back into the world and puts a plan in motion that, though the risk is high, the reward is, literally, a trillion times better! “We owe it to everyone who isn’t here to try.”

As a kid I used to own a VHS copy of Titanic. I remember it was so long it came in two tapes. The second tape began right as Jack and Rose leave the iconic handprint on the glass. They run out to the deck laughing. The two guys in the crows nest see them getting frisky and then we get the comedic “If that’s what it takes to get warm I’d rather not” line right before we hit the glacier. I remember this because I watched the second half of Titanic easily over a dozen times. I would just pop in the second tape. If VHSs were still relevant this would be this generation’s Titanic. The whole film is great but the second half is so much greater! Kids would know the second half like the back of their hand and their recollection of the first half would amount to lovers standing at the front of a ship with their arms out AND Rose’s boobs. Hopefully you are still tracking with me. Although the first half of this film is great, the second half is what people will keep coming back for.

This is the culmination of 2,448 minutes of superhero excellence, and the pressure was real but the “Endgame” was handled so well that few will have a hard time enjoying these three hours that fly by before you know it.

Besides the first hour’s pacing being a bit off, there was one scene that is truly problematic. I may get some hate for this but someone has to say it! The forced unnecessary-female-empowerment-moment. Not that I have a problem with an awesome kick-ass girl scene but this one is so blatantly forced that it is very difficult to enjoy without mocking. I loved the similar moment in Infinity War but I didn’t have to suspend disbelief to enjoy it. Everyone around me shook their heads–women and men My wife was right next to me saying “So dumb…”

That is truly the worse moment in the film for me, and it wasn’t even a full scene. Just a quick moment. The rest of the film was filled truly great moments where we felt deep joy and heartache that was fueled by some tremendous acting. Everyone did exceptional, but I have to say hats off to Robert Downy Jr who created some complicated emotional moments. The only thing I was left wanting was Captain Marvel. I really like what Brie, the Russo’s and Anna & Ryan did with her character so I expected to see more of her. I mean, it must be tough considering this was shot before Captain Marvel even had a script so they had no idea how well her character would do and how big her fandom would be but I wish they had just trusted that people would jive with her and that her solo film would break a billion at the box office.

All that being said, this is a great film that I will probably see five times in theaters and will surely talk about at length. It is definitely worth the watch that I need to say that, and it will likely end up at the top of my MCU ratings. “Part of the journey is the end” and, as I writer, I believe that it is not only part of the journey but it is the most important part. It is the part people leave with. The part of the story that determines how you feel when it’s all over. Did you know our strongest memories are attributed to emotion? That’s why the end is the thing people will discuss and breakdown most. The part they will criticize or admire the most. It’s the part that keeps them coming back like when Cal is chasing Jack and Rose through the sinking ship while shooting at them…

The end is everything and, in this situation, everything is pretty friggin great!

You can follow the Minorities Report Pod on Twitter! And visit their website to listen to the podcasts. A big thank you to Raul for contributing this article.

—

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Pet Sematary” (2019) horror film review

Posted on by
2

“Sometimes dead is better.” Unless you’re back from the dead with a vengeance! Brace yourself for the spine-chilling, immensely terrifying 2019 adaptation of the best-selling novel Pet Sematary by the legendary Stephen King. Whereas many remakes/reboots of earlier horror films often suffer, this one emerges from the soured soil as a force to be reckoned with. Directors Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer deliver a heartpounding rollercoaster of a nightmarish experience as Pet Sematary opens everywhere this weekend. Instead of a direct from page to screen adaptation, much like the fantastic 1989 original version (and yes, it still holds up), this version takes some creative liberties; however, the soul of the novel and even the 1989 version is clearly there. This creative latitude enabled the film to deliver new, surprising scares that are sure to frighten you. If you haven’t seen the extended trailers–DON’T–cannot say that enough. It’s best to go into this film with only the name and the initial teaser trailer in your mind. Not a spoiler, because it’s well known this this horror film and novel deals with loss, grief, and the uncanny (i.e. the return of the repressed), so the challenge of this adaptation was to force the conflict to derive from those issues and inspire the hellish events for which the story is well known. 2019’s Pet Sematary delivers in spades–quite literally. You will feel the ominous sense of dread from the moment the Creeds move into their new house and that feeling will stay with you as you are buried in a nightmare. This plot is solid.

I joined the popular podcast Mike Mike and Oscar to discuss this film, so click below to listen to the show. You are also invited to continue reading my written review.

Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) and his wife, Rachel, relocate from Boston to rural Maine with their two young children. The couple soon discover a mysterious burial ground hidden deep in the woods near their new home. When tragedy strikes, Louis turns to his neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), setting off a perilous chain reaction that unleashes an unspeakable evil with horrific consequences (IMDb summary). Sometimes dead is better. 

Let’s address the white ‘el’ephant in the room first. And I don’t mean the major plot twist changed from the novel and 1989 film that we saw in the trailer (c’mon, this is a well-known story and trailer at this point)–I mean the dialogue. Is the dialogue horribly bad? No. But it’s definitely the weak element in the script. Fortunately, this movie makes up for that with incredible windup, excellent deliveries, and the fact it is nightmarishly creepy. The pacing and tone are excellently crafted, and the visuals are fantastic. Never one does this film attempt to prove that it’s better than the original; in fact, it takes what many of us love about the original and use those moments as expertly designed fake-outs and false setups that are followed with something new and fun. So, it acknowledges the original without remaking it. Furthermore, it integrates many elements from the novel and original into the plot seamlessly. Achieving an overwhelming sense of dread from the very beginning of a horror film is quite difficult. That sense of unease is a combination of the atmosphere, setting, and ominous visual elements. Not five minutes into this movie, you are feeling that sense that something is definitely not right about this place. Yes, this is in part because many of us know what is to come; but even for new folks, the evil of this place can be felt all over your body. One of the creepiest scenes features the warped mirror image of an earlier cheerful moment, but it has been affected by the sour soil of the ancient burial ground.

While there isn’t much time to develop these characters, the writers were challenged with developing them enough for the story, and it works pretty well. The script isn’t quite as well-written as IT, but the margin of difference is not tremendously wide wither. As much of a fan of the original version as I am, there are areas that this version got better. For instance, the Zelda subplot–much more organically integrated into the main plot of Pet Sematary and even drives the main plot forward by revealing aspects to Rachel’s character. Two things for sure, these are two bad parents and Jud is an irresponsible neighbor. We don’t spend much time in the campus hospital where Luis Creed works, but we still get the big event of the passing of Pascow. Pascow’s character, whereas his harbinger of death or Jacob Marley (as so eloquently put by Mike Mike and Oscar) character isn’t as integral to the plot of this version, he looks more terrifying and doesn’t take a turn for the humorous. Of all the characters, I was most curious about John Lithgow’s performance as Jud. I was cautiously optimistic because Lithgow often has a way of delivering memorable performances, no matter how minor the role. His expression of Jud differs from that of Fred Gwynne’s but he still stays true to the character of Jud. And there are even moments that he channels Gwynne’s interpretation of the infamous neighbor. Just wish he had a Maine accent since he is still a local boy in this village (which is very close to Derry, according to a road sign). One of the best scenes in the movie take place as Lousi and Jud sit around a campfire, drinking, smoking and having an ill–fated heart-to-heart.

Contemporary remakes of earlier horror films often rely upon CGI versus practical effects. Cast that worry away because other than a few moments of CG, there are lots of fantastic practical effects from set design to the kills. There is such a high level of authenticity in everything the camera allows us to see, and even those moments that lie just off screen. Yes, there is still the inescapable supernatural factor in this story, but everything else is pretty well grounded in reality. From the parents building a fence to the proximity of the ancient burial ground, everything works to craft an authentic setting and characters. And yes, your Achilles tendon will still hurt in that famous kill. The directors truly seem to take into account that you cannot replace the way real light bounces off real objects and into the camera lens. Out two houses, the characters, and Church the cat exist in the time and space of each and every scene. With the exception a couple scenes that were not necessary or drawn out too far, they all work quite well to setup the following scene and point to the end of the film. There are moments that will cause you to look under beds, under stairs, and even analyze your pet more when you get home. For young audience members, watching this story for the first time, I imagine that they will be terrified just like I was when I saw the 89 one as a kid.

While I’ve read reviews claiming that this is the best Stephen Kind page to screen adaptation, I feel that other films have been more effective. Off the top of my head, I’d say that Misery is a better film both in terms of its cinematic critical value and faithfulness to the novel. Not to mention the Oscar-winning performance by Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes! No mistaking it, 2019’s Pet Sematary is a good horror movie and one that has a moderate level of rewatchability. Highly recommend for horror fans!

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Us” full horror film review

Posted on by
4

The high speed hype train begins to slow down. Returning to horror once again, Writer-Director Jordan Peele’s Us hits theatres nationwide this weekend. The highly anticipated followup to the horror masterpiece Get Out ultimately falls short of the bar set by its predecessor. But don’t worry, there is still plenty to like about this intense film. Whereas Get Out was a horror film built upon compelling, thoughtful social-commentary on the uncredited, forced appropriation of one ethnic group by another, Us plays as a straight forward horror film, complete with all the thrills for which you hope to experience. There is certainly an attempt by Peele to comment on class, MAGA, and other important social topics, but the film tries to do too much, and winds up not accomplishing what it so desperately wants to do. Keep your eyes peeled for details, because you are going to need them in order to best appreciate the ending. With Peele’s revival of The Twilight Zone, it is clear that his adoration of that series (which is regarded as the best written series of all time by the WGA) played a roll in the development of Us. Specifically, this movie feels inspired by the After Hours and Mirror Image episodes. Peele delivers audiences an incredibly fun horror movie that is certain to do well over its run in the cinemas. Many of the film’s elements work exceptionally well; but unfortunately, the film is held back from its full potential by weak writing and average directing. Even though Peele’s Get Out, in my opinion, is the superior film, there is still a lot to enjoy in Us. I’ve no doubt that if you’re a horror fan, that you will have a great time! Let Us cut deeper into this film.

IMDb summary. Accompanied by her husband, son and daughter, Adelaide Wilson returns to the beachfront home where she grew up as a child. Haunted by a traumatic experience from the past, Adelaide grows increasingly concerned that something bad is going to happen. Her worst fears soon become a reality when four  strangers descend upon the house, forcing the Wilsons into a fight for survival. The family is horrified to learn that each attacker takes the appearance of one of them,

My biggest takeaway from this movie is that I am convinced more than ever than Jordan Peele should be able to pull off a successful, meaningful revival of The Twilight Zone. The problem with the writing and directing in Us is that it tried to do too much. In an effort to create a deep, rich, cinematic experience that was both horrifying and thought-provoking, the plot is all over the place. Even to the point that it contradicts itself. It’s as if the idea for this movie began as one of the episodes of the upcoming Twilight Zone revival but Peele decided that he wanted to turn it into a feature length movie. Evidence of this can be found in the similarities it shares with the aforementioned After Hours and Mirror Image episode. There are enough differences that it is clearly not an adaptation of the episode, but I can see how it inspired this movie. Further evidence can be witnessed in that it’s produced, written, and directed by Peele. When a storyteller wears that many hats, there is little room for checks and balances. Us feels like a feature length horror movie that would’ve been better off as a half hour or hour long installment in an anthology series. Starting off moderately strong, then very strong in the second act, the third act feels like it was from another movie idea altogether and forced to fit into this one. Too many ideas. All good individually, but convolute the plot when mashed together. The plot is too complex. What Us tries to do is ultimately too vast for what this movie is capable of delivering to audiences.

Without getting into spoilers, I’d like to visit why the plot doesn’t work as well as it demonstrably shows it had the potential to have worked. We are clearly explained a particular relationship as having a one-way transference; however, there is a plot twist that completely contradicts this relationship. A best practice of screenwriting is to not introduce significantly new material, in the third act, that directly affects the present plot, which was not foreshadowed or setup in the previous two acts; this movie introduces lots of new plot elements in the third act that further complicate versus tying up. For most of the movie, the plot lives in a believable reality, but then it takes a turn that takes it from something terrifyingly possible to nearly unbelievable. And the power of a movie such as this is that it feels possible within the world that’s created on screen. If the characters are making a statement, they run out of people to receive that statement through the course of events. Perhaps if there was a greater supernatural element in the screenplay that it would have worked much better, because the supernatural could have explained how and why much better than the science-fiction approach. What is lacking here is a singular vision.

Now that I have gotten all the things that I didn’t care for out of the way, I want to finish this article with what works brilliantly! The performances are outstanding, the score is excellent, and even the cinematography is noteworthy. Of all the stellar performances, Lupita’s is the one that stood out to me the most. As an Oscar winner, I expect her to deliver an impeccable performance, and she does precisely that! I felt what she was feeling, I empathized with her greatly, and she held my attention for the duration of the movie. I’m careful not to project an Oscar nom out of this because I thought Toni Collette’s performance in Hereditary was Oscar and Golden Globe worthy, and we all know what happened with that. Love this score! The classic orchestral approach fit this movie exceptionally well. The score worked so well that it almost felt like a character in and of itself. A well-composed score should be a diegetic extension of the story, the emotional beats, and action; and this one is all those things! Cinematography should never be overlooked as greatly contributing to how a story is being told. It is the element that places us in objective or subjective points of view or prompts us to interpret a scene in a particular way. There are some beautiful shots in this movie that are framed with precision. All throughout the movie, the cinematography plays a strong role in crafting the full experience of Us.

Regardless if you like or love this movie, you are definitely in for a fun time! Perhaps I have issues with the writing and directing (two important elements in the crafting of a movie) but I still enjoyed myself and am confident that you will too. I don’t think it will become a classic in the way that Get Out will be one day, but it’s one to watch anyhow. Lots of great concepts here, but Peele doesn’t strongly deliver any one of them.

You can join Ryan at the cinema most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry