It's been a few years since I first saw "The French Connection", but I got to see it again when I volunteered at a screening of it. I actually think that I ended up liking the film less this time than I did the first time that I saw it.

I probably wasn't able to pay as much attention to the film as I could have, as I had a hard time hearing the dialogue. Regardless, the film is still easy to follow, which is both a good and a bad thing. On one hand, it means that the visual storytelling is great. On the other hand, it means that the plot is rather simple (likely because it has been done countless times afterwards). The film only kept me halfway interested, but had enough exciting moments to draw me back in when I was about to zone out. The writing also has some pretty bad flaws to it. For example, the film has an ambiguous ending, then goes to a "where are they now" ending, counteracting the great ambiguity. The characters also aren't the most well-developed, as the script focuses more on developing the story rather than the characters.

The film was very well-done in a technical sense. The cinematography was great, especially in the fight and chase scenes. Action scenes are well-choreographed, even giving us one of the most famous car chases in film history. The score is also very interesting and fitting for the tone of the film.

So overall, "The French Connection" is an important, but overrated cop film. It is worth seeing for its notoriety, but it probably didn't deserve best picture.

The French Connection
Big Tuna's Rating: B
Where Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Probably.

I've really wanted to see this film since I first heard about it because it looked extremely funny and I liked Taika Waititi's other film, "What We Do in the Shadows". I was able to volunteer for two showings of the film at the local indie theater, and I was not disappointed.

I thought that the film was really well-written, for the most part. The characters are extremely well-developed and likable, allowing the amazing cast to perform their all. Julian Dennison is a very funny, very believable child actor. Sam Neill was as great as always, with good sarcastic humor throughout. The fun had a very good balance of hilarious and emotionally-driven moments, but I found that the audience didn't find some parts to be as funny as I did. My biggest critique of the film is that it gets a little far-fetched in parts. There are skips from the first day to weeks in to months in, with the audience expected to believe that everything went okay during that time. Also, there are some over-the-top moments, like when the military (including tanks) is sent on a  manhunt.

The cinematography and score of the film are also great. The cinematography has a lot of good moments showcasing the New Zealand landscape. The film also did some really cool things with montages in which it showed a constant pan with the different parties completing their different actions.

So overall, "Hunt for the Wilderpeople" is a fun, well-done film. It is a bit over-the-top at times, but it doesn't hinder the enjoyment of the film. I even enjoyed it the second time that I watched it.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

It's been a while since I've seen the Bourne films, but I do remember liking them all. Before going to the movie, I watched the "Jason Bourne in 90 Seconds" featurette, but ended up finding it unnecessary.

The film was much less intelligent than I remember the other films in the series being. It was really generic. I also found that the series has began to tell the same story over and over again: Jason Bourne has to shut down a corrupt secret government program. It's not the most exciting action film, but it managed to keep me interested.

The acting of the film ws its strong suit. Matt Damon is obviously good as Jason Bourne, but I am going to talk more about the supporting cast. Alicia Vikander was a welcome addition. She played an intelligent, strong female character, which falls right into her comfort zone. Tommy Lee Jones is also good as the antagonist of the film.

The action sequences of the film are well-done, but aren't anything particularly special. The cinematography is very good, as is the score, but they don't compare to a lot of other action films, like the James Bond series or "Mad Max: Fury Road".

Overall, "Jason Bourne" was an enjoyable, well-acted film that didn't really have anything wrong other than the fact that it was unoriginal. Fans of the series may notice that it isn't as intelligent as the others, but will likely still enjoy the return of the character to the big screen.

Jason Bourne
Big Tuna's Rating: B+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Probably.

The trailers for this film were really funny, so I knew that I would be going to see this movie. While it wasn't the most original, "Bad Moms" ended up being a really funny raunchy comedy, and the packed audience seemed to think the same thing.

The film was quite funny. Instead of going for recycled jokes, a lot of the film had more original humor. The party scene in the film was one of the funniest parts. There are some shock value moments, however, those are less frequent. The chemistry between the actresses also does a lot to advance the humor.

The writing of the film, while formulaic, is actually quite likable. Each of the characters fit a clear archetype, however, none of them feel forced, not even the antagonist. Each character has a combination of characteristics that allows them to be relatable to the target audience. The ending is rather clichéd, but it is a crowd-pleasing ending, so you can't really blame the writers for that. The film also has a balanced amount of emotionally-driven moments, which flow naturally into the film. The acting of the film is also really great. All of the main actresses play their characters very well, showing the right emotions at the right times.

So overall, I really enjoyed "Bad Moms". It wasn't the most original film, but the well-written characters and the great humor make up for it. If you like raunchy films like this, you should check it out.

Bad Moms
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

 I'm not a huge fan of the DC animated films, but the source material is one of my favorite Batman storylines because of its characterization of The Joker, so I knew that I would be seeing it. While the Joker elements of the film pleased me, there were a lot of added elements involving Batgirl that just ended up falling flat.

The graphic novel was already controversial for being misogynistic due to elements involving the debilitation and implied assault of the previously strong female character of Batgirl. Unfortunately, the film went even further with the misogyny. The first half was a melodramatic romance tale of Batgirl and Batman. Batgirl was sexualized, and Batman became stereotypically overprotective of her. I thought that it was a really bad choice on the part of the writers to incorporate this unnecessary, melodramatic, formulaic subplot into the film. For me, it just countered the dark tone of the film that I thought it deserved.

On the other hand, The Joker's elements of the film were very well done. Hamill was a great Joker, portraying the amount of emotion necessary to allow the audience to somewhat relate to the character, which was a major element of the graphic novel. Conroy was also a good Batman, but there wasn't really anything that stood out in the performance. I didn't like Tara Strong as Batgirl, but I don't think that it is her fault, as she didn't have the most well-written character to work with.

I don't think that the animation used was the best visual medium to express this storyline. It was too bright and cartoonish, sometimes distracting from the dark tone of the film. While I acknowledge that a live action film would not be financially feasible, as it would alter the DC Universe's storyline, I think that a slightly darker style of animation, or even an audio play would have been a bit better.

So overall, I didn't dislike "Batman: The Killing Joke". The second half pleased me as a fan of the graphic novel, however, I could have done without the first part. Fans of Batman, like me, will likely enjoy the greater development of the Joker, but may also dislike how the film chose to develop Batgirl.

Batman: The Killing Joke
Big Tuna's Rating: B-
How Did I Watch It?: Digital that I own.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Maybe.

I wanted to see this film because of its truly intriguing premise, though I did expect it to be a poorly made film. While I did think that the marketing showed too much, I thought that the film was quite enjoyable and actually surprisingly well-done.

The writing of the film is slightly reminiscent of elements of George Orwell's "1984", such as Big Brother. Still, it manages to remain pretty fresh. The plot, much to my surprise, was far from predictable, apart from the fact that I knew most of the film's major from its trailers. It also has a lot of great commentary on social media and our reliance on technology. The film had a good balance of thrills, romance, and comedy, keeping the film interesting, and rightfully so, as the premise should provide for moments of all three. The characters are also well-developed, with the backstory of the characters being told more naturally than expected for a film of this genre.

The acting is good, but I obviously can't say that Roberts was completely believable, as there was always a sense of disbelief in that she is now too old to play a high schooler. Otherwise, she and Franco both showed believable emotion. There are also a few good supporting performances, such as Colson Baker and Miles Heizer, but everyone else was rather average.

The cinematography of the film was also really surprising. There were some really cool shots, including shots through what is supposed to be a phone screen, that add to the sense of technological menace that the film provides. The soundtrack wasn't my favorite, but it does set the mood for the film well.

So overall, I really enjoyed "Nerve". I was surprised by how thoughtful the film was and how well-developed the characters were. I wish that the marketing would have shown less, but that didn't really affect my enjoyment of the film.

Nerve
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

Listed as the fourth worst movie of all time on Metacritic, I had no hope going in that "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" would be a good film. Regardless, I laughed hysterically at the poor cinematic qualities of one of D'Souza's other films, "2016: Obama's America", so I hoped that this would be one of those so-bad-it's-funny movies. To me, it was.

I am going to try to focus less on the political aspects of this film and more on its cinematic aspects. Despite this, from a documentary aspect, it is hard to ignore the fact that this film is extremely one-sided and biased. Regardless of political opinions, this is obvious.

The film was very shoddily put together. It was a mash-up of interviews, reenactments of D'Souza's experiences, historical reenactments, and an extremely cheesy segment featuring an orchestra and visual effects. The reenactments of D'Souza's life are presented as if they were shot in the moment, but that is obviously impossible. Logic states that it would be impossible for D'Souza to bring a film crew into these places, such as a community confinement center or an employees only area of a Democratic museum with no one noticing. Also, the acting in these reenactments seems really unnatural and gives away that it is a reenactment even more. The historical reenactments are also bad, with bad acting, with the segments feeling exaggerated in order to incite a reaction. The cheesiest part was the introduction/conclusion, which featured a pianist/narrator, a young girl singing the national anthem (along with an orchestra and choir), manipulated animations, and a dancing donkey puppet. The goal of this seemed to be to have the audience associate patriotism with anti-Democratic ideals, hindering the viewer's ability to make their own decision based on the information.

Despite obvious flaws in filmmaking, one could say that it is potentially one of the most precisely crafted films of the year. Every scene is finely put together to try to infuriate the audience, which is exactly the point that the film is trying to make. While people who are analyzing it for its cinematic flaws, like me, will find it to be a badly made documentary, general viewers who choose to ignore this may find it to incite anger.

So overall, I did get a few laughs out of "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party". Its obvious bias, filmmaking flaws, and desperateness to incite a reaction from the audience amused me. It's a bad documentary, regardless of political opinion, but it was enjoyable to watch.

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
Big Tuna's Rating: D+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: No.

I volunteer at an indie theater, and they are doing a classic film series this summer. This week's film was "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", which I have seen many times, so I was able to watch the film on the big screen, which was definitely a cool experience for such a visually-oriented film.

The film is very aesthetically appealing. The cinematography is phenomenal, both that of the wide shots showcasing the landscapes or the close shots showcasing the emotions of the actors. Obviously, there is the iconic extreme-close-up showdown, however,  there are many other scenes that feature amazing shots. My favorite is probably the tracking shot when Tuco is in the cemetery. The movement is so fluid, and the result is just beautiful. The score by Ennio Moricone, quite possibly the master of spaghetti western music, is classic, and deservedly so, as it sets the mood for the whole film.

The plot of the film is rather simple, but the execution, as mentioned above, is what makes it such a great film. The film is interesting, for the most part, with the only parts that made me lose interest being a few scenes dragging on farther than necessary for the sake of art. It does feel a little bit hectic in the very beginning, but it soon becomes more clear. The characters are also well-developed, which is a tough task, given that the movie is almost three hours long.

The acting of the film is also very good. The three leads, Eastwood, Van Cleef, and Wallach are all great. Eastwood plays the protagonist well, convincing in the type of role that he would come to play so many times later. Van Cleef, "The Bad", was an extremely menacing antagonist, appearing truly evil. Wallach serves as good comedic relief, and probably has the most lines for a single character in the film, allowing him to have the best development. I will say, however, that the dubbing of the film was not great. The three main actors all spoke English, so their only issues with mismatched dubbing came when there was poor ADR, which wasn't often. The supporting cast, however, had a good amount of foreign actors, which led to some non-synchronized dialogue.

So overall, "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" is definitely a classic. It is worth watching for the cinematic quality of the film, and while there are a few slow parts, the film is interesting as a whole. It is probably the pinnacle of spaghetti western films, and I hope to re-visit the rest of the Dollars Trilogy soon.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

From seeing the first trailer for this film, I wanted to see it, as it appeared to have a feel similar to that of the films of Noah Baumbach. So, when it came to the local indie theater at which I volunteer, I got to see it. Unfortunately, the film ended up being far less smart, funny, and original than I hoped it to be.

The writing of the film, while not bad, was one of my least favorite aspects of the film. It has a few hilarious parts, but there were even more parts in which I zoned out. I initially couldn't pinpoint what I thought felt off in this film, but I figured out that I didn't really sympathize with the protagonist. The plot of the film is about the protagonist's rather selfish actions, and I don't really sympathize with characters that are so one-dimensional. The dialogue of the film even mentions this, but it is mostly ignored. Other characters, however, such as those of Ethan Hawke and Julianne Moore are pretty well-writen. Ultimately, the fact that I didn't sympathize with the protagonist will likely lead to this film being forgettable.

The strongest part of this film to me was its acting. Despite me not liking the protagonist, Greta Gerwig did do a very good job with the protagonist. Ethan Hawke was also very good, but felt a bit underutilized. Julianne Moore was hilarious in her role, and probably gave the best performance in the film. Bill Hader and Maya Rudolph gave funny performances too, but were both extremely underused. Other elements of the film were good too, including the cinematography and score, but were nothing revolutionary.

So overall, "Maggie's Plan" was a disappointingly unoriginal, but not horrible romantic comedy. It's a short film, but it ended up feeling like it was a bit longer. Some people may find more in the film, but I did not like how the protagonist was written, so I was a bit let down.

Maggie's Plan
Big Tuna's Rating: B-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Maybe.

I like to give horror films a chance, and I have seen the short film that inspired the feature, so I was extremely excited for this film. I was a bit hesitant that it would be a standard, cheesy horror film, however, it was surprisingly good.

The film's plot is predictable, but the characters are so well-written that it compensates for it. They are surprisingly three-dimensional for a film of this genre. The protagonists are all likable and relatable. They are flawed, but that is true of people in real life, adding another dimension to their personalities. The writers also did a good job of creating a menacing antagonist and (for the most part) sticking to the rules that they established, unlike the short that inspired it. I am impressed by how well the filmmakers were able to craft a film from such a simple premise.

There are also some other very strong parts of this film. The acting is really believable, especially Teresa Palmer, who will hopefully get even bigger roles after this. The child actor, Gabriel Bateman, was also surprisingly good. The cinematography is another strong suit. The camerawork is extremely fluid and quite beautiful for a horror film. This is accented by the production design and the score in order to create an eerie atmosphere.

Overall, I really loved "Lights Out". It's a well-made and enjoyable horror film. If you like films of this genre, I definitely recommend that you check it out.

Lights Out
Big Tuna's Rating: A
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.