Change Your Image
TrevorFromWhenever
Reviews
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: The Elysian Kingdom (2022)
Respect it more than liked it
I'm not the biggest Star Trek fan out there, but I have enjoyed Strange New Worlds so far. In fact, it's one of the only series I actually look forward to watching each week. In the first ten minutes I was kind of uninterested, but I've seen enough Next Gen to feel like this was a classic Q episode and I'm actually surprised that they didn't write Q into this script, because it has Q written all over it from the jump. While these type of episodes are not MY personal faves, I have to respect them for giving a nod to the whole independent consciousness style episodes that Q's are famous for. They also used it as a nice pivot point to remove a particular character from the underlying story to tighten things up going forward.
Not my style, at all, but I'm not going to hate on it. It's classic Star Trek.
Guest House (2020)
For What It Is, It's Totally Fine
Watched this while I was bored during the day and was just looking for something to put on in the background. But, Pauly Shore came on the screen, and it was hard to stop watching. Is this a great epic movie? No. For what it is, though, an afternoon comedy - or something just to put on - it's better than average. Just kind of a classic wild houseguest with uptight homeowners type premise. It's refreshing and a nice to watch something new other than the same old comedies I've seen a million times.
The Dictator (2012)
Thought It Would Suck - It Did Not!!! **SEMI SPOILER**
Borat, Bruno, and now the Dictator. I thought this was going to be just a third movie with the same style and genital jokes.. far from it. This was well written, the jokes are hilarious, and the jokes poke fun at everyone from Hollywood, the global elite, the US and the Middle East. Some of the jokes are so subtle that I'm betting a good majority of the people don't even realize they're there. Not all jokes in this movie are slapstick crude jokes, many of them are observational and you need to have a little knowledge on class/power differences from the elite to the layman.
***SPOILER ALERT**** The ending speech where he tells the USA how they would love a dictatorship and proceeds to describe what it could bring to them (and perfectly describes the US as it currently is, then realizes he described a democracy, and then instills a "democracy" in his country) is genius.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Really Good, Don't Listen To Bad Reviews
This movie is great. I'm not a huge LOTR fan or Hobbit fan by any means, but I have read all of the books once before. With that being said, it's been years since I've read The Hobbit, so much of the story is stored away in the depths of my memory...
I have to say that I enjoyed this movie more so than any LOTR movie. Why? For the same reasons most top critics disliked the movie, the plot detail. From what I can remember about the plot in the book, the movie stays very true and doesn't sway too much. There's also a lot of backstory about Thorin that I didn't remember and it was nice to see that thrown in. The one thing that I've read in other reviews where I disagree is all the talk about how slow this movie starts. Well, if you remember the book, that starts slow too. BUT, I didn't find the start of the movie (gathering of the group of adventurers/dinner/etc..) to drag on at all! I found it very enjoyable and the movie flowed excellently all the way through.
Highly enjoyed this movie, it's very thorough plot, and the flow of the movie is superb to where it never gets boring. I would have gladly sat through another 3 hours of "part 2". Wish it was out already.
Skyfall (2012)
Meh... One of the best Bond flicks ever? Hahaha...
So, by now you've heard that this is probably the best Bond movie of all time and the greatest thing to hit earth since sliced bread. Don't get your hopes up too high.
It's a decent movie. I give it a 4/10. Traditionally, I read nothing about movies before they come out and I see them, this time was no different except I heard the hype from everyone and read headlines saying this was "The Best Bond Yet". Man, was I disappointed. Spoilers ahead: OK, first, the movie starts off great. Cool action scene and bond gets shot in the chest and drops a million feet into a river then goes down a waterfall. Of course he's alive because there's still 2 hours of movie left. But, how is he alive? No one knows, no explanation. I forgave it. But that was a sign of things to come.
Plot: Here's the bad part of the movie, the plot. Half-attempt at making a movie go longer than 2 hours with no plot.. they tried. Here's the plot: a list of undercover agents is stolen and bond needs to get the data files back. List is posted online and agents start getting assassinated left and right.. oh yeah then they totally forget about that whole part of the plot halfway through. So, what's next? OK, Bond, go kill the guy you fought in the intro. He does, finds a gambling chip in this dude's briefcase and goes to the casino. All of a sudden he's flirting with a girl (of course) who just so happens to be the bad guy's main harlot. So what next? Oh let's go to an island with no explanation as to why. It's deserted so the big bad guy lives in this island city with his thugs. The city is deserted why? Oh because the villain is a super computer genius (think Julian Assange here) and that's how he scared off the population... sure..
Wow, I could go on and on.. but I'll save you. The end of the movie was anti-climactic. With a big budget I'm surprised they did that.. a helicopter basically just shoots up a house, then bond blows it up with propane tanks, and the chopper crashes into the house, blowing it up even more... really? Towards the last third of the movie, I got this sense that the bond story was lifted from the Dark Knight movies... then I read a review where Mendes used those as influences. Excuse me.. I'm sorry. When that movie just came out this year, get a new idea please. This is James Bond, write an original story. Don't get into the whole orphan who lost his parents at age 10 who turned out to be a good guy/crime fighter and try to play it off as original. The audience isn't that dumb, but judging by the critics reviews, they are.
Some good things about this movie: Daniel Craig was good with what he was given, and Javier was good with what he was given too. There just wasn't much character development that the story left open. It was SO quick and anticlimactic that I felt I had gone back in time to the Timothy Dalton days.. that's not right. Why can't we just get a director to watch Casino Royale over and over again until they "get" why that one was so good? I might even take Quantum of Solace over this one, at least the story was semi-interesting.
Sam Mendes I believe was the director's name. He should be accused of hijacking intelligent property of the new Batman trilogy and the Home Alone series... And there you have it, the new James Bond that is the alleged "Best Bond Yet".
What a joke.
The Rite (2011)
Eh... not very good when you sum it up.
Hi, I actually signed up so that I could review this movie. This contains spoilers.
The first two thirds of the movie are actually pretty good. It had my attention and I was at the edge of my seat waiting to see what happened next... then, disaster struck..
OK, let's not get ahead of ourselves quite yet. You all probably know the plot by now: a young skeptical priest (who is having second thoughts on becoming a priest) has been assigned to go to the vatican and participate in a new exorcism program. His 'mentor' per se is Anthony Hopkins character. The thought behind this was that Michael (the young priest) would be convinced that the devil and exorcisms are real because Anthony Hopkins is a specialist in this area and by studying under him he would be exposed to all of this. And, of course, he was!
So, at this point in the movie things have been developing pretty well... Michael is still skeptical even though he has witnessed one exorcism case (yes, just one), he has a potential love interest, and Father Hopkins (as I've forgotten his official character's name) has shown the audience that he is the real-deal exorcist.
We all know from the trailer that Hopkins' character becomes possessed by the end of this movie. So, about 2/3rds through the film Anthony Hopkins is out treating a young boy who is possessed. Michael is along as well. Anthony Hopkins asks to see the boy's pillow and pulls out a frog, proceeds to mumble a prayer, and then casts it into the home's furnace. The two priests leave and walk back to Anthony Hopkins' home. In the courtyard of his home, Michael notices a lot of the same type of frogs that were found in the pillow. Hopkins says he isn't feeling well and then goes to bed. So begins his possession.. YES, this is it.
Then there is a scene where Hopkins walks out to a small observation point overlooking something (the ocean, a village maybe?) and is seemingly wearing nothing but a trenchcoat. Then he proceeds to smack a small child and walk away. OK, we get it, he's possessed and isn't his self.
When Michael comes back to Hopkins' home he realizes that he is possessed. So, with the help of his lady friend (I forget why she's with him) he goes ahead and exorcises the demon from Anthony Hopkins. Then the movie basically ends.
Wow, OK, so just reading the plot may make it seem like a decent movie. And, it is for 2/3rds of the way through. However, the last 1/3 is SO BAD that it RUINS THE ENTIRE FILM!!! It feels like up until the point where Hopkins becomes possessed lasts about 2 hours (I'm sure it's not that long, but that's how it felt), which wasn't a problem because I thought things were developing well. Once Hopkins becomes possessed until the final credits felt like 20 minutes. The climax was pretty much non-existent for me. Couple things I have gripes with:
1 - Early in the movie Anthony Hopkins tells Michael that possessions can sometimes last months, even years, of regular exorcisms before the demons are fully gone (obviously it's more detailed than that in the dialogue), however, he goes from being fine one day to being fully possessed in what, to me, is depicted as overnight. A week at the most. Basically, he was fine one scene, and then out to lunch the next. Couldn't we have used the previous 2 hours of the movie to develop this instead of rushing it within 5 minutes?
2 - I understand symbolism and all, but frogs??
3 - Based on how the film depicted things, Michael had witnessed Hopkins' character perform 3 exorcisms (2 on a young woman and the 1 on the young boy). Yes, he witnessed them. The film never portrayed him having any practice before exorcising the demon from his mentor. Now, we're lead to believe that this demon possessing Hopkins is Ba'aal, one of the most powerful demons around. Does it make sense that a person who has never performed an exorcism before could pull this off successfully? Not to me. Especially since earlier in the film, Hopkins had given a more intense exorcism to the young lady and boy that weren't as successful as Michael's. Seriously, Michael gave a very weak effort here. Either the director didn't get enough from his actor, or it was bad casting. This is THE moment of the movie and it fell flat on its face.
4 - Cheesy dialogue as the movie reaches its end AND cheesy 'Harry Potter' CGI special effects - look for it at the end, it's there.
To me, this movie had potential until the finale, and it failed in jaw dropping fashion. Bad dialogue, and NO development. I'm betting the editing removed a lot of character deveolopment between the second third and last third of the movie. The editing crew should be ashamed. Normally I'm not a movie snob or anything but there were some serious film class 101 issues going on here, and I don't even know what film class 101 teaches.