Deadpool (Tim Miller, 2016)

7/10
This was not quite the "revolution in superhero movies" I feel like some people hyped it up to be. If you know a little about the Deadpool character going in there probably won't be anything here you wouldn't expect. Some of the jokes land (my absolute favorite being Deadpool's confusion as to whether he's being taken to see James McAvoy or Patrick Stewart when he's being hauled off to meet with Charles Xavier) and some of them, particularly the cruder ones, feel kinda high school-ish and cringey in their attempts to be "edgy".
I saw some people complaining about its obvious low budget, but that was one of its more endearing traits to me. I did find myself hoping for some cameos/crossovers from other Marvel characters just because it would have been fun to see Deadpool interact with them, but he had good enough chemistry with Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead that it wasn't a major issue.
Overall I was entertained and not insulted, and I don't demand too much more out of comic book movies these days. More than anything I felt happy for Ryan Reynolds(strangely, as I have no strong feelings towards him one way or the other) for making a passion project work and pleasing as many people as it did.

Inside Out (Pete Docter & Ronnie del Carmen, 2015)

7.5/10
I thought it was fine, but maybe a step down from what I was expecting because I'm used to setting the bar high for Pixar. I was kind of hoping it would touch even more on mental health issues actually (maybe a lofty goal for a cartoon aimed at children, I know) - it felt like it brushed up against those issues momentarily but quickly backed away and failed to re-address them. It was good entertainment although the ending felt rushed.

10 Cloverfield Lane (Dan Trachtenberg, 2016)

6.5/10
This probably started out as a really cool script. The idea of a man building a huge bomb shelter and essentially kidnapping (or saving) two others to live down there with him lends itself to all sorts of interesting questions. Is he a savior, or a nutjob? Is there really something deadly aboveground, or is it all just a ruse to keep his captures from trying to escape? Unfortunately, the apparent need to shoehorn this script into a movie to kickstart "Cloverfield" as a brand name franchise gives it away up front - if there wasn't something going on aboveground, why call it a "Cloverfield movie" at all? This isn't a spoiler, just common sense that lessens the slack on an otherwise taut and extremely well-crafted first two acts.
I always get a little nervous when I can't figure out how a movie is going to end, allowing for the possibility I'm going to get blown away but fearing that I'm going to be disappointed. Unfortunately it was very much the latter here. It doesn't seem like the writers could really figure out an ending either as what we got felt goofy, unrelated to and undeserving of the solid hour and fifteen minutes that preceded it. John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead were both great and there is a much better movie somewhere in here, but what we're given is ultimately a disappointment.