The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Review #2206: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn / Green Goblin), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Colm Feore (Donald Menken), Paul Giamatti (Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino), Sally Field (May Parker), and Felicity Jones (Felicia) Directed by Marc Webb (#1780 - The Amazing Spider-Man)

Review: 

Okay, so maybe The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) had a few admirers for its ideas on the character (as originally devised by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko for comic books). It was self-serious in a way that surely seemed distinct from those other Spider-Man movies from the first decade of the 20th century, well, as much as one can be when having a villain be someone named The Lizard. A sequel was pretty much right on the get go, complete with Webb returning to direct. This time, the screenplay was done by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who had been hired to do a re-write of the first draft that had been done by James Vanderbilt (as such, each were credited for the story). Plans to set up further films by Sony to basically set up their shared universe involving Spider-Man related things such as, say the "Sinister Six" or Venom were in mind prior to the release of this film in May of 2014. The film was made at a budget that is probably more than the reported $290 million that attracted slightly fewer people to the theater than the last film (read: money, but money...).; amusingly, X-Men: Days of Future Past came out three weeks after this film (good lord, I actually remember seeing it in theaters) as a film made in the shadow of previous franchise films that hinted at the idea of a follow-up film to a different type of result. Of course, any plans with further Spider-Man films with Garfield as the star all went away in a flash in the span of roughly a year to where the next appearance of Spider-Man came with Captain America: Civil War (2016) and blah blah blah, you probably already know about Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and the return of certain folks with different costuming.  

Admittedly, there are a few elements worth appreciating, because even the lesser films had something useful to watch in the main lead, and Garfield does manage to carve out something worth watching for a film that is now a decade old. The charm exhibited between him and Stone is star-crossed enough to make the resolution something worth exploring in its impact in a sequel (in theory). They have useful chemistry together, even if some could have the caveat of "nice romcom, but this is a Spider-Man movie" right then and there. A good chunk of the movie is "in theory" when you send a few compliments its way, but there is no truly terrible aspect on the level of say, Blade: Trinity (2004). The action generally works out for those expectations one could hope for in a mid 2010s film that was at least trying to provide some sizzle alongside a moderate steak. And then you get to the film itself and realize that some movies just don't know when to stop. The first film may have been a bit lacking in its attempts to differentiate itself from a previous acclaimed trilogy, but it at least didn't have the gall to throw everything at the wall with a smirk on its face. Here I just find watching a competition of whether one can call it a poor man's Batman Returns (1992) or Batman Forever (1995) that was made by people who really thought they could get away with making a bloated sequel that could also set up something called "The Sinister Six" rather than picking one villain and sticking with it. Did the world really need bits and pieces of a "how did the Parkers die conspiracy"? I think they needed it about as much as they needed a blue Electro. If Spider-Man 3 (2007) was the byproduct of a studio wanting just a bit too much for their superhero sequel, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the one that says, "hold my beer" and then some (this is a movie that casts B.J. Novak for a bit role that I guess is actually a "thing" in certain comics that for a film is about as interesting as the end of this sentence). Either have an Electro or have the weirdness of a man infused with the mode of a goblin, you really should pick one regardless of if it is a sequel or not (to say nothing of the attempt at setting up a bigger future threat in Giamatti and an "accent" that is completely unnecessary). It is bloated and average in all the frustrating ways possible, somehow being even more self-serious than the first one. 

I barely read any kind of comics, but I vaguely remember looking over a cheap reprint of a Spider-Man comic with Electro in it that had him in a green and yellow outfit that looked about on par for the 1960s that thought it would be cool to do crime when he got struck by lightning on a power line. Obviously one can see that the blue present here had inspiration from less older renditions of Electro, but I imagine that having a blue look also helps when it comes to making spectacle filmmaking. They really thought they were cooking with this character, but all they managed to do was cook up a really amusing look to go with characterization that absolutely cannot hold water with Foxx there to try and play a "nobody turned into a somebody". Of course, it probably isn't nearly as clunky as trying to set a fast one in having Garfield and DeHaan look like old reunited buddies prior to tragedy, which really seems to come off as if one was watching part three of a five part plan that actually is being held up by duct tape. His stuff seems almost studio note'd away with the parts that actually seem like a descent into madness (with the transformation sequence anyway). Field described in an interview after the release as one with troubles when it came to depth as if trying to put "10 pounds of [expletive] in a five-pound bag". This is a pretty accurate way to describe her characterization in terms of having exactly one remotely interesting scene (involving her and Garfield sitting and talking about one's parent). Hell, by the second film of the Rosemary Harris version of Aunt May, it had her finishing prayers to annoying goblins and seeing bank robberies up close. All you get with Field and her characterization is, um, being a nursing student to help with bills that get the sidelines because hey, got to get all this other stuff in about a secret abandoned station or ghost Denis Leary showing up at the most, um, interesting times. It is entirely possible that if you combined the amount of screentime of Scott/Davidtz between the two films as the Parker parents, you might actually finish neck and neck with Field, and only one had the distinct pleasure of being in the start of a film for some reason (the answer for that probably has something to do with the reasoning for wanting to ask exactly who asked about who the Parkers were to an audience that still has "with great power comes great responsibility" stuck in their head). When it comes to comparing bloated movies like say, a Pirates sequel to this, that one has it beat because it at least looks like it is having fun doing things. In general, this is a muddled movie that is all "in theory" - the chemistry of Garfield and Stone work in bits and pieces for a movie that is bloated with too many villains and not nearly enough structure to hold it up beyond the bare minimum of average. There are good comic book movies and bad ones, and this one (ten years standing) achieves the goal of straight average disappointment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

Review #1780: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Denis Leary (Captain George Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May Parker), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), C. Thomas Howell (Jack's Father), Jake Keiffer (Jack), Kari Coleman (Helen Stacy) Directed by Marc Webb.

Review: 

"I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."

Did you know that five years passed between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and this film? Well, I guess I should be surprised, but I really am not. Honestly, it is weird that I finally got around to this film just before it turned ten years old, and yet here we are nearing six decades since the creation of the comic book character. Admittedly, it made sense to try to re-invent a new interpretation of the comic book character. After all, this is the first one to feature artificial web-shooters (like in the comics), and it follows the tradition of casting lead actors playing "teenaged" superheroes while nearly pushing 30 years old. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (you would recognize the middle name as the writer of last two Spider-Man films). At the helm to direct was Marc Webb, best known for his debut feature in 500 Days of Summer (2009), and he would do the subsequent sequel two years later.  I suppose we've gone from "dorky" Peter to "outcast" Peter, complete with a full-fledged dive into the high school experiences of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man and the perceived mysteries of his parents (for which some of this is taken from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which had begun in 2000).

It isn't a bad thing to be a mediocre movie, but it is a weird thing to make a mediocre superhero movie that basically serves as a retread of the 2002 Spider-Man that to me suffers the distinct quality of self-serious sickness. Maybe each film reflects the growing trend of the decade they were made in, but I found it to be a movie that is practically straining to pull off its tricks (new and old) that only succeeds in making the average comic book movie "amazingly" average because I only care to a certain point about the attempts at a "darker" interpretation of this hero. The memory of the old films lingers hard here, and it is confounding that it never manages to even rise above Spider-Man 3 despite having less clutter when it comes to villain composition or storylines (although with a 136-minute run-time, at least it isn't quite as long as it could be). Really if you think about it, the best way to keep the ball rolling with superhero films when changing actors might as well just follow the James Bond route and just roll with things with whatever mood you want to go with (such as going from A View to a Kill (1985) with The Living Daylights (1987), if you get my drift). Heaven knows one doesn't need another sequence of a bunch of New Yorkers rising up and helping Spider-Man.

Garfield, at the very least, makes a definable mark on the lead role that shows a touch of angst to go with loneliness and cockiness that shows the potential in a vulnerable hero. For the most part it works out, with likely the most interesting scene being one where he says just what his name is when saving a kid on a bridge (see, not every moment a masked hero taking off his mask is eye-rolling). Granted, the quips might take time to get used to, but at least he seems comfortable with the role and all that comes with having to follow the tradition of pretend-normal high schooler. Stone basically weaves her way through a role that would have weighed down a lesser actress (i.e., this could have been a role of mush). Regardless of if one knows the character or not, she makes it work with plenty of patience and charm that results in palatable chemistry with Garfield (your milage may vary, of course). In theory, the Lizard is an interesting villain to put on screen (the character, not the alter-ego, was in the last two films). However, he only is interesting when it is Ifans on screen as himself, not so much when he is turned into that CG render that looks like a silly slug. Sure, trying to strive for perfection without weakness can be interesting to ponder for a villain, but seeing it come out of a slug makes it hard to reconcile with the urge to snicker. Think about it: you have a guy going around as a lizard that at one point comes out of the toilet of a high school right before he delves into a plan about spreading gas around to turn people into lizards (well, "reptilian" would also be a suitable word to use, but either word is still funny to say out-loud).

The strangest thing is that the weak link among the supporting cast is Field (Khan doesn't count, since he is more a victim of the "comes-and-goes" box). She has admitted to not particularly enjoying the role, doing it more as a favor (specifically to friend and producer Laura Ziskin) that described it as one that you "can't put ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag." (as quoted in 2016, which I guess applies to both features). Again, not to beat the dead horse of "the previous movies", but the role-from-five-years-ago had a bit more to really do when it comes to interacting with the lead character. Here, she pretty much has a handful of sentences that don't go anywhere that Rosemary Harris had done three films ago. Sheen is engaging for what is needed in patience (basically saying that quote about responsibility and power without having to just say it). There is probably something to be said about featuring Scott and Davidtz in its opening that seemed to hint at something "mysterious" when it comes to the parents of Spider-Man, but I'll be damned if I can give one single iota about it. Leary breezes through cliches with strange ease (one doesn't try to picture him suddenly break out into "standup", at least). As a whole, the movie is the equivalent of taking a few years off between going on an amusement park ride: sure, maybe something is different, but in the end it is just familiar motions to varying effect. There are certain times when the effects for showing the web-slinging ride can work out to interesting effect (no points for wondering how it looked in 3D), and the action sequences are decent for what is needed, which means that Webb basically managed to make a safe film that does the minimum and doesn't stumble. In that sense, that is probably the best endorsement one can make for a curious viewer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Birdman.

Review #1570: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

Cast:

Michael Keaton (Riggan Thomson), Zach Galifianakis (Jake), Edward Norton (Mike Shiner), Andrea Riseborough (Laura Alburn), Amy Ryan (Sylvia), Emma Stone (Sam Thomson), Naomi Watts (Lesley Truman), Lindsay Duncan (Tabitha Dickinson), Merritt Wever (Annie), Jeremy Shamos (Ralph), and Benjamin Kanes (Young Riggan / Birdman) Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Review:

"I have always said that innocence is much more powerful than experience. And, in some cases, people who suddenly fall into circumstances can unexpectedly bring some virtue to them—that’s kind of the case with this character."

"It’s rare that you get to be part of some amazing experiment like this. The movie gets dark and gets weird, and it gets funny. So you’re constantly on this surfboard, kind of feeling it out. I like that. I just like seeing if I can do it.”

Filmmakers have had a variety of experiences that shape who they are that can go beyond just being shaped by cinema. For one, they can be shaped by their life experiences, as is the case for Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Born in Mexico City as the youngest of seven siblings, he was shaped by his travels made on cargo boats as a teenager (having struggled with studies in high school), which took abroad across America and Europe. He returned back to his country to study communications at Universidad Iberoamericana. He got himself into working for radio at WFM as a rock music radio host, which led to making promos and eventually transitioning into work with his own production company in Z Films, which dealt with shorts and advertisements. Iñárritu made his feature debut with Amores perros (2000), which served as the first film of a trilogy involving death and multiple storylines that would have writing from him and Guillermo Arriaga. This was his fifth feature film. It started as making a comedy in a single shot in a theatre (that developed over the span of a couple of years), done not only because of a desire to do a comedy over another drama but also because of his belief in that one lives their life with no editing, where one could be taken in by "an inescapable reality" just like the protagonist (there had been quite a few movies that were meant to play out in real time, most notably with Rope in 1948). Iñárritu, in addition to direction also co-produced the film and co-wrote it with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr, and Armando Bó, who wrote the film for a period of nearly two years while working together through Skype and e-mails. Each of them, along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, would win Academy Awards for their work with this film, which seems aptly appropriate.

What, a gimmick utilized to tell an interesting story that garnered attention in 2014? Anything is possible when you start with a man levitating while in his underwear. Ultimately, the enjoyment of the film relies on how much one absorbs themselves into a film that might resemble in some ways Don Quixote in its disparity between expectation and reality when it comes to who we think we are as a person, particularly in ego. When it comes to acting, that is never more true, since they are having to be someone different from themselves in a desire to be approved and so on and so forth with insecurities to list. One will either be swept away by how entertaining it proves in its execution to go alongside its elements of black comedy and drama or they will find a curiously strange experiment that lives and dies on its level of satire and fateful ending. For me, I found it to be an intriguing two hour experience, one that is a clear achievement for Iñárritu and Lubezki that moves with seamless ambition and wry enjoyment that benefits from a worthwhile cast to serve as a worthwhile film to encapsulate capable filmmaking for the 2010s. Keaton, picked by Iñárritu after he had finished the script for his ability to bring "meta-dialogue between the film and the reality", is exquisite. He manages to do so well in capturing a man wrapped in crisis over what it means to live a life wrapped in either past glories or current pursuits to find meaning within ignorance - in other words, it is one of Keaton's best performances, crafted well in anxiety that grabs one early and never loses footing in competence because we never think it is just self-aggrandizing. The rest of the group do quite well in going along with the show in terms of well-placed charm or timing, as is the case with Galifianakis or Norton, who both are quite funny in what the film requires in either wry sensitivity or self-important confidence, respectively. Riseborough and Ryan also prove useful in lending layers to outside the theater, while Stone serves as a useful bridge between a testy act with Keaton alongside her own testy grasp of her struggles. Watts and Duncan round out the cast handily for a film that builds itself up on sharp little moments between each other without being fitted into any tight cliché square or all-the-way wrapped up narratives. On the whole, I found it to be an enjoyable and curious film, balancing its act of magic realism with efficiency that tells a worthwhile feature of ego and virtue with maturity that will lend itself well to more than one viewing (particularly with its ending) to appreciate the detail that goes into a worthwhile feature of excellence and curiosity.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Superbad.

Review #1032: Superbad.

Cast: 
Jonah Hill (Seth), Michael Cera (Evan), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Fogell/"McLovin"), Bill Hader (Officer Slater), Seth Rogen (Officer Michaels), Emma Stone (Jules), Martha MacIsaac (Becca), Aviva Baumann (Nicola), Joe Lo Truglio (Francis), Kevin Corrigan (Mark), Dave Franco (Greg), and Laura Seay (Shirley) Directed by Greg Mottola.

Review: 
I will admit that this film had slipped under my radar for probably longer than it should have, probably because this didn't seem like something that had much priority to do. In retrospect, Superbad is a movie that is worth seeing, in part because of how amusing it proves itself to be. Loosely based on the high school experiences of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, this is a film that is pretty raunchy through and through, but it is also a film that is cleverly built to be an entertaining piece that utilizes its actors and situations to make an excellent experience. It's the performances by the cast (or more specifically the main duo) that carry the movie consistently. Hill and Cera do a good job together, having numerous exchanges and moments that are pretty amusing along with compelling. They feel like real people because they don't feel like a cliche blank slate for raunchy things to happen to them just for raunchy's sake, having a degree of practicality that seems welcome. Mintz-Plasse does a pretty good job as well, having some good scene-stealing moments along with being fairly interesting to watch. Hader and Rogen prove to be an entertaingly fine supporting duo that make for some good laughs, particularly with Mintz-Plasse in the second half. The rest of the cast isn't as prominent, but it is interesting to see Stone in her film debut, and she definitely has a fine screen presence. The movie goes fairly consistently, not feeling like a drag even at 113 minutes for a comedy. It never becomes a movie with too much posturing for improvisation nor just a movie that is disgusting just for the sake of disgusting. The heart of the movie is Hill and Cera and their friendship, and it's an interesting one to watch because of the two; a weaker film would've just focused on merely getting alcohol (or getting rid of teenage angst, one might say) for the party without any focus on character, and it wouldn't have as much entertainment value. From beginning to end, this is a film that goes for laughs and succeeds wholeheartedly. It's a movie that is confident in what it wants to be and what it wants to say with its words (many of them being the kind one can't use in print) without sacrificing a good solid core of depth and care.

On this note, I would like to say that this is the last review for 2017 for Movie Night. Obviously I'll be back in 2018 to do more reviews, but it is nice to say that there was some fine consistency with the reviewing slate. This is the 140th review for 2017, or "Season 7", which by my count is a significant improvement from the 116 reviews from the year before and the 90 from 2015. It has been a fun ride doing these reviews and having some fun highlights, such as reaching landmark numbers such as 900 and the big 1000th review. It has also been fun to have watch numerous films at the movie theater (18) for this year, because that usually proves to be an interesting experience. In any case, thank you for reading these reviews, and I hope to see you in the next year.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Easy A.

Review #050: Easy A.

Cast
Emma Stone (Olive Penderghast), Penn Badgley ("Woodchuck" Todd), Amanda Bynes (Marianne Bryant), Dan Byrd (Brandon), Thomas Haden Church (Mr. Griffith), Patricia Clarkson (Rosemary Penderghast), Cam Gigandet (Micah), Lisa Kudrow (Mrs. Griffith), Malcolm McDowell (Principal Gibbons), Aly Michalka (Rhiannon Abernathy), and Stanley Tucci (Dill Penderghast) Directed by Will Gluck.

Review
Welcome to the 50th Review of Movie Night. This film tries to be the different in comedies by...Well being different. It's funny for the most part as it exploits the high school cliches that happens...All the time actually. Emma Stone does a great job, showing she is blossoming into a (eventual) top actress (as she would show even more in The Help) The script is solid, and the movie is fun to watch with alright acting from the rest of the cast, making this a good film to watch. Thank you for observing 50 reviews here on Movie Night. There is more to come.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.