I am going to post some of my film reviews in this thread.

[Metalhead]

I am looking for constructive criticism here. I want to be a decent writer when it comes to spoiler-free film reviews. And here, I will only post the reviews where I felt no need to add swearing to them, to abide by the forum rules.

And here is one review right off the bat.

The Batman (2022)

Grade – 4.5 / 5

Rating – PG-13

Length – 176 Minutes


I am here to report that even though he was directed to be way too moody to be a proper Bruce Wayne, Robert Pattinson turned out to be the most vicious Batman to date. He was very convincing in his character’s crusade for vengeance against the corruption that has overtaken Gotham City. He also handled the action sequences quite well. Between this, Good Time, The Lighthouse and High Life, I believe it is now safe to say that he has redeemed himself from his Twilight days.

Under the tight direction of Matt Reeves, 176 minutes feel closer to 90 despite the fact that there is enough plot here for three movies. Paul Dano is supremely creepy as The Riddler, who is murdering high ranking political figures to grab Batman’s attention. Zoe Kravitz adds an appropriately sympathetic portrayal of Selina Kyle. Colin Farrell is virtually unrecognizable as The Penguin, and that is a compliment. These performances stand out throughout a film that is generally very well-cast.

For the parents out there, this is not an appropriate movie for grade school superhero fans. The violence may be bloodless, but it is all quite vicious, and it pushes the boundaries of what can be accepted under a PG-13 rating. The Gotham city here is even darker and more brutal than what Christopher Nolan managed to conjure up with his legendary Dark Knight trilogy. Here, there is no comic relief to be found to break the mood. The tone here borders on nihilism until the end of the film comes around, and even the obligatory happy ending is tinged with a lot of darkness.

Anybody looking for a feel-good superhero experience like what Marvel churns out repeatedly will not find that in The Batman. But as a supremely suspenseful mood piece that has the audacity to go places in the Batman comic book canon that all other live-action films before it never even bothered to mention, this film reigns triumphantly. This is a superhero movie for people who usually hate superhero movies. And it is a movie for people who like great movies in general.

This film loses half a star since it could have used some tighter editing in a few of the scenes that go on longer than they should have. Thankfully, Pattinson is only Bruce Wayne in a couple of scenes, and Wayne is a complete recluse here. I guess there is no room for a glamourous billionaire playboy in this bleak vision of Gotham. But this vision of Batman has a purity to it that works, canon be damned.

 

[tree]

Maybe this will interest you a little?
It's not criticism.
It's a readability evaluation, on the posted review.


AUTOMATIC READABILITY CHECKER, a Free Readability Formula Consensus Calculator

Flesch Reading Ease score: 60.3 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: standard / average.

Gunning Fog: 11.8 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.7
Grade level: Tenth Grade.

The Coleman-Liau Index: 9
Grade level: Ninth Grade
https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php#

The SMOG Index: 8.6
Grade level: Ninth Grade
https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php#

Automated Readability Index: 9.7
Grade level: 14-15 yrs. old (Ninth to Tenth graders)
https://readabilityformulas.com/freetests/six-readability-formulas.php#

Linsear Write Formula : 12
Grade level: Twelfth Grade.

 

[tree]

"The average American is considered to have a readability level
equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old)."
What is readability and why should content editors care about it?

What is the average person's reading level?

What’s the latest U.S. literacy rate?

 

[Metalhead]

So basically, I should try to make my reviews easier to read for the average American. Got it.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

So basically, I should try to make my reviews easier to read for the average American. Got it.

I am from Mexico and also read much english material, I also find very kind when the language is easy to understand. Im sure many people arround the world also read english reviews.

I have not seen the movie, cant help with that.

 

[Slim Jim]

Randomly test one of my posts.

Flesch Reading Ease score: 69.1 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: standard / average.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



Gunning Fog: 8.9 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: fairly easy to read.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.2
Grade level: Sixth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



The Coleman-Liau Index: 9
Grade level: Ninth Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



The SMOG Index: 7.2
Grade level: Seventh Grade
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



Automated Readability Index: 5.1
Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]



Linsear Write Formula : 5.7
Grade level: Sixth Grade.
[ f ] | [ a ] | [ r ]

Oh..wonderful. I write like a 9 year old.

 

[Slim Jim]

Readability Consensus
Based on (7) readability formulas, we have scored your text:

Grade Level: 7
Reading Level: fairly easy to read.
Reader's Age: 11-13 yrs. old (Sixth and Seventh graders)

Oh Nice...I'm super readable. Another post of mine.

People have pointed out to me I'm a terrible speller. This I must admit is true, sometimes. Yet , I've known people, who's punctuation, grammar, everything, was atrocious. Hilariously so. And I was like: "How the hell does she even hold a job. "

I am fairly articulate, high vocab. But I don't know the first thing about professional writing. I do have a school level understanding, I Suppose. That's as far as it goes.

 

[Forest Cat]

Maybe this will interest you a little?
It's not criticism.
It's a readability evaluation, on the posted review.


AUTOMATIC READABILITY CHECKER, a Free Readability Formula Consensus Calculator

Flesch Reading Ease score: 60.3 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: standard / average.

Gunning Fog: 11.8 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.7
Grade level: Tenth Grade.

The Coleman-Liau Index: 9
Grade level: Ninth Grade

The SMOG Index: 8.6
Grade level: Ninth Grade

Automated Readability Index: 9.7
Grade level: 14-15 yrs. old (Ninth to Tenth graders)

Linsear Write Formula : 12
Grade level: Twelfth Grade.

I thought it would be fun to test that a little, so I ran "The Passionate Pilgrim" by William Shakespeare through it:

Flesch Reading Ease score: 78.2 (text scale)
Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: fairly easy to read.

Gunning Fog: 10.8 (text scale)
Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.4
Grade level: Eighth Grade.

The Coleman-Liau Index: 6
Grade level: Sixth Grade

The SMOG Index: 5.4
Grade level: Fifth Grade

Automated Readability Index: 9.5
Grade level: 14-15 yrs. old (Ninth to Tenth graders)

Linsear Write Formula : 13
Grade level: College.

 

[tree]

The Passionate Pilgrim?

I am confused.
When I looked up "the passionate pilgrim" I found this:
The Passionate Pilgrim

Not one work, but a collection of 20 poems.

What Passionate Pilgrim do you mean?

 

[Forest Cat]

The Passionate Pilgrim?

I am confused.
When I looked up "the passionate pilgrim" I found this:
The Passionate Pilgrim

Not one work, but a collection of 20 poems.

What Passionate Pilgrim do you mean?

Poems I, II, III, IV and XVI, from the collection of 20.

 

[BrokenBoy]

I would recommend not watching superhero movies.

 

[Thinx]

Great review, I want to watch the film now, it sounds interesting. I like the way you put things, and it's succinct and informative.

 

[Judge]

Hmmmmm...."The Batman".

Well, at least the casting was logical. I mean, having Ed Cullen turn into a bat made some sense, having already been a vampire. And his ambiguous ethics towards humans sort of parallels his ambiguous attitude towards indiscriminately interfering with the duties of law enforcement while wearing tights. Risky business...

I suppose at times that's gotta bite. Oh well.

So it's all good, man. Which reminds me...did they ever cast who Bruce Wayne's lawyer was?

 

[Callistemon]

So basically, I should try to make my reviews easier to read for the average American. Got it.

Depends on your philosophy. You write really well, and it's my belief that good writers shouldn't write for average or lowest common denominator, but to educate others. It's fair to say that average 15-year-olds could read and understand your reviews in a classroom (I taught in high school for 15 years) and I think it's a disgrace that the average reading age in America and a few other countries is 12-14, considering that this is not the population average age. Reading age has really declined in some Anglo countries over the past few decades. As an educator I know people can learn, and the reading ages could be better. In my classrooms, student reading ages improved above par. It's about loving language, making it interesting, positive feedback, and having a belief in the abilities of the people you are teaching.

I spent some time working in the UK in my 20s and was fascinated with the difference between some of the UK papers I read there, and what was available in Western Australia. The main newspaper in that state has a reading age of 9 - dull as dishwater. The Telegraph, for example, had articles written as if for actual adults - so much better - and adults were reading that. I think writing at a low reading age is infantilising and dumbs down a population, and treats people as a whole as if they cannot learn, when the vast majority of people are capable of learning from birth to death.

Language is so important for being able to think critically and in complex ways. People are robbed if their language is infantilised.

 

[Judge]

I thought it was a fine review. What intrigued me the most were his comments about how the main character deviates somewhat from past films. Plus the casting of other characters is interesting, as all of their names are familiar to me. At least it leaves us with a sense of creativity over a film title redone over and over again. Which under the circumstances strikes me as a good thing.

All jokes aside, Robert Pattinson's career seems in a slow yet upward trajectory, despite how Hollywood so easily typecasts actors and pigeonholes them only for roles based on their greatest degree of notoriety. Not a good thing if you were in any of the "Twilight" films, which frankly I enjoyed. So sue me. Another example of how they put quite a spin on the lore of vampires.

I could have said, "You've got to be kidding" when it comes to Pattinson cast for this role. But I didn't. Mainly because I still chuckle at my own thoughts when I learned that actor Michael Keaton was cast for the original film role in Tim Burton's version. And he pulled it off beyond any doubt.

 

[Metalhead]

YaY! Another review! And that running time is not a typo.

Happy Hour (2015)

Grade – 3.5 / 5

Rating – Unrated (Intended for Mature Audiences)

Running Time – 317 Minutes

-----
The best way to describe Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s provocative epic, Happy Hour, would be to see it as a female-centric midlife crisis narrative. The film centers on a group of four friends in their late ‘30s. Three of them are unhappily married, while one of them is divorced. When Jun (Rira Kawamura) takes definitive action and outright flees her insane husband after the Japanese courts refuse to grant her wish for a divorce, the three friends left behind splinter apart gradually while they question why they are not taking such rash actions themselves.

Sakurako (Hazuki Kakuchi) is married to man who is married to his government job, and their relationship is already apparently dead when the film begins. Fumi (Maiko Mihara) is married to an oblivious editor who may or may not be having an affair with the much younger woman whose work he is editing. Finally, there is Akari (Sachie Tanaka), who works as a nurse to keep her senses sharp. Akari does not regret her divorce, but she is seriously craving male attention like the other two friends that were left behind by Jun.

I could imagine a more sensationalistic take on this kind of subject matter, but Hamaguchi went for a naturalistic slow burn instead. Real emotions peek out over a series of truly awkward dining table conversations. But voices are rarely raised. The few instances of physical violence in this film come as a shock and are far from cathartic. The end of the film leaves countless threads open, but at least the four central characters experience significant personal and spiritual growth by the time the ending credits start to roll.

I sensed the influence of Italian neo-realism cinema in this work, and the use of an amateur cast shows that Hamaguchi was looking to capture a slice of Japanese life the way that it is for many people. This is not a movie that offers dramatic fireworks. However, the emotions buried beneath the serene surface are scathing. Cruelty is pervasive in this world of midlife unhappiness. Nobody escapes from the web of infidelities unharmed. The story starts off with a group of unhappy women who attend a cheesy self-help seminar out of curiosity, but they only find the answers they never knew they were looking for through a world of pain.

The cinematography is top-notch for the most part, but there were several portrait character shots done with extremely poor lighting. In these shots, all you can see is a silhouette, and all facial features are drenched in darkness. I am unaware if that was an intended effect, but it was more of an annoyance to me than anything else. The shots taken on Kobe city streets are all wonderfully done, however. The minimal use of music added to the serenity on the surface of most scenes, and that made the quiet verbal bursts of aggression more potent whenever they came up.

Happy Hour is not a film for most audiences out there. Watching it made me feel like I was watching the characters evolve during real time. There are many disappointments and satisfactions to be found throughout its lengthy running time, and I felt as if I knew most of the characters in the film quite intimately by the time it was finished. But I do feel it would have worked better as a short TV series.

 

[Thinx]

Wow another fascinating and well written review, you nailed it! I'm hooked, like, I don't want to watch the film but yet I do... I think I would follow your idea, and watch it in 3 sessions.

The cultural content and places it's portraying sound fascinating, and would help make the long haul worthwhile. It's good to see progress in the way some of the realities of relating in that culture are being understood, as well as getting the women's perspectives.

 

[Kalinychta]

Do you think you might be up to posting reviews on request? I don’t watch modern films altogether too often. I like old films. If one of us (or just me) asks you to watch and review a particular film, would you? I’ve actually got a couple in mind. Film-films.

 

[Metalhead]

Do you think you might be up to posting reviews on request? I don’t watch modern films altogether too often. I like old films. If one of us (or just me) asks you to watch and review a particular film, would you? I’ve actually got a couple in mind. Film-films.

I have Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, HBO Max and The Criterion Channel. If the movie is available on any of those in the US, I would be glad to review it.

 

[Metalhead]

Evil Dead (Unrated) (2013)

Grade – 4 / 5

Rating – Unrated (18+)

Running Time – 97 Minutes

-----
In an age of unnecessary horror remakes, the 2013 Evil Dead stands well above most films of its type. Director Fele Alvarez manages to keep things moving at a breakneck pace. The practical gore special effects are top-notch. This is the rare horror remake that was made with some care and consideration for horror fans.

While it pales in comparison to Sam Raimi’s classic original, there is still a lot to love here. The screenplay is campy without being too jokey. The young attractive cast delivers the dialogue woodenly, but that only adds to the B-movie charm Alvarez was clearly going for. The key to what makes this unnecessary remake work as well as it does is that there is no filler in its running time. It starts off running and the grisly plot keeps accelerating until it reaches its Grand Guignol climax.

Nobody is watching this for the character development or for the original plot. I am glad Alvarez decided not to tone this remake down for a PG-13 rating like many horror remakes have jumped for in recent years. This unrated cut is fully NC-17 grade when it comes to delivering the graphic gore. Unlike many “unrated editions” out there, this features significantly more practical gore FX work than the R-rated version does.

While this remake lacks the significant technical innovation of Raimi’s classic original, it does manage to successfully capture the ridiculously over-the-top tone that the first film had. 2013’s Evil Dead is a movie best played on a large screen in a dark room with a very loud sound system. It is a visceral roller-coaster ride that goes far beyond most of what Hollywood is willing to deliver when it comes to horror special effects work.

The squeamish need not watch this. And there is a bit of repetition in the screenplay as one camper after another gets possessed. But I will say this in this film’s favor. It is never boring. This is a guilty horror pleasure that is up-front and honest about its intentions. The best things this film has going for it is its tight editing and its no-fat sense of direction, and in this genre, those two things can carry a film a very long way.