Jacob's Ladder (2019) - Not really a remake

Remakes of beloved classic films are inevitable. So long as the entertainment industry remains static in their story crisis terrified to take on any property without name recognition or not based on any kind of pre-existing property, we as an audience will see a massive title wave of remakes, reboots, and reimaginings along with sequels, prequels, and spin-offs for good measure (or lack thereof). Most of the time, remakes fail to understand or embrace what made the original film so enduring and perfect and wind up as pale imitations that are only banking on the value of the recognizable name to ensure ticket sales. Even so, every so often, there is a remake of a classic movie that manages to build upon its predecessor's accomplishments and actually be better in its own way. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion. Today's movie, the 2019 remake of Jacob's Ladder, is somewhere in between. It's not bad enough to be written off as a lazy carbon copy of the original, but it's also not good enough to be considered better. It's a movie that if it were missing a few scenes and had a different title, would actually be a decent thriller in its own right. Sadly, because it bears the title and a few similar moments from the original, most of its goodwill gets bogged down. Not enough for me to deprive the movie of a cautious recommendation, but just enough to reinforce the sad state of mainstream entertainment. 

For those of you who don't know or need a quick refresher, the original Jacob's Ladder released in 1990 is one of the most iconic and influential psychological horror/thrillers ever made. The story follows a Vietnam war veteran named Jacob (Tim Robbins) who mourns the loss of his young son while dealing with severe PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) causing hallucinations and anxiety. On top of that, Jacob slowly discovers a great mystery about his time in the war and is determined to solve it. That is, assuming he can decern the difference between fantasy and reality, or figure out which reality is actually his own. Featuring a gripping performance by Tim Robbins, gorgeously gritty cinematography by Jeffery L. Kimball, eerie and atmospheric music by Maurice Jarre, and all beautifully realized under the talented direction of Adrian Lyne, Jacob's Ladder stands tall as one of the best examples of genuinely good horror storytelling, and one of my favorite psychological thrillers of all time. What brief moments of gore it has are very few and far in between, not to mention only utilized in service of the story and not for the sake of just having it. If you have not yet seen this film, I encourage you to do so. It is a real must-see for any cinema buff. 

The 2019 remake, on the other hand, is kind of a different beast entirely (almost). 

In the remake, the story follows combat surgeon from the Iraq war named Jacob (Michael Ealy) who is dealing with PTSD as well as the loss of his brother Issac (Jesse Williams) who apparently served with Jacob and died in battle. Jacob, now working full time as a trauma surgeon with a loving wife and baby, seems to be adjusting as well as possible. That is until a stranger, who claims to have served with his brother Issac, confronts Jacob claiming that his brother is alive and on the run. Reluctantly, Jacob looks into the stranger's claims and, much to his shock finds his brother Issac alive but not very well. Turns out Issac got himself in the grasp of a drug addiction that is apparently linked to a discontinued experimental treatment for vets with PTSD. As Jacob digs deeper into the mystery, he finds that things are not all they appear to be. Will Jacob solve the mystery and save his brother, or will he discover more than he had bargained for? 

The real problem with this remake is that it's technically not really a remake. There are only a handful of scenes that are nearly exact recreations of iconic scenes from the original, and most of the overall story is very similar. It has just enough recreated elements from the original to get away with calling itself a remake, but again, it's really not. 

What's frustrating is that I cannot describe the significant difference between the two films without spoiling them. While I recognize that the original is almost thirty years old, I know there are those who still have not yet seen it, and I want to ensure they have a chance to do so with a clean slate. So, here's what I'm going to do. If you want to avoid SPOILERS, then ignore any and all paragraphs that are written in Red.

Okay? Cool. Moving on 

SPOILERS: 

So, in both films, there is an element of mystery revolving around an experimental drug being tested on vets. In the original, this was just a subplot that mostly served as a means to comment on the mistreatment of soldiers by the government during the Vietnam war. Turns out Jacob, as well as a bunch of other soldiers including his squadmates, were secretly fed an experimental drug that would increase their ferocity, making them more efficient in battle. Sadly, they all ended up killing each other rather than the enemy as the drug was not stable. This was one of the many twists in the original leading up to the revelation that Jacob is, in actuality, dying of a lethal wound in Vietnam, and that all he has been experiencing up to the end of the story was all in his mind as he reconciled with his life and embraced his own death. Finding peace with the choices he had made. 

The remake, on the other hand, takes that same subplot from the original and turns it into the main plot. Wherein it turns out that Jacob had been taking an experimental drug meant to treat his PTSD by removing the traumatic memories that are causing it. However, it turns out that the drug has one major side-effect: It causes the subjects bad memories to be replaced with entirely different ones. In Jacob's case, all of his memories of his marriage, his child, and his brother's drug addiction, never actually happened. Jacob's brother, Issac, was the one who got married, had a child, and never even touched drugs. Later on, Jacob discovers that he had been helping out a scientist who was trying to perfect the same drug and was using vets as Guinea Pigs for his experiments. 

The problem with this difference is that it completely changes the themes and overall point from the original. Because Jacob in the original eventually dies, all of the strange experiences he has are manifestations of his struggle to stay alive and the fear of death. Meaning there are specific moments in the film that reflect and hint at this very idea. The remake retains many of the scenes and elements that served the same purpose in the original, except they don't make any sense in the remake, because the new version of the story is not about Jacob's reconciliation with his life, but something else entirely not even remotely related. Yes, Jacob does die at the end of the remake, but only as a last-minute contrivance. This is what I mean when I say this movie doesn't really feel like a remake, but rather as a completely different film that just added a few familiar scenes and slapped the title onto itself only so it could get your attention through name recognition. Even worse, the movie didn't really need to do so, because it was good enough on its own as a different kind of thriller. 

For those of you who skipped the Red paragraphs, the short version is that the remake is too different from the original to really qualify as a remake, and only uses a few iconic scenes and the title to bank on name recognition. 

In spite of this lack of truth in advertising (sort of), I would still kind of recommend this movie. It has enough competence within itself to, at the very least, be entertaining in its own way, and the whole cast does a fantastic job with the material. At the time of this writing, both versions of the film are available OnDemand and on various streaming services such as iTunes and Amazon. Neither film is yet available on Netflix. If you are interested in either film, I highly recommend you at least watch the original first. It is a superior story with deeper themes and statements that the "remake" is too afraid to even try and contemplate. While the "remake" is still an okay film in its own right, it cannot measure up to the original. At least not in my opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Angel Has Fallen - Finally, a good entry in this series

In 2013, a film titled Olympus Has Fallen was released in theaters, and could best be described as Die Hard but in The White House, except it was nowhere near as exciting as that sounds. Suffering from terrible action scenes, repetitive dialogue, lousy special effects, and laughable attempts a tough-guy acting, the film was a total bore, saved from absolute death only by the professional commitment of Gerard Butler and the ever-welcome presence of Morgan Freeman, who may very well be the only reason this franchise even survived as long as it has. Further solidifying the films lackluster status was the release of another movie with the same premise titled White House Down, except that film was a far superior execution of Die Hard but in The White House in every conceivable way. Despite all that, for some reason, White House Down never got a sequel, but guess what did? London Has Fallen released in 2016 and, while it was still terrible, at least featured a few improvements. Now, here we are with the third installment of this unusually popular franchise, Angel Has Fallen. Which, surprisingly, is not bad. I mean, it's The Fugitive as written by Tom Clancy on steroids, but it's more entertaining than that may sound.  

The story follows aging but dedicated Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) who is facing the real possibility of having to step down as a field agent due to a series of medical and personal issues. He is approached by President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) to become the new Director of the Secret Service. Before Mike can answer, he and his team are attacked by a mysterious Drone strike killing Mike's entire squad and putting President Trumbull into a coma. Upon arriving at the hospital, the FBI informs Mike of evidence suggesting he orchestrated the attack in an attempt to assassinate the President. With no other options, Mike escapes off the grid to find a way to clear his name and take down the ones who are responsible. Little does he know that the answers may be closer than he thinks. 

Say what you will about the movies politics (and believe me, there is a lot to say about it), but as an action movie on its own merits, it's pretty much okay. The action is exciting and easy to follow, the characters have some texture to them, and the story manages to feel familiar yet fresh. A big part of the reason why is likely because for the past two installments, they were made by talented people but either didn't possess enough skills nor experience in action. It seems that this time around the producers managed to assemble a team of people who not only have some genuine talent for high octane action, but have a lot more experience, and it shows. 

This may not be the next greatest thing in action cinema, but it is a decent use of your free time that will adequately reward you for your box office money. If you need a quick break from the boring modern world, check this one out. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It's an inoffensive piece of action schlock that does its job well. Go with a friend if you can and have fun. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

IT Chapter 2 - It's official, the ending is just terrible

Back in 2017, a brand new adaptation of Stephen King's IT was released in theaters. The film became a massive success scoring high ratings with critics and loving praises from audiences, including myself. It turned out to be a genuinely pleasant surprise of a film with incredible child actors playing textured and entertaining characters, suspenseful set-piece moments that are genuinely scary, excellent metaphorical storytelling about childhood, trauma and facing your inner demons, and all of it is held together by the real star of the show, Bill Skarsgåd as Pennywise The Clown. Even people who were not big fans of horror cinema could not help but be utterly impressed with the quality of the film as a whole. While some describe it as a horror film for people who don't like the genre, I have to respectfully disagree. I say it is more like a film that best showcases what makes horror so appealing in a relatively easy to observe manner. It is one of the few horror films I genuinely enjoy, and I am happy to call myself a fan. Needless to say, I was pretty excited for the sequel IT: Chapter 2, and needless to say, it was disappointing. While I still got some entertainment value from the tremendously talented cast and handsome visuals, this sequel, rather sadly, fails to maintain the charm of the first film. Maybe because it never really could. 

Based on the second half of the book of the same title by Stephen King, the story follows a group of childhood friends known as The Looses Club who discovered, confronted, and defeated (albeit temporarily) a mysterious carnivorous shape-shifting creature known as IT, who mostly takes on the form of a dancing Clown named Pennywise. After the kids won the battle, they all took an oath to reunite and kill IT should it turn out that IT isn't actually dead. Twenty-seven years later, the kids have all grown up, and sure enough, Pennywise has risen again and is going on his usual hunting and killing spree. Now, The Losers Club must reunite and face their fears once again. 

The biggest problem with the second film is that it is just not as impressive as the first. It has long been a common issue with this particular story that the kids as adults are just no longer as engaging or as charming as they were before. Partially due to the repetitive nature of them facing off against Pennywise again, almost as if they suddenly forgot they did so before, and the apparent lack of growth from them as characters. They all grew up into relatively decent and successful people, who have conveniently repressed their memories of taking down a killer supernatural Clown, and now they're basically going through the same arcs they went through before. I suppose the argument could be made that this part of the story is about dealing with repressed trauma and finding the courage to face it head-on, but they technically already faced their greatest fears in the previous film, so I personally believe that argument is invalid. 

Even so, let it be said that this lack of interesting characters is not the fault of the cast. Everyone playing the older versions of the characters from the first film does a phenomenal job with the material they are given. James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and Bill Hader, in particular, deliver some of the best performances of the film. Almost enough to compensate for the inexcusable lack of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise, who has, at best, fifteen minutes of screentime out of a nearly three-hour film. 

The good news is the first IT movie succeeds in standing on its own as an individual film. You can easily enjoy the first movie without ever having to watch the second, which is honestly my best recommendation. It genuinely pains me to come down so hard on this film because I was seriously excited about it, I was still impressed with most of the visuals, and the cast provided some excellent entertainment value. However, it is all just not enough to compensate for the less-than-stellar story, repetitive character moments, and lack of genuine scares. This is one movie that just doesn't float very well. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Not really. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's too repetitive, has no real texture, and isn't scary. If you absolutely must see this movie, I recommend waiting for Netflix. Don't waste your money on a theater ticket for this one. You will likely have a much more satisfying experience coming up with your own ending. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

The Peanut Butter Falcon - A bundle of joy

2019 has not really been an excellent year for movies...until now. In a year that has been crowded with sequels, remakes, spin-offs, and lazy cash grabs (more so than usual that is), We finally have a new movie that puts all of them to shame. The Peanut Butter Falcon is not only a gloriously beautiful film, but it is also an instant contender for the best movie of the year. Purely because it has the one thing that a lot of films this year have been sorely lacking, heart. 

Taking place in rural Georga, the story follows a young man named Zak (Zack Gottsegen) who has down-syndrome and has spent the past two years living in a retirement home. Mostly due to the unfortunate situation of a lack of funding and sufficient care facilities. Even so, Zak has aspirations of escaping his confinement and meeting his hero, the great wrestler called The Salt-Water Redneck (Thomas Haden Church), who apparently has a wrestling school, and Zak want's to learn from the best. One night, Zak successfully escapes and happens to run into a drifter named Tyler (Shia LaBeouf) who agrees to help Zak get to his destination. Along the way, the two men form a unique friendship all the while being pursued by Zak's compassionate caretaker Eleanor (Dakota Johnson).

To say any more about the story would constitute spoilers, and the less you know about this movie going in, the more enjoyable your experience will be. 

I cannot think of one thing about this movie that I did not like. The characters are sympathetic and three-dimensional, the writing is smart and on-point, the direction is fluid and energetic, the cast is remarkable, and I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 

What really makes the film work is the leading man Zack Gottsegen, who does actually have down-syndrome in real life. His performance and chemistry with his co-stars are the heart and soul of the film. This should be an inspiration to anyone living with a disability of any kind. I know it was for me. 

If this movie is still playing anywhere near you, or if you happen to stumble upon it for rent or purchase on iTunes or Amazon, or if you stumble across a copy of it in any store that sells movies, I urge you to pick up a copy of this film. I promise you. Do not miss this movie. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Absolutely. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Definitely. 

Why? 

Why are you still reading this? Please go see it already. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Now seriously, go see this movie already. 

Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark - More Fake Horror (Spoilers)

It is becoming increasingly upsetting to observe the downfall of pure horror cinema. What passes as horror movies these days are cheap, lazy, unimaginative slogs riddled with too many jump-scares and not enough creepiness. Even speaking as a person who is not a big fan of the genre, I at least have a deep appreciation for it as well as a firm understanding of what makes good horror cinema. If I could use one word to describe what makes genuine horror, it would be "uncertainty." That terrifying state of mind when reality and illusion are unclear. Films like Jacob's Ladder and Oculus capture that very essence perfectly. Good horror will play with your thoughts, make you question what you just saw, and make you terrified of your own surroundings. None of which ever happens in this movie. Instead, we have yet another case of loud noises every five minutes, monsters that are more goofy than scary, all put together in a script that has no life to it whatsoever. This is one scary story that's not really scary, isn't really a story, and should never be told ever again. 

The film takes place in the 1960s (for some reason) and follows a group of school kids on Halloween night as they break into their local haunted house. Legend has it that a young girl was kept locked away by her family who would tell scary stories to other children through the walls. One of the kids finds a book that belonged to the legendary girl containing some of her stories. Taking the book home, our heroes are shocked to discover that the book is miraculously writing new stories on its own, and what's even worse, they are all coming to life taking out the kids one by one. Now, the kids must solve the mystery before they all disappear into the pages of their own story. 

As I suggested in the first paragraph of this review, this movie is not really horror. It's yet another example of what happens when you take a Carnival Haunted House and make it into a film. Even worse, it is an amalgamation of several other horror films that are a thousand times better than this. Few things are more annoying than sitting through a bad movie that is continually reminding you of better things you could otherwise be watching. Here is just a shortlist of things that happened and are present in this movie followed by where the filmmakers ripped it off from.

In this movie...
The plot centers around a book connected to the ghost of a young girl who was wrongfully treated and whos enraged spirit seeks vengeance on her tormentors and those who anger her.

Where is this from?
Paranorman

In this movie...
The main characters are chased and eventually left to die by a psychotic alcoholic bully.

Where is this from?
Every Stephen King story that was ever written.

In this movie...
The color style is extraordinarily stylized and reminiscent of the 1960s.

Where is this from?
Any horror film made by Mike Flanagan.

I could go on, but I suspect you get the idea.

What makes the whole experience even worse is that none of the characters are given any real development. Aside from a few archetypes, and a protagonist with cliche abandonment/persecution issues, all of the main characters are painfully one dimensional. I could not tell you their personality or even their names because I was given so little reason to care. We are introduced to each character being kind of jerks to their families and to each other, pulling a dangerous prank on someone. Sure, the victim of the joke was the bully who would deserve it, but there's no real reason to root for the kids to go forward with the prank until it's already been done. It felt less like the beginning of a movie and more like a later episode of a Netflix series where the introductions have already been done, and we're expected to know and care about the characters already.

This lack of characterzation and reason to care is made more frustrating by the films pacing. Usually, a horror film will want to take its time to build up suspense. Creating a mood and atmosphere to create tension. This movie doesn't have that at all. In fact, this movie is in such a hurry to get from one jump scare to another that it flat out forgets what build up even means. Throughout the whole runtime, I felt like I was on a monorail always moving at the exact same speed and never stopping. There were times when I just wanted to jump ship and call it quits, but I was determined to see if it was all worth it in the end with a satisfactory twist, which never came. Not to mention the last-minute out-of-nowhere painfully obvious sequel bait slapped onto the end of the film which makes no sense, and only felt like a massive slap to the face. Needless to say, if there is a sequel in the future, I sure as hell won't bother.

Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark is not frightening, has no real story, and should not be seen by anyone. It is a worthless, artless, lazy, insulting piece of crap that just adds to the horrendous stain on the reputation of good horror cinema. If you want to watch something genuinely scary with a better story and superior execution, watch The Haunting of Hill House on Netflix. It is significantly better than anything this poor excuse of a movie has to offer.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
No.

Why?
It's dull, unscary, loud, and wastes your time while reminding you of superior stuff you could be enjoying. Don't ever open this book.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Hobbs & Shaw - Ridiculously Enjoyable

In this movie, there a scene in which our heroes are in hiding in a familiar location. On the walls of this particular place are posters for the films Leather Weapon 3, 48 Hours, and the Sylvester Stallone classic, Cobra. All of which are classic action films of the 80s and 90s which perfectly capsulate today's movie Hobbs & Shaw. A modern presentation of the silly over-the-top action movies of my youth, and I could not help but love it all. Watching this movie made me feel like a kid again, it made me feel nostalgic for the days when action movies were fun. When they just embraced the absurdity of their worlds and didn't care about being "realistic." It is the perfect embodiment of suitable trash. It may not change or enrich your life, but it will provide a whole lot of fun at the movies like any good action movie should. 

Hobbs & Shaw is the first of possibly many spin-off films to spawn from the Fast & Furious series. A film series that I initially hated with a burning vengeance but have since grown to enjoy it. Mostly because the series initially tried too hard to be taken seriously and was pandering to an overly pandered crowd. That is until one day someone at the studio realized just how incredibly silly this whole idea was, and thus decided to encourage the filmmakers to just embrace the silliness of it all and have a blast with it. As a result, the Fast & Furious franchise has earned a place in my heart as a good action series, purely because of how much fun it's having, thereby encouraging the audience to have just as much fun if not more. 

The story follows an American special agent named Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and a British criminal/anti-hero named Shaw (Jason Statham). They are brought in by the CIA to work on a particular case regarding the theft of a dangerous virus which has the potential to wipe out most of the Planet. The main suspect is an MI6 agent named Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) who happens to be Shaw's sister. Little do our heroes know that the situation is being manipulated by a mysterious evil organization known as Etheon, who is also after the virus, and puts their most enhanced super-soldier named Brixton (Idris Elba) on their trail. Our heroes must put aside their differences and work together to retrieve the virus and save the world. 

What really sells this movie is the two main leads. Johnson and Statham are an absolute blast to watch. Their banter is funny, their chemistry feels genuine, and they both are clearly having a ton of fun with their roles and the entire movie. Both men have always had a natural charisma about them, which made them feel more likable and even relatable. Dwayne Johnson especially has often displayed a genuine enthusiasm for his work. If you watch almost any interview of him when talking about his upcoming movie, he is just like a little kid who got a brand new treehouse. As a result, because he's having so much fun, so are we. 

The action scenes are especially excellent. Unlike most action films today, Hobbs & Shaw provides incredible set pieces that, I dare say, are on-par with the likes of Ronin or even Mad Max: Fury Road. The camera never shakes like the operator just had his fifth Redbull, the editing is quick without being hyper, and every single moment is clear and coherent. This is the kind of action that Michael Bay thinks he is making but never succeeds in accomplishing. He should take note. 

My only real nitpick is a fantastic scene towards the end of the film, which was given away in the trailers when it really should not have been. One of the things that Dwayne Johnson likes to do in his movies is showcasing his Polynesian heritage. Usually in the form demonstrating ancient warrior tactics and battle preparation. It is a purely awesome scene that, while still incredible, would have been more so if it was not given away in the trailer. I can't help but feel that this one fantastic scene was robbed of its impact because the marketing department is under the false impression that trailers have to reveal everything about a movie to get audiences in seats. But I digress. 

Regardless of rather you are a fan of the Fast & Furious franchise or not, Hobbs & Shaw delivers a self-contained experience that anyone with a heartbeat can enjoy. It is super silly fun all throughout, and it is never embarrassed or ashamed of it. I hope we get to see more action movies reach this level of enjoyability. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It is unashamed and unapologetic crazy action and is the kind of silly movie experience we need more of in this modern world. 

Ladies & gentelmen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood - A lot to unravel

In 1969, a group of cultists under orders from their leader, Charles Manson, broke into a house north of Beverly Hills, and savagely murdered everyone therein. Including actress and then wife to renowned director Roman Polanski (who was in Europe making his next movie at the time), Sharron Tate, who was also eight months pregnant at the time. Manson chose this particular house because it was the former residence of a music producer who denied Manson a record deal. Although this producer no longer lived in the same house anymore, this clearly did not discourage the cult followers from carrying out their disgusting and unforgivable deeds. I feel that it is vital for me to mention this historical event because, like most of the people who will see this movie, this event was before my time. I was born in 1984, so I did not grow up with this knowledge. I had to read about it and look up some videos on YouTube about it. Before seeing today's movie, I was aware of the kind of evil person that Charles Manson was, and that he had murdered people as well as encourage his followers to kill as well, but I was not aware of this particular set of murders. It was only after seeing the movie did I take the time to learn the history of the tragic event and gained a greater appreciation for this movie. Because in addition to being the well written, superbly acted, and the well-crafted film overall, it is yet another excellent addition of Quentin Tarantino's filmography of "Symbolic Historical Fantasy Wish-Fulfillment."  

The film's story is relatively similar to one of Tarantino's previous films Pulp Fiction, in that it is really a collection of stories and vignettes that are all interconnected. The "main" story as it were, centers around a television actor named Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend/stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). To say any more about the story beyond that would constitute spoilers and I believe that the less you know about the story proper, the more profound your experience will be with this film. Likewise, to explain any further of its relation the Charles Manson murders and his cult would greatly diminish the impact of the film's climax. Which, in all honesty, is arguably the craziest, most graphic, and yet most pleasant "what if" scenario I have ever seen put to film. It has to be seen to be both believed and appreciated. 

Having said all of that, the film proper is really well made. As you might expect, the acting is top-notch. The whole cast delivers a wide variety of drama, comedy, meta-humor, and a trace amount of coolness for good measure. The writing, as you might also expect from a Tarantino script, is witty and intelligent (for the most part). It seamlessly swims through things like the true nature of Hollywood, the film industry, the perception of fame, and the true nature of success. For good or for ill, most of the hallmarks you would expect from a Quentin Tarantino film are present and accounted for.  

As much as I did enjoy and appreciate this movie, I do have a few nitpicks. I wish that the script could have spent just a little more time exploring movie magic like camera tricks and special effects, I personally didn't really appreciate the film's depiction of the legendary Bruce Lee, and my biggest nitpick of all, Quentin Tarantino really, REALLY needs to put his foot fetish in check. 

Much like Quentin's previous films Inglorious Bastards and Django Unchained, his latest outing must be seen to be believed and appreciated. It is both a love letter to cinema buffs like myself and a tender fantasy providing a sense of symbolic justice. It's a film that plays around with history to showcase how things could be a lot better if we all just take a moment to figure out what is most important in life. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe. 

Why? 

While I do highly recommend you see this film, it may be better enjoyed at home. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.