“From here on out, I am only interested in what is real. Real people, real feelings, that’s it, that’s all I’m interested in.”

Almost Famous came out in 2000 and it is directed by Cameron Crowe and serves as a semi-biography. It is also one of the best coming-of-age films I have ever seen, shared along with Stand By Me. As you may know, this film is one of my favourites. It is my home, it’s like a hug, strange at it seems. It is the life I want, well if I lived in the 70s. It’s the film I choose to watch when I’m feeling down, although it gives you quite the heartache at times. Almost Famous is drama/comedy film about music, 70’s music to be exact.

So the story is about 15-year-old William Miller (Patrick Fugit) who wants to be a writer, a rock writer, mind. William gets the opportunity to travel with up and coming band Stillwater. Before that big event, William submits his record reviews to Creem magazine writer Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The two becomes friends and Williams gets the mentor of his dreams. Soon after William goes on a mission for Rolling stone, where he meets the girls, the band aids, the un-groupies. Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) the band aids leader takes a liking to the teen and William falls head over heels for her. William leaves his home, with the band Stillwater (Billy Crudup, Jason Lee, John Fedevich and Mark Kozeleck) and leaves his “trying to mean well” mother, Elaine (Frances McDormand) to worry.

This film is filled with lovely, wonderful performances. Patrick Fugit portrays naive and young William very well, Frances McDormand is brilliant as William and Anita’s (Zooey Deschanel) mother. Billy Crudup and Kate Hudson fill the screen with romantic tension and a bit of heartbreak, or a lot of it actually. Kate Hudson as mysterious, ageless, nameless “Penny Lane”, yes like the song, is brilliant and honest. Her character is very relatable and it really isn’t hard to fall for her ways. The beer scene is one to really look closely at. As always Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant, he exudes arrogance and confidence, he’s always such a good supporting actor.

The soundtrack, of course, is so very good, filled with classic rock tunes, only the best. The music written by then-wife of Crowe, Nancy Wilson, for Stillwater is so bloody good. It’s a visually good looking film, but the cinematography isn’t an element that stands out, this film is about honest characters and good music. I recommend it forever, I really do, and if you want the get the absolute best experience from it I would recommend trying to find the extended version.

I saw Doctor Strange and here are some thoughts:

-I enjoyed it.

-I didn’t mind Blendedoot Cumblesnort as Doctor Strange at all.

-I didn’t mind Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. I’m aware there was a lot of upset surrounding casting a white person as the Ancient One but I think they were pretty good about not trying to pass her off as appropriating the role of an ancient Chinese master (like they explicitly mentioned her being of Celtic descent etc.) and I don’t think it detracted in any way by not having what has become a trope of the “Ancient Chinese wise master”. (In fact there was one interaction where they tried to dispel that trope which I thought was nice.) 

-From a feminist perspective, I was glad to see the mandatory love interest part of the film handled quite well (i.e. Strange was shown sympathy following his redemption arc but his love interest didn’t drop everything and run back to him, instead forgiving him and still moving on without him.)

-The magic (what I was most interested in tbh) was interesting and had a lot of potential.

-Following on from the last point, I am consistently let down by superhero movies from an artistic perspective because I feel like they’re still all trying to stick to a formula too much that leaves them predictable and not reaching the full potential of the story. I would much prefer to see these stories told in a different medium, such as a TV show, where you have the time to be able to explore every aspect. I’m interested in the world building that the film simply doesn’t have the time to delve into. 

-Despite the above point, as far as superhero movies went it was enjoyable. 

-I think the Tumblr criticism of the film before it was even released is mostly unfair, unwarranted and not well thought out.

-I’m really glad that we are finally seeing some superhero movies that deal more with magic and the supernatural as opposed to super sciency explanations for everything - I just really like the idea of and going into magic and the mystic and stuff.

-I’m excited to see Doctor Strange fitting into the wider Marvel film universe.


(2016, Morten Tyldum)

Take two of the biggest movie stars on the planet, make them the leads of a movie directed by someone fresh off his first Oscar nomination for directing an Oscar-winning Best Picture nominee, give them a $110 million budget, and a script that was near the top of Hollywood’s annual Blacklist of the best unproduced scripts on the market, with a premise that sees the two popular, conventionally attractive leads stranded alone together in outer space (a very in vogue concept at the moment after Gravity and The Martian), and have them fall in love. Sounds like the recipe for a major hit, right? Well, what all of these ingredients led to instead was Passengers, one of the worst movies of this or any year. So where did it all go wrong?

You can put some of the blame on the stars, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, whose wooden, passionless performances make it seem like they’ve never heard of the concept of charisma or screen presence. Some of it can go to director Morten Tyldum, whose knack for creativity, precision and sheer entertainment value in his directing seems to be conversely related to how high his budget goes – the more money put into a film, the less he seems to care. Some of it can even go to the production team, with a bland and unoriginal set design that feels like it was made up of discarded parts left over from other, much better films set in outer space. Ultimately though, the meat of the responsibility for the cataclysmic disaster that is Passengers belongs to the script from Jon Spaihts (Prometheus, Doctor Strange), a new nadir representing how little credibility that annually touted Blacklist actually has. Some of the scripts from the list have led to great films (The Social Network, The Wolf of Wall Street), but Passengers joins the ranks of Red Riding Hood and All About Steve (really) as utterly heinous creations derived from what are supposedly some of the “best” scripts out there. The most insane thing here is that the original script, the one that made it onto the Blacklist, is somehow even worse than the one that they used to shoot the film! Which is saying a lot, because Passengers starts bad and only gets a whole lot worse by the time it reaches its stupefying finale.

Beyond the fact that the script for Passengers is loaded with recycled ideas, very poor backstory (Pratt’s character has literally zero history or inner life, and his only defining trait seems to be that he’s a mechanic, and Lawrence’s doesn’t fare much better), and absolutely no sense of awareness of its own storytelling universe, the movie is doomed from conception by a core idea that makes it one of the most repugnant and irresponsible movies ever made. No spoilers here, but an event at the end of the first act (which the trailers make out to be the BIG REVEAL of the whole movie), paints events in a shockingly loathsome light where it becomes impossible to invest in this story the way that the movie wants you to. Now this didn’t have to entirely derail the film, as they could have gone into a dark, incredibly interesting direction that explored the characters in a far more meaningful way. What they do instead, however, is implausibly pepper over this atrocious development with a lazy and generic third act, which then becomes even worse by not only refusing to condemn the problematic issue, but actively leaning into it and treating this as if it is the grand epic romance of our time. Passengers so transparently wants to be the new Titanic, but with the way this thing is written it’s like if the romantic heroes of Titanic at the end were Kate Winslet and Billy Zane’s characters. Except somehow it’s even worse. This isn’t just a bad movie – it’s morally reprehensible, and deeply troubling that everyone thought that this was an acceptable way to treat this story and sell it to the masses.



“Peck’s film doesn’t waste time recapitulating Baldwin’s legacy and refuses to turn him into the marble statue that so many heroes become when centralised in fawning nonfiction movies. Instead, Peck and Strauss, through fluid, train-of-thought edits, reawaken Baldwin’s entire mindscape, one brimming with ideas and obliquely attuned to a present that is both changed from and familiar to the past. Wherever his brain wanders, our attention invariably follows. Indeed, I Am Not Your Negro excels precisely because it values Baldwin’s genius above all else. His aching, hard-earned wisdom has wavered in and out of the American consciousness in the decades since his death, but Peck’s film places it at the forefront, which is where it has always and unquestionably belonged.” — Matthew Eng

Read more: James Baldwin reclaims the spotlight in Raoul Peck’s magnificent film essay, I Am Not Your Negro


Starring Chloë Sevigny, Leo Fitzpatrick, and Rosario Dawson

Directed by Larry Clark

Kids follows a group of teenagers in New York City over the course of one day. Telly (Fitzpatrick) and Casper are typical street kids, constantly drinking and sleeping around. Telly has a particular fixation with deflowering virgins, opening the film with an encounter between him and a twelve-year-old. Jennie (Sevigny), one of Telly’s victims, accompanies her friend Ruby (Dawson) on an STD test. Although Jennie only goes to support her friend, she is shockingly diagnosed with HIV. Jennie seeks out Telly, the only boy she’s ever slept with, knowing that he’s likely to spread the virus. However, Telly is too busy drinking, smoking, and chasing after thirteen-year-old Darcy to even notice Jennie.

The irony of the title Kids is that this film is a disturbing perversion of childhood. One way this is communicated is through the frequent mention of teen pregnancy, the ultimate corruption of youth. The twelve-year-old girl Telly deflowers in the opening scene is afraid of having a child. As the boys head inside, we see toddler outside of Paul’s house carrying a babydoll as though it were real, an allusion to teen motherhood. Darcy also tells Telly she’s not allowed to date because her older sister had a baby at age fifteen. Clark (dir) also puts a perverted twist on icons of youth. Casper huff nitrous oxide from balloons, a quintessential element to any childhood. When the group all goes swimming, the image is a bit less wholesome than that of children spending their summer together by the pool. They go skinny dipping, turning a childlike past time into a medium for sexual debauchery. Casper also grows aroused at the sight of Telly’s mom breastfeeding, a natural start to any childhood. Even the name Casper takes a classic, pure image of childhood and adulterates it. The involvement of prepubescent boys in the gang’s exploits also illustrates the perversion of innocence. At Paul’s house, a young boy joins in on the drug usage. At the party, a group of younger kids smoke a joint they took from an older sibling. Disturbingly, following the older brother’s example means going down a path of deviance, highlighting the cyclical nature of corrupted youth.

I see Telly and Jennie as foils. Telly is selfish, caring little for his family. He begs his mother for money, and after he is denied, he steals from her bedroom. Jennie, on the other hand, cries at thought of no longer being able to help her little brother get ready for school after the disease gets the best of her. Telly has no respect for the women he sleeps with, viewing them only as sexual objects. Not only is this visible in the way Telly describes his experiences to Casper, but also masterfully illustrated when Clark overpowers Telly’s sexual partner’s screams of pain with background music, demonstrating how Telly is ignoring them. Whereas Telly is pressuring young girls into sex, Jennie is sexually oblivious. While she has had sex with one person before, she seems completely out of her element when Ruby and her other friends are describing various experiences. Also, the shot of Telly spitting on a man in the park whom he may have just killed cuts directly to a shot of Jennie sitting peacefully in a cab, highlighting the differences in their temperaments. This stark contrast between the two draws attention to Jennie’s sweetness and innocence, exaggerating how unfair it is that she contracted HIV.

On the way to find Telly, a cab driver tells Jennie that “if you want to be happy, don’t think.” While Jennie dismisses the driver, his statement proves true throughout the film. Telly and his friends are living proof of “ignorance is bliss.” They drink and get high to distance themselves from their harrowing reality. Telly also finds his life’s joy in his sexual escapades, completely unaware of how they’re killing him (and how he’s killing others). He shares in his final soliloquy that sexual intercourse gives his life a sense of purpose. If Telly finds out he’s HIV positive, his world will come crashing down. Jennie, on the other hand, is troubled by how grounded in reality she is. Her diagnosis moves her immediately to tears as she accepts the painful road ahead. As she seeks out Telly and eventually realizes he will offer no consolation, Jennie breaks down once again. Jennie is the most emotionally distraught character because she doesn’t distance herself from or ignore her problems. Casper interestingly seems to crossover on this matter at the end of the film. Initially, his self-awareness is on par with his friends’, indulging in even more drugs than Telly. However in the last line of the film he asks himself after raping Jennie, unknowingly exposing himself to HIV, “Jesus Christ, what happened?” Now conscious of the implications of his actions, Casper is no longer the same carefree kid.

This film was met with a lot of criticism. Some even likened it to child pornography in its depiction of teenage debauchery. While I respect this film and its artistic integrity, I see where these critics are coming from and advise discretion. This is not a film for everybody; some may find its disturbing elements overpower its art and message.


TLBM did not disappoint

February 11, 2017

This movie was better than I thought!

  • The shade thrown at Suicide Squad was solid. I do not recall the exact line but Batman made a comment about villians fighting villians being “a stupid idea!”
  • Alfred listing out every Batman film: 2016, 2012, 2008, 2005, 1997, 1992, 1989 “and that weird one in 1966.” A lego representation of Batman in each film made the line even better, but instead of lego 1966, an actual clip of Adam West was shown.
  • Richard: “My name is Richard Grayson. The other kids call me Dick.” // Bruce: “Well, children can be cruel.”
  • One scene showed a lego version of The Dark Knight’s Joker in the nurse costume. 🙏
  • Adult and child proof humor.
  • The lines were quite brilliant.
  • Common slang and phrases were included such as ‘bro’.
  • Batman’s hatred for Superman was priceless. He claimed him to be a villian - ha ha.
  • Joker referring to himself as The Clown Prince of Crime was nice to hear.
  • Soundtrack was perfect except for two (or three?) songs.
  • Batman narrating the production companies and opening of the film was simply amazing.
  • Computer: “What’s the password?” // Batman: “Iron Man SUCKS!”
  • Other television show characters as legos such the Daleks a.k.a. British Robots.
  • Joker stating he’s been around–known Batman for 78 years.
  • Batman being extremely offended over not being invited to a The Justice League party at Superman’s place. Once again, I forgot what he said (sorry!), but it was along the lines of “You’re having a Justice League party without me?” 
  • Superman blamed technology for not inviting Batman to the J.L. party.
  • Selfies.
  • “DC Comics: the house that Batman built. That’s right, Superman. Come at me bro. I’m your kryptonite.”

This is all I remember and loved the most about the film. I definitely recommend The Lego Batman Movie- it’s great for kids and adults. I might add on to the list if I remember anything else. Well done!

This brings me to the terrific performance from Adam Driver as Kylo Ren, the new Dark Lord with a terrible secret. He is gorgeously cruel, spiteful and capricious – and unlike the Vader of old, he is given to petulant temper tantrums, with his lightsaber drawn, when uniformed subordinates have the unwelcome task of telling him of some new, temporary victory for the Resistance. Driver’s almost unreadably droll facial expression is very suited to Kylo Ren’s fastidious and amused contempt for his enemies’ weakness and compassion.
—  Peter Bradshaw swooning over Adam Driver in prose
Marie Antoinette

Starring Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Jamie Dornan, and Rose Byrne

Directed by Sofia Coppola

This film follows the life of Marie Antoinette (Dunst), the Queen of France leading up to the French Revolution. Born and raised in the Austrian Empire, Antoinette is married off to Louis Auguste (Schwartzman), Dauphin of France. A confused foreigner, she is completely unaccustomed to the strange, ritualistic culture of Versailles. Eventually, Antoinette and her husband ascend to the thrown, but she is far from the wholesome image of royalty. Colorful characters like the Duchess of Polignac (Byrne) and Count Axel von Fersen (Dornan) pull Antoinette into a life of apparent decadence and debauchery. However, with the impending French Revolution, Antoinette must grow up fast.

Coppola (dir) made this film less in the style of a traditional biopic and more like a teen dramedy. There are a few historical discrepancies that make this film more like a modern coming of age story (and more like the rest of Coppola’s filmography). The soundtrack is almost entirely classic rock and alternative pop. The opening scene is a classic teen movie trope; Antoinette is begrudgingly woken up, fully decked out with bedhead. The shot in which she and her friends are giggling excitedly at Louis’ likeness before meeting him in person is straight out of any high school flick. Antoinette even asks her carriage driver, “Are we there yet?” At Versailles, the nature of her petty rivalries with other women at court is comparable to that of Cady Heron and Regina George in Mean Girls. Her authority figures are always butting in, telling her she’s hanging out with the wrong crowd, a common teen film trope. The several scenes of her trying on clothes, gossiping, and sneaking out with her gal pals could be found in any high school coming of age movie. There’s even a shot of Antoinette trying on shoes in which a pair of blue converse can be seen in the background, an obvious allusion to the contemporary teen. Coppola is putting a historical narrative about a French queen’s strife around 150 years ago in terms of a modern, high school struggle for popularity. She makes the story relatable, so the viewer can better understand the historical sequence of events.

Coppola not only makes the situation relatable, but she is very successful in humanizing the queen herself. Marie Antoinette is traditionally seen as a cold and cruel historical figure. The famous “let them eat cake” line attributed to her plants the queen as the last straw of the French Revolution. However, Coppola transforms Antoinette into just another immature teenager, somebody we can all identify with. Scenes of her playing with her puppy or drawing with condensation on a window show a playful side the viewer relates to. The film also succeeds in separating her from the France’s financial problems. It is clear that Versailles was already absurdly opulent when she gets there. The gratuitous decadency of French court even shocks Antoinette when she first arrives. She opts to wear a plain white dress instead of the rococo fashions at her humbler chateau. The film depicts France’s assistance in the American Revolution as the catalyst of financial crisis. Antoinette, on the other hand, reads enlightenment literature by Rousseau and tells the court jeweler to stop sending diamonds when she hears about the common man’s struggle. The film shows how Antoinette is singled out by the people as the cause of their poverty, but dismisses these claims as erroneous. Coppola directly counters the idea that Marie Antoinette singlehandedly and carelessly drove France to bankruptcy.

Marie Antoinette does a great job of illustrating the pressure she was under. When Antoinette’s mother tells her she will be marrying the dauphin, she warns her daughter that “all eyes will be on you.” Her mother’s premonition proves true. When Antoinette first meets Louis, his large retinue is present, staring and whispering. As she first ascends the steps of Versailles, she must walk through a herd of her new subjects, scrutinizing their new dauphine. The film is packed with scenes like these in which the audio is overridden by the rude whispers from Antoinette’s spectators, visibly bothering the new queen. She is also taken from her home and placed in an unfamiliar land with unfamiliar customs. When Antoinette first arrives on French soil, she is immediately branded an outsider after hugging a countess out of turn. She is then told that she “must bid farewell to [her] party and leave all of Austria behind;” they even take her puppy away. After being stripped of anything farmiliar, Antoinette is mocked rather than embraced. Two women whisper “I hope you like apple strudel,” mocking Antoinette’s nationality. After her family conflicts with French interests, she asks herself, “Am I to be Austrian or the dauphine of France?” Antoinette must consider how much of herself she is willing to leave behind. She is also under great pressure to have an heir.  She is told, “You represent the future… everything is on the wife.” It is constantly made clear to Antoinette that her position is still unsure if she doesn’t have a child with Louis. She is made to believe Louis’ sexual incompetence is her own fault, even though it is clear to the viewer that this isn’t the case. We are able sympathize with the great stress Antoinette is under.

More so than any of the film I have written on so far, Marie Antoinette was met with mixed reviews. Many critics took issue to the light frivolity of the film that came with Coppola’s “teen movie” approach as well as the historical inaccuracies that resulted. I, however, am appreciative of Coppola’s success in making a hated historical figure understandably human. This, along with the stunning visuals, is why I love this movie so much.


Adam Driver’s Paterson is robust, candid, ingenuous – “without side”, as the English say. Or, as American soldiers say: he is squared away. That equine, distinguished face is far from the villainy of the new Star Wars movies. He sometimes looks as if he could be any age from 27 down to 17; it is an open and generous face, clouding heartbreakingly at the moment of loss, clearing wonderfully at a final, mysterious, serendipitous encounter. He has never been more beguiling as an actor.
—  Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw swooning over Adam Driver’s performance in Paterson

(2016, Barry Jenkins)

Two years ago, Richard Linklater’s Boyhood was one of the major talking points of the year in film – a breathtaking journey that showed the coming of age of its main character over the course of 12 years. It was easy to see why it drew the acclaim that it did, yet at the same time centering a story around the experience of growing up as a straight white male in America gave off a slight whiff of been there done that. The technique was impressive, but we’ve seen that story told time and again over the decades in film. Something that we haven’t seen nearly as frequently, if at all really, is an equally affecting and intimate portrait of the existence of a gay black man portrayed on screen. Barry Jenkins is here to start to redress that balance with Moonlight, his first film in eight years, after his debut feature Medicine for Melancholy. Chronicling the transition from adolescent to teenager to adulthood, Jenkins casts three different actors (Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes) to depict Chiron, a man who spends his whole life struggling to find acceptance as he grows up in a rough neighborhood in Miami.

Forging a relationship with local drug dealer Juan (Mahershala Ali), who becomes a father figure to make up for the absence of one, and his affectionate partner Teresa (Janelle Monae) isn’t enough to save Chiron from the beatings at school that he receives for being different, the difficulty reconciling why it’s so hard for him to fit in, or the troubles he faces at home with his unstable addict mother Paula (Naomie Harris). It’s a very specific story, beautifully told with a style from Jenkins that resembles a form of meditative cinematic poetry, yet the greatest strength of Moonlight is that it never feels like a film that shuts off those outside of this particular experience. Rather, Jenkins builds a bridge of understanding that draws natural empathy for the struggles that someone living this life endures while also bringing forth universal themes that we can all relate to. I’m certainly not someone who has had to live with the difficulties that Chiron faces, but I was constantly finding moments and ideas throughout the film that spoke to my own experience, from the themes of loneliness and feeling like you don’t belong, to the ease with which you can slip back into the comfort of an old relationship, even after all of the terrible things that happened to drive you apart from that person.

For Chiron, that person is Kevin, a close friend who is also played by three different actors (Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome, Andre Holland) through each of the different time periods that Moonlight traces. Every actor excels in this remarkable ensemble, to a point where it’s almost disingenuous to really point to anyone as being the standout of the cast, but the film really hits its high point in the final section, almost exclusively devoted to one night between the two men years after they had gone off their own ways. Seeing them come back together, after so long apart with such different experiences, speaks tremendously to the power of what Jenkins gets across in his film, and the chemistry between Rhodes and Holland is positively electric. As is the case with the rest of Moonlight, there’s no pomp to Jenkins’ portrayal of this encounter, none of the exploitative poverty porn that can seep into films rooted in these kind of communities, nor any showboating from the director or his cast that would feel disingenuous in a film as quiet and unassuming as this. Jenkins simply lets this story exist in a way that feels organic, never drawing attention to itself, but always feeling potent and made from a place of deep understanding. It’s wonderful to see a film depicting this kind of experience being embraced as wholly as Moonlight has been, and one can only hope that it will open doors for opportunities to see a wider range of experiences portrayed in film moving forward.



So, I watched “Rogue One” and liked it so much that I went straight to Walmart and picked up the best character of the movie: K-2SO (god, I love this sassy robot).

Check out my buddy Andy and I as we talk movies and review this exciting film on YouTube. We are “Randy At The Movies”



So I just saw the new animated film Ballerina and I’m shook.

It’s a rated U, animated film for little kids so the only reason I went to see it was because of the dance aspect and for Maddie Ziegler and Dane DaHaan but I actually left the cinema quite emotional…

  • I cried
  • It made me cry 
  • Multiple times
  • wtf
  • the story and plot was actually really inspiring
  • as a ballerina myself i related a bit 
  • i think one reason i cried is cuz it made me realise why I’ve been dancing for the past 12 years and why I’m currently studying dance at college
  • it made me remember my love for dance
  • also kinda made me feel a bit shit cuz after 12 years of ballet i can’t lift my leg higher than 90 degrees and I’ve only recently started pointe
  • whilst Félicie could do all that stuff after like a week of training
  • some of it was inaccurate: 
  • Félicie wouldn’t go en pointe when she first learns to train that would be incredibly risky and harmful
  • plus she went en pointe in shoes other than pointe shoes
  • thats impressive 
  • but i ship her victor so much
  • i also loved the character development for maddie’s character
  • like you think she’s a horrible brat but it turns out her mother has raised her like it and Camille just wants some love very much like Draco Malfoy my poor lil slytherin
  • I really want to find out about Odette and the stage fire
  • was kinda hoping for a flashback 
  • the plot was very clearly inspired by Annie
  • there were a lot of parallels:
  • Félicie being an orphan
  • leaving the orphanage finding someone to live with who becomes parental figure
  • evil lady chasing her trying to kill her
  • even Félicie climbing up the ladder just like in Annie 
  • but the message of the film was beautiful
  • I really hope it inspires children to take up ballet 
  • and i hope it helps inspire ballerinas who lack motivation just like it did with me
  • overall an amazing film
Thoughts on Rogue One (includes spoilers)

(cue something I wrote a couple days ago but tried to hold off on for sake of spoilers. Hopefully the page break should be enough but please scroll through if tumblr breaks and erases it)

Alright, I want to begin with some of the problems I saw and then end with all the awesome things I saw, both in equal parts, including how I think the events of Rogue One have had a direct impact on Ben Solo/Kylo Ren which could possibly garner some mentions in the upcoming movies. And I want to make clear that I’m commenting on these problems from an objective, professional perspective- not because I dislike the movie, far from it actually. Sooo…*cracks knuckles* let’s get started-

PS: I went back through and put headers on everything because it got long and so folks can read what they want, if they want to!


Keep reading