3-D Reviews

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 Video Game)

Fun, but not worth full price

[5/10 · 11 August 2012]

As a longtime fan of all video games Spider-Man, I was eager to play this title right away. The previous movie-based installments in the franchise like Spider-Man 2 and 3 were pretty well done, and I enjoyed the new movie this game is based on. I was especially excited to hear that free-roaming around the city was back as it was missing from other recent Spidey titles.

The story caught my interest right away. I particularly liked how, instead of a loose interpretation of the film, it was a direct sequel, taking place right after the movie's end. I couldn't wait to extend the storyline and see what happened next. That being said, the story itself in this game was never really immersive, suspenseful or climactic. There is zero character development, and hardly any story beyond, "Oscorp hybrids have escaped and Spidey recaptures a few."

While the voice acting itself wasn't bad, I was still disappointed not to hear Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone reprise their roles. This is only a small hang-up that didn't make or break the game or anything. They were noticeably missed, though, especially since Tobey Maguire voiced Spidey in previous games.

The action takes a few notes from the Arkham games with a very similar combat style and emphasis on stealth. I found it to be more forgiving with not breaking your combo chain in between strikes, and I could get 40-50 hit combos without much problem. It was fun for a little while but didn't add much challenge, especially since you can "web- retreat" at any time to safely sling to the ceiling out of harm's way. I found it more entertaining to stealth-KO all enemies as the fights themselves became tedious.

The selection of enemies for you to fight was pretty weak. I would have liked to see more villains than the very few they had as the boss fights were generally uninteresting. Of course, I do understand that it is probably because it is a sequel to the film and they are saving the better bad guys for the movies first. Still, for a Spider-Man game, their absence was felt.

Side missions were sprinkled all over the map, however they were mostly repetitive and redundant. There were blimp races, muggings in progress and getaway cars to stop. Unfortunately, they were incredibly easy and literally the exact same mission each time. There were also "infected" humans you can pick up and take to quarantine areas, but this was even more repetitious than the other side quests. Being the perfectionist I am, though, I still did them all. I did really enjoy the bank robbery side mission, though, but it was the only kind of it's type.

I guess that brings me to my favorite part about the game which is the web-slinging. There is something so incredibly fun about pretending to be Spider-Man and just flinging your away across Manhattan. You can find comic book pages on rooftops to unlock real Spidey comics you can read in-game (admittedly a very cool feature). Sometimes you can have difficult times with your landings, but this can be aided with the ability to momentarily stop time and choose your exact destination. This mechanic did help a lot with navigation, but sometimes it got a little annoying to have to break up your fast-paced gameplay to do it.

All in all, it did keep my interest until the end, but I am also a big fan of the Amazing one. Spidey aside, this game plays a lot like a budget title with some fun elements, but a lack of polishing which was probably due to a rushed release date to coincide with the movie. I would not recommend paying $60 for this game, but rather give it a rental, or at least wait for it to drop in price.

Splatter Rampage Wrestling (2003 Video)

Kids bouncing on a trampoline.. where's the "splatter rampage"?

[1/10 · 23 August 2006]

Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.

First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.

The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".

Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.

Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.

Starkweather (2004)

Decent effort

[7/10 · 16 March 2006]

Starkweather was an enjoyable watch for me, as a person who has interest in tales of true crime. This movie was fairly accurate to what really happened, despite several minor differences here and there.

The actor who played Charles Starkweather was funny to me, unintentionally. Whenever he yelled or tried to sound "tough" at any point in the movie, I had to laugh. It was pretty funny. It's not that he's a bad actor, but, I don't know, there's just something funny about him.

The movie could have used a tad more gore, but had enough blood to justify it's R rating, so it's alright.

The dialogue was fairly bad, however. Lance Henricksen's character, the evil Elliot Ness who convinces Charlie to kill people then scolds him when he does it, was pretty silly. This should not have been in the movie. In reality, there was no indication that Starkweather had a scary man who followed him around and had him kill frogs and mechanics.

Starkweather stands as a moderately enjoyable watch, a horror movie better than average, but not quite golden. It tells a good story, and while not entirely accurate, it entertains. As far as the serial killer movies go, it's much better than the last one I saw, which was the rather lackluster Gacy.

Fear of Clowns (2004 Video)

Not in the league of Killer Klowns.

[2/10 · 15 March 2006]

As a fan of killer clowns, I've seen pretty much every movie as such that's out there, including Clownhouse, Killjoy, and of course, Killer Klowns From Outer Space. A low budget movie has been added to the mix, entitled Fear of Clowns.

Unfortunately, I did not really enjoy this movie. First of all, 90% of the death scenes you don't see, since it always cuts-away right before each one. This is a big disappointment for horror fans, as seeing the carnage makes for more enjoyable horror. I mean, it's like renting a porno that cuts away to a different scene right before Ron Jeremy pulls his pants down.

The acting was really bad, particularly that of the token black policeman. He had such a small role in the film, yet his acting in those few minutes he had was so bad, it became the most memorable part of the film. Never have I wanted to kick somebody in the teeth so hard in my life.

The clown himself wasn't scary, at all. He was just some buff, shirtless man with a grease paint covered bald head, and Limp Bizkit eyes. That's not intimidating at all, but even if it had just one shred of horror, that becomes completely diminished when you hear him speak. I'm sorry, but a Vin Diesel clone in clown paint who sounds like a drunken wizard couldn't even scare a newborn baby with caulrophobia.

It's also funny how a half-naked clown holding King Arthur's axe casually walks around town and cuts people's heads off (although his body never gets stained with blood), and nobody notices. Unless they have a local circus in town whose clowns do double shifts as jousters at a Medieval Times restaurant, I'm pretty sure this guy would definitely warrant some concern with the citizens.

In a nutshell, this movie is not good at all. It's not because of the fact that it was low budget. The story was bad, leaving many loose ends and much nonsense. I'll give this movie 4 stars, but only because the camp value may keep you somewhat entertained. View this movie as a comedy, and not as a horror/thriller.

Jackhammer (2004)

Requiem For a Dream meets Friday the 13th meets Brokeback Mountain

[1/10 · 2 March 2006]

There is not one thing about this movie that is good.

The first half of the movie focuses on this guy shooting up, and hanging out with half-naked men. The guy's friend overdoses and dies, causing him to continue his downward spiral into street drugs which completely turns him into a junkie.

Suddenly, the junkie starts to hallucinate, and see his dead friend (who is still half-naked, even as a mirage) who tells him to kill people. The junkie obliges, and starts to murder random people who come into the business (that looks more like an abandoned warehouse) where he is working, since everybody in town somehow has a key to the front door.

Despite the jackhammer being attached to an extension cord, the junkie is still able to chase people and kill them, easily. And, for some reason, when he is injected with what looks like radioactive waste, it actually gives him superpowers, and he regains all his stamina and is able to jump onto rooftops from the ground (after falling off of them).

The acting is atrocious, the story is incredibly boring, the make-up was crappy, the dialogue was terrible, etc. basically, just everything about this movie was complete garbage.

And, seriously, what was up with all of the half-naked men? I think every male character stripped for absolutely no reason at all. I'm glad they all got killed by a super-powered, jackhammer-wielding drug addict.

Hostel (2005)

Quentin Tarantino likes this movie, so that means you will too!!1

[5/10 · 26 February 2006]

Basically, in the US, if filmmakers are having a hard time getting a movie released, one strategy is to slap "Quentin Tarantino presents" at the beginning, because if QUENTIN Tarantino likes it, then by golly, I know I'll love it!! /sarcasm Anyway, this movie was killed by the hype, I believe. Everybody everywhere was calling this the scariest movie of all time. It really is not.

The first half of the movie is just a couple people getting drunk and having sex. Eventually, they get tortured by some freaks, for no apparent reason.

This movie is basically a poor man's Saw, with more sex (sex sells, everybody!). Doesn't nearly live up to the hype.

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005)

I'm probably at Wal Mart as you're reading this text

[3/10 · 26 February 2006]

Yeah, I'm a regular Wal Mart shopper. What can I say, I'm poor, and I've got to save money whenever possible.

So, that's basically one gripe I had with this documentary. It's completely one-sided. Look, I know Wal Mart hurts a lot of people, small-town shopowners in particular, but it also helps people, too. It helps poor people such as myself save money. Yep, it sure does suck to have to close up your shop because of Wal Mart moving into town, but unfortunately, that's LIFE. You've gotta make the best with the hand you've been dealt.

This documentary was completely one-sided, and was also pretty boring. You can only hear old people talk about how much they hate Wal Mart for so long. Go ahead, call me ignorant, but I can't help it if I was bored.

Basically, here' the point they were trying to convey. Wal Mart closes down shops and is unfair to it's employees. There, I just summed up the entire movie with one sentence.

Stick with the South Park episode "Something Wall Mart This Way Comes" instead of this movie, because it conveys the same point of this documentary, but in a much more entertaining (and funnier) way.

House of the Dead (2003)

Makes the voice actors from the game seem like Oscar winners

[1/10 · 26 February 2006]

Okay, this movie was just terrible. Uwe Boll is the worst director to ever exist. Bad acting, bad story, bad make-up, bad cinematography, etc. Let's just say there was not one single thing about this movie that was good.

First of all, what the hell was the deal with the 'zombies'? They were gargoyles with glow-in-the-dark red eyes.. zombies don't look like that. Those things were the least scary things I've ever seen in my entire life. I'd be more afraid of a dandelion stem than I would the "zombies" in this movie.

The acting was so bad, even worse than the worst you've seen in any other B movie. It was so bad, that it wasn't even funny. Sometimes, in B movies, the acting is really cheesy which makes it funny. The acting in this movie was far beyond that. It was just BAD.

And, that's what's just sad. The incredibly cheesy video games are better in every way than the terrible movie. The acting, story, etc. are all lame and cheesy, but FAR better than the schlock in this waste of film. Even the pixelated, cartoonish zombies look so much more realistic than the black, red-eyed Swamp Thing "zombies" in this movie.

How the hell does Uwe Boll keep getting work? He continues his streak of destroying video game franchises, most recently with Bloodrayne, and now I hear he's doing Hit-man, and more.

Hey, Hollywood.. WHY DO YOU KEEP HIRING THIS GUY TO DIRECT?! His movies are the worst ever made in history, and they make NO MONEY. Seriously, somebody needs to kick this jackass out of the film industry.

All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos (2005)

A disgrace to zombie flicks.

[3/10 · 26 February 2006]

I'm a huge fan of zombie movies, but this film was just not good. The zombies were lame, there was an extreme LACK of gore (zombie movies should be FILLED with it), and the storyline was utterly terrible.

There is not one thing about this movie that is good. It is quickly going to go into obscurity, because I really don't see how people could LIKE this dumb movie. I am in awe. I'll give it a couple points, just for having zombies in it, even if they were pathetic zombies.

The body count is very low, there is really not much gore at all, and ARRGGHHHH I just hate this stupid movie. Zombie fans, trust me, skip this one. It's a disgrace to zombie flicks.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Among the best comic book movies

[9/10 · 26 February 2006]

With good comic book movies being incredibly rare, one may not know what to expect when seeing one. I came into this sequel with high expectations, though, since the first one was a pretty well made film. Since the original spent enough time explaining the origin of Spider-Man and all of that nonsense, I figured that the sequel would be full of a lot more action and Spidey's web-slinging tactics since no time would be wasted on how the character got his powers.

I was correct. Spider-Man 2 is absolutely fantastic, and perhaps much better than the first movie. How Dr. Octopus was incorporated into the movie's storyline was done perfectly and his fight scenes with our friendly neighborhood Spidey were amazing. The visual effects were top notch, featuring some of the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie.

The acting was good, for the most part, aside from some quirks with Kirsten Dunst's performance. Anyway, Bruce Campbell's cameo was one of the best parts in the movie, as he was very hilarious as usual.

The only part I didn't like was the very end, when the movie set itself up for another sequel. It was introducing a storyline that I wouldn't really care to see, since it'd be pretty much just like the first movie, but, hell. If that's what they want to do, there's nothing I can do to stop 'em. I just hope they'll wise up and introduce Venom in a 4th movie if not the 3rd. A Spider-Man movie series without Venom would just downright be a travesty.

Comic book fan or not, it'd be extremely hard for one not to enjoy Spider-Man 2. It has enough comic relief that's actually hilarious to mix with some beautiful action sequences and visual effects to keep most moviegoers happy. My personal opinion is that this sequel is even better than the first movie, but I'm sure many out there will agree.

Garfield: The Movie (2004)

Jim Davis would be rolling in his grave, if he was dead

[1/10 · 26 February 2006]

You would think that Hollywood would learn from such wastes of film as Scooby Doo that attempting to turn cartoon franchises into live action movies is a very bad idea. Apparently, they haven't learned yet, and thus, Garfield has been released.

Every single actor's performance in this movie was god awful, to begin with. I realize they weren't working with a golden script, but it was very blatant that nobody was even trying. Now, I expect half-assed acting from Jennifer Love Hewitt, who's only in Hollywood because of her looks, but Bill Murray's poor performance as the voice of Garfield was pitiful. It was sad, too, because Murray is usually a very funny guy.

As well, it was pretty dumb to have a CGI Garfield but have a normal dog for Odie. Instead of computer animation, they used some measly mutt that looks nothing like the cartoon dog and had it dancing on it's hind legs while listening to the Black Eyed Peas. I really wish I was making that up, folks, but I'm not. That part is actually in the movie, and lasts for the entire duration of the song.

Towards the end of the movie, Garfield dances to another song that's been used in about eighty seven billion other movies. Yeah, you guessed right; James Brown's stupid song that's like "I feeeeeel good!" I think it was trying to be funny, but it just wasn't. The same goes for every other joke in the movie. Not funny. Just not funny.

I guess you could understand why somebody who's been reading the comic strip for over a decade would be disappointed with this movie, but it would be just as bad for anyone who's never seen it once. Pathetic CGI animation, such as hands going through Garfield when people go to pick him up, ensures that this movie doesn't even get any visual eye candy. There are absolutely no pros to watch this movie, but so many cons that an educated mathematician would lose count if he tried to keep track of them all. Avoid this movie at all costs.

Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy (2001)

Ron. You pity him, but also envy him

[7/10 · 26 February 2006]

This documentary was an enjoyable watch. Pretty much anybody who has seen a porno at one time or another in their life has seen Ron Jeremy. I have seen plenty over the years, but I particularly like his work in clothes-on roles in non-porn films, such as Citizen Toxie, Orgazmo, etc.

Here, we have an interesting look into Ron's personal life. We all know Ron for all of the women he's had sex with in his lifetime, despite having a less than perfect physical appearance. Or, as Ron puts it in this movie, he proves that "anyone can get laid!" Despite all the women, however, Ron's life is fairly rough. This film lets you take a look at Ron's PACKED schedule and gigantic book of phone numbers, and we see that this guy is ALWAYS on the road and is ALWAYS busy. All of the travel has got to be hard on his body (although Jenna Jameson will help soothe his wounds).

Basically, you'll end up cheering on Ron for all of the beautiful women he gets paid to {sleep with}, but you'll also feel sorry for him when you see how tough his life really is.

Saw II (2005)

See Saw? Naw.

[4/10 · 26 February 2006]

I moderately enjoyed the first Saw movie, so naturally, I was bound to check out the sequel. It seemed to be getting a lot of praise for being the "greatest horror ever," and "much better than the first," so I obtained a copy and checked it out.

After it was over, I was kind of like, "..meh." I really failed to see how it was better than the first. It was a kind-of-OK horror movie, with many, many problems holding the enjoyment down.

First of all, the acting was so and so. I have to say that some of the actors gave fantastic performances, but there were just as many who were sub-par in their roles. But, you can never expect top notch acting when watching a horror movie. It actually can add to the camp value of the horror, but ONLY when the movie is a cheesefest. Saw II was attempting to be "serious".

The "gore" was not nearly as good as hyped. In fact, the gore is almost non-existent. Okay, so there's a throat slash here, reminiscent of the first movie. But that's about as bad as it gets. The rest of the violence is more mild, with nothing that I would call "gory" (a blood puddle here and there isn't exactly gore). Basically, if it wasn't for the language, this film could have scored a PG-13 rating.

Sadly, I also have to say that it really wasn't scary. You know, at all. I realize there are many others out there who somehow consider this to be the scariest movie ever made. Granted, I've seen at least a billion horror films by now, so my standards are probably higher than normal. So, I guess if you don't normally watch horror movies, this film might be scary for you, but if you're into horror like I am, you most likely won't be scared at all.

All of that can still be tolerable, however. It was the STORY that really brought this movie down. The premise was great. A group of strangers are locked up inside of a house, all poisoned, and they must find antidotes that are hidden throughout. So, it's Cube with a "search for the antidote" twist to it. Not a bad idea, I thought.

The problems came in from trying to link it to the first one. Every tie-in to the original movie was far too coincidental, making the movie seem like a horror-themed sitcom. Throughout the movie, I kept having to tell myself, "Whoa, what a co-wink-a-dink." The big "twist" was a betrayal of one of the characters who is actually B.F.F. with the jigsaw killer. This "twist" shoots the entire movie to hell, because it raises too many, "Well, then why did..." questions that just seem to make the entire story no longer make sense at all. But I think the biggest question I had was, "If they just wanted to capture the cop, then why did they go through the trouble of kidnapping a bunch of other people, building all these traps and doors, and recording the footage? Why not just capture the cop in the first place?" Seriously, it's not like they needed to do all that to capture the cop. They've proved that they can kidnap anybody at any time, regardless of who they are.

Apparently, the script was written as a different movie, but the writer was told to change it into Saw II because the first movie did good in theaters. I have to shake my head as I think about how much better this movie could have been had it been left in it's original form, because it was really the links to the first film and the sitcom-like twists that were way too coincidental (even for a movie) to be taken seriously.

I do not recommend this movie for big fans of the horror genre.

Dead & Breakfast (2004)

Not quite Shaun of the Dead...

[5/10 · 24 February 2006]

On the DVD cover of this movie, the tagline reads, "The US answer to Shaun of the Dead!" That right there isn't a good sign, because usually when movies try to rely on the success of a different movie to sell their own, you'll wind up with schlock.

I think that's the word I would use to describe this movie. Schlock. It wasn't completely schlock, but it was still schlock. I would refer to it as mediocre schlock, I suppose. In other words, although this movie was pretty bad (and not bad as in 80's Michael Jackson bad, but bad as in awful), I will admit that it indeed had a few shining moments.

The comedy was for the most part particularly unfunny. That Zachariah guy who showed up randomly to narrate the story in song was usually hit-or-miss. A couple of his bits were funny and cleverly written, but there were just as many lame songs. The decapitated head puppet was quite humorous, and there were some comical deaths here and there. That's about all that was funny. The rest of the movie was filled with lame, unfunny dialogue and many failed jokes.

The gore was pretty cool. There was a particularly bloody chainsaw scene that was probably the best part of the movie. Some decapitations and gunshots here and there provided some excellent gore, and I will give them kudos for that.

The storyline was boring, however. So much of the movie tended to drag on for way too long, and I think the carnage doesn't really even begin until the movie is almost over. That's definitely not good for a horror movie.

Good gore and a couple slightly humorous bits here and there entertained me a fair amount, but I was as equally bored with the crappy storyline and tired comic relief.

Might be good for a one time watch, but only if you're really bored, and there's, like, nothing else at all to watch. Not even Reading Rainbow.

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Campbell does it again.

[9/10 · 21 February 2006]

You can't be a true horror fan without taking a liking to Bruce Campbell. He's arguably the most charismatic actor of all time, and can liven up any horror movie and make it great with his hilarious demeanor and great performances. Bruce Campbell is an actor that you just really couldn't seem to tire of.

Just like in every other film he's done, Campbell delivers in Bubba Ho-Tep. This time, portraying the king of rock and roll himself, an aging Elvis Presley, Campbell plays the role incredibly well and has me laughing from beginning to end.

The plot outline is an attention grabber within itself. Elvis Presley, now residing in a nursing home, must team up with another resident, and elderly black man who believes he's president J.F.K., to stop an evil mummy from terrorizing their home. That idea is great. Bubba Ho-Tep is another one of those movies where you already know before you see it that it's going to be hella awesome, and it turns out to be just so.

Funny death scenes, witty one-liners from Campbell as Elvis, and hysterical dark humor make Bubba Ho-Tep a fantastic watch. An awesome horror/dark comedy, I highly recommend this one to not only Campbell fans, but all old-school horror fans in general.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

An excellent popcorn flick.

[8/10 · 21 February 2006]

So rarely is a trilogy able to feature a set of movies, each one superb. Blade 3 captures the same amount of greatness that the previous two films delivered, and concludes the series very nicely.

The action scenes were great. Blade kicks ass, as usual. Massive vampire death never gets old, at least not in my opinion. Snipes, of course, had the best action sequences, but I also felt that wrestler Triple H's character had some fantastic fight scenes as well. All of the action was rather fast-paced and kept me well entertained.

The acting was well done, too. Everybody involved had a decent performance. I don't care much for Ryan Reynolds, but his character was the "witty warrior" stereotype, so he didn't bother me that much. If he would have tried to be all serious, it would have just been stupid, as we'll never be able to take that guy seriously.

Speaking of, Reynolds' character was the only slight downfall of the movie. I mean, he didn't bother me all that bad, but his jokes weren't really that funny, and he cracked them way too often. Every other line of dialogue from Reynolds was an unfunny one-liner, and that kind of got old rather quickly. But, everything else that was going on still kept my attention and distracted me from Reynolds' horrible comedy performance.

So, despite several failed attempts at comic relief from Ryan Reynolds' character, Blade 3 is a fantastic film. It's very well worth your money to see, especially if you're a Blade fan, or if you're just in the mood to see some top notch vampire battles.

Hero (2002)

Overrated.

[5/10 · 21 February 2006]

Quentin Tarantino slaps his name onto this nifty Jet Li kung-fu flick to get it released in the United States. It's not necessarily a bad movie, but I don't see why he'd go through so much effort to get it released in our country's theaters.

Hero is a good flick in many aspects, but lacking in some areas. It tells the tale of a young fighter who approaches some Asian warlord to let him know he had defeated three assassins who were after him. Hearing that plot outline doesn't really draw you in, does it? Not me, really.

The storyline is the movie's biggest flaw. I can't go too in depth about it so as to avoid giving spoilers, but several events and 'twists' happen in the movie that tend to confuse more than shock the viewer. Most of the movie is shown through these flashbacks that Jet Li's character has as he explains to the high-powered warlord his stories.

Because of this, it gets hard to distinguish what has actually happened and what hasn't. I mean, you can end up pretty much assuming and figuring it out on your own, but to be confused at all is a big no-no for movies, except for 'whodunnit' mysteries. But, even after you figure out what's actually going on, you still feel that the plot is pretty stupid. I thought to myself, "Wow, that's pretty gay," in the theater after realizing what was happening on the screen.

The visuals are excellent. Fantastic fight sequences and superb visual effects are great, and definitely make the movie experience more enjoyable.

In a nutshell, great visuals barely save a lame storyline in this particular movie. It may be good enough to watch one time, but I wouldn't suggest paying for the DVD when it comes out. My advice; stick to the Sonny Chiba classics instead.

Catwoman (2004)

Nope. Guess again.

[1/10 · 21 February 2006]

There has been a massive downpour of superhero movies. X-Men and Spider-Man have done great as far as box office and DVD sales go, which has influenced several other comic book hero based movies to be made, such as Hellboy, The Punisher, Batman, and Superman is also coming. So, hell, with all of these superhero movies coming out at once, at least one of them has got to be utterly terrible.

I'm afraid Catwoman is that movie. Not only is it bad in the sense that it's not really that close in resemblance to the Catwoman in the comic books, it's just horrible in every aspect, period.

First of all, I had a difficult time determining why this schlock got the green light in the first place. The plot premise is that Catwoman must stop a certain beauty cream from hitting the shelves. What a stupid idea. Superheros are supposed to fight super villains, or at least powerful opponents of some sort. In this movie, the people Catwoman brawls with (the fight scenes strangely making up about three total minutes in this superhero movie) are ordinary humans, who, of course, easily get their asses quickly kicked.

At first, I thought they were just shooting this movie as a petty excuse to show off Halle Berry's "sexiness", but after seeing several pointless scenes of her scarfing down large amounts of tuna and salmon, I was more disgusted than aroused. I don't want to see some crackwh*re stuffing her face in tuna cans, especially when it serves no real purpose for the movie. So, she has the powers of a cat now, does it mean she has to eat like one too? Hell, Peter Parker can gain a spider's powers without craving flies or insects.

It's insulting to our intelligence when some people label this movie as an 'action' because it's not at all. It's a lame romantic-comedy featuring rare action, Halle Berry shoving fish in her face, people dry-humping on a basketball court in front of elementary school children, poorly animated CGI, a decrepit Sharon Stone attempting to be beautiful, and the most moronic superhero movie premise that I've ever seen. There is not one thing about this movie that is good, so my personal advice is to just settle for the X-Men movies or Spider-Man 2, instead.

0 out of 10

White Noise (I) (2005)

A huge letdown.

[1/10 · 21 February 2006]

I'm sure most of us have seen the bone-chilling trailer for this film. Using genuine E.V.P. recordings was a great way to obtain my interest of seeing this film. It's a wonderful concept and an original idea. Finally, a horror movie about E.V.P.! I sat down in the theater and began to watch the film. It started showing what was going on with Michael Keaton's character and his celebrity author wife. The scenes with her started to go on for a tad too long, since the preview had already told us that she was supposed to die. The whole movie's premise is based on her death and Keaton trying to find her via 'white noise', so why waste so much time with pregnancy test results and boring chick dialogue? She finally died. "Good," I thought. Now, we can get to the movie. From what happens here on out, is downright ludicrous and stupid. Basically, some fat bastard starts stalking Michael Keaton, following him wherever he goes. Keaton confronts him to learn that the fatass apparently researches E.V.P. or something, and that his dead wife was trying to communicate through white noise. Keaton acts like he doesn't believe the guy, but he takes his business card anyway.

He shows up later at the fat slob's mansion, which struck me as being quite odd. All this hippo-sized jackass does, apparently, is try to stalk people (as if they wouldn't notice a huge blob mysteriously showing up at any location they go to) and listen to/record hundreds and hundreds of white noise and static recordings from multiple televisions and radios. Where the hell is he getting the money from? Eh, maybe they mentioned it somewhere in the film, I don't know. I was probably too busy dozing off after the movie spent so much gratuitous screen time showing Keaton listening to static, taking a cassette tape with him everywhere he goes, all day (even though one cassette tape can only hold, like, what, 120 minutes?) finally "resulting" to an inaudible whishing sound that we're supposed to believe was a mumbled voice.

You'd think after all this build-up that the ending would be explosive, but, nope. Just three ghosts who kill people for no reason, and not even in good ways. You only actually see one death, and it's directed so horribly that you can't even tell what's going on. The camera was moving so fast and random sounds were being played, which made me more nauseated than scared. I didn't even know the person was dying until a few minutes after the scene when the body was shown. And, I only remember one other death in the movie, not counting the dead wife. Low bodycount makes for crappy horror films.

I don't know how long the rest of you can handle just sitting there and watching Michael Keaton staring at white noise on television screens for what seemed like hours on end, but to me, it was terrible. I began to envy Keaton after a while; I bet that the static he was watching on the T.V. was far more entertaining than the garbage I was watching on the cinema screen.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002)

Bullock should retire.

[2 February 2006]

You know, it's movies like this that make it obvious why Sandra Bullock isn't exactly anybody's favorite actress. She's never been in a good movie with the exception of Speed (which was only good the first time through). This movie is no exception.

DSOTYYS is a horrible movie. The way the older women kept talking to each other about their young lives reminded me way too much of the Golden Girls, which isn't a good thing (since only old people and females like that show).

Bullock's overacting was irritating, as usual. I really don't know how she even has a film career. She's a worthless actress. She wouldn't even look good alongside six year old actors in a first grade play. In fact, she'd make them look good.

Basically, I saw this flick as Golden Girls: The Movie. I don't really care much for old people flashing back to their childhoods, back in 1902. The only part I liked was when the racist kid got owned for using racial slurs. That was funny. But, this movie is pretty much your average chick flick, soap opera style with 70's sitcom humor thrown in here and there.

FINAL RATING: 3 out of 10

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Over-hyped garbage.

[2 February 2006]

My movie review for this particular film is only based on the first two hours of the movie. The reason being for this is that after I saw that it had been over two hours and the movie was still going on, I just got up and left.

I'm not sure whether or not you'll enjoy this movie. To be honest, I didn't really like it much. However, every other person that I have talked to who has seen this film has said that it was cool. I just didn't feel that way personally.

I found it to be just another boring, typical pirate movie with predictable plot movements and unfunny comic relief. There was way too much dialogue and not enough action. And, well, I realized that I had been sitting in the theater for an hour, but I thought that I was only just FEELING like I was in there for so long just because it was so tedious and I was just waiting for it to end. However, it never ended.

Although I didn't like it personally, everybody else did. So, I don't know what to say. I guess if you're into those kinds of movies about pirates and such, then you may enjoy it. I just found it to be predictable and lame.

The Italian Job (2003)

Edward Norton's worst.

[2 February 2006]

Although we have a couple of overrated idiot actors as stars in this promising film, I was sure that it could be made up for with the brilliance of Ed Norton. I was a little bit wrong. Although Norton is a great actor, it seems that he half-assed his way through this movie. It just seemed that he didn't put in full emotion for his character in the ways that he has always done with his previous work. So, now we have a great actor half-assing his way through a movie with a few overacting imbeciles. That doesn't look good.

This movie isn't great by any means, but it's not horrible. Although good acting wasn't primarily on this movie's side, it had a few intriguing scenes. Seeing these guys come up with a plan for thieving gold and following through with the robbery and getaway was really cool. The action, although rarely seen, was pretty good.

However, lame and overused comic relief helped bring the enjoyment factor down quite a bit. I kid you not when I tell you that Seth Green used the same joke about a hundred or so times throughout the course of the movie. It wasn't really that funny the first time, and the more I heard it, the more I wanted to burst through the wall behind me and strangle the guy sitting behind the projector for showing me such garbage. I was just like 'Okay. Yeah, you said that. Okay. Hey, you used that one already. Okay, I get it. I get it now. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Stop. No, stop. Please, Seth, stop! SETH! SETH!!! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!' Needless to say, towards the end of the movie my sanity was nearly lost because of how repetitive it was to hear the same joke over and over as if it's really supposed to be funny or something.

It doesn't really stop there, either. It seemed that there were more attempts at comedy than there actually were action scenes. Rarely was it actually funny. Comic relief is a necessity in any type of movie, but there are certain limits that the writer of this film was not aware of. This included lame segments like each of the characters having childhood flashbacks of them doing something mischievous and cartoonish as a kid. I felt that it just made the movie satirical.

If I were the director, I would have removed some of the boring, unnecessary dialogue scenes and comic relief as well as re-casted. Aside from those flaws, the movie is actually decent. It's worth your time to watch if you are interested in seeing people perform such extravagant heists. However, I think that if I'm walking through the video store in the future looking for something to watch, this movie's tag shall remain on the shelf. One time was enough for me.

5 out of 10

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

A great addition to the Terminator series.

[2 February 2006]

The movie was amazing.

I'm not exactly sure how somebody can 'fool themselves' into liking a movie just by being a die hard fan, but that's not the case with me. I was a huge Ninja Turtles fan, but still think the third movie was horrible. As much as I liked the first two Back to the Future films, I believe that the third in the trilogy isn't good at all. Alien 3? Don't get me started.

The Terminator trilogy, on the other hand, happens to be the best in my opinion. Each movie in the series is by far excellent. The first one is great because of the intriguing storyline and dark feeling; the second being awesome because of the several scenes of hilarity and sweet special effects; the third belongs with the first two because of the mind-blowing action that slams you in your seat. The ongoing storyline that continues throughout all three movies is awesome.

The action scenes, I guess, are where I'll begin. The chase/fight scenes were absolutely remarkable. If anybody tells you that the effects looked cheesy, shoot them in the face if a gun is available; if not, bludgeon them with the nearest blunt object. The special effects were by far better than they were in T2, so every action scene that occurred (which was very often) was stupendous.

For true Terminator fans, consider T3 a treat for including several references to the past two movies. I'm a gigantic fan of the Terminator series so I was able to pick up on several small references, which was really cool. Some cameos from previous characters were nifty (including Dr. Silberman).

The storyline isn't really a rehash of the first two movies; it went on a different pretense. The TX's mission parameters weren't only to assassinate some of the Resistance leaders, but to also see to it that Judgement Day begins.

I don't understand many people's big gripe with the ending. I would discuss it, but I won't give out spoilers to people who haven't seen it yet. But I'll say that the ending was invariably appropriate, in my opinion. I guess you'll either like it or hate it. It's not that I feel it's a brilliant ending, but I do think that it was the best way to end this particular film.

If you really like the first Terminator movie, you'll most likely appreciate Terminator 3. If you didn't like the first one, then it's hard to say. Either way, expect to see some of the greatest action sequences you've ever seen.

Hulk (2003)

Not enough "HULK SMASH!"

[2 February 2006]

When people hear 'Incredible Hulk', what do they think of? Personally, the first thought that comes to my head is carnage, destruction, and the like. This was the main reason I wanted to see the movie. However, the scriptwriters felt that somehow Hulk fans appreciated romance and biological story lines more than mayhem, which was the film's ultimate downfall.

The actual carnage that we DID witness was great. The CGI Hulk looked good, and the havoc he caused was beautiful. Unfortunately, total, it made up like maybe 10 minutes (I'm guessing). Seemed that way, at least. That's a really low amount considering the movie was 2 hours and 18 minutes... that's two hours and eight minutes of dialogue.

The ending was god awful. The epilogue was even worse. I remember in the ending (before the epilogue.. you know, the fight with the dinosaur that ended in a lake freezing for no real reason), I was left thinking 'Uh... what the hell just happened??!'.

The best things it had going for it were awesome CGI effects (although not often occurring), Ang Lee's awesome style of directing that actually made the movie 'feel' like a comic book movie, and a role played by Josh Lucas, who is an excellent actor (check out Session 9).

Those good qualities, however, were outweighed by the bad ones. These include boring dialogue, pointless romance, a drunken Nick Nolte, monotonous acting from Eric Bana, the fact that some guy turns into a dinosaur for no reason, and more. This makes the movie's quality slightly below mediocre.

4 out of 10

Office Space (1999)

Awesome!

[2 February 2006]

Although this movie got horrible reviews from most critics, I still had some hope for it knowing that it was written and directed by Mike Judge (creator of the godly Beavis and Butthead cartoon).

I was not disappointed! I can describe this movie with one word; HYSTERICAL. There were countless times throughout the film where I couldn't help but laugh out loud (LOL!). Every single zany character was hilarious in their own ways. They each had different personalities and attributes that made them funny, and it was great the way Judge used them together.

I have since watched this movie several times, LOL'ing each time. It's definitely a comedy classic that you should be proud to have in your DVD collection.