 Here we have another somewhat complicated title for me to review. I think altogether, the ideas and underlying messages the movie gives are all well and good. However, when it's all said and done, this also illustrates how much the movie might not completely understand mental health problems and what people have to do in order to manage them. This movie represents that friend we have who is trying to help with all of its good intentions but may be saying all the wrong things to do so.
"Spiderhead" itself is a chemical research facility, testing its pharmaceutical chemicals on penitentiary inmates who have volunteered in order to get a reduced sentence. While the hospitable Steve Abnesti (Chris Hemsworth) and his assistant, Mark Verlaine (Mark Paguio) oversee the project, the main test subject we follow is a young man named Jeff (Miles Teller) who is in for having killed his friends while driving drunk. As we watch, he and other test subjects are exposed to a variety of different mood-altering drugs that are meant to help with a lot of everyday problems. For example, there's a love drug that helps with physical attraction and could lead to less loneliness for some people or a fear drug that could potentially allow people to fear things that are ultimately bad for them like sugar, cigarettes or alcohol. That's pretty much the gist of the plot, as it all predictably leads up to something a little more sinister than just experimentation. In the meantime, it should probably be mentioned that there's a certain attachment Jeff has with another inmate named Lizzy (Jurnee Smollett). It's sort of refreshing in that there's a romantic tie there, but a lot of it has to do with their closeness and being able to tell each other anything. It's not just a lovey-dovey thing here so much as it's a mutual respect, best friend thing with attraction at work. And in case a lot of this is making you think of the movie 'Limitless', you're not exactly alone. But 'Limitless' did a much better job of things. 'Limitless' was a cautionary tale more about the overuse/misuse of a hardcore street drug as opposed to an actual pharmaceutical drug. This one feels a lot more like an actual jab at pharmaceutical companies, their potential behind-the-scenes experimentation, and what their full intentions are. I don't generally have a problem with such a thing, but the final narration of the film is something that gets under my skin a bit because, without spoiling anything, it really does seem to try to simplify something that's more complicated than the film lets on. That said, I will say the final message makes a solid point at the same time. Confused? Yeah, me too. Truth be told, in the end, it's hard for me to know what to think of this film on the whole. Going back to the film representing that particular friend we all have in our lives, it's hard to get upset at the film's potential misunderstanding of things as its intentions are good, and the point it makes IS still kind of solid. With all of that said, there's always the chance that I've misinterpreted things entirely and I'm overthinking something that actually IS closer to the cautionary tale that 'Limitless' was. Admittedly, this isn't one of my stronger reviews as my feelings towards it are very personal. In the lineup of Netflix originals, it's probably not one that I can find myself visiting again, and I'd strongly recommend past Netflix titles I've reviewed over this. It strikes me as a film that I will probably end up putting too much thought into despite its intended purpose, but at the same time, I can understand that it's a story about society and its desire to get everything more easily. I'm just completely on the fence with this one. I don't know that I'd say it's as terrible as everyone seems to be saying it is, but I'd also say that it's not one quite meant for someone like me. It's another fine example of "see for yourself". Not much more I can say. 2/5  I've found that recently, Netflix originals have been pretty low quality (at least what I've watched and reviewed here). To add to that, I haven't really given Adam Sandler a very fair chance for some kind of personal comeback (and yes, I do still need to see 'Uncut Gems'), as I've found, for the most part, things have gotten pretty stale for the guy. But, quite honestly, I'm happy to say that I stand corrected on Sandler's quality (and not for the first time) as I keep forgetting that the dude CAN act and can act very well.
'Hustle' here provides its audience with another role from Sandler that ends up delivering the best of everything he has. He's good at comedy (obviously), but he's also very good at showing intensity along with deeper emotions, and it all sort of shines through here. In some ways, the film provides a big breath of fresh air because nothing about what's on its surface is very typical. It's not your average Adam Sandler movie, but not your average sports movie, either. Yet at the same time, it did make me think that it's been quite a while since I've sat and watched a good sports movie that I really liked. This story centers on the Philadelphia 76ers international scout, Stanley Sugarman (Sandler). He's liked by team owner, Rex Merrick (Robert Duvall), largely based on his "never-back-down" attitude. However, he butts heads with Rex's son, Vincent (Ben Foster). This all sort of comes to a head after the sudden passing of Rex, leaving Vincent in charge of the team, and therefore Stanley's new boss. Despite Stanley's being away from his wife, Teresa (Queen Latifah) and daughter, Alex (Jordan Hull) along with a recent promotion to assistant coach, all that pretty much becomes null and void when Vincent basically demands Stanley to find the 76ers next star player. It's not long before Stanley is sent overseas where he meets up with his former college teammate, Leon Rich (Kenny Smith) who tries to convince him to leave the 76ers and become a player agent. He also soon meets the likes of an incredible young player named Bo Cruz (Juancho Hernangomez - now one of our own Toronto Raptors). Bringing Cruz to Vincent's attention, however, doesn't go well, and to make a long story short, it's not long before Stanley starts to consider Leon's advice and take this new talent under his wing, himself. As long as he can keep him out of any sort of trouble, and train him right. As the film unfolds, it does a good job of keeping things realistic in the sense that they use a lot of real NBA talent all throughout the film as opposed to just hiring extras and slapping uniforms on them. I was further impressed with (and I do this a lot) the film's soundtrack, as it exposes the audience to a lot of great underground and off-the-radar tunes. I will say there were a few I could have done without, but it was cool to see them not just pick and choose a bunch of easy-to-grab popular music. That's the sort of thing that helps give a movie a soul of its own and helps it to stand out. I think, quite honestly, whether you're a Sandler fan or not, whether you're even a basketball fan or not, there's still a lot to appreciate here. What stood out a lot to me was that it's inspirational, not only following Cruz's story but Stanley's as well - they both have something to prove to themselves. There's no over-the-top Sandler comedy going on here, but he'll still deliver a good line that'll give you a good laugh. You appreciate the development of each of these characters as the film goes on, and you love seeing them play off each other, largely just being a couple of "guys". I think this may have a safe spot on my list of best movies of the year. Just thank God hope hasn't become lost on these Netflix originals. 5/5  Here we have a curious newcomer, providing us with his film debut as both writer and director. The man in question is one, Matthew Reilly. This guy has to be the epitome of someone who sounds altogether familiar, but when you look him up, he hasn't done... basically anything but this (at least for the screen). So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. For someone's debut, it's not actually that bad for a straight-to-Netflix action movie.
This one kind of hits the ground running, as an interceptor launch site in Fort Greely, Alaska is attacked by what is presumed to be a terrorist faction. A second interceptor site is found in an undisclosed area in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, closer to Hawaii. These sites' purpose is to intercept any nuclear warhead launches targeted at American soil. Sent to defend the second site from attack is US Army Captain, JJ Collins (Elsa Pataky), her deployment here mostly due to reported sexual misconduct from one of her superiors, along with a terrible amount of hazing and bullying, and before I get too far with it all, yes, this is a "woke" movie that is generally about highlighting this woman's abilities in the face of adversity. Collins comes on-site as part of the last line of defence after Fort Greely's hostile takeover, working under Lt. Colonel Clark Marshall (Rhys Muldoon) command. She further works with Beaver Baker (Aaron Glenane), whose personality suits his name as the token toxic male character, and Corporal Raul Shah (Mayen Mehta), a not-so-confident pencil-pusher type who, for some reason, they chose to work at this facility. I have to say, Shah is not my favourite character type, and some of the lines this guy has to say are kind of ridiculous. Actually, a good chunk of this movie is kind of ridiculous. Anyway, eventually, Collins finds herself against all odds as the facility is, of course, eventually infiltrated by a terrorist team led by ex-military intelligence soldier, Alexander Kessel (Luke Bracey). As I was watching this guy though, in a weird way, I started to wonder if the great Hank Scorpio of 'Simpsons' fame (possibly the single-greatest one-off character that show ever had, Season 8, Episode 2) inspired this guy in some ways. He's not exactly the same guy or anything, not even with a similar personality. However, just a few decisions and lines the guy delivers is just enough to make you want to watch that episode all over again. I think my biggest takeaways from this were that 1, this was definitely written as a woke movie with a fair amount of almost forced "girl power" within. I DO NOT have a problem with this idea, but I still think there's a right way and a wrong way to write that kind of role. It seems the best way is to just write the hero role with no gender in mind - 'Alien' pulled this off incredibly well, and that's going back to 1979! But listen, don't let me take anything away from anyone, either. The truth of the matter is that Collins is still a pretty fun action hero to follow, and one can take some of her cheesiness with a grain of salt. If you can think of her as a Schwarzenegger type - in other words, she's there simply to be a strong hero with an odd (perhaps lame) one-liner. I think if you can go into this with the right mind-set, you can still be entertained by it. It's important to remember a bunch of stuff going into this, however, and the big one is the idea of this being one man's directorial AND screenwriting debut. The saving grace is actually probably his co-writer, Stuart Beattie, who one might recognize from writing for the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movies, along with golden gems like 'GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra', 'I, Frankenstein' and '30 Days of Night' (okay, so maybe not so much sarcasm on that last title, which I admittedly enjoy). The other thing is not to take it too seriously - it can fit nicely into the "dumb, fun action" category if you allow it to. It's not something I'll rush to watch again, but I was entertained as long as I thought of it as a video game movie that wasn't based on a video game. 2/5  This is another one of those titles that really should have been better than it was. On paper, the concept is actually kind of awesome. The sad thing, however, is the execution of it all. It could have been a very visceral horror movie with some pretty original ideas, but instead, it really does come off as some kind of made-for-TV horror, despite some of the more gory scenes. But, I'll cut it at least a bit of slack, as it's director Toby Meakins' film debut as well as a Netflix original.
We meet a family of three; Laura (Kate Fleetwood) her son, Gabe (Pete MacHale), and a reclusive father named Hal (Eddie Marsan), who obsesses over retro video games in his... mancave? Hal receives an interaction fiction game entitled "CURS>R", and gives it a try. It ends up being a text-based adventure game with a catch - decisions in the game affect the world around you. We learn how sinister this software is when, while playing it, Hal accidentally brings harm to his family with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. Then we never see any of these people again until near the end. The film then introduces us to a college student named Kayla (Iola Evans), who's trying to improve her skills at school with coding. Her friend, Isaac (Asa Butterfield), helps her with this, as she provides him with various technology in return. Her home life is awful, with her drug-addicted mother, Thea (Angela Griffin), and their rent collector, Lance (Ryan Gage), who may as well be an evil pimp. We learn here that Kayla is the tough daughter who faces all of their problems head-on, takes care of her mother, and gives Lance the right amount of attitude to show she doesn't fear him. One day, Kayla finds the 'CURS>R' game in Isaac's apartment while visiting, and discovers a hotline number with the game, offering a prize of $125,000. Upon calling the number, Kayla gets the voice of the one and only Robert Englund telling them to play the game, which will give them a code, which will get them the money. Kayla, tempted by the offer, decides to play, promising to split the prize money with Isaac. However, it pretty much becomes a horrific version of 90s 'Jumanji', where the game's various "yes/no" options get deadly in real life. My biggest problem with this is how unrealistic it is. I'm not talking about the game's supernatural powers either. I think the idea of a cash prize still existing from a retro text-based game is kind of ridiculous. I know there were games out there that did involve the concept of grand prizes - the most famous probably being the unfinished 'Swordquest' games for Atari. Check that link out, it's actually pretty interesting stuff! Anyway, besides that elephant in the room, there was something about Kayla that truly bugged me, and I can't really put my finger on it. It's almost as though her "girl power" felt forced somehow. Nothing against the actress, but some kind of combination of writing and direction with her felt... off. Pushing my criticisms aside, however, there are still a few things one can appreciate about this. In some ways, aside from hearing Robert Englund's voice, there was a bit of a 'Nightmare on Elm Street', dream-like quality to this, and I have to admit that a lot of it made me squirm. On top of that, I actually did kind of like the climactic sequence, where she faces a "final boss". As I mentioned before, I think they have the right idea for something somewhat original here. But the execution left a little to be desired. Elsewhere, it's fairly heavily criticized, but between a new director and it being a Netflix original, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly no type of must-see, though. 3/5  I'm not entirely sure why, but when I chose to check this out, I did so thinking it might be something more in the tradition of 'Detroit Rock City'. Instead, what we get isn't without its hints of charm, but it's also insanely formulaic. Having said that though, I don't pretend to know the first thing about metal music, its history and its culture. My knowledge of the genre doesn't extend much further than what I like from it and who's playing it. But there are hints throughout the film that it could lend itself more to the real fans out there.
In the hopes of forming a duo metal band, super-fan Hunter Sylvester (Adrian Greensmith) and not-so-experienced Kevin Schlieb (Jaeden Martell) get to work, jamming in Hunter's garage. While Hunter can really wail on his guitar, Kevin needs a lot of practice with his drum kit, as his drumming experience comes from marching band. One night at a party, the pair learn about an upcoming Battle of the Bands and decide that this is the answer to making a name for themselves. This results in Hunter giving Kevin some "homework", having him study the drumming techniques of a few key metal bands. Meanwhile, Kevin's marching bandmate, Emily, rage-quits band due to her lack of skill with the clarinet. As Hunter is on the lookout for a band bassist, Kevin decides that Emily's probably a good fit. Ultimately, this leads to Kevin and Emily becoming an item, and Hunter claiming her to be some sort of "Yoko Ono". Of course, Kevin also starts to find new interests and isn't entirely sure he wants to perform the same music Hunter does. To no one's surprise, the film is largely about conflicting interests between these two friends with a love interest caught in the middle of it all. Formulas aside, however, there is something to be said about this being potentially entertaining enough to the real metalheads out there. Of course, the presence of an Ed Sheeran cover band doesn't help. But perhaps the appearance of legends Scott Ian of Anthrax, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Kirk Hammett of Metallica and Rob Halford of Judas Priest does (Yes, I had to Google that). There also might be something to be said about Greensmith's performance here. This guy's a newcomer and a talented musician and manages to become that character you kind of hate, but in the end, want to route for. If it's a familiar face you're looking for here, however, you'll find it in Jaeden Martell who played 'Bill' in the 'It' remake. Otherwise, I can say that this is a movie full of newcomers, as I don't think I recognized anyone else. So if you're on the lookout for something a bit new as far as the cast is concerned, this could be worth checking out. For me, it's another title that isn't without its moments (I did laugh out loud a few times), but it has all been done before. It's entertaining, but not something I feel the need to recommend so highly. I'd be curious to see what a real metalhead thinks of it, and might sooner direct you towards THAT review instead of this one. 3/5  This one was fascinating, to say the least. However, not in the sense that one might think. The fact of the matter is that the formula for an awesome movie is here, as it includes an all-star comedy cast, is written and directed by Judd Apatow, co-written by Pam Brady (who does a lot of 'South Park' material) and wants to take a stab at tackling a comedic angle to the Covid-19 pandemic.
While on paper, that all sounds pretty good and edgy at this point in time (although understandably too soon for many, I'm sure), the final result isn't nearly as good as it could have been. It's an odd one to watch, following 'The King of Staten Island', which was really quite well done (I gave it a 5/5, anyway). Somehow or another, Apatow gave us something a little more parallel to a "Movie" movie ('Epic Movie', 'Disaster Movie', 'Superhero Movie', etc.) That's not to say the film isn't without a few good laughs, but we all know Apatow can do better. The film itself features the cast of a bad monster movie sequel, 'Cliff Beasts 6: Battle for Everest: Memories of a Requiem' (not a typo), as they are quarantined in a hotel to make the film during the Covid-19 pandemic. The apparent idea is to get across, in a humorous way, what actors "might" have to go through while shooting a movie during these hard times (that we're still not all the way out of yet, so again, "too soon" is far too understandable). The film looks at it from an extreme, and in so many ways it should be hilarious, but so much of the comedy seems to fall flat here. The main focus is on actress Carol Cobb (Karen Gillan), who is using the film as an opportunity to get back on top, following a disastrous role that almost ruined her career. While on set, she meets back up with the rest of the franchise cast, and some see Carol as a "walk-out" since she wasn't in 'Cliff Beasts 5'. Anyway, the project all starts with a Covid test, and a two-week quarantine before ANY filming takes place. That alone just about drives the cast insane, but be it quarantine or working together on set, the real question becomes "who will snap first?" In mentioning an all-star cast here, I feel it only appropriate to give it a role call. Among the acting crew, we have Dustin Mulray (David Duchovny), Howie Frangopolous (Guz Khan) and Sean Knox (Keegan-Michael Key), who welcome Carol back with open arms. However, Lauren Van Chance (Leslie Mann) remains the only one still miffed about her leaving. The film also brings newcomers Dieter Bravo (Pedro Pascal) and TikTok sensation, Krystal Kris (Iris Apatow), who befriends the film's stunt coordinator's daughter, Carla (Galen Hopper); a random goth, and probably my favourite character here. Just to continue the string, the crew starts with cheese-ball director Darren Eigan (Fred Armisen), whose vision is constantly clashing with the actors (namely Dustin). Outside of the set, the studio head, Carla (Kate McKinnon) controls things like the Emperor, and the Bubble also communicates with the studio chairman, Tom (John Lithgow), executive chairman, Li (Austin Ku) and last but not least, Carla's Dad, Steve (John Cena)... oh, and Beck. Beck is here too. Anyway, now that I've written two paragraphs of filler, perhaps I should just wrap it up. I will say this about the film. Despite it being quite honestly pretty bad, and (once again) understandably not very well-timed in the grand scheme of things, it does have the potential to become a guilty pleasure of sorts for yours truly. I mean, it's not entirely without laughs, and the idea of it is stupid humour surrounding an otherwise serious issue. While the film was a let-down, it's also not something I feel like I can just toss aside because it's so fascinatingly bad despite everything surrounding it. If you're willing to throw your brain out the window for just over two hours (by the way, it's also far too long for what it is) it can be entertaining in the wrong ways. But make no mistake with my perspective - it's still bad, and not everyone is gonna feel the same way. 2/5  Here we have the latest from the great Richard Linklater, who makes it obvious that this is a passion project based on his credits for the film. Altogether, Linklater is the writer, director, and producer here, along with the story being loosely based on his life, growing up in Houston, Texas. This not only meant living nearby NASA Johnson Space Center but being there for the first moon landing in 1969.
Now, of course, this isn't the first film he has all these credits for. But it's something you can tell he holds near and dear to his heart. This is him showing us his own nostalgia for growing up in the late 60s. He shows us what it was like to be a kid back then, and it's the perfect answer to the question of what kids did before the internet, video games, and other luxuries we completely take for granted nowadays. And quite honestly, the movie is mostly the unfolding of his childhood as opposed to anything to really do with NASA, space, and the rest of it. It's more of a nostalgia trip framed with a childhood fantasy about being part of a top-secret test mission to the moon before the actual '69 moon landing. It's sort of a weird section of the movie that plays out as though it's real, but it's all this boy, Stan's (Milo Coy and Jack Black when narrating) fantasy. Otherwise, the movie is simply about what it was like to grow up in that time. To make it more interesting, it's all done in the same animation style as one of my personal favourites of his, 'Waking Life' (animation sketched over live-action). Now, I will say this about Linklater's material - it may be considered an acquired taste to some. I find a lot of his overall style to be very artsy while trying to get it across to your average Joe. 'Dazed and Confused' is probably the most relatable of his work, overall, as it's more of a high school film than an art project. 'Waking Life' or 'Boyhood' would be the other side of that scale. This can be found right in between those two films. But don't worry, it's not as "out there" as 'Waking Life' was. This is, quite plain and simply, Linklater showing us childhood in the late 60s, and as long as you're open to hearing his stories, you can enjoy this just fine. Personally speaking, I was of two minds on this one. For starters, I appreciated how he brought us back in time and shared his nostalgia with us. I further appreciate the art style (I do love this type of animation), and the minute details he gets into with his descriptions. On the other hand, while I liked the storytelling, the whole NASA fantasy that he has felt sort of unnecessary. I do get it, and perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I might have liked it better if it was just the nostalgic story, and left relatively basic. He's exposed to NASA enough that the title would still make sense. Anyway, I'm gonna say right off the bat that if you're a Linklater fan, it's worth checking out. It's a pretty fascinating look back, especially when we see things we consider old that is brand new at the time. Think of there being arcades, but the only machines there are of the pinball variety. It's a cool slice of history, and I can't help but appreciate the fact that Linklater tells it through the child's eyes. He does so without talking down to his audience and even educates us on a few things here and there. I really liked this, and I think it will appeal to anyone who grew up in that era, along with anyone looking to find out "what was it like back then?" 4/5  Let me come right out of the gates by saying that despite all of the positivity I've been giving Netflix original movies lately, this is definitely one of the "lesser" titles in the collection. Some may recall how underwhelming titles like 'The Woman in the Window' and 'Awake' were to me. However, I wouldn't quite say this one is quite as bad.
The plot is about as basic as it gets for a bottle movie, but with a few interesting tweaks going on throughout. The first is the introduction of our three main characters; all of whom are nameless. We are first introduced to (according to credits) "Nobody" (Jason Segel), who has broken into a wealthy tech CEO's vacation house and been enjoying the splendours of his laid-back, relaxing lifestyle. However, it's not to last. On a last-minute vacation, the CEO (Jesse Plemons) and his wife (Lily Collins) enter the home, and Nobody tries to hide while trying to sneak out, undetected. It's not long, however, before the wife spots him, and soon, things start to escalate. It's a bit of a twist on the average home invasion movie, but not nearly as intense as most under that category. In other words, there's not really a horror/thriller element to it so much as a bit of suspense, and the question of who the "bad guy" really is, or indeed, if this really is a hero/villain situation at all. I do admit that it's not a bad look at the characters' relatable situations. Segel plays that part of us that really wants to stick it to the man, but Plemons makes an interesting point about how being wealthy isn't necessarily all sunshine and rainbows. Collins, I think, sort of plays the audience in this, and manages to see both sides to the story. So it's a pretty neat character study altogether, but again, nothing particularly special. It's something to throw on if you have an hour and a half to kill that's about on the same levels as your average TV crime drama. For me, this one came across as something like a student film, or where all of these actors may have gotten their starts if they weren't already well-established. There's really not a whole hell of a lot more to say about it, as nothing truly stood out for me. If you have the time, it could make for a mildly interesting Sunday afternoon movie, as long as curiosity hits you. Otherwise, I would probably recommend other Netflix titles above it. It's interesting enough as far as the dialogue goes, and a bit of a twist ending, but it's still very average. 3/5  Folks, it would appear that there is a director out there who has captured my interest with his titles lately, and that is Shawn Levy. Up until now, Levy has been a name with a familiar ring to it for me, but not someone whose film library I'd be able to list very easily. For those who might fall under the same category, his directorial credits include 'Free Guy', eight episodes of 'Stranger Things', 'Date Night', and a few other "lesser" titles. Like a fine wine, however, this guy seems to improve with age.
Although I feel like this could have been good for a big-screen experience, it (along with several other Netflix originals lately) finds itself entertaining us perfectly fine in the comfort of our own homes. It's getting very cool to see streaming service originals sort of "upgraded" from what they once were, and this one is no exception. I mean, this thing opens up with an incredible parallel to 'Guardians of the Galaxy', as our lead, Adam Reed (Ryan Reynolds), steels a time jet and escapes his chasers through a wormhole, taking him back from 2050 to 2022. Here, he meets his 12-year-old self (Walker Scobell), whose father (Mark Ruffalo) has recently been killed in a car accident, and mother (Jennifer Garner) has been dealing with it since. Part of her dealing is Adam getting suspended from school, and being somewhat distant from her. As a result, a good chunk of this movie addresses the idea of going back to give your younger self some life advice - something I think we'd all love to be able to do. But the cool thing is that things work the other way around, too, suggesting that we were never once "just dumb kids". Anyway, back to the plot, older Adam has accidentally crash-landed in 2022 due to a struggle during his escape. His aim, however, was to get to 2018, where he has learned that his wife, Laura (Zoe Saldaña) may have travelled back to and gotten herself trapped. All the while, he's being chased by the leader of a 2050's dystopian future, Maya Sorian (Catherine Keener) and her badass lieutenant, Christos (Alex Mallari Jr.). Maya, basically being the self-proclaimed mother of time travel (unofficially). There's a twist here and a turn there, and soon it becomes less about the rescue mission and more about doing what's right. Now, can we just take a second to talk about Walker Scobell? This his his screen debut at 13 years old, and he Ryan Reynolds' the hell out of his role here. I swear, they found the perfect kid to play him, and that much is evident the second we're introduced. I've said this in the past (and on my past site) about young, rising stars (including Chloe Grace Moretz after 'Kick-Ass', Saoirse Ronan after 'The Lovely Bones') but this is a kid to keep an eye on. Let's face it, being a good match for a young Ryan Reynolds would probably be a good start if you're just starting your acting career. As for the rest of the film, it does appear that I'm a bit of an odd man out when it comes to how much I enjoyed this. But what can I say? It just struck a chord with me. And I'm not necessarily bias towards Ryan Reynolds, as you might see in my review for 'The Voices'. I also wasn't too fond of 2005's 'Amityville Horror'. As a person, he seems pretty awesome though, and I'd like to have a beer or two with the guy. I don't know if it's the idea of talking to your younger self, the wonderful casting or the fact that I experienced a good range of emotions with it, but I loved it! 4/5 |
RSS Feed