C

As someone who's all time favourite film is Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World I'd say I'm pretty certified to give movie reviews

[roviemeviews-blog]

Spoiler Alerts:

-

I always make sure to read books before I watch the movies so just know that all of my complaints on this movie are truly inconsistencies from the book and I will be giving two ratings: Accuracy & Actual Quality. Quick recall, Everything, Everything is about an 18 year old girl who’s been living indoors her whole life due to a rare disease called SCID. She meets a boy who moves in next door and who she texts and they fall in love and she risks everything for him. She’s not actually sick.

Overall, had I not read the book I probably would’ve liked the movie more. Even without the comparisons the movie has made itself such a generic love story that it’s just good, nothing more. Now onto the accuracy to the book.

First thing that truly irritated me was the lack of backstory on Maddy’s father & brother’s death. Then they COMPLETELY ruin Carla’s plotline. Maddy is supposed to visit Carla before Hawaii, Carla comes back to work for them after Hawaii, and she sees Carla before she leaves for New York.

Speaking of Hawaii, they made Hawaii all based around the way less romantic sex scene that they portray. They take out ALL of the conversation and actually romantic moments between the 2 and give us the sad bland intro to the sex scene in it’s place. They also get rid of Maddy’s architecture teacher and Olly’s gay black rock star friend, Zach. They also changed the ending and took some free licensing in characters and scenes. Lesser crimes but crimes against the book all the same. Otherwise, I’d say it’s a pretty good movie, I liked the acting and the plot a lot.

Overall I’d give it a 7/10 Accuracy and a 8.5/10 Actual Quality.

Quote to remember: “I want to experience everything, everything.”

[roviemeviews-blog]

Spoiler Alerts:

-

So this isn’t what I would call a good review. Quick recall, Norwegian scientists decide that the answer to overpopulation is to miniaturize people, doing this makes 1 dollar worth 40 seeing as less resources are used etc etc. Matt Damon tries to downsize with his wife, but she ends up not doing that. They get divorced and whacky small adventures ensue. The world is ending.

I mean, with global warming and all that Jazz it’s a given the world is ending especially in this strange universe. The general plot is interesting and executed surprisingly well for anything starring Matt Damon. 

Our issue is Ngoc Lan Tran, the Vietnamese woman who was downsized by force due to her activism in Vietnam and I’d found as the only survivor of a TV box sent to the US. Ngoc Lan Tran, portrayed by Hong Chau, is a harsh stereotype. The fact that Hong Chau is from Thailand and not even Vietnam certainly doesn’t help her characters case. She is there to have a silly accent and make silly “Asian” remarks about the stupid white men. I’ll give her this: She has a meaningful backstory and the way Paul (Matt Damon) and her meet is realistic. Of course she had to be a handicapped, person of colour maid.

My main issue other than the hardcore stereotypes is the love plot between Paul and Ngoc Lan Tran. The entire movie hints at NO, and I mean absolutely ZERO, romantic feelings between the two. Sure Ngoc Lan Tran shares her very tragic and personal story with Paul but I’m pretty sure I tell anyone I’ve known for more than a day the tragedies of my life, it isn’t cause for some “Love At First Sight” type shit. All of a sudden the two have sex and Paul later reveals he’s in love with her. I feel the entire romantic subplot was just muddled and pointless. The whole thing could’ve been just as effective if he considered her like a best friend.

Overall I’d give it a 6.5/10. Not the kind of movie I’d run out and buy or watch again but it was relatively funny and I’d at least give it a chance if I were you.

Quote to remember: “What kind of fuck you give me?“

[roviemeviews-blog]

Spoiler Alerts:

-

Okay so I don’t think anyone is surprised that this is the first movie I’m reviewing. I have to say it legitimately took me 2 days of nonstop thinking about this movie to finally decide my feelings on it. Quick recall, the movies about 3 stoner friends in the ‘90s. It switches between Jack, Sarah, Mark’s dad, and Jack’s mom giving witness accounts or something to a cop, the accounts are being filmed via camcorder. 2 of the stoners are kind of step brothers but their parents aren’t legally married. Jack is gay, in love with Mark, Mark seems to be bi, has feelings for both Jack and Sarah from what I understood. Mark’s dad is an abusive asshole. Jack’s mom is an angel. Jack kills Mark.

Now obviously loads of things lead up to the (from what I have mulled over for 2 days) seemingly accidental murder, but if I recalled the whole plot you guys wouldn’t wanna watch the movie. What I do have to say is that I love the way the film is shot. I love how well they switch from the witness accounts to the flashbacks of the trio hanging out. I love the group dynamic they have and how Charlie Heaton and Owen Campbell don’t look uncomfortable when they make out and all.

I think some of the plot surrounding Jack’s mom is a little lost in everything else, we have no idea if she knows if her son is gay and whether it bothers her or not, which is something we know about Mark’s dad. 

Mark seems to be the one who initiates the whole relationship but is later the one who almost resents Jack for loving him. The ending leaves a pit in your stomach. Not because of the fact it’s bad but because it’s absolutely heart wrenching. Like I said, I decided that the way I saw it, Jack killed Mark by accident, but a small part of me wonders if, although intoxication played a big role, Jack had that “if I can’t have him no one can” mentality.

Overall I’d give it a solid 9/10. I love a movie that makes me think but overthinking because of lack of explanation just makes me personally nauseous.

Quote to remember: “I would like to see a lawyer”