I really wanted to like this. It has rave reviews online and my friend raved about it. I gave it a shot. Didnt like it but forced myself through season 1. I just can't go on. There is nothing to like in this show. Its brutally slow. There is no story. Literally no story. The entire first season nothing happens....its like a drunk driver wandering all over the road with no destination. It has haphazard relationships that seem random and irrelevant. Character development seems inconsequential to any sort of story they are trying to tell. Im utterly baffled at how this show has such high reviews. The only reason I watched entire first season was because of reviews online and reviews from friends. I give this show an F.
Reviews
24 Reviews
Money Heist
(2017–2021)
Entertaining but not well done
10 April 2020
This show is entertaining. However it's not well polished. Reminds me of a college movie project for a film student. Has a very low budget/cheap feel to it. Actors are mostly terrible D level actors, average script, and below average production. However ultimately it was entertaining. So heres my review- acting F, script C, production D, entertainment B+
Creed II
(2018)
Terrible life lessons
17 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
So heres the storyline- creed is rich brat. Creed decides he wants to pursue boxing in his 20s. His whole life was dedicated to education and getting financial hand outs. Title fight set up with drago. Creed compared to drago is drastic. Drago grew up impoverished, disgraced, and dedicated. His mom left him at an early age. His entire life is dedicated to boxing. Drago is the superior fighter both in merit and also from the morale underdog role (impoverished, mom abandoned him, his dad was disgraced, etc). So the filmmakers decide to make the undeserving creed beat drago? Literally there is nothing redeeming about this movie- the person who every person in the theater should have been cheering for loses. Pathetic. 0 out of 10.
The 100
(2014–2020)
This show is awesome
8 December 2015
Really not much else to say. Its super creative with passable acting, and a decent production value. Only two things that annoying me- every characters face is covered in blood, scratches, mud, and/or bruises literally every second of the show. AND two, the Octavia character is an absolute train Wreck. Terrible actress, a weird storyline, confusion about what the show wants her to be, etc. Show would be a 10 without her in it. However even with her the show is definitely an awesome watch. Spacr, suspense, war, cool enemies, and nuclear apocalypse, mutated freaks, a mountain society that has a An army of drugs addicts who fight so they can get their next high. Awesome.
Guardians of the Galaxy
(2014)
Good Movie, but these 8.9 ratings are INSANE
4 August 2014
Look, this movie is a good movie, there is no doubt about it. But an 8.9? It's not close. I'm horribly confused at why this movie is getting an 8.9/10. It's a mix between action and comedy. The action is good but not amazing, the comedy is funny at times but isn't really great. The plot is about a bunch of guys trying to save a crystal ball (i.e. story is okay but nothing ground breaking). In sum= it's a kinda funny/kinda cool action movie with an average plot. That's it, this isn't an AMAZING movie, it just isn't. I'm kind of left scratching my head at the reviews on this one. If you want to go see a good movie that isn't great, go see it....but I really wouldn't be expecting near perfection like people on here seem to think it is. It's not, it's not perfect- not even close to it.
Much Better than the First
8 December 2013
I hated the first "Hunger Games" movie. It wasn't just bad in my opinion, it was dreadful (Poor acting, too Disney-like, poor story line, lame special effects, etc). I honestly had no desire to go see this movie based on how bad the first one was. However, it was the only thing playing and my date wanted to go see it, so we did. Wow, what a difference- this movie was an dramatically-different movie than the first movie,the horribly-flawed counterpart. And part two...well to my surprise it's GOOD!
There was actual acting in this one, not brilliant but there was acting going on, the movie felt much richer (it was clear that this movie actually cost a good amount of money to make), the story was captivating (so much so that despite what-felt-like a long run time I was hoping the movie would keep going at the end instead of leaving us hanging on for Part 3).
The addition of Philip Hoffman to the cast was a stroke of genius- this guy can act. He's THE BEST REAL ACTOR in this movie and helps pick up many of the loose ends that are left by some of the less-than-stellar actors out there. He adds credibility to the not-overly-talented group of actors that were assembled for this movie. So bravo for actually bringing in a heavyweight to the movie.
Overall, I give the movie an 8/10. The only parts where the movie fails in my opinion are the (1) "CHEESEBALL FACTOR." One example- this guy brings this old woman into the Hunger Games out of Chivalry/Cockiness and then there is some ambiguity about whether they are dating- it's very odd and felt more like a scene out of comedy than a death match; (2)I still don't fully buy the darkness of the HUNGER GAMES- a death match would be more brutal than is portrayed- BUT, huge BUT because this movie is light years darker than the first one,It's dark enough that I'm happy with it, and it was believable enough. (3) I am not a fan of the PITA character. The character is a complete waste of space- he says the lamest lines, the actor who plays him is TERRIBLE... he's the worst in the movie, he over acts big time and plays attitude and mood (big no no's for acting)- He's weak sauce and the relationship between him and "Catness" is beyond cheesy and unrealistic. His name is completely lame- all I can think about is THE BREAD or THE ANIMALS RIGHTS ORGANIZATION. His lame/weak performance. IN FAIRNESS- I think this was more about bad casting than anything else- they could have easily switched him and the guy Catness loves/dates back home and all of a sudden you have a better casting decision and better movie.
Aside from a few nit-picky gripes, good movie! Much improved. I grade is somewhere in the "B+/A-" range.
There was actual acting in this one, not brilliant but there was acting going on, the movie felt much richer (it was clear that this movie actually cost a good amount of money to make), the story was captivating (so much so that despite what-felt-like a long run time I was hoping the movie would keep going at the end instead of leaving us hanging on for Part 3).
The addition of Philip Hoffman to the cast was a stroke of genius- this guy can act. He's THE BEST REAL ACTOR in this movie and helps pick up many of the loose ends that are left by some of the less-than-stellar actors out there. He adds credibility to the not-overly-talented group of actors that were assembled for this movie. So bravo for actually bringing in a heavyweight to the movie.
Overall, I give the movie an 8/10. The only parts where the movie fails in my opinion are the (1) "CHEESEBALL FACTOR." One example- this guy brings this old woman into the Hunger Games out of Chivalry/Cockiness and then there is some ambiguity about whether they are dating- it's very odd and felt more like a scene out of comedy than a death match; (2)I still don't fully buy the darkness of the HUNGER GAMES- a death match would be more brutal than is portrayed- BUT, huge BUT because this movie is light years darker than the first one,It's dark enough that I'm happy with it, and it was believable enough. (3) I am not a fan of the PITA character. The character is a complete waste of space- he says the lamest lines, the actor who plays him is TERRIBLE... he's the worst in the movie, he over acts big time and plays attitude and mood (big no no's for acting)- He's weak sauce and the relationship between him and "Catness" is beyond cheesy and unrealistic. His name is completely lame- all I can think about is THE BREAD or THE ANIMALS RIGHTS ORGANIZATION. His lame/weak performance. IN FAIRNESS- I think this was more about bad casting than anything else- they could have easily switched him and the guy Catness loves/dates back home and all of a sudden you have a better casting decision and better movie.
Aside from a few nit-picky gripes, good movie! Much improved. I grade is somewhere in the "B+/A-" range.
The Dark Knight Rises
(2012)
Good Movie
19 October 2013
I love this movie. Overall, this movie was great- good acting, directing, story, visual effects, etc.
High Point: Bane Character. I think the Bane character stole the show. Great physical acting by Tom Hardy. Also, that voice was amazingly cool. The mask on Bane pumps a pain-stopping gas into his body so he can be relieved from injuries that present a lifetime of pain. But, I got the vibe, or at least felt it was portrayed, that the mask also did something to his voice. Not sure if that was ever explained or if I'm wrong in my assumption- but either way very cool character. Well acted and well voiced.
Low Point: Batman's Voice. In contrast to Bane's great voice, you have the bizarre Batman voice. I feel like Bruce Wayne, in his infinite wealth, should have a similar device that allows him to talk when in Batman mode without having to resort to a distorted rapist voice to disguise the Bruce-Wayne voice. I always laugh at that Batman voice, it's really such a stupid voice and a weak point in the special effects- A guy with that sort of technology would have a device to mask his voice. The rapist voice just doesn't do Batman justice. I like Christian Bale as an actor, but he definitely misses the mark with this voice- Director should have stepped in and put an end to that rapist voice.
Another Low Point: Joey Gordon Levitt. The biggest weak point of this movie= Joseph Gordon Levitt. This is probably one of the worst actors of our generation yet people somehow love this guy. It's so strange. I'm continually left scratching my head at why this guy keeps getting roles and people keep praising his work- baffling. If you've ever studied acting or actual life on this planet you'd realize there is virtually no truth to any role this guy does. It's mindless recitation of words. There is no acting going on with him. There is one point in the movie where JGL is supposed to come storming into a room and the line from the other guy is "calm down." As an actor you need to take cues from the dialogue, yet JGL comes in and doesn't even do anything that would justify the "calm down" response from the other character. You'd think the director would have stepped in and said, "wtf are you doing?" Every time I see him on the screen I cringe with a bit of embarrassment; he really doesn't seem to understand the dynamics of life or how people are supposed to behave in order to portray a believable character. His best roles are those roles where he plays the awkward character who doesn't fit in and doesn't know how to behave like a normal person- people devoid of any real emotion (i.e. 50/50- good casting for JGL in that movie). But most of the time I'm left scratching my head at the choice of JGL for any role. He's just not a good actor.
In sum: the movie itself was amazing, that was partially dragged down by poor acting by Joseph Gordon Levitt and the stupid clownish rapist Batman voice. Other than that, A+
High Point: Bane Character. I think the Bane character stole the show. Great physical acting by Tom Hardy. Also, that voice was amazingly cool. The mask on Bane pumps a pain-stopping gas into his body so he can be relieved from injuries that present a lifetime of pain. But, I got the vibe, or at least felt it was portrayed, that the mask also did something to his voice. Not sure if that was ever explained or if I'm wrong in my assumption- but either way very cool character. Well acted and well voiced.
Low Point: Batman's Voice. In contrast to Bane's great voice, you have the bizarre Batman voice. I feel like Bruce Wayne, in his infinite wealth, should have a similar device that allows him to talk when in Batman mode without having to resort to a distorted rapist voice to disguise the Bruce-Wayne voice. I always laugh at that Batman voice, it's really such a stupid voice and a weak point in the special effects- A guy with that sort of technology would have a device to mask his voice. The rapist voice just doesn't do Batman justice. I like Christian Bale as an actor, but he definitely misses the mark with this voice- Director should have stepped in and put an end to that rapist voice.
Another Low Point: Joey Gordon Levitt. The biggest weak point of this movie= Joseph Gordon Levitt. This is probably one of the worst actors of our generation yet people somehow love this guy. It's so strange. I'm continually left scratching my head at why this guy keeps getting roles and people keep praising his work- baffling. If you've ever studied acting or actual life on this planet you'd realize there is virtually no truth to any role this guy does. It's mindless recitation of words. There is no acting going on with him. There is one point in the movie where JGL is supposed to come storming into a room and the line from the other guy is "calm down." As an actor you need to take cues from the dialogue, yet JGL comes in and doesn't even do anything that would justify the "calm down" response from the other character. You'd think the director would have stepped in and said, "wtf are you doing?" Every time I see him on the screen I cringe with a bit of embarrassment; he really doesn't seem to understand the dynamics of life or how people are supposed to behave in order to portray a believable character. His best roles are those roles where he plays the awkward character who doesn't fit in and doesn't know how to behave like a normal person- people devoid of any real emotion (i.e. 50/50- good casting for JGL in that movie). But most of the time I'm left scratching my head at the choice of JGL for any role. He's just not a good actor.
In sum: the movie itself was amazing, that was partially dragged down by poor acting by Joseph Gordon Levitt and the stupid clownish rapist Batman voice. Other than that, A+
Cloud Atlas
(2012)
Patience
5 July 2013
This movie was great, BUT it requires extreme patience. I went into the movie telling myself that every great review of this movie stated that the first 45 minutes were rough. This is true. Getting a grasp on the pace and style of storytelling is difficult and leaves the viewer wanting to give up. I was watching this movie with my dad and his girlfriend. She ended up walking out at about the 30-minute mark. I was tempted to but stuck in there, and I was heavily rewarded. This movie is very rich, and asks a lot from it's viewers. But if you have the patience to wait it out, you will sit through a magical experience. The acting= mostly superb. The story= excellent (the ability to combine this many stories into one ending that makes sense is virtually impossible, but the movie did it). This movie was once considered an impossible endeavor. I'm still amazed at what was pulled off here. Stories of past, future, and present emerge into one final moment. There is love, there is romance, there is war, there is slavery, there is the future, there is a bit of everything. The reason this movie is an 8 (and not 10) is because of two things: (1) The slow/confusing beginning that makes most people want to give up; (2) one of the multiple stories that is merged together was a tad boring and out of the pace with the rest of the movie. I LOVED every story except for a weird futurist world where Tom Hanks is a crude villager and Halle Berry is a futuristic scientist really didn't work for me- that story just didn't fit the flow and energy of the movie in my opinion. OVERALL= VERY GOOD MOVIE, I recommend to everyone who is willing to show patience and sit through 45 minutes of confusion to get to the grand prize.
Oblivion
(I) (2013)
Good but a borderline copy of an indie movie from 2009
28 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
**THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SERIOUS SPOILERS- Be Warned** So, if you haven't seen the movie Moon, then Oblivion is an 8 because it's a cool idea- a guy is being cloned and used to work in industry...ultimately finding out he's a clone and his life and the job that he's doing are not what they appeared to be, and so he rebels against those using him as a clone. So....I hate to break it to you guys, but this MOVIE WAS DONE, and it was done better on a smaller budget only 4 years ago. Go rent Moon. Sure this movie changes some stuff around to make it "original" but the general concept is basically an identical steal (i.e. cloned worker finding out he's a clone, his work is BS, and rebelling against the higher power).
Other than that there are a few miner gripes: lack of character development for earth colony, lack of explanation for why this alien organization/colony is doing this to the earth, and some of the story lines are completely far fetched and don't make any sense...for example, Tom Cruise's character ejects his fellow astronauts from an ejection hatch in his space ship before he's captured and cloned.....one of those he ejected was his wife....So 60 years later Tom Cruise's clone finds his wife in a time capsule that just entered the earth's atmosphere? HUH?!?!? What a frigging coincidence, and it took 60 years for an ejection pod to make it from a space ship to the earth? Something is off.
Other than the inconsistencies in the movie, lack of story explanation, and totally plot stealing, the movie is interesting and kept me entertained. I would have liked this a lot more if I didn't predict and know everything that was going to happen before it happened simply because it was a plot line RIP JOB. If you are going to rip/steal a plot this closely at least WAIT like 20 years to flip stuff around and make it seem original. Don't do it from a movie only 4 years ago!!!! Come on.
Other than that there are a few miner gripes: lack of character development for earth colony, lack of explanation for why this alien organization/colony is doing this to the earth, and some of the story lines are completely far fetched and don't make any sense...for example, Tom Cruise's character ejects his fellow astronauts from an ejection hatch in his space ship before he's captured and cloned.....one of those he ejected was his wife....So 60 years later Tom Cruise's clone finds his wife in a time capsule that just entered the earth's atmosphere? HUH?!?!? What a frigging coincidence, and it took 60 years for an ejection pod to make it from a space ship to the earth? Something is off.
Other than the inconsistencies in the movie, lack of story explanation, and totally plot stealing, the movie is interesting and kept me entertained. I would have liked this a lot more if I didn't predict and know everything that was going to happen before it happened simply because it was a plot line RIP JOB. If you are going to rip/steal a plot this closely at least WAIT like 20 years to flip stuff around and make it seem original. Don't do it from a movie only 4 years ago!!!! Come on.
Terrible
20 January 2013
This movie was lousy. How in the world do people think this is worthy of an 8.3? First of all, who shot this movie? This movie looks like it was shot with a hand-held video camera that was bought used at a local pawnshop. Seriously, it looks like crap. I saw it in 3D and during the pre-movie previews I was commenting to the girl I was sitting next to at what amazing strides 3D had made... seriously every movie that is coming out with 3D looks AWESOME. So the actual movie starts and it literally looks like a home-made movie. All I could think about is the awesome pre-movie previews of OTHER movies. I was thinking- why didn't a movie with this kinda budget use THAT CAMERA instead of the hand-held pawnshop camera that they obviously decided to use? In this instant movie (the Hobbit) You could see the makeup on the actor's faces. You could see the skin skull caps worn for the balding characters (i.e. the face makeup used to make non-bald characters look bald). It was atrocious... the worst special effects and photography and make up and whatever goes into making a movie "look real." It looked HORRENDOUS (which would be a compliment).
Second, the Acting was bad. Again it reminded me of some sort of perverse home-movie project. The word "Amateur" doesn't even accurately describe what I saw from the cast. A couple of decent actors were there, like the Dwarven leader of the pack, and Gandolf was okay. But beyond that, these actors were abysmal. Where on earth did they find these guys? Third, the Story. Well there really isn't a story. They are on a journey from point A to point B. Mind you that this is a one-book story....yet the insane director/writer decided to turn a non-event into a 3-movie disaster. This movie is like 3 hours long and nothing happens. Seriously. They go on a camping trip and get attacked a couple times....that's the movie. 3 hours to watch a bunch of bad actors go on a camping trip. AWFUL.
The list of atrocities would go on ad nauseum but it's not worth my effort or time to sit here and tell you about em. It sucked, bottom line- nothing else to say.
Second, the Acting was bad. Again it reminded me of some sort of perverse home-movie project. The word "Amateur" doesn't even accurately describe what I saw from the cast. A couple of decent actors were there, like the Dwarven leader of the pack, and Gandolf was okay. But beyond that, these actors were abysmal. Where on earth did they find these guys? Third, the Story. Well there really isn't a story. They are on a journey from point A to point B. Mind you that this is a one-book story....yet the insane director/writer decided to turn a non-event into a 3-movie disaster. This movie is like 3 hours long and nothing happens. Seriously. They go on a camping trip and get attacked a couple times....that's the movie. 3 hours to watch a bunch of bad actors go on a camping trip. AWFUL.
The list of atrocities would go on ad nauseum but it's not worth my effort or time to sit here and tell you about em. It sucked, bottom line- nothing else to say.
The Cabin in the Woods
(2011)
Pretty Good
29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is pretty good. It's better than the average horror movie because, as one reviewer hit it on the head, the makers of the movie decided to be unique and give the audience something they hadn't seen before. We have some douchey college kids who are heading off to a cabin in the woods. We're expecting status quo (kids getting brutalized out in the cabin) but we keep asking ourselves, "who are these strange older men in control rooms that keep coming into the movie?" But we ignore them and go back to expecting the obvious. But we couldn't be more wrong--> It turns out this entire "cabin in the woods" trip is an intentional sacrifice to the Gods, where certain people have to die in a certain order. It's pretty cool, we get to see gore, some horror, some cool twists, a bunch of creepy/weird creatures, and the end of the world? I enjoyed it and I recommend it to those who enjoy horror movies and want a new twist.
The Hunger Games
(2012)
Terrible
9 September 2012
How in the world was this movie so widely praised? This movie sucks. The acting is terrible, the idea is really not even that creative or original, and the storytelling is beyond awful.
I didn't read the book and I feel like you had to read the books in order to understand this movie. For example, the movie does absolutely nothing to explain why these hunger games are being carried out. This movie does nothing to explain who each of the characters are. This movie continually mentions the importance of sponsors and the importance of achieving a high fight rank/score, yet there is absolutely no explanation given as to what the sponsors or what the fight rank do. This movie does nothing to really do much of anything in filling us in on what we're watching.
The quality of the sets, special effects, and costumes was bordering on embarrassing. I felt like I was watching a Star Trek episode where Jean Luc Picard goes down to one of the alien planets and interacts with various people. Other comparable quality comparisons: Xena Warrior Princess, Power Rangers, and Smallville. In other words, the movie looked like it was using television special effects, set designs, and costumes.
There is one scene where the lead is being driven in on a chariot with fire and everyone is freaking out. That was the cheesiest/weakest fire chariots I could imagine. It was almost like the producers were presented with this sort of choice: Option 1, Bad ass, real-looking fire chariot, or Option 2, pretty sweet fire chariot, or Option 3, awful/terrible chariot but we'll save some money...and the producers go, "We'll take option 3" This sums up the entire movie--> it looks and feels cheap and like the producers were trying to make this for the lowest possible amount of money.
Other bad parts of the movie: (1) The love story: they try to force a love story between the two leads yet I found myself being disgusted by the love story because the lead character is cheating on her at-home boyfriend. Lame. It make me hate both of the leads. Also the chemistry between these two was like a lukewarm bowl of unsalted Matzo ball soup; the romance was totally forced and was like a piece of cardboard; (2) the length--> this is a two-and-a-half-hour movie and it didn't need to be longer than an hour and a half. Nothing happened...the scenes were long and drawn out for no reason; (3)the fighting--> beyond cheap...no sense of darkness, no sense of aloneness, no sense of desperation. The movie was too DisneyLike, totally killed the realism and reality of what it would be like to fight in a death match; (4) the fact that the game makers changed the rules to create suspense and then changed the rules back to create more suspense. Yet, no suspense was created. The decisions were done within seconds and there was no emotion freak out by the actors...it was just a matter of, "oh okay so we have to kill each other, well we don't want to so we'll kill ourselves." and then the game warden jumps in.
Overall, the movie was sloppy, poor executed, had terrible acting, and was essentially a failure at every single point of the movie. This movie just goes to show you that talent/skill are not required to make it big in show business.
I didn't read the book and I feel like you had to read the books in order to understand this movie. For example, the movie does absolutely nothing to explain why these hunger games are being carried out. This movie does nothing to explain who each of the characters are. This movie continually mentions the importance of sponsors and the importance of achieving a high fight rank/score, yet there is absolutely no explanation given as to what the sponsors or what the fight rank do. This movie does nothing to really do much of anything in filling us in on what we're watching.
The quality of the sets, special effects, and costumes was bordering on embarrassing. I felt like I was watching a Star Trek episode where Jean Luc Picard goes down to one of the alien planets and interacts with various people. Other comparable quality comparisons: Xena Warrior Princess, Power Rangers, and Smallville. In other words, the movie looked like it was using television special effects, set designs, and costumes.
There is one scene where the lead is being driven in on a chariot with fire and everyone is freaking out. That was the cheesiest/weakest fire chariots I could imagine. It was almost like the producers were presented with this sort of choice: Option 1, Bad ass, real-looking fire chariot, or Option 2, pretty sweet fire chariot, or Option 3, awful/terrible chariot but we'll save some money...and the producers go, "We'll take option 3" This sums up the entire movie--> it looks and feels cheap and like the producers were trying to make this for the lowest possible amount of money.
Other bad parts of the movie: (1) The love story: they try to force a love story between the two leads yet I found myself being disgusted by the love story because the lead character is cheating on her at-home boyfriend. Lame. It make me hate both of the leads. Also the chemistry between these two was like a lukewarm bowl of unsalted Matzo ball soup; the romance was totally forced and was like a piece of cardboard; (2) the length--> this is a two-and-a-half-hour movie and it didn't need to be longer than an hour and a half. Nothing happened...the scenes were long and drawn out for no reason; (3)the fighting--> beyond cheap...no sense of darkness, no sense of aloneness, no sense of desperation. The movie was too DisneyLike, totally killed the realism and reality of what it would be like to fight in a death match; (4) the fact that the game makers changed the rules to create suspense and then changed the rules back to create more suspense. Yet, no suspense was created. The decisions were done within seconds and there was no emotion freak out by the actors...it was just a matter of, "oh okay so we have to kill each other, well we don't want to so we'll kill ourselves." and then the game warden jumps in.
Overall, the movie was sloppy, poor executed, had terrible acting, and was essentially a failure at every single point of the movie. This movie just goes to show you that talent/skill are not required to make it big in show business.
Franklin & Bash
(2011–2014)
Awful
31 July 2012
This show is terrible... I'm shocked at the reviews of this show being so ridiculously high (7.8). The writing and acting are both in the gutter. Usually good writing or good acting can save the other loose end but not here...neither helps the other, not even a little. Cheeseball lines from Zach Morris still trying to act like he's in saved by the bell...problem is he's now a 40-year-old attorney and this is supposed to be cool/funny? What's the demographic of this show? No 20-year old is going to find Zach Morris interesting, and no 40+ is going to find Zach Morris even remotely funny.... I'm shocked this show got picked up for a 2nd year.
Super
(I) (2010)
Awesome
20 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is freaking awesome. Honestly, I was kind of shocked when I logged on to check the IMDb rating after watching this movie and saw the measly 6.8. What a clueless group of movie goers. However, I was glad to read some reviews who appreciated the genius of this movie. One review hit this movie on the head: people go into movies with expectations of what a movie is supposed to be or what a movie is not supposed to be.
If you are reading this review prior to watching the movie here's my advice: go into this movie with NO EXPECTATIONS. That's how I went in: I was flipping channels one night and caught this movie on Showtime like 2 minutes into the movie and just started watching. I had no idea what the hell I was watching... it was funny, hilarious at times in fact, sad at times, great action, great gore, ridiculous over-the-top mockery of super heroes and even religion at times. Plus, the acting was absolutely FLAWLESS for this sort of movie. Love Liv Tyler doped up and the dude from the Office was spot on.
I mean honestly how could this movie not be awesome? It had it all: a powerless superhero who's fat and stupid dressed in a red costume (calling himself the crimson bolt) and bashing people with a wrench. Non-stop gore fest. Awesome. Plus the soundtrack was perfect (I know that's a weird critique but the soundtrack really stood out to me wherein most movies it doesn't). Plus there are some ridiculously awesome/bizarre/hilarious sex scenes: Liv Tyler riding out the guy from the Office with tearing streaming down her fact (LMFAO). Plus a quasi rape scene that involved a female raping a man later in the movie which was strangely awesome. I suggest you go see this movie ASAP.
SPOILER ALERT: If I had to give this movie a real review it's a 9.5. The only two issues I had with this movies were the ending- it was sad for no real reason other than to be sad--> the guy has his sidekick killed with a shotgun blast to the eyesocket and his wife leaves him for the SECOND time. Neither of these two events had to happen...didn't ruin the movie but the movie could have been perfect without either of those two things.
If you are reading this review prior to watching the movie here's my advice: go into this movie with NO EXPECTATIONS. That's how I went in: I was flipping channels one night and caught this movie on Showtime like 2 minutes into the movie and just started watching. I had no idea what the hell I was watching... it was funny, hilarious at times in fact, sad at times, great action, great gore, ridiculous over-the-top mockery of super heroes and even religion at times. Plus, the acting was absolutely FLAWLESS for this sort of movie. Love Liv Tyler doped up and the dude from the Office was spot on.
I mean honestly how could this movie not be awesome? It had it all: a powerless superhero who's fat and stupid dressed in a red costume (calling himself the crimson bolt) and bashing people with a wrench. Non-stop gore fest. Awesome. Plus the soundtrack was perfect (I know that's a weird critique but the soundtrack really stood out to me wherein most movies it doesn't). Plus there are some ridiculously awesome/bizarre/hilarious sex scenes: Liv Tyler riding out the guy from the Office with tearing streaming down her fact (LMFAO). Plus a quasi rape scene that involved a female raping a man later in the movie which was strangely awesome. I suggest you go see this movie ASAP.
SPOILER ALERT: If I had to give this movie a real review it's a 9.5. The only two issues I had with this movies were the ending- it was sad for no real reason other than to be sad--> the guy has his sidekick killed with a shotgun blast to the eyesocket and his wife leaves him for the SECOND time. Neither of these two events had to happen...didn't ruin the movie but the movie could have been perfect without either of those two things.
Beastly
(2011)
Not Terrible- Had Some Good Moments
17 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Movie was kinda cool, there were parts I liked and parts I didn't like. Overall, the flaws drag the movie down to being a decent weekday movie while you browse the internet and pay bills. Not a movie you devote 100% of your attention to but definitely interesting background fodder.
Parts I liked: The plot was interesting (albeit common)- a good looking guy who sucks at life turns ugly and has to change his internal persona to become good looking again. The girl who played opposite the Rich Schmuck turned beast was pretty good. She was "for the most part" likable (there were issues I had with her which I will address later but she's the kind of girl you'd hope to land in real life...for the most part). The ending was sweet and made me borderline cry (weird I know). The ending where you realize the Rich Schmuck's dad is going to get screwed just like his son did....pretty cool.
Parts I didn't like: The movie is so incredibly short (like an hour and 20 minutes) that none of the relationships are developed (not even a little bit). The reason the movie gives to get this girl to move into the rich schmuck's house is kinda bizarre(i.e. he breaks up a fight, the girl's dad then turns a gun on the bad guy and kills him, so in exchange for the rich schmuck not turning this guy in he blackmails the dad to give him ownership of his daughter- I mean it's completely bizarre). I didn't like that this girl who falls for "the beast" already liked this guy before he became "the beast." This guy is a total loser douche bag before turning into "the beast" (giving speeches about how he's awesome and rich and how everyone who's ugly sucks, humiliating women in public, etc). I mean there is not a single redeemable characteristic of this kid so it really undermines this girl's character that she LIKES THIS DOUCHE.
Lastly, that they have to rely on weird tribal looking tattoos and tree tattoos and metal rivets in his face to make him ugly is stupid. A lot of those tattoos were pretty bad ass and would not be a turn off. The face tattoos were gross but the body ones were kinda cool. There should have been a better effort to make this guy ugly instead of relying on tattoos and piercing (the costume designer needs a reality check).
Overall it's a C+: decent story, cute girl, some nice romance, that is hurt by it's bad costumes, douchey lead, bizarre story twists, and lack of character development.
Parts I liked: The plot was interesting (albeit common)- a good looking guy who sucks at life turns ugly and has to change his internal persona to become good looking again. The girl who played opposite the Rich Schmuck turned beast was pretty good. She was "for the most part" likable (there were issues I had with her which I will address later but she's the kind of girl you'd hope to land in real life...for the most part). The ending was sweet and made me borderline cry (weird I know). The ending where you realize the Rich Schmuck's dad is going to get screwed just like his son did....pretty cool.
Parts I didn't like: The movie is so incredibly short (like an hour and 20 minutes) that none of the relationships are developed (not even a little bit). The reason the movie gives to get this girl to move into the rich schmuck's house is kinda bizarre(i.e. he breaks up a fight, the girl's dad then turns a gun on the bad guy and kills him, so in exchange for the rich schmuck not turning this guy in he blackmails the dad to give him ownership of his daughter- I mean it's completely bizarre). I didn't like that this girl who falls for "the beast" already liked this guy before he became "the beast." This guy is a total loser douche bag before turning into "the beast" (giving speeches about how he's awesome and rich and how everyone who's ugly sucks, humiliating women in public, etc). I mean there is not a single redeemable characteristic of this kid so it really undermines this girl's character that she LIKES THIS DOUCHE.
Lastly, that they have to rely on weird tribal looking tattoos and tree tattoos and metal rivets in his face to make him ugly is stupid. A lot of those tattoos were pretty bad ass and would not be a turn off. The face tattoos were gross but the body ones were kinda cool. There should have been a better effort to make this guy ugly instead of relying on tattoos and piercing (the costume designer needs a reality check).
Overall it's a C+: decent story, cute girl, some nice romance, that is hurt by it's bad costumes, douchey lead, bizarre story twists, and lack of character development.
Friends with Benefits
(2011)
Horrendous
28 January 2012
This movie was absolutely horrendous. There was not a single positive aspect to this movie. First of all, it's not funny. Second of all, the acting is lousy. I understand that this is a romantic comedy and it's supposed to be a bit light and not so deep...but this was really bad. I mean, there really wasn't a single truthful moment in this movie from an acting perspective. I've seen children have more substance that Justin Timberlake and his female counterpart. Third of all, this movie was really awkward- like neither of these individuals have had sex in their life..... Fourth, the plot/story is literally non-existent--> we are literally forced to watch the first hour of the movie in this sort of trance-like mirage of weird images of Justin trying to be funny in bed with this chick....but all the audience could do is cringe in utter embarrassment at this fiasco.
Fifth, they kept trying to get Justin Timberlake naked--> but is he supposed to have a great body or something? I mean he looks like a highschool kid...what woman is salivating for the body of a highschooler? They should have been doing everything possible to keep his clothes on and not off. The list of flaws could go on for infinite....this movie blows. I give it an F.
The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 is Woody Harrelson who's awesome as usual. I.e. he's the only positive to the entire movie.
Fifth, they kept trying to get Justin Timberlake naked--> but is he supposed to have a great body or something? I mean he looks like a highschool kid...what woman is salivating for the body of a highschooler? They should have been doing everything possible to keep his clothes on and not off. The list of flaws could go on for infinite....this movie blows. I give it an F.
The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 is Woody Harrelson who's awesome as usual. I.e. he's the only positive to the entire movie.
Bad Teacher
(2011)
Not Bad
19 November 2011
This movie really wasn't all that bad. It was kinda funny...kinda entertaining....kinda interesting. Wasn't an amazing piece of filmmaking but who really watched this movie expecting brilliance? Apparently a lot of people judging by all the negative feedback. This is exactly what I was expecting--> a mindless movie that made me laugh and ended quickly. Perfect for a lazy Sunday afternoon.
I've seen a few people complain because the story was predictable? Or people complaining because the acting was bad? I mean who watches a movie called BAD TEACHER and complains about the simplistic story line or the over acting? lol.
I've seen a few people complain because the story was predictable? Or people complaining because the acting was bad? I mean who watches a movie called BAD TEACHER and complains about the simplistic story line or the over acting? lol.
Radio Flyer
(1992)
Not a bad movie, just a very sad movie.
27 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was so insanely sad. This little kid is brutalized by his abusive/alcoholic stepfather. To escape from this horrible situation the two brothers build an imaginary world where the abused boy is flying off to live happily ever after. I've read several reviews from people on here saying, "Come on man he flys off in a wagon...so unrealistic." These people writing these reviews are either children or have zero intelligence. The kid really doesn't fly off in a wagon. It's these kids make-believe world to escape from this horrible situation. The abused child may have even been killed in the end by the maniac; it's ambiguously left. We don't really know. Anyway...the movie itself really isn't bad (it's actually quite good from a purely technical view)....it's just unwatchably sad which is why i rate it so low. I would NEVER watch this again or recommend this to ANYONE. Who wants to watch a movie like this? You walk away feeling sick to your stomach that anybody could treat a little kid like that. Besides that the movie really doesn't make a real point or stand for anything other than misery. Watching this movie is like a child-abuse-hotline video- at the end I felt like a "call 1-800-Child-Abuse if you know or suspect anyone of abuse" message was going to pop up.
Avatar
(2009)
Easily a 10
29 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In my opinion this movie is the best movie of the decade. Personally, it launched itself into my own personal top 5 of all time...maybe even number 1 after I reflect more on my experience. The movie is a magical experience. You will hear "critics" bash the plot as something that has already been done and/or reminds us of about 5 different movies in one. However, I reject these critics analysis because what movie can't you say that about? I once heard there are only around 56 stories in existence, and they keep being retold over and over again in different varieties and with different characters. So the fact that the story is one that is common to us (i.e. an outsider realizes that his own people are the evil and takes sides with aliens to vanquish his own, e.g. Dances with Wolves) doesn't bother me. I think the writing is excellent, the dialog superb, the special effects mind-blowingly amazing, and the story emotionally uplifting (i.e. it may bring a tear to your eye and force you to look at your fellow man a little differently regardless of the color of their skin or gender). To me this experience was beautiful and will be with me for a long time. I suggest this movie to EVERYONE, in IMAX 3D if possible.
The Dark Knight
(2008)
Good but not a 9.5
27 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was great but it wasn't the best movie of all time. Come on, 9.5 out of 10? I'm sorry but it just doesn't deserve to be put ahead of shawshank redemption, godfather, schindler's list, et cetera. The movie was well written, fast paced, directed wonderfully, and the acting was superb (especially Heath). That being said, there are several things that drop this movie to a good but not god-like rating: (1) Bad idea to merge two-face into the ending: Two-face comes into the movie almost at the very end and goes on a killing spree. When he came into the movie it felt forced and like an entire different movie. There is no characterization or subtlties in Harvey's transformation. Just there it is...he's two-face now. Sorry but if you know anything about telling a story that just shouldn't have been part of the story. If you insist on making two-face come out and start killing people, the movie needed to be another 30minutes to develop it and for it to make sense. As is, it's just some DA who's a really likable character who goes on a rampage because he gets burned. Makes no sense and hurts the strength of the movie.
Furthermore, it was very cliché to have two-face start flipping a coin before every killing. Very reminiscent of No Country For Old Men. I mean if that coin flip thing is really part of his character do it once and that's it. But to flip a coin every time. It was just very cheesy, hackneyed, and lame.
(2) What's up with Batman's voice: I understand that Batman has to mask his voice so people don't know who he is but his voice is just ridiculous. The voice that he uses sounds like Ken Kaniff from the Eminem CD. It's a voice that my friends and I use when we try to sound ridiculous. What were the directors thinking letting Christian Bale do this voice? He sounded like a complete clown, to the point where I laughed out loud in hysterics multiple times. It's embarrassing to have Batman sound like this.
(3) The movie starts and stops like 5 times: The momentum of this movie was really off. I feel like they weren't sure how to end this movie and they just kept losing and gaining momentum over and over again. It didn't have the proper ebb and flow.
CONCLUSION--> The movie is really a well done movie. Overall excellent job. But it loses points for a ridiculous clownish Batman voice which made Batman sound like a rapist, the movie didn't build and then climax appropriately, and the transformation of Harvey into two-face was forced and a bit hackneyed/cliché/rushed/poorly done.
Furthermore, it was very cliché to have two-face start flipping a coin before every killing. Very reminiscent of No Country For Old Men. I mean if that coin flip thing is really part of his character do it once and that's it. But to flip a coin every time. It was just very cheesy, hackneyed, and lame.
(2) What's up with Batman's voice: I understand that Batman has to mask his voice so people don't know who he is but his voice is just ridiculous. The voice that he uses sounds like Ken Kaniff from the Eminem CD. It's a voice that my friends and I use when we try to sound ridiculous. What were the directors thinking letting Christian Bale do this voice? He sounded like a complete clown, to the point where I laughed out loud in hysterics multiple times. It's embarrassing to have Batman sound like this.
(3) The movie starts and stops like 5 times: The momentum of this movie was really off. I feel like they weren't sure how to end this movie and they just kept losing and gaining momentum over and over again. It didn't have the proper ebb and flow.
CONCLUSION--> The movie is really a well done movie. Overall excellent job. But it loses points for a ridiculous clownish Batman voice which made Batman sound like a rapist, the movie didn't build and then climax appropriately, and the transformation of Harvey into two-face was forced and a bit hackneyed/cliché/rushed/poorly done.
American History X
(1998)
Good...BUT
26 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a good movie. There is one glaring flaw that everyone fails to mention. This guy is the ultimate racist right? So how come he decides he is going to reform just because he gets raped by a white supremacist? What does some scummy Nazi guy raping him have anything to do with him realizing that racism is wrong? I mean really it doesn't make any sense. He is sitting there, in prison, telling his white supremacist jail friends what scumbags they are for mixing with other races (i.e. he thinks that whites shouldn't mix with any other race at all and his jail friends aren't so extreme). He doesn't respect their opinion in the first place because they aren't hardcore racists like him, so logically it makes zero sense that these people, who he doesn't respect, would have any influence on his racist beliefs. In fact, you would think it would make him more racist.
If you can ignore the fact that his choice to reform is based solely on him being raped then it's an awesome movie.
If you can ignore the fact that his choice to reform is based solely on him being raped then it's an awesome movie.
10,000 BC
(2008)
This movie should have been called 10,000 BS
8 March 2008
Let's start with the multi racial tribe. Did anyone else pick up on the fact that the tribe leader was an Indian guy with a full out Indian accent. There was a black guy in the tribe. The lead was white. My girlfriend promises one of them was a pacific islander. Also, everyone in the tribe was a teenager. What kind of tribe was this? I mean this sums up the entire movie right there- SLOPPY. The movie was clearly attempting to copy Apocolypto and spent mucho bucks in a blatant attempt at mimicry, yet I felt like I was watching some sort of college movie contest that didn't even place. The acting was terrible, the directing was non existent, the script was embarrassment, and the casting director was on drugs to put together this ensemble. Probably the worst movie I have seen in the last 10 years.
There Will Be Blood
(2007)
Ehhhhh,,,
17 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, I'm not going to say this was the worst movie I've ever seen. However, the movie did have some problems which people are ignoring. I think movies that are "suppose to be good to the movie elites" and are low budget will get bombarded by compliments simply because people think they are suppose to worship it.
Let me start with Daniel Day Lewis's acting ability. Sure, it was technically GREAT acting, some of the best i've ever seen. But, it was cold and emotionless. I didn't feel ANYTHING for him. Isn't that the goal of acting? It's an actor's duty to take the audience on a journey and reward them. Although Lewis was totally believable, creepy, and captured this old time character wonderfully, he didn't take me on a worthwhile journey. I didn't feel sadness for him, I didn't feel pain in him. I think I would prefer a worse acting job if the actor actually made me feel something for the character.
Moreover, I think this is the problem I had with the entire movie. It was cold. How is a movie almost 3 hours, and you wind up feeling left wanting something to hold onto. We spend a long while developing relationships with characters to see them trashed in the end by an emotionless daniel day. I feel let down by the director, the actor, and the writer. Furthermore, if you want to have such a cold ending, why build it up for 3 hours? This movie could have had an hour trimmed off of it if they were going to have daniel day run around with a bowling pin murdering a preacher and telling his son that he's an orphan. Why build up all the subtleties and then thrown them in the garbage can? Besides that, the movie was pretty good. It was somewhat interesting to see well drilling in the early 1900's. The acting was overall pretty good. I just don't think this movie is nearly the 9 rating that everyone wants to think it is.
Let me start with Daniel Day Lewis's acting ability. Sure, it was technically GREAT acting, some of the best i've ever seen. But, it was cold and emotionless. I didn't feel ANYTHING for him. Isn't that the goal of acting? It's an actor's duty to take the audience on a journey and reward them. Although Lewis was totally believable, creepy, and captured this old time character wonderfully, he didn't take me on a worthwhile journey. I didn't feel sadness for him, I didn't feel pain in him. I think I would prefer a worse acting job if the actor actually made me feel something for the character.
Moreover, I think this is the problem I had with the entire movie. It was cold. How is a movie almost 3 hours, and you wind up feeling left wanting something to hold onto. We spend a long while developing relationships with characters to see them trashed in the end by an emotionless daniel day. I feel let down by the director, the actor, and the writer. Furthermore, if you want to have such a cold ending, why build it up for 3 hours? This movie could have had an hour trimmed off of it if they were going to have daniel day run around with a bowling pin murdering a preacher and telling his son that he's an orphan. Why build up all the subtleties and then thrown them in the garbage can? Besides that, the movie was pretty good. It was somewhat interesting to see well drilling in the early 1900's. The acting was overall pretty good. I just don't think this movie is nearly the 9 rating that everyone wants to think it is.
Death Sentence
(2007)
Death Sentence for giving up 2 hours of your life for this.
20 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't even know where to begin. Whether I start with the clowns who rated this movie so well or the slop that I just forced myself to sit through. I have to be honest, one of the reasons I even rented this movie was because of the mass amount of people on here telling me to ignore the bad reviews and focus on what great movie it is. I've decided to address the problems I had with the movie as follows: 1. Poor Acting? The acting was so pathetic I cringed in embarrassment through 90% of the scenes. Kevin Bacon had very mediocre moments as an actor. He did a lot of really obvious acting that an amateur could learn fairly quickly. I'm not really gonna nit pick Bacon's acting because there is so much worse with this film. Such as... John Goodman playing a crime boss, but doing this weird accent and overacting and throwing his lines away because it was obvious he hadn't made any real choices as an actor. You have a group of gang members who looked like the backstreet boys with stupid obviously fake tattoos covering their body and shouting out cheesy lines in attempts to look angry, but failing miserably. I don't think there was but one honest moment in this entire movie and that was when the 12 year old kid cries after his brother dies. Beyond this, the acting looked like some sort of bad acting experiment.
2.Plot? So the Plot is that this guy has his son murdered and the justice system will probably only keep his son's murderer in jai for a few years before being released. So Bacon decides to lie in court, allowing his son's murderer to go free, and kill the murderer after he's released. Okay so the idea isn't that bad in theory. It's one of the reasons I watched the movie. However, Bacon's choice to go after this guy is made within 2 seconds. There's no build up, sadness, anything. He just decides he's going to kill him. The rest of the movie is Bacon running around getting into lame fights with pathetic gang members who don't even look or act tough; or letting this black cop lady put on one of the worst acting jobs ever and covering up Bacon's murders for absolutely no reason. The movie never gives a reason either, it's the movie's way of covering up how unrealistic it is that Kevin Bacon is murdering people and no one seems to care except the gang members who are running after him with pistols in hand totally ignored by any form of police. Furthermore, the movie opens up all kinds of mini plots and never resolves any of them. There is so much filler in this movie, probably because they didn't have a story. Some of the unresolved filler included: Kevin Bacon's career which they build up to such a point with people continually asking if he's okay, Kevin Bacon's new found love for his emotionally ignored 2nd child, The secret agenda of the black cop who was covering up murders for Bacon, et cetra. It's kind or sad because I actually enjoyed the first ten minutes of the movie. To make the idea worse, there is no redeeming qualities in this movie. The movie doesn't award the good guys or the bad guys. We end up hating Bacon, for being such a vindictive punk (literally abandoning his son in the end to go on a suicide mission against the Backstreetboy gang and either resulting in Bacon's death or life incarceration, ambiguously left at the end).
3. It's sad that this movie was given positive reviews by anybody. It shows you how out of touch people are when they watch a movie that (1) has no truthful moments, (2) is horribly acted, (3) is plot less, (4)Is totally unrealistic, (5) is sad for no reason other than to be sad- trust me the director didn't make any point with this movie. It was just blatant, poorly done violence, (6) there are no redeeming qualities of this movie....and YET, people find a way to praise it. Bottom line is that people spend too much time on the internet and they have no concept about truth. If you're the typical human now a days go watch the movie, you'll love it. If you have any intelligence or sense or truth and reality this movie isn't for you.
2.Plot? So the Plot is that this guy has his son murdered and the justice system will probably only keep his son's murderer in jai for a few years before being released. So Bacon decides to lie in court, allowing his son's murderer to go free, and kill the murderer after he's released. Okay so the idea isn't that bad in theory. It's one of the reasons I watched the movie. However, Bacon's choice to go after this guy is made within 2 seconds. There's no build up, sadness, anything. He just decides he's going to kill him. The rest of the movie is Bacon running around getting into lame fights with pathetic gang members who don't even look or act tough; or letting this black cop lady put on one of the worst acting jobs ever and covering up Bacon's murders for absolutely no reason. The movie never gives a reason either, it's the movie's way of covering up how unrealistic it is that Kevin Bacon is murdering people and no one seems to care except the gang members who are running after him with pistols in hand totally ignored by any form of police. Furthermore, the movie opens up all kinds of mini plots and never resolves any of them. There is so much filler in this movie, probably because they didn't have a story. Some of the unresolved filler included: Kevin Bacon's career which they build up to such a point with people continually asking if he's okay, Kevin Bacon's new found love for his emotionally ignored 2nd child, The secret agenda of the black cop who was covering up murders for Bacon, et cetra. It's kind or sad because I actually enjoyed the first ten minutes of the movie. To make the idea worse, there is no redeeming qualities in this movie. The movie doesn't award the good guys or the bad guys. We end up hating Bacon, for being such a vindictive punk (literally abandoning his son in the end to go on a suicide mission against the Backstreetboy gang and either resulting in Bacon's death or life incarceration, ambiguously left at the end).
3. It's sad that this movie was given positive reviews by anybody. It shows you how out of touch people are when they watch a movie that (1) has no truthful moments, (2) is horribly acted, (3) is plot less, (4)Is totally unrealistic, (5) is sad for no reason other than to be sad- trust me the director didn't make any point with this movie. It was just blatant, poorly done violence, (6) there are no redeeming qualities of this movie....and YET, people find a way to praise it. Bottom line is that people spend too much time on the internet and they have no concept about truth. If you're the typical human now a days go watch the movie, you'll love it. If you have any intelligence or sense or truth and reality this movie isn't for you.
Tell Your Friends