John Wick is a 2014 neo-noir action thriller directed by Chad Stahelski and stars Keanu Reeves as the titular character along with Willem Dafoe and Tyler Nyqvist.
John Wick is a retired assassin whose wife passes away from a fatal illness. John receives a puppy as a final gift from his wife to help him cope with his grief. One day at a gas station, a group of Russian thugs who are there ask for John to sell them his luxurious car. John refuses, but the thugs refuse to take no for answer. They follow John home and beat him to a bloody pulp; stealing his car and killing his puppy in the process. John then sets out on a revenge tour to find the thugs.
This is an action film that really brings it, and that might seem a little hard to believe given the rather simple plot. It's not the revenge aspect where John Wick tries to excel, but it's in the fast-paced, kinetic action scenes that don't have that Fast & Furious feel to them. That's because we watch Reeves kick ass in a stylish and neo-noir style that doesn't rely on annoying shaky cam or 300-esque slow motion. Action movies should be fast, and John Wick is fast. It also has purpose and is devoid of cheap silliness.
- The most notable action scene is when Wick is running through a dance club trying to hunt down one of the main thugs. He's punching, kicking, and shooting his way through a barrage of bad guys, but Wick just keeps going like a hawk determined to catch its prey. The neo-noir lighting is dark, yet elegant. The whole sequence is the best example of how stylish and non-stop the film is. It's one of those scenes that I would go up to a friend and say, "You gotta see this scene. It's just so cool."
- I think this film has done wonders for Reeves, as this film looks to be the start of a new franchise. He's nobody new to action, as the 1990s proved to us with Point Break, Speed, and The Matrix. But Reeves hasn't starred in anything truly noteworthy since the Matrix trilogy, and this film has breathed new life into his acting career. I don't know how many John Wicks there will be, but if Reeves can keep delivering the goods, I will support him all the way.
- The movie has the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King issue, in that it has about 200 endings. Just when you believe that the film is seemingly over, it comes back with another scene, and then another and then another. You can still easily convince yourself that it's not over because you'll ask yourself, "Wait a minute, there's still this bad guy running around. What about them?" Several remaining loose ends are tied up in a rushed manner, and that to me speaks to the film having a slightly too short run time. I think an extra 5-10 minutes would have been beneficial.
So what if John Wick is a standard revenge story? The action is plentiful, exciting, and stylistic. With a revamped Keanu Reeves at the helm, I don't see what there is to complain about. John Wick is a modern stand out of a genre that is overly-cliched and illogical far too often.
Recommend? Yes, especially if you love action movies
Welcome back Mr. Shyamalan. You were sorely missed.
After a long stretch of disappointments, M. Night Shyamalan presents us the tense and expertly crafted psycho thriller, Split. The film stars James McAvoy and Betty Buckley with Shyamalan serving as both director and writer.
Three teenage girls are just about to drive home together when they suddenly get attacked and kidnapped by a strange man named Kevin. The three girls wake up in a cellar and find out that Kevin has 23 different personalities living inside his body. A few of them are Dennis, who has violent tendencies and suffers from OCD; Hedwig, a nine year old boy; and Barry, the dominant personality who frequently meets with psychiatrist Dr. Karen Fletcher (Buckley). The girls try to find a way to escape while the personalities continuously speak of "The Beast", a 24th personality that the girls will supposedly be sacrificed to.
If Shyamalan has proven anything to us with Split, it's that we shouldn't count out someone that has shown flashes of brilliance in the past. I can't really think of another notable director whose career over the past 15 plus years has been such a roller coaster like Shyamalan's. How does a guy that brings us a superb work of horror in The Sixth Sense also bring us massive elephant turds in After Earth, The Happening, and The Last Airbender? Maybe sometimes you need to fail before you can truly succeed. It might mean that Shyamalan is on the upswing and his very best thrills are still yet to come.
But I digress. Split is a gem in the month of January that is normally the dumping grounds for awful new releases.
- James McAvoy. He brightly shines in a role that is quite a drastic change from a younger Professor X. He plays every different personality to perfection and gives creepy, psychotic smiles that might keep you up at night.
- The pacing, a forgotten and overlooked component of effective thriller/horror films nowadays. The kidnapping happens within the first 10 minutes of the film, and from there, Shyamalan keeps the film moving so as to not have it ever seem too slow or rushed. The build-up to "The Beast" and the climactic ending is superb. Each major personality of Kevin is given the time it needs to flourish, and the various escape attempts by the girls only add to the growing suspense and intrigue.
- I'm at a loss when it comes to pointing out a significant flaw in Split. There are points where you wonder to yourself, "Why didn't the girls try doing this or that earlier?" One of them gets locked in a separate room and after a while (she eventually finds out what type of lock is on the door), she starts searching the room for something to use to unlock the door. Moments like this make you wonder why didn't this girl start looking for a way to escape right away, instead of grieving for an extended period? The main girl, Casey, simply sits in the car and watches in horror as Kevin uses a chloroform spray on the other two girls when they're being kidnapped. She freezes for a good number of seconds, when just about any normal girl in her situation would probably scream and run for her life.
Shyamalan has justification for just about everything the girls do, as well as why Casey always seems so calm and collected. He doesn't seem to miss a beat with the writing.
Like in just about all of Shyamalan's previous films, there's a twist ending. This one is definitely up there and, without giving anything away, let's just say that it should get you excited for the future.
Split is a resounding return to form for a director that has been sorely missed for many years. Shyamalan's direction and writing are top-notch with James McAvoy delivering a terrific and memorable performance. Let's just say it'd be best to be familiar with Shyamalan's previous works to get the full impact of this film.
Recommend? Yes. I'd recommend watching Shyamalan's earliest works first, but you'll definitely have a good time regardless.
It fell down a well all the way to cinematic hell
Cell sort of flew under the radar during what was an underwhelming 2016 movie summer, and I felt no inclination to see it. But after hearing that it was one of 2016's worst and that it was really that bad, I couldn't resist any longer. One viewing later, I can confirm that Cell is indeed a rotten pile of manure that is a true disgrace to the ever growing Stephen King film series. This is the second such Stephen King adaptation to star John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson, with the other being 1408.
Cell begins in an airport where a man named Clay Riddell (Cusack) calls his wife and son and tells them that he'll be home soon. Suddenly, people begin to hear a loud, obnoxious noise coming from their cell phones, and begin to froth at the mouth and go insane. Pandemonium ensues as these people have now become rabid zombie killers. Clay is able to escape into a subway tunnel where he meets Tom McCourt (Jackson). The two set out on a journey to find Clay's family, while avoiding being killed by the hungry zombies referred to as "phoners".
I'll start by saying something nice. The premise of having things go wrong due to cell phones certainly has potential. Cell phones are everywhere nowadays and we have a hard time staying off of them. The zombie apocalypse approach isn't the worst way to go, except when this approach is so cheaply and dreadfully constructed as it is in this film. Forget suspense or exciting thrills. You'd have a more stimulating time going Bigfoot hunting in your backyard.
- The opening scene at the airport. This whole scene where everyone gets zombiefied is so unintentionally hilarious, and has you believing initially that the film is going to be one those bad films in the "so bad it's good" way. A young girl runs and bashes her head on a wall several times. People are getting thrown off of ledges. A burly black man holding a butcher knife comes awkwardly running after Cusack. It's one of those "see it to believe it" scenes that will have you in stitches.
- The film is so cheap looking. Basically every scene looks as if it was filmed with a handheld camera. The editing is horribly choppy, and several scenes (particularly at night) are poorly lit. Nearly every fight scene with phoners is incomprehensible, and made me think of the big city fight in the first Michael Bay Transformers, which also had the same problem.
- After the opening airport scene, the film becomes unbelievably boring. Cusack and Jackson, along with other survivors they meet along the way, simply go from place to place with a few phoner encounters thrown in here and there. Nothing is that interesting, especially because the film doesn't follow up on the unintentional comedy spawning from the opening scene.
- The ending. I won't spoil it, but it might be one of the worst endings to a movie that I've seen in a long time. It doesn't really resolve anything and flat out makes no sense.
I wish Cell could've made the most out of its fairly decent premise. There is some purely unintentional comedy in its opening scene which is worth a viewing, but otherwise, it has nothing to recommend. Cheaply filmed, lazily acted, and painfully boring, Cell is a waste of a zombie apocalypse.
Recommend? No. Just watch the opening scene. That's all that's worth seeing.
Martin Scorsese's newest film is a thought-provoking depiction of faith, spirituality, and the power of religion
Silence stars Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, and Liam Neeson and is based on the 1966 novel of the same name. Martin Scorsese considers the film to be a passion project that has been in development for over 25 years.
Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver play two Portuguese Jesuit priests: Father Sebastiao Rodrigues and Father Francisco Garupe, respectively. They find out that their mentor, Father Cristovao Ferreira (Neeson), was tortured and renounced his faith. Ferreira is now presumed to be missing somewhere in Japan. Rodrigues and Garupe set off for Japan in hopes of finding him. The two arrive to find small, underground groups of Japanese Christians, and administer many of the sacred sacraments to them. It's not long until Japanese samurai come in search of suspected Christians, intent on making the faithful apostasize or face persecution. Rodrigues and Garupe finds themselves in great danger alongside the Japanese Christians that they have befriended.
I know that faith-based films receive a lot of heat. The majority go for the shove-it-down-your throat approach that easily sicken the unfaithful and sometimes even those within the faith circle. Considering that Silence is brimming with Christian ideas and imagery, one might think that the target audience is only the most devoted of monotheistic religions. There is frequent discussion of the one God and what his intentions might be for us as a human race. Martin Scorsese doesn't necessarily challenge the faith. Rather, he makes us question the very abstract concept of faith. What exactly is it? Why do we have it? What makes it special to some and not others? Why even be a Christian?
There is irony in Silence, mainly because of who is directing it. It's a man who has developed a reputation for directing testosterone-filled, not-exactly-Christian gangster films such as Goodfellas and The Departed, as well as the excessively excess, America in a nutshell, Wolf of Wall Street, which is almost an exact opposite of Silence. Many of Scorsese's previous installments froth at the mouth with brutal violence and f-bombs, and they make Silence look heavily restrained. But maybe it's important that Silence is restrained. Bloody violence (with the exception of a few decapitations), profanity, and hardcore sex material are all tuned out. There are no glaring distractions. It's an underlying hint at what is involved in faith: removing distractions, asking the right questions, and being in the moment.
- How thought-provoking the film is. Silence can be difficult to watch, not allowing us to be comfortable with what we think we've always known about faith and spirituality. It dares us to question ourselves, and does not allow easy answers. Do we simply believe that these Japanese samurai merely look down on Christianity? One of the Japanese men says, "The price for your glory is their suffering." Are Christians not able to find grace and absolution in their faith unless there is suffering and oppression? This leads to a more philosophical question of how can there be a good without an evil?
We're not receiving a lecture on what defines a good Christian from a bad Christian. Scorsese wants us to think. He wants us to second-guess. He's pushing faith followers to be more mindful and constructive. We have to ask questions to do so.
- Scorsese put his heart into this film, and it's easily seen through his always excellent direction. I keep drawing a blank when it comes to finding a significant low point. One minor complaint of mine is that the union that is Garfield and Driver dissipates as the film wears on. When the two arrive in Japan, they hear confession, celebrate Mass, and distribute the Eucharist together. But once the story kicks into high gear, Garfield becomes the man of the show, and Driver is thrown to the sidelines. In a movie that features Kylo Ren, Qui-Gon Jinn, and the Amazing Spiderman, I guess I can only ask for so much....
Silence is a film that can be viewed and appreciated by any atheist, agnostic, or devout Christian. Ideas of faith and spirituality that are normally susceptible to preach-iness are masterfully conveyed through questioning. The 161 minute run-time can be difficult to endure, but Scorsese doesn't waste a single frame. It's especially remarkable to consider how thought-provoking a film can be when it contains little violence and few unnerving obscenities.
Recommend? Yes, regardless if you're religious/spiritual or not
I coulda been a contender...
On the Waterfront is a 1954 crime drama starring Marlon Brando, Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, and Rod Steiger, and is directed by Elia Kazan. It won 8 Academy Awards out of 11 nominations.
Terry Malloy (Brando) works on the docks of Hoboken, New Jersey, alongside his brother Charley. Terry has good relations with the dockworkers union boss, Johnny Friendly (Cobb), who has connections with the mob. One night, a man named Joey Doyle is killed, and Terry is confronted by Joey's sister Edie (Saint) and Catholic priest Father Barry (Karl Malden), believing that Terry is a witness to Joey's murder and can help testify against Friendly and his thugs, who are suspected of killing Joey.
It might surprise you to learn that Brando initially turned down the role of Terry Malloy, which Kazan was going to give to Frank Sinatra. But Kazan believed that "an actor like Marlon Brando" could truly pull off the role, and with enough persuasion, Brando reconsidered and decided to take on the role. Who would've thought that a performance most memorable for perhaps changing the landscape of American cinematic acting almost never happened?
Terry Malloy is maybe one of the most important characters in cinematic history. Most of this should be credited to how miraculously that Brando portrays him. But another part of it should be how the character of Malloy really opened the gateway for Hollywood to present more consistently to us troubled, flawed, and, dare I say it, human characters. This is a post-war time where the former joys of watching theatrical lovebirds on screen are growing more humdrum. Now, at least in upcoming Best Picture winners, the focus is transitioning more towards examining the psychological depths of characters that we can sympathize with. We'll still get Best Picture films that center on love stories every now and then, but the emphasis on such films is starting to lose its grip.
So there's sufficient reason to claim that On the Waterfront is an important film. Is it a great film too? I find it hard to formulate an argument as to how it's not.
- Marlon Brando, if you couldn't guess. Most people might remember Brando as Vito Corleone in The Godfather, but his performance as Terry Malloy might just be too good to top. His inflections, tone of voice, and body gestures are all superb. Malloy is vividly displayed to us as frustrated and hesitantly aloof. He tries to dismiss ratting on Friendly's criminal deeds, and when Father Barry confronts him in a bar, Malloy angrily lashes out with, "Mind your own business!" In the film's most famous scene, Terry laments to his brother Charley on a foregone boxing career, with the infamous "I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am." His chance at the American Dream shattered, Malloy just lays it all out to Charley.
- The screenplay by Budd Schulberg. It provides a story that is wisely constructed and never over-complicates itself. Hardy themes of union violence and corruption are ambitiously tackled, and characters are noticeably human. The mobsters seek pride and wealth with no nagging gimmick. The dockworkers are normal, hardworking individuals, spearheaded by an imperfect Terry Malloy. The best characters are typically the most relatable ones.
- If I'm forced to develop a low point, it might be that the film is slightly uneven, trying to balance romance with gangster crime. A supposed murder mystery transitions into a fixed attention on Terry Malloy and Edie Doyle falling in love, then later back into the dockworkers fighting the union mobsters. But looking at the film as a whole, and knowing how strong that the screenplay is, I fail to see this as a major complaint.
In my review for the previous Best Picture winner, From Here to Eternity, I pointed to the fact that that film has no unique quality to make it a truly great film (or a memorable Best Picture winner). This is not true at all for On the Waterfront, which features an actor and character in Marlon Brando and Terry Malloy, respectively, that would forever change the way acting and film-making are approached. With a sharp script to boot, On the Waterfront is a film that gives its all. It is truly powerful film-making that is essential viewing for any lover of film and/or acting.
From Here to Eternity is a 1953 war drama film directed by Fred Zinnemann and stars Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Donna Reed, and Frank Sinatra. The film is based on the novel of the same name by James Jones and won 8 Academy Awards out of 13 nominations.
Private Robert Lee Prewitt (Clift) arrives at the barracks in Pearl Harbor, where he finds himself pressured by his new commander to join the barracks' boxing team. Prewitt, haunted by a previous experience, refuses to do so. Prewitt soons finds himself heavily mistreated, but stubbornly refuses to change his mind about boxing. Meanwhile, Sergeant Milton Warden (Lancaster) begins an affair with Karen (Kerr), the wife of one of the barracks' leading captains.
I have been compiling a mental list together of what I simply call the Forgettable Best Picture Winners (somewhat inspired by "The Forgettable Presidents"). Some films on this list include Cavalcade, How Green Was My Valley, and Gentleman's Agreement, all of which are vapid dramas that have nothing truly memorable about them. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has grown quite predictable over the years with what films will, at least, get nominated for Best Picture and which ones are most likely to win. Back then, nearly every Best Picture winner involved the blossoming of a love tale and/or the exploitation of historical periods and events for the sake of attempting to generate supposedly sensual drama. Of course, there really wasn't that much variety in terms of film genres back then. There was no Marvel Cinematic Universe, cheap cash-grab horror flicks, or anything else that might be blown off as gimmicky.
So where am I going with this? It's that From Here to Eternity was the indication that I am growing progressively tired of seeing basically the same style of film with nearly all of these really old Best Picture winners. There's always a love story, or the film is always taking place in a significant time in history. It's not right of me to fault a film just because it takes place during World War II or some other time period, but it has now become annoyingly repetitive and it's a clear sign that the Academy was very closed-minded back then. But again, was there really any specific genre of film in notable existence in the 50's other than drama, war, or romance?
A drama film is the most susceptible to being boring and unengaging, which is the painful truth about From Here to Eternity.
- The film is well-acted, which is sadly the only real quality that it has going for it. Normally I like to point out a specific actor or actress and commend them for their performance, but that's unfortunately not the case this time. Nobody is bad, but nobody is utterly fantastic either.
- From Here to Eternity has no concrete characteristic to distinguish it from any other romantic war drama. Something like The Best Years of Our Lives can be viewed as a heartwarming commentary on the struggles and hardships of veterans returning home from service. From Here to Eternity, on the other hand, has no evidence to suggest that it's an intriguing political commentary or features a truly memorable romance (one iconic beach scene isn't enough). We have a character who knows how to box, and he gets into a few fistfights. The Japanese planes come and bomb Pearl Harbor. All well and good, but there's no golden nugget for us to admire and talk about. This is why the film is a Forgettable Best Picture Winner.
There's not much appeal to From Here to Eternity, despite being well acted. It might have been seen as a truly great film back then, but time has not been too kind to it. The most frustrating part is that a key piece, whether it'd be a performance, the story, or even the soundtrack, to truly make it a memorable Best Picture winner is just not there.
Recommend? No. This is one of those goes in one ear and comes out the other kind of films.
Based off an action figure? Well that's not setting the bar real high
Max Steel is a 2016 science fiction superhero film based on the Mattel action figure of the same name. It is directed by Stewart Hendler, the director of the 2009 horror film, Sorority Row, and stars Ben Winchell, Josh Brener, Maria Bello, and Andy Garcia.
Winchell plays Max McGrath, a teenage boy who has just moved to a new neighborhood with his mother, Molly (Bello), as the two cope with the loss of Max's father. Max soon discovers that strange, liquid energy is coming out of his hands, and he sees that this energy affects cellphones and other electronic and metallic devices around him. Later on, an alien robot named Steel (voiced by Josh Brener), meets Max, and tells him that the two can combine their powers together to form Max Steel (so subtle, right?). The two work together to take on an evil force that is lurking closeby.
Who saw Max Steel? Its box office returns were atrocious, and whatever marketing was done for it early on wasn't very prominent. The film just seemed to slip through the cracks of what was a busy fall 2016 movie season, and whoever did see it most likely thought that it was an inert and poorly contrived superhero flick. The fact that the basis for this film is an action figure is not exactly a spark for wide range interest. Max Steel also features bad acting, poor storytelling, and witless humor, if the inspiration for it wasn't enough to drive you away.
- Zero. Max Steel has no redeeming qualities, and I failed to pinpoint anything that was either memorable and/or entertaining. The film has an hour and a half run time, so it's a good thing that it's relatively quick and won't feel like a life sentence. Sadly, Max Steel falls into the dark abyss that is "so bad that it's bad", not being unintentionally hilarious and/or "so bad that it's good". The film is like the brother of Fant4stic (2015), in the sense that it's a rushed and disastrous superhero slog that can't be justified.
- The awful storytelling. It is never clear as to how Max acquired his powers in the first place. He is sitting at home one day, and then all of a sudden, he discovers liquid energy coming out of his hands. Max tries to Google why he has this energy coming out of his hand, and then proceeds to type in "What am I?????" The backstory of Steel is brief and undefined, and I was still confused at the end about what exactly Max and Steel can do together (what exactly is their powers?), as well as what this energy is that they possess. Can they control and manipulate metal and electricity? Does that explain how Max Steel just happens to create a suit out of thin air (yes, the suit really just appears when Max and Steel merge together)?
The creators of Max Steel can forget any and all hopes they might've had about this action figure becoming a new superhero franchise. It lacks the excitement, humor, and sometimes emotional depth that we typically expect from superheroes. More than anything, was there really a point to this film? This poor-man's Iron Man has no business trying to grace the silver screen.
Recommend? No. It's not even good for laughs.
Does it deserve its status as one of the worst Best Picture winners ever?
The Greatest Show on Earth is a 1952 drama film directed by Cecil B. DeMille and stars Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, Cornel Wilde, and James Stewart.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a name for the travelling Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Show, which features trapeze artists, exotic animals, colorful clowns, and much more. Charlton Heston plays the no-nonsense manager, Brad Braden, who must oversee a host of backstage problems. He has a fuzzy relationship with his girlfriend, Holly, one of the trapeze artists, who he refuses to give the center ring of the show. Braden hires a big-name talent known as the Great Sebastian, who possesses a womanizing personality that spawns a love triangle with Braden and Holly. James Stewart plays Buttons, a clown who never removes his makeup and seems highly suspicious.
Despite featuring names like Charlton Heston and Jimmy Stewart, and being directed by the legendary Cecil B. DeMille, The Greatest Show on Earth is nowadays considered to be one of the worst and most undeserving Best Picture Winners of all time. Some speculate that the Academy tried to justify the film winning Best Picture by claiming that it was a way to pay tribute to DeMille for all his years as a director. How does a film with such a noticeable panache be seen so disdainfully today?
The answers seems to lie in the film being noticeably bloated, as well as in the thin plot. For the first 45 minutes, I felt quite invested and was about to tell myself that such critiques just mentioned above were inaccurate. Then the circus acts that are frequently displayed begin to drone on far longer than necessary, and it was at this point that I realized such critiques that I was about to dismiss were really true.
- The trapeze sequences involving the primary characters are fun to watch, and will perhaps make you envious of their atheltic ability. This is as close to edge-of-your-seat that the circus performances in this film get.
- The train crash near the end of the film (this is mentioned on the back of the DVD cover, so it's fair game to discuss), which comes as a bit of a surprise in a film that perhaps you thought was just going to be an artsy and goofy circus show for 2 and a half hours. One train runs over a car and crashes into the back of a stopped train, sending debris and human bodies flying everywhere, and letting animals out of their cages. It's a neat and memorable early 50's action sequence.
- The one word that might best describe The Greatest Show on Earth is bloated. The evidence is in how all of the circus act scenes overdue their stay, with an extra 10-15 minutes of showiness being put on after our main characters take care of their business. This is meshed with shots of audience members laughing and staring in awe at all the flashy costumes and vicious animals. I suppose that the audiences in the film are supposed to be reflections of us, laughing and cheering and supposedly having a wonderful time. The mirror would actually show people slouched in their seats with their head in their hands. This bloatedness has a domino effect of creating a way too long runtime, as well as pushing out more potential plotlines.
- Jimmy Stewart as Buttons the Clown. Jimmy Stewart did the best he could in this role, but the problem is that it is a completely unsuitable role for him. Buttons just seems sort of "there" for the first hour and a half, and then we begin to learn more about who he actually is in the last hour. I just could not buy the fact that Jimmy Stewart of all people was playing a clown who never takes his makeup off. Buttons might've been a better fit for someone like Jerry Lewis or even Bert Lahr, who played the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz.
There is sufficient reason to believe that The Greatest Show on Earth is one of the worst and most undeserving Best Picture winners of all time. The circus acts, while mildy entertaining at times, cause the film to become bloated by going on far too long, thereby diminishing the plot and making the film much longer than it needs to be. The film, though, does feature an impressive train wreck and some neat trapeze sequences. Not everything about the circus is bad, and perhaps you might grow more fond of the circus if you see this film.
Recommend? Yes. However, it should be one of, if not, the last thing on your to-do list. It's worth checking out if you find yourself bored and need something to do to kill time.
Here you'll find my reviews on just about any film you may have seen. I try to avoid major spoilers as much as possible. I structure my reviews in the following way: