thebrighteyes Reviews

The Imitation Game (2014)

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes, playing Alan Turing

[8/10 · 3 January 2015]

I'd first heard of Alan Turing as the father of computer science, but I didn't know his story until a few years ago when an online petition to the UK government went viral, asking that they grant Turing a pardon and issue him an apology. And it came as no surprise when I'd found out that Hollywood had turned his work for the Allies in WWII and the subsequent years of his life into a biopic. It is quite an amazing story which deserves to be told, and The Imitation Game tells it quite entertainingly.

It also came as no surprise that they picked Benedict Cumberbatch, popular for his role as a genius detective, to play the role of Turing, a genius computer engineer. In fact, the parallels between the roles are so striking that it felt like the credits should read, "Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes, playing Alan Turing." There's even one of those Sherlockian "Eureka!" moments thrown into the movie. A moment which was worked in for dramatic effect, but also came across as a bit forced and lazy.

In fact, my only big criticism of The Imitation Game is that a lot of this movie comes across as being dramatized rather than true. It seems like a lot of extra narrative was thrown into the mix, adding a lot of extra heavy-handed messages about the morality of war, women's rights, bullying, autism, etc. I'd have been nice to see a more straight-forward telling of the story.

In spite of these criticisms, there is a lot to like about The Imitation Game: Keira Knightley had a great character. The scenes of Turing's childhood hit all the right emotional notes, and Alex Lawther - an actor who'd I'd never heard of before - did a great job as Young Alan Turing. And overall it was an engaging movie with only a few slow spots here and there. And fans of the BBC's Sherlock (with Cumberbatch) will definitely enjoy it.

The Maze Runner (2014)

Fun movie, good mystery, though a weak payoff

[6/10 · 27 September 2014]

The Maze Runner opens with an unknown panicked boy, awaking in a dark, steel elevator, ascending into the unknown. The doors open to a grassy plane - The Glade - where he is surrounded by a group of mocking boys. We soon learn that they remember nothing of their past lives, except that they are all trapped here, surrounded by a gigantic labyrinth which they must navigate to (hopefully) find freedom. It's certainly an intriguing plot.

Having never read the book, I didn't really know what to expect. And to that end, the mystery kept me interested throughout. However, I can't say that I felt much for any of the characters. Perhaps those who have read the book will feel differently, but there just didn't seem to be much depth to them. Even the lone girl in the movie seemed to be mostly a useless character, adding very little to the plot.

I'd heard many compare it to The Hunger Games, which definitely shares many of the same elements. Both are fun movies, but the main fault of The Maze Runner is with the payoff at the end. Why are these boys trapped? By whom? You'll get answers, for sure, but I felt like they didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Apollo 18 (2011)

Half-Baked Horror

[5 November 2011]

For a movie with what must have been a fairly low budget, the Apollo 18 filming team definitely did a great job. The moon and space scenes looked very realistic, and the director definitely knows how to film a movie in the "found footage" genre. The small cast of actors also did a pretty great job. So what went wrong here? Overall, I think, the "horror" element of the movie seemed half-baked, and the monsters seemed tacked on.

For example, with any good horror movie, the villain is given some sort of motivation - even if those motivations are left vague. But, ask yourself, what were the motivation of these moon-rock spiders? They would simply attack these astronauts, make them slowly go crazy, them leave them to die. ...Even when they pulled the astronaut into the dark crater, he re-appeared a little crazier but no worse for ware.

For this and other reasons, it seemed that little thought was put into the plot. Still, the movie was a good way to kill 70-minutes.

Mad Max (1979)

A classic? Really?!?

[9 October 2011]

After hearing from so many people that this movie is a "classic," I was quite shocked to find how bad this movie actually is.

That said, I'm partly sympathetic to the creators of this movie. They tried to do a big idea - a post-apocalyptic action movie - an a tiny budget. This is probably why the world was hardly identifiable as post-apocalyptic, where it just looks like it takes place in a rural area of Australia (you pretty much have to read the movie description to figure it out). At the very least, however, they could take the time to simply explain the background. We never are given any explanation of what is supposed to have happened to the world, which makes the movie more confusing than it needs to be.

The characters are also poorly written. The "gangs" in the movie have no real motivation, but are just generic one-dimensional "bad guys." At the beginning Max kills one of the gang's leaders, but this is not really used to drive the plot. When they go after Max's wife, for example, it's simply a coincidence. Even the good guys (the "police" I guess) are all written like they're all bi-polar. Even the acting is terrible. Mel Gibson, who by far does the best job in the movie, over-acts like crazy.

The car stunts are definitely well-done for such a small budget, but other effects are terrible. There's a scene where a motorcycle runs over Max's arm and I actually laughed at how poorly executed it was (the low budget was no excuse for this one). But overall, these action scenes were few and far between. Things don't really get going until the final 20 minutes of the movie, making it a bit boring to watch.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Great in many respects, but completely fails to engage.

[4/10 · 22 September 2011]

After hearing much of the rave reviews, The Tree of Life was rather disappointing. There were, of course, many great things about this movie: It had very poetic and thought-provoking messages, the cinematography was amazing, and the director did an amazing job giving us a sense of childhood in the 1950s suburbs.

The problem with the movie is that it completely failed to engage its audience. There was neither a story nor a character we could really cling to, and that makes for a long 2.25 hours. While people often blame the laziness of American audiences for demanding engaging stories, I'm of the opinion that it's a failure on the part of the writer and director. Take a look at 2001 or, to take a more recent example, Inception. Those movies are both engaging and thought-provoking.

In The Tree of Life we get to know a family, true, but only vaguely. Perhaps those born in the era or those with similar family dynamics will relate to the characters more, but this doesn't help me (or most audiences) very much. So while I enjoyed the movie on one level, it was still ultimately a boring film.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Great directing, but still a disappointing watch

[5/10 · 29 November 2008]

I've been a big fan of Charlie Kaufman's work for awhile. Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, all written by Kaufman, are among my favorite movies. Synecdoche, New York (2008) was not only written by Kaufman, but it was his debut as a director as well, so I had very high hopes.

...And I really can't say anything bad about the directing of Synecdoche. It looked fantastic, and he got really great performances out of the actors. The real problem with this film is that it makes very little sense.

The first half-hour was pretty clear cut and easy to follow. After that the movie got pretty trippy. Time kept jumping forward without the main character realizing it - which might have been explained by these weird medical problems he was having, but they kind of dropped that whole thing halfway through the movie. There were lots of surrealist elements, which I was expecting in a Kaufman movie, but there was no clear understanding of what it all meant. After awhile this film seemed more interested in being like a Russian nesting doll than it did about characters or plot.

Now, I'm sure there is some well thought-out meaning behind everything in this movie - meaning only Kaufman himself can fully appreciate. It seems to me that Kaufman had too much involvement in this, and maybe this is why his screenplays have worked so well in the past. He kind of needs somebody else to say to him, "yeah, this might make sense to you, but nobody else in the world will have any possible chance of grasping meaning out of it."

Hamlet 2 (2008)

Seeing the trailer ruined the movie for me.

[7/10 · 27 August 2008]

Hamlet 2 (2008) had an ad campaign that seemed to focus on the fact that it was from the co-writer of South Park, but they are not referring to Matt Stone or Trey Parker (who had absolutely nothing to do with this movie). They are talking about Pam Brady who mostly produces the show, but has some co-writing credits on a couple of the episodes and on the South Park movie. So, if you're going into this expecting something like Orgazmo or Team America, then you'll probably be disappointed.

That being said, the movie is still pretty clever and funny. Aside from a slow beginning, an annoying amount of pratfalls, and two completely pointless characters (played by Catherine Keener David Arquette), it's a pretty funny movie.

Unfortunately this is one of those movies where the funniest parts are spoiled by the trailer. My suggestion would be to skip the theatrical release and wait for it to come out on DVD. By that time, you probably will have forgotten the ad campaign, and you'll really be able to enjoy it.

Batman (1989)

The prince songs ruined the movie.

[8/10 · 15 August 2008]

Batman (1989) fits in very well with the rest of Tim Burton's movies. What I mean is that Burton has a style which really shines through the acting and the plot, which is great if you love Tim Burton, but I find something a little bothersome about his style. Everything in his movies is a bit too much like a cartoon. I guess, though, that this over-the-top quality works in favor of this comic book based movie.

Still, there are scenes which are much too silly for this movie. For example, there are the lame Prince songs which really don't fit in at all. Why play some terrible Prince song when you already have an amazing Danny Elfman score? Other cheesy moments include the Joker's ninja underlings (he has a couple throughout the movie), and his 5-foot long gun which takes out the bat wing in a single shot. Oh, and I can't forget to mention how lame it is that there's what amounts to an American Express commercial within the first 3 minutes of the film.

But since we were on the subject, I really should mention Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker. Since The Dark Knight has come out, many people have been comparing his performance to Heath Ledger's performance. Though they play the same character, after watching this movie again, I can safely say that the comparison is pretty silly.

While The Dark Knight had a more realistic and gritty feel to it, the 1984 Batman has more of a comic book atmosphere - the kind where a guy can fall into a vat of random chemicals and come out with bleached skin and dyed green hair. No matter how much you compare them, neither Joker could be successfully transplanted into the other movie. But if I absolutely had to choose, I'd have to go with Ledger because, frankly, Jack Nicholson is kind of an annoying actor.

To wrap up, Micheal Keaton was pretty good as Batman. Though he's not really known for this type of movie, he pulled it off pretty well. Kim Basnger was alright, but nothing to write home about. I'd have to say the movie was good, but not great.

Brideshead Revisited (2008)

Great acting and imagery don't save it from a boring plot.

[5/10 · 3 August 2008]

Brideshead Revisited (2008), based on the 1945 novel of the same name, can be best described as a combo of Brokeback Mountain and Pride and Prejudice. While the plot focuses on an atheist who befriends a rich kid from a overly religious family, the movie seems to be focused on early 20th century British high-society.

If you're into seeing rich women at fancy balls, taking trips to Italy, having flings with "average" (but good-looking) guys, and getting into all sorts of pointless drama, then you'll love this movie. Other than that, there really isn't much to say.

The film is technically very good, but the thin and boring plot make the 2-hours go by slowly. There were also a lot of pro-Catholic themes which didn't bother me except for the fact that they were kind of dumb.

Superhero Movie (2008)

No more parody movies! Please!

[2/10 · 24 July 2008]

Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over "parody" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.

If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.

Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.

This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.

Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.

...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall.

Next (2007)

Nicholase Cage disappoints again.

[3/10 · 23 July 2008]

Next (2007), starring Nicholas Cage, Julianna Moore, and that chick from 7th Heaven, is a movie about a dude who can see exactly two minutes into the future.

There was one cool scene that had a visualization of Cage's precognitive ability where it shows cage splitting off in a thousand different paths. The path that worked out the best, in that two minute time frame, he would take. Other than this scene, they kind of dropped the ball.

There were discontinuities all over the place. You'd think that a person who could see into the future wouldn't even bother having most conversations. You could just walk up to the person you're about to talk with and have your side of the conversation. Of course, it doesn't really work like that in this movie.

On top of this, Moore did a really terrible acting job in this one, and the end kind of made the last two-thirds of the movie completely pointless.

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)

If you liked them at White Castle, you'll like them at Gitmo.

[4/10 · 23 July 2008]

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008), the follow up to 2004's Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. picks up right where the last one left off... only the actors look 4 years older. Well, I guess I can't fault them for that... but there are many other things to fault this movie for.

I'd say the worst part about this movie is the comedy. There were maybe one or two things that were actually funny, the rest were just attempts at juvenile humor, which have some potential to be funny but just fall flat in this movie.

The plot was decent. Neil Patrick Harris is back playing the same psychopathic version of himself that he did so well in the last one. In fact, his role here is the reason this movie got a 4/10 instead of a 2/10. Though things got really, really stupid in the last fourth of the movie, but the plot picked up a bit right at the end.

I'd assume that most people will feel the same way about this movie as they did about the previous one. That means if you loved seeing them go to White Castle, you'll also love seeing them go to Gitmo.

The Wild Blue Yonder (2005)

Not Herzog's best work

[3/10 · 22 July 2008]

Werner Herzog makes some pretty good documentaries, but this fiction pseudo-doc isn't one of his better accomplishments. The Wild Blue Yonder (2005) takes stock footage and real interviews and then intertwines it with a fictional story narrated/discussed by (actor Brad Dourif) an alien from another planet.

The story, constructed with this outside footage, is about some journey to and from the Andromeda galaxy, and it really doesn't matter because the story is really boring. Yeah, some of the imagery is really beautiful, and the concept of the film is one of the more original things I've seen... Hell, I wouldn't even know what genre to categorize this in (fictional documentary, I suppose).

This, unfortunately, doesn't make up for the sheer dullness of the movie and the agonizingly bad soundtrack. Dourif's poor acting doesn't help things much either.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Better than Batman Begins? I'd say it's a draw.

[9/10 · 20 July 2008]

The Dark Knight (2008) was a really good movie, this should be obvious by now. I don't want to go through everything I liked about this movie because that would just take way too long. However, that doesn't mean there weren't any flaws in the flick.

One thing I will point out, however, is that I absolutely loved how they handled multiple villains. Most super hero movie sequels tend to inject loads of villains in an effort to up the ante, but they all completely suck at it. Here, they juggled it perfectly: Scarecrow made a brief appearance at the beginning, but was quickly caught. The Joker was the main villain, and dealt with for the bulk of the movie. And Two-Face was really just thrown at the end to add a bit more tension.

Now for the flaws: 1. Maggie Gyllenhaal confused me. It took me a little while to figure out that she was the replacement for Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I also thought she was kind of ugly and not a very good actor.

2. Christian Bale was mostly good, but his deep Batman voice was even cheesier than it was in Batman Begins. It almost sounded like he couldn't breathe through his nose.

3. They didn't really wrap up The Joker's story. The last we saw of him, he was just hanging from a roof, and he seemed like a smart enough (and violent enough) guy to get out of that situation - though, with Heath Ledger now deceased I doubt we'd see a reprisal of The Joker in this series.

4. I thought the whole sonar phone thing was a little dumb - sorry. The whole "no man should have this power" speech just seemed politically pointed and crammed in where it didn't really fit.

Keep in mind, these are only minor nitpicks. It was a good movie. Did I like it better than Batman Begins? Eh, I don't know. The back story in Begins was really awesome, but the villains in Dark Knight were really amazing - I'd say it's a draw.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

This movie is a great experience for any Indiana Jones fan.

[8/10 · 23 May 2008]

It was quite an experience seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because, unlike some recently-rebooted sequels (like Rambo and Rocky Balboa), I was a huge fan of the Indiana Jones series as a little kid. So, seeing a new one was pretty awesome and enjoyable for that reason alone. But even better than that, this movie was actually really good.

I think that most fans going into this movie weren't really concerned about Harrison Ford's age (because we know he could kick ass no matter how hold he is), but rather, there seemed to be a concern over the casting choice of Shia LaBeouf. I'm not really sure why (I thought he did a nice job in Transformers), but he actually was pretty good in this movie (and very funny) even though his character was a little over the top at times.

The story is unique, and the mythology of it is quite different than the mythology of the previous films, which I wasn't quite sure I liked... but, eh, it was cooler than the mythology of Temple of Doom.

This movies gives us one appearance from a member of the original cast with many references to previous films. However, these references aren't in-your-face, and somebody probably could easily enjoy this movie without knowing anything about the other Indiana Jone's movies.

The action scenes were all very well done - some of the best I've seen in years. However, these scenes (and even other non-action moments) seemed to heavily rely on CGI which I didn't think fit in very well with the series. The lighting, at times, also seemed very much like a comic book, which is a different tone than the previous films took (which tended to be a bit darker).

Overall it was very good, and I'm sure I'll go see it a second or third time.

27 Dresses (2008)

27 Dresses is a movie for dumb girls

[2/10 · 14 May 2008]

27 Dresses (2008) stars that blond chick from Grey's Anatomy as a woman who, as she puts it, was put on this earth to get married. Wow, what a shitty destiny! Unfortunately, she's always a bridesmaid and never a bride because she is madly in love with her boss who is madly in love with blond-chick's sister. Ooh! What a love triangle! But don't worry because within the first 10 minutes of the movie she meets a nice guy (played by the guy who was Cyclops in the X-Men movies) who is obviously going to have to win her over.

Already, I'm sure you can figure out every single plot point this movie has to offer. There's nothing new here.

What you will get, however, is a cast full of secondary characters from hit TV shows: There's Gay Indian Guy from 30 Rock and Weeds, the Crazy Secretary from Arrested Development, Michael's Girlfriend from The Office, and probably a bunch more whom I've never seen nor heard of.

I'll just come out and say what I was thinking throughout this entire movie: 27 Dresses is a movie for dumb girls ages 15-25 who don't care if a movie is actually well-written as long as it (1) continues the myth that they will all end up happily married/engaged/dating, (2) makes them think that all good-looking assholes really have a sweet side, and (3) portrays romantic overtures (from guys whom the female character barely knows) as "amazingly cute" rather than the more-realistic "amazingly creepy."

Diary of the Dead (2007)

The writing is just plain cheesy.

[3/10 · 14 May 2008]

Diary of the Dead (2007) is the latest in the famous George Romero zombie series which includes such greats as Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead (the 1978 version, not the 2004 remake).

The movie presents itself as kind of a movie in a movie. OK, this is kind of confusing to explain, but think of it like this: You (the real life audience) are sitting down to watch Diary of the Dead which is, from front to back, a (fake) documentary called The Death of Death. Why the two titles? I have no idea.

Romero attempts to take a lot on with this movie; everything from the bias of the media to the politics of Katrina to the internet's power of globalization - all within a horror film.

Unfortunately, the acting is so bad that it ruined any social commentary the film tried to make. Also, Romero's idea of the internet reminds me of something a geriatric patient might think ("Oh, you kids and your crazy MyFace! I just don't get it.") And the product placement for these websites (specifically Youtube and Myspace) definitely doesn't help.

On top of that, the writing is just plain cheesy. There are suspenseful parts and a couple funny bits (like Samuel, the deaf, dynamite-wielding, Amish man), but most of the drama is so terribly written that it made me laugh. There is also this running voice-over that is both pointless and boring.

As a fan of Romero's work, this movie was pretty disappointing. I realize that he was trying to re-boot the series, and with such a small budget it must have been difficult... I just wish that he had done a better job with. Oh, well. Let us just hope this movie was an experiment that will never again be repeated by him.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957)

Awful, Awful Movie - but you may still like it!

[1/10 · 14 May 2008]

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) is often cited as the worst movie ever made, and though that isn't any more true than saying Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made, Plan 9 is still a very, very bad movie.

What's bad bout it? Well, practically everything. The movie hijacks the themes of The Day the Earth Stood Still and integrates them into a story that makes very little sense. There are continuity errors galore and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen. Apparently, this is largely because the low budget forced the director (Edward Wood, Jr.) to shoot many scenes in only one take. This also explains why the special effects, even for the time, were laughable.

To its credit, the movie is so bad at times that it ends up being hilarious. With lines like "future events such as these will affect you in the future" it is so easy to make fun of that it is worth a watch with a bunch of friends.

Good Luck Chuck (2007)

Dane Cook is one of the most annoying people alive.

[2/10 · 14 May 2008]

Besides the terrible script, I assumed that I would hate Good Luck Chuck (2007) because Dane Cook is one of the most annoying people alive. And the fact that frat boys' all across the U.S. mimic him makes his whole persona even more unbearable.

Unfortunately, I was proved wrong when in walked Jessica Alba as Cook's love interest. I think her terrible acting gave me diarrhea. With her caked-on silver eye-liner and her orange-tinted fake tan, she was also pretty hard to look at.

None of the jokes were very funny. While the idea for the plot was somewhat interesting, the movie was actually very predictable. The only thing I can't figure out is why anybody would find Dane Cook charming.

They also try to make up for the awefulness of the movie by showing a lot of nudity - which is fine... but, unfortunately, hot, naked women can't make a bad movie good.

If you're a big fan of Cook, go see this movie - you will probably like it. But if you don't really enjoy movies that suck, then skip this pile of donkey s**t.

30 Days of Night (2007)

Nothing interesting in this vampire movie.

[5/10 · 14 May 2008]

It feels like it's been awhile since a vampire movie has been released (apart from the crappy Blade: Trinity).

30 Days of Night is a decent action movie, however, it doesn't do characters very well. I found myself not really caring when any of them died. The whole marriage-on-the-rocks subplot also seemed pretty pointless and poorly executed.

Another problem, was that the enemy (vampires) that the group was facing were just WAY too powerful. The vampires were fast enough to catch up to a speeding car and strong enough to flip that car completely over, they could jump at least 20 feet into the air, they were very agile fighters, they were pretty intelligent, and on top of that there were at least 50 of them hunting a group of 5.

Also, the ending was pretty ridiculous, even for a vampire movie.

So, why did I give it a 5/10? Well, between all the awfully developed characters and the stupid ending. The movie had some suspenseful scenes. All the blood and action in the beginning had me believing that the small town stood a chance against this (then unidentified) enemy.

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)

Skip it unless you just want to continue the series.

[3/10 · 14 May 2008]

Resident Evil: Extinction, like the previous two, is more of an action movie than a zombie movie. Really, the way they pick off zombies is a lot like the way Rambo kills commies. That being said, the action scenes are decent.

This movie also gets points for an attempt at originality. I'm talking about the "zombie birds" - I've never seen that before. However, it ended up seeming silly, and, more than anything, they just swiped the entire scene's execution from the Hitchcock movie "The Birds." The plot was poor and lacking, and they wasted a bunch of time on characters who went nowhere. Out the 90 minutes of this film, you could probably cut an hour and the plot would be completely unaffected.

The only reason to see this film is if you've already seen the first two and are curious to see where the story is going. Although, don't expect any fulfilling conclusions because they leave the ending open for another sequel.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Enjoyable if you can ignore the gaping plot holes.

[5/10 · 14 May 2008]

Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem is a sequel to a movie based on a video game based on two different movie franchises. I don't think I have to mention that I thought this was going to be a 1/10 (or 3/10 at the very most). I was surprised.

But it did have its flaws.

For the whole first half of the movie, the predator had this blue liquid which made people, aliens, and other stuff disintegrate. And he kept pouring over everything, presumably to cover his tracks.

Why would he care about covering his/the aliens' tracks? Also, in other parts of the movie, he would just kill people and not bother at all with the clean-up. And why would he use spears and whips to kill his aliens, when he could have just put this blue liquid in some sort of water gun or something - seems like it would make a better weapon. There is some sort of discontinuity here.

The movie also suffers from the cliché action movie issues. For example, the aliens/predator have no problem killing droves of people, but for some reason are completely inept at killing any of the main characters. Also, most of the acting was pretty terrible during the non-action scenes.

And finally, the whole concept - the whole reason the predator was on Earth hunting aliens - didn't make much sense. Though, I feel like the writer(s) just did the best with the concept they were given.

But if you can get past these plot holes (or whatever you want to call them), the movie was pretty decent and the special effects/costumes were amazing. The action scenes were pretty good, and a few of the characters were compelling (the pizza delivery boy).

American Pie Presents: Beta House (2007 Video)

Good by porno standards, terrible by regular movie standards.

[1/10 · 14 May 2008]

So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).

There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the "southern" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word "ya'll." This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that.

Across the Universe (2007)

Instead of watching it, try listening to a real Beatles album.

[2/10 · 14 May 2008]

Across the Universe is a musical set in a world where The Beatles don't exist but everybody constantly sings Beatles songs. I say that The Beatles don't exist because surly somebody would have said, "Instead of listening to all these Beatles covers, why don't we just listen to the originals?" Covering Beatles songs is a very difficult task - one which this movie mostly fails - because the original songs are so good, it is hard to add anything original and new to them. What is more difficult is trying to cram 20 or so Beatles songs into a movie that is trying to maintain a cohesive plot. This leads to a lot of points in the movie where you think to yourself "What does this singing and dancing sequence have anything at all to do with what's going on?" The plot is really simplistic and unoriginal, though it obviously only exists to fill in the moments when the people aren't singing, however, I have to admit that the acting is pretty good. But every time a character uttered a line like "Hi, my name is Prudence" or "This is my sister, Lucy" I cringed at the thought of hearing another poorly covered song about them. I did think that the actor who played Jude was pretty good, but that's mostly because he did a very good Paul McCartney impression while singing.

Overall the movie was long, boring, and pointless. Though I applaud the film makers for being able to make U2's Bono (playing the role of Dr. Robert) look like even more of a douche bag than he already is.

Dracula 2000 (2000)

Worst Dracula origin story every conceived.

[1/10 · 14 May 2008]

Dracula 2000 (released in 2000, surprisingly) features a cast filled with network television experience. It's got such great actors as Danny Masterson (That 70s Show) and Omar Epps (House). With such a talented cast, how could this movie miss? /sarcasm OK, so this movie is BAD. It seems to be an attempt to update the old classic into a slasher film, which makes me wonder what kind of idiot thought that would be a good idea.

The Wikipedia page for Dracula 2000 claims that this movie "offers a unique story for Dracula's origins not found in any other vampire movie" Wow, that is very true. In this movie you find out that Dracula is really Judas (yes, that Judas). After he sold out Jesus, God decided to punish him by giving him eternal life and turning him into a vampire. I guess this explains why he hates crosses and holy water so much.

There is nothing remotely scary or shocking about this movie (well it scares me that it cost 28 million to make this garbage). In fact, most of it is just laughably bad.

I just really don't know what else to say. I have to go cleanse my mind with a good movie...