Change Your Image
Caesarboy5
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againI tried to not put more than one film of a genre or by a certain director in order to keep the list diverse, otherwise it'd just be a list of Kubrick and Fincher films.
Reviews
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Shameful
IF YOU LIKE DEEP ANALYSIS, HERE YOU GO:
I love the first Matrix film. It is a great tribute to the Hero's Journey, basically a plot that is over 2000 years old and just keeps on reoccurring over and over in media everywhere.
Star Wars was one of the first modern movies to purposefully use it as a template. The Matrix is the second most popular to do so. And both movies prove how great the formula is, and why it was able to survive thousands of years.
Sequels are where things get complicated. Movies that follow the Hero's Journey are very self- contained. Star Wars and the Matrix were designed to be stand-alone films.
The Empire Strikes Back, sequel to Star Wars, was able to overcome that. It basically expanded upon the Hero's Journey, showing that Luke did not overcome everything yet. He is still a crappy Jedi who acts on emotions. All the tropes of the Hero's Journey are renewed to extend the story. These tropes include having a wise mentor and an evil enemy. Yoda replaces Obi-Wan as a wiser mentor and the Emperor is introduced as the greater enemy.
The Matrix Reloaded does the opposite. Instead of expanding the Hero's Journey, it forgets it all together. Instead of being still an apprentice with a lot to learn, Neo is basically Super- Man/God. He is pretty much invincible. Nothing can kill him. This is the movie's biggest mistake. Neo is no longer a relatable, vulnerable, and still-learning main character. The worst part is the relatability of the Hero's Journey is its greatest strength.
Next, the Matrix Reloaded does not have much of a story. It feels more like a video game. There are cutscenes to give you a quick idea of whats going on, then 30 minutes of action (which you can't even play). The action scenes are amazing, but I soon got really bored of them because they dragged and I couldn't be invested in the action because I didn't care about the characters. How could I care about a person I know can't die or people I never got to know.
Also, the movie is not at all self-contained. The first part of the film sets up a ton of plot points that never resolve. There is no excuse for that. Even Lord of the Rings, a trilogy that continues exactly where it left off every film, has three self-contained films with a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Second big mistake is its confusing. First, the movie does not introduce the concept of the Matrix or clearly show what it is. New viewers will not know what the Matrix is. Exposition is a necessity. It doesn't have to be in long monologues that explain everything, it can be just by showing how the Matrix works. Speaking of long monologues, this film has way too many of them. Characters continuously go on about nonsense.
The Wachowskis tried to sound smart, but there's nothing smart about going on about nothing. Especially if its wasting my valuable time. Another thing is that whatever little story the movie has, it doesn't make sense. And trust me, I analyzed the entire Architect speech at the end, its not that part that confuses me. Its always the why. Why is never explained. Its always characters saying they don't know why, it just happened that way. Which is lazy screen writing. The way to make a universe fun and real is to create simple rules and stick to them. I'm going to go back to Star Wars: Star Wars is set in a futuristic setting, there is a magical field of energy called the force, and there are good and bad people who could use it. That's it. The movie sticks to these rules and everything works out fine.
I think the highway scene really says everything that's wrong with this film. The high way scene is full of AMAZING stunt work and special effects. But I was bored after five minutes of it. Why?
3 reasons: 1. I did not care for the characters, because I did not get to know them this time around 2. It was way too long 3. Way too many villains, why did the film have so many bad guys, it was like Spider-Man 3. Seriously, we have a computer program guy with two albino ghost henchmen, Mr Smith, and the computer agents. Once again, Star Wars: one villain named Darth Vader (until the last film, but that was okay because Darth Vader needed to kill him to redeem himself and all, it was necessary to the plot)
So this film is a mess. I give an 8 on 10 to a film that tells a complete story, is self-contained (all plot lines resolved, everything has a purpose), and makes no huge mistakes. 7 out of 10 goes to a film that more or less gets it right, but maybe takes a few missteps. Most films I watch are 7 or 8. 6 is rare, its a film that gets enough wrong for it to be ruined.
Then 5... 5 is a film that is a mess. It may still have one good thing to offer, but its bad enough to be not worth the watch. Matrix Reloaded gets a 5 out of 10
Yeah the review was long, yeah it was pretentious, yeah I put no effort into the grammar, but its my honest opinion at the very least :P
To everyone in IMDb, stay classy.
Two of Us (2000)
Excellent for what it is
A mixed bag. A lot a good and a lot of bad. The acting is amazing. Even if the accents being completely off is annoying for the first few minutes, you get used to it and the amazing acting from both the dudes playing John and Paul shine through. The script is full of a lot of exposition, which is usually bad, but it makes sense. Two friends who have not seen each other for years having nothing to talk about but what they've been through. The movie plays a lot like a really good play. What makes the film good is that it does a lot with a little. The budget is obviously almost nothing, but you still get what matters: two believable and likable, yet flawed, characters that you want to succeed. Most movies with a billion dollar budget can't even get that right, but this little gem does.
Verdict: if you like the Beatles, give this movie a chance (and do your best to get over the weird accents, which you will notice at first).
Dredd (2012)
Very Solid Action Movie
Dredd is a modern day action movie DONE RIGHT.
The characters develop, the plot is intriguing, the concept and the world come to life beautifully, and most important of all: quality (the execution of the entire affair) is emphasized over quantity (the run time). This film is short and sweet.
THE GOOD
The acting is great. The dude playing Dredd is a perfect Dredd: he's rough and efficient. The woman who plays his partner does a great job at conveying a newbie who's able to learn quickly in order to survive. Lena Headey also plays an awesome villain.
The script is great. I never read the comics, but from what people tell me about them, the movie has captured the spirit of the comics (although it did miss some stuff, which I will go on about later).
The use of special effects is notable. The slow motion effects (when the enemy characters are doing a drug that slows down time) is beautiful and actually makes sense. There's a scene where an enemy guns down a huge amount of living areas with a heavy duty machine gun, which makes a crap-load of explosions occur. While you might be shaking your head going "how the heck did they survive that?" , the movie is good enough to let that one slide. This movie has some kick-a$$ action set-pieces, and they work because you care about the characters involved in them.
THE BAD
The movie, apparently, missed some opportunities to raise some cool moral questions that the comics, apparently, did. While I'm no expert, I do know that some more moral dilemmas would have benefited the movie if done correctly. Either way, Dredd at least dipped it's toes into moral ambiguity, which is more than what most action movies can say.
There's also some moments where you're gonna be like "How the heck did they survive that?" but you'll ultimately like the heroes enough to let that one slide. A healthy dosage of "disbelief suspension" can never hurt, either.
VERDICT:
This movie is what the generic action movie SHOULD BE. It's short, and it's perfect in what it set out to do. It's a very enjoyable movie, and I recommend it to anyone looking for a well-executed action movie with likable characters. On the other hand, it isn't anything groundbreaking or spectacular, in the sense that it hasn't broke any boundaries in film. It's just a very good movie, and that's why it gets an
8.5 / 10
Jin Gang Wang: Si wang jiu shu (2013)
Stupid Movie with some Redeemable Qualities
The Wrath of Vajra wasn't shockingly bad. It was everything I expected after seeing stills from the movie along with a description on Netflix.
The premise is simple. There's a group of bad guys, and a good guy is trying to beat the head bad guy to save some abducted children. He needs to fight the best of the best and work his way up to the boss.
The story is super simple and very dumb. The execution of this ridiculous premise is solid. No plot holes and the movie does its very best to make the best of it.
Of course, this is a martial arts movies and the fights will make or break the film. In my opinion, the fighting was a mixed bag. The last two fights were really original and well done. One of them included a super skinny pale guy who basically slithered around like a snake, and climbed on top of stuff. The other one includes some very nice slow motion shots of the rain. Really impressive stuff. The rest of the fighting was kind of generic. Nothing bad, just nothing exceptional either.
Unfortunately, I do not speak Japanese so I can not judge the acting. The subtitles aren't enough for me to judge the line-delivery.
VERDICT:
If you love fighting movies, I suggest you check this movie out for the little of which it has to offer.
If you haven't watched many fighting movies, I CANNOT recommend this film. Check out Ip Man, it's a way better option.
This film get's a 6/10.
Argo (2012)
Best Picture? What Were They Thinking?
Yeah 1 star sounds extreme, I know. But the reality is that the people who actually saw the film need to bring the film's rating down somehow.
In reality I'd give this film 6 stars on 10. While Ben Afleck is a great actor and a great director, the script is just horrendous when it comes to the standards for what should constitute Best Picture.
THE BAD:
We are introduced to several characters. They are in Iraq when the people turn on the US embassy and start kidnapping the people in there. These characters are the 6 or so that escaped the mess and are seeking refuge in the Canadian embassy.
The first major problem of the movie is that none of these characters are characters. They have no arcs. And even worse, they have no static personality. It's hard to care about a group of people who don't display any form of humanity.
Anyway, next problem: Ben Afleck. While he shows that he can act, his character is also boring. He's divorced, he has a son that he cares about, he's the tough but smart guy who's gonna go in and save everyone. It's super unoriginal and his character doesn't do much to make you care about him.
A lack of character, and thus heart, really sinks the movie. Additionally, the film is not at all historically accurate, but I'll be honest I don't really hold things like that against a film. It's just worth noting, I guess, since some people get offended that the film is disrespecting historical figures through misrepresentation.
One more thing: I kind of found the depiction of Arabs as all insane kind of racist... it'd be awesome of they could have made some of the Arabs good people to fight that Western propaganda notion that all the Arabs are "evil Al-Qaedas."
THE GOOD:
John Newman and Christopher Walken's characters were awesome. I don't think it's how they were written, it's just that they are great actors to watch. They were a highlight.
Also, the directing was great. While I had no reason to care about the characters, Afleck still manages to successfully create tension during several small moments and during the final chase.
THE VERDICT:
This film has some value. It demonstrates Afleck's directing abilities, I enjoyed seeing John Newman and Christopher Walken's characters interact, and I did learn some history (even though it's inaccurate, I learned the real story by going on Wikipedia, would have never did that if I never saw the movie).
Yet, it lacks character, and as a result any humanity.
6/10.
A Best Picture this is not.
Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014)
Way to Harsh
You probably noticed that everyone here is HATING on the AVGN movie. Now don't get turned off because I sound like I'm blinded by fandom or anything, I think there's a lot wrong with this movie. But I ultimately enjoyed it.
THE BAD:
Now what did he do wrong: he made some serious errors in the script. Maybe it's from a lack of experience, but he really messed up the characters.
AVGN brings in two sidekicks: this young black guy who is a mama's boy and a girl who is at first using him, but turns to his side. A lot of people talk about what horrible idea this was, but I like the actors and I like the idea. The problem is that the characters make no sense in terms of how they are written.
They have no character arcs. The girl plays one video game with the Nerd and then changes to his side, to the point where she rathers die than help the enemy (after the Nerd abandons her?). Really weird.
The black guy is less of a problem, it's just that they should have established that he wasn't brave at the beginning of the movie so his heroic action at the end held more value... there was some establishment of his cowardice and dependence, but it wasn't enough.
Then there's the random kiss at the end, which could have also held more value.
The Nerd also lacked character. I don't feel as if his character was well fleshed out. I mean, in his show, he never had much of a character except a cynical dude who makes fun of video games. I felt it needed a bit more. All we get is that he "cares about his fans." That's about all the character you get. While some people complain that he isn't as aggressive as he used to be, that wasn't a problem. He's been less aggressive in his recent videos, and I've enjoyed them (the reason being, according to him, that he was in a dark place when he started and now that he's married with a child he can't access that inner rage anymore naturally).
Regardless, I still enjoyed the movie. It still had a lot to enjoy.
THE GOOD:
I loved the excessive cussing (I'm a Nerd fan, so what can you expect).
I loved the villain (a dude who is attached to his mini tank kind of thing cause he lost his legs, he's super enthusiastic, animated, he's having a blast playing the role and he's hilarious).
The action scenes... wow, I loved every second of them. Many people would probably just see how fake they are. But I do After Effects work and I understand how hard it is to do with a limited budget (remember, this film was funded by Kickstarter and worked with millions of less dollars than the Room). Instead of trying to be realistic, they make it funny and fake. Incredibly corny models are used, making it look a lot like the classic Godzilla films.
The acting was pretty good as far as b-movies go. I think it's the script that inhibited the actors, not the other way around like it usually is in a B-movie. They were all good, especially the villain, like I mentioned before, and James, as expected.
VERDICT:
This film could have been the Wayne's World of video game culture if the script would have been fixed substantially. Instead, we don't get a "pile of dog turds," but an enjoyable movie companion to an iconic webseries.
7/10*
*Taking into account that the film was done on an extremely small budget and that James never made a movie before
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Yeah, I'm Gonne Get A Lot of Down Votes...
I don't see the genius.
Let's just get this clear first... I was born in 1995. That makes me 18 years old. I don't hate this movie one bit, but I do think the humor has aged. I don't laugh as hard because Monty Python humor has influenced every other comedy out there, and thus it's like I've seen it before. I'm sure in 1975 everything in this film would have been out of nowhere and nonsense. After seeing a movie like Anchorman, it's hard to say I laughed as much because Anchorman is so much more out there. It outdoes this film.
But regardless, I appreciate this film, as I appreciate Monty Python, because I know it did a lot for comedy. Without it, there'd probably be no Anchorman as we know it.
GOOD
The WRITING is good. Even for a nonsense comedy, it creates some likable characters and interesting scenarios. JOKES ARE PROPERLY SET-UP and even though the film essentially uses the set-up-punchline by scene formula rather than focusing heavily on a story, everything feels relevant enough (unlike a 100 Hundred Ways to Die in the West or whatever that movie was called).
The ACTING is great. Not much to say, but you never feel like your watching an actor.
While the COMEDY is aged from what I saw, it still had some very funny moments. And I'm sure if I saw the film drunk or with friends, I would laugh a lot more.
BAD
The only bad thing about this very influential film is that the COMEDY HAS AGED. Movies like Anchorman have outdone it, at least for my generation.
VERDICT
8/10
It's a well-made low-budget film that's had a noticeable impact on comedy. While I can't enjoy it like someone who lived in the 70's, I still found it funny at some points and perhaps some others would even find it funnier than I did. Maybe it's just not my type of comedy. Either way, I won't deny this film deserves every bit of praise it gets. It just won't get a 10/10 from me.
Patch Adams (1998)
6.5... yeah, right. I Think Some Reviewers Just Need to Laugh a Bit More
After finishing Patch Adams I did as I always do after watching a movie. I went to IMDb to see what other people thought. And man was I shocked.
A 6.5 out of 10. How is that possible.
For those who don't know, I have a system for my reviews.
An 8 is a film that perfectly fulfills every film obligation. So the story sets itself up properly, creates some characters, those characters undergo some changes, all loose ends are tied up, essentially all that good stuff. A 9 is awarded when a film surpasses those obligations with something exceptional. Patch Adams has that x-factor. It makes you feel really good inside. Which means the film succeeded in terms of creating an emotional response.
THE GOOD
The script is solid. Every character is casually introduced and returns later. I hate it when characters are introduced and just disappear.
It takes a very detailed look into the brave undertaking of challenging the establishment.
The film pulls at your heart strings. It's beautiful score amplifies every dramatic and heart-warming moment a tenfold.
Robin Williams' performance is amazing... mostly because he's just playing himself. And that's a good thing in my opinion. With his recent suicide, you can really see more into the character he portrays as a reflection of himself. RIP Robin Williams.
THE BAD
What irked me a bit is how they didn't mention the girl he fell in love with again at the end. They just kind of forgot to re-visit such an important character for almost three quarters of the film. I suspect there's a good reason why, since the script was solid in all other instances. Either way, this minor fault is nothing to worry about.
VERDICT
I really enjoyed the movie.
I think you should always look at a movie in terms of what it wants to accomplish. This film set out to be a feel-good comedy-drama. It succeeds in all three of those fields.
If you don't hate "excessively happy" films, check out Patch Adams (the excessively happy thing is a joke from the movie in case you're wondering).
9/10
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) (2011)
It's Good... But That Doesn't Mean You Should See It
The Human Centipede II is a disgusting movie. In fact, it's made to be disgusting just to be disgusting. Some people believe that makes it a bad movie. I don't see why.
GOOD
You would never expect this to be in a review for the Human Centipede II, but the movie is SHOT EXCEPTIONALLY WELL. I have no idea who did the cinematography or if the director is to praise for it, but it's really well done. While some people call the BLACK AND WHITE effect "pretentiously artsy," I disagree. It adds to the film and even makes it seem sort of like a demented dream combined with the great cinematography.
Laurence R. Harvey... he pulls off an exceptional performance as the psychotic fan of the first film who wishes to put together a "real" human centipede. And who NEVER SPEAKS A WORD, a decision I compliment. Really adds to the creep factor.
The movie succeeds in it's goal of being really GROSS. It really pushes it with disturbing imagery like a man cutting several people open, staple-gunning them each other mouth to anus, him beating his mother's head in, the famous crapping into each other's mouths scene, and a pregnant lady squishing her just born child to death. Jesus, that last one still gives me the creeps.
BAD
The few seconds the girl from the first movie ACTS... it's just bad. She was good in the first one because it seemed like it was trying to be a crappy b-movie... this one it's just out of place with the talent of Laurence R. Harvey stealing the show. Either way, doesn't really matter, just a nit-pick. There has to always be one, right?
VERDICT
Great movie, not for everyone. If you feel like you can stomach it, or are just curious or feel like challenging yourself, check it out. You might regret it.
9/10.
Jobs (2013)
Man People Hate This Film
Jobs was by no means a "good" film. But man, I don't understand all the criticism; it wasn't a bad film, either. In fact, despite its many shortcomings, I enjoyed it. I watched it twice. I haven't even watched some of my favourite films twice.
THE BAD
So let's get the bad out of the way. The film doesn't really do a good job being a film. The story is all over the place and there isn't really any development in the characters. These are two serious issues that kill the movies chance of ever being taken seriously. But that doesn't mean the film isn't entertaining...
THE GOOD
I have no idea why everyone is hating on Kutschers performance. I'll admit, I didn't grow up in the 80's, so I never saw young jobs on TV or anything, but I feel as if his acting was one of the strong points of the film. He captures the energy, the enthusiasm, and the general mannerisms of the Jobs I knew really well. Just watching him was great.
You're Next (2011)
Truly Horrifying
What makes something horrifying?
Many people find it's about being frightened by the surreal to the point of worrying about it in real life. Others think it's about having a fast-heart rate after seeing some serious jump-scares.
While there's nothing wrong with answering with the above, You're Next is none of the above. It's something much more sinister, at least in my opinion.
It's about two sons who plan to have their entire family brutally murdered for money...
It's just sickening thinking about it, which is a testament to the movie's fine selection in subject matter and execution.
THE GOOD:
From a TECHNICAL standpoint, the film is perfect. Great camera work, appropriate music, great editing, directing, etc...
I loved the sense of PACING. It instilled a true sense of horror and panic.
CHARACTERS were developed interestingly and I found myself invested in them and their well-being. I seriously wanted the villains to die more than anything at the end. When you're begging for a happy ending, you know the film is doing something right (I have seen so many movies where I am begging for the movie to not cop-out and give an unwarranted happy ending).
The GORE was one of the best aspects of the film. It made the film gross and memorable. Just the way I like it.
I liked the fact that the film was GROUNDED IN REALITY, which makes it so much more awful when you find out the truth.
The film had a great sense of DARK HUMOR, especially with the death of the police officer at the end.
The TWIST was also amazing. While it wasn't unpredictable with all the hints, that's what made it so great. If you caught on, you felt smart. If you didn't, it didn't feel like the BS ending of a Shamylyon movie.
THE BAD:
The ACTING was a bit strange (especially with the dad) in some places, but most people probably won't even notice.
Some people may find it another case of "she was just lucky" with the main character's survival. But I find the investment in her character was enough to offset that feeling. Her back story also helped things.
Some people seem to have a problem with the first fifteen minutes. I didn't see what was so wrong with it.
Finally, one plot point annoyed me (but this is just a nitpick, just sharing a feeling, this doesn't make the movie any bad). The fact that the daughter ran outside (only to die) really annoyed me because it just made no sense to go where the killers weren't. Regardless, no one seems to think straight when people are dying, so I guess it was justifiable. To me it just seemed a bit too dumb. But I digress.
THE VERDICT:
This film is amazing and if you have ever enjoyed a good slasher film, or just horror movies in general, you HAVE to watch this. It is amazing, brutal, and just disturbing if you can see the motives for what they are.
I may give this film a 10/10 after some reflection, but for now I will give it a 9/10 (I just feel like it wasn't perfect, but then again, my favorite movies weren't my favorite until I reflected on them):
9/10
The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete (2013)
Seriously? A Sad Movie isn't a Bad Movie
Why did this film get such bad reviews? Because it wasn't your typical happy story, that's why. People these days (yeah I'm just an 18 year old, but still) just can't enjoy sad movies. They feel as if a movie doesn't make you happy it isn't good for some reason.
THE GOOD
I'm here for the people who believe otherwise. The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete exceeds in all aspects of film. My favorite part about it was it's unusual sense of realism.
You expect the kid to get the acting job, you expect the kid to get helped out when he's getting beaten up, you always expect the typical helping hand that every other movie protagonist gets. It made the film unpredictable and makes it feel like it's giving a more legitimate look at the struggle of the poor than most films.
The acting is also a strong point. A film revolving around child actors is always a hit or miss. This film was a hit. Skylan Brooks is one of the best child actors I've ever seen. Ethan Dizon does a good job, too. The rest of the cast was well selected, although no one stood out as much as the two leads.
Everything else, like pacing, cinematography, music, and etc... is great. It seems like the film was put together by people who knew what they were doing.
THE BAD
My problem with the film is personal. It just didn't impact me the way the films I rate 9 out of 10 usually do.
Don't take this as a bad thing, though, because this film has the potential to easily become one of your favorite movies.
VERDICT
As you can see, everyone who actually paid attention to the film (the people who wrote reviews) really enjoyed the film. By now you can probably gauge if this is the type of film you will enjoy. If you think so, give it a watch and be sure to write your own review.
8.5 out of 10
No Half Measures: Creating the Final Season of Breaking Bad (2013)
For Any True Breaking Bad Fan
If the finale of Breaking Bad made you cry, prepare to get out the tissues again. This documentary relives the final episodes of Breaking Bad from an even more heart-breaking perspective... from that of cast and crew who just can't let go of their roles. It's amazing to see. Only a show like Breaking Bad has that kind of power.
For those who don't know, this documentary comes with the fairly expensive Blu-Ray barrel that contains the entire series. The good news is that the difficulty of obtaining this documentary is just about the only negative, as it provides a great insight into how the second half of the final season was created.
It's really great just how much the documentary let's you see... from the writing room, to various memorable sets, and even the editing room... the documentary teaches a lot about what goes into creating an episode of a television show... and what goes into creating one of the greatest t.v. shows of all time. Finally, like I mentioned before, it's just great to see how much all the cast and crew loved their roles and how close they were. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul's goodbye speech left me in tears.
So, here's the verdict:
THE GOOD: An excellent documentary about an excellent show. Goes far beyond what anyone would expect from a documentary depicting the creation of a show.
THE BAD: It's impossible to get your hands on unless your rich and have money to blow on buying the entire series of Breaking Bad. Also stinks for the people who already bought the first four seasons.
THE VERDICT: No Half Measures get's a 9 on 10. If it was out separately on Blu-ray, it would be a must-have for any Breaking Bad fan or anyone curious about the production of one of the greatest television series of all time.
21 Jump Street (2012)
GOLD! Why Do So Many People Hate?
PREAMBLE:
Let's start off with one thing: I have standards when it comes to comedy. I hate everything Happy Madison stands for (the company behind Grown Ups and Jack and Jill). But I don't understand why people hate this movie. When I saw it, I was blown away.
The common complaint I see on IMDb is that the film's humor is immature. It uses too many "penis jokes." While I understand why some people don't like this form of humor, it doesn't make 21 Jump Street a bad film. And, while the comedy was never Monty Python, it never went overboard (except in one scene). But I digress.
People act as if a film needs to be a British satire to be enjoyed. People are judging the film by its genre; instead they should be judging it by how well it tells an entertaining story. And boy does it do a good job.
THE GOOD
1)It doesn't take itself seriously
Honestly, the fact that this film never takes itself seriously is probably the main reason why I found myself laughing the entire time rather than pointing out what would obviously happen next. It also leads to some clever jokes. Their Officer mentions the fact that the two protagonists are overdone stereotypes, that this film is essentially a shameless reboot of an unoriginal concept, and etc...
2)Great Action
I hate films that are all action and no story (essentially I hate Michael Bay). That's why I'm happy that this film has only a few, but extremely memorable, action scenes. Really well done and entertaining.
3)It's all about the chemistry
The chemistry between Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum is incredible. I found myself extremely invested in "what would happen next" even though I essentially knew the answer.
4)The plot
Yeah, it's no Breaking Bad, but it works extremely well. What separates Grown-Ups from this film is a clever plot that moves the film forwards and gives jokes context. Even though I've seen this story a million times, this film made it feel like the first time.
THE BAD
1)The genre
If you don't like crude humor and the very-sight of Jonah Hill, or comedians such as Jack Black or Will Ferrell makes you want to vomit, avoid this film. It isn't for you.
CONCLUSION
Assuming you're okay with crude humor, see this film. It's hilarious, action-packed, fun and dumb, with some sprinkles of intelligence. You won't regret it.
Kick-Ass 2 (2013)
Can't Beat The First
Keep in mind during this review that I believe the original Kick-Ass to be a masterpiece.
Getting that out of the way, this second film was very important to me. The sequel always sets the tone for the rest of the series. Empire Strikes Back established a perfect trilogy in the making. While The Matrix 2 just let everyone know that it was over.
This film was in between. As you can see, I gave it an 8. I basically found it a very enjoyable and well-done film. It's way above the average in terms of everything. Yet, it just doesn't hold up to the first film. The first fell was a powerhouse. It was brilliant satire, disguised as dumb-comedy, disguised as parody. It was so long and epic and the action was unparalleled.
Once again, the sequel is just entertaining. While it does touch on some interesting subjects (pressure of high school on girls) and has some good action bits.
But there's Nothing beyond that. While there were some touchy moments (if a director can change your mood, you know they are doing a good job), but those moments were only possible due to relationships established in the last film. So it doesn't count for much.
The first was a must-see. The second is worth checking out.
Everything Must Go (2010)
Beyond Underrated
As the film reached it's conclusion I realized why people didn't generally like it... it's because people nowadays can't handle a tragedy. And because it features Will Ferrell in a serious role.
The film isn't built to satisfy the average audience that craves action and one-dimmensionality... it's subtle and deep. It tells a meaningful story in a beautiful way, and always leaves you wondering as to what will happen next (the ultimate sign of good writing).
I love this film. While it will never beat Stranger than Fiction (another serious Ferrell movie, as well as my second favorite movie of all time after Slumdog Millionaire), it's definitely a spectacle. If you're into deep subtle films where much doesn't happen physically, this film will interest you.
8.5/10
Titanic (1997)
Titanic and Avatar: Two Films Hated Because of "Simple" Plots
Titanic and Avatar are very different. One is about a forbidden love aboard a doomed ship. The other is about humans trying to exploit an alien race in order to profit. Yet both have something very similar in common: they are criticized for having unoriginal stories.
Titanic is a love story about a doomed couple. People complain that it's been done before (Romeo and Juliet) and that it's boring. They only enjoy the second half which consists of everyone dying. I'm here to say that is an unfair call.
THE GOOD
There's nothing wrong with an unoriginal story, as long as the execution is good. After all, we're running out of original stories. Even Shakespeare had a tendency to take other people's stories. He just told them really well.
So, is Titanic well executed? yes, on the most part. While it does have it's flaws, I think the bulk of the film is amazing. It's well paced, the characters are well-developed, the cinematography is awe-inspiring, and the conflict is one that continues to exist today (people being forced into loveless relationships due to different pressures).
Like Romeo and Juliet, this film is a classic.
THE BAD
This is a nitpick. Cameron decided to make the film as if an older Rose is telling a captain the story via flashback. That's fine and it works well the entire film. But the ending is just rushed and not much of a lesson like ti should have been.
The Captain of the submarine crew should have disposed of the Heart of the Ocean, not Rose. That way it would show Rose's lesson got through to someone. Why even introduce the Captain and a conflict if they're just going to be forgotten at the end of the film.
Once again, a nitpick, but the movie is three hours. Why is the ending so rushed? I just wished they could have gave the future part of the film a more satisfying ending.
VERDICT
Great film, 9/10, see it! Whether you'll like it or hate it, this is one of the four essentials of the 90's, along with Pulp Fiction, Terminator 2, and Forrest Gump.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Another Disappointment (If you like your movies smart)
ONE MINOR SPOILER
Catching Fire was simply okay. Not bad, not great. While I usually couldn't care less about similar movies, the Hunger Game series as a whole genuinely upsets me. Mainly due to the potential it could have had.
BACKGROUND
The first book was excellent and so smart for a book geared towards teenagers. It had social commentary and teenagers killing each other. I have no idea how it got so popular with these two factors working against it. But it it did.
The first film, if left in the hands of a skilled director, could have broken the trend of mediocre teen films and made something actually memorable. Unfortunately, it failed. It tried to mash too much material into one film. It also failed in developing believable and likable characters... especially the protagonists. Most people told me they ended up feeling bad for Gale, when in the book it clearly the opposite. When the girl died, I genuinely did not care... compared to the book when I actually shed a tear or two.
THE BAD
Now, with all that said, Catching Fire was a chance to redeem the series. I saw the running time and was hopeful that maybe this time around the characters would be well defined. Catching Fire was my least favorite book in the series (many people hate me for that) so I was hoping maybe this film could make me like it... it didn't.
Just like the book, I liked the first half and couldn't care less about the second half. I never liked the idea of returning to the Hunger Games, and I hoped this film would change my opinion, but it failed. Just like the book, I fail to understand why they would return. Just like the book I wished they never made a sequel.
As for the long running time, the film just dragged on. It felt longer than it actually was due to a lack of attachment to the characters. I did not feel for any of them.
I also didn't like how they never even explained that the mother and child operating on Gale are Katniss' mom and sister. I forgot what they looked like and I read the book when it came out, so it took me a while to figure it out. That's bad writing.
While directors/writers like Tarantino and Fincher are able to use two or three lines to let an audience know who a character is and what they are like, fifty lines cannot be used in this film to say anything.
THE GOOD
It's a shame that the acting was really good. The whole cast put up a great performance, despite their really half-assed dialogue.
Especially for Jennifer Lawrence. She does such a great job, despite the terrible dialogue she is presented with. I felt like she was just screaming Peeta's name the entire film. She also comes across as a bit unlikable due to her dialogue, but that's everyone but her's fault.
Woody Harrelson also makes an amazing Haymitch. Just like the original film, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of him.
VERDICT
Catching Fire gets a 6 out of 10. It's entertaining and everything a dumb teenage drama should be. It only hurts that the film, as well as it's prequel, should have been a lot more. A better script with better dialogue and character development would have made all the difference.
50 First Dates (2004)
I Hate Adam Sandler, But I Liked This Movie
When I saw this film on Netflix, I had a feeling I would despise it. After all, I hate Grown Ups 1 and 2, Jack and Jill, and pretty much everything Adam Sandler has put out since he's become comfortable with his fame.
And that feeling was still there the first 20 minutes. It had all the bad Adam Sandler-movie clichés. A weird guy, who is more creepy than funny (two in this one), kids saying inappropriate words and giggling, and Adam Sandler somehow being able to directly communicate with animals.
And then everything just changes... completely.
I was struck with a LOGICAL dilemma. Adam Sandler falls in love with a girl who wakes up every morning not remembering the last day. The parts of the movie that work off of this genius idea are brilliant and entertaining as hell. The comedy during these parts is actually good, too.
Even though the movie occasionally goes into dumb territory, the main plot kept me watching and invested, and for this the film gets a solid 8/10. Get rid of all the unfunny parts and this film could have been a 9.
Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World (2011)
Not That Bad; Analysis of Rodriguez
This movie is a very interesting thing indeed. Most people have given it terrible reviews.... And I completely understand why. This film has a lot of bad going for it. But it somehow still works.
In my opinion, a bad film is a film that can't decently handle it's plot and pacing. The Room serves as a good example of a really bad film. Production comes second, which is what everyone is criticizing, and within reason.
I think understanding this film all comes down to one thing: the director. Rodriguez is a good director and knows what he is doing (he made Sin City after all). The plot and script, while not to my taste (and with too many puns), work. Everything is tied up, the plot is consistent, and the lessons are learned without feeling forced.
What makes the film really weird (emphasis on the word weird and not bad) is the production. The effects are really bad (and cheap) and the acting is just... Weird (there's no other word to describe it). The script is also just weird. Sort of "trippy" in a way. I felt like maybe the script writers were on some hardcore drugs at some points.
Obviously, though, that's not the case. Rodriguez was just having fun making an over the top kid's movie. He didn't take it seriously, and neither should the critics. I think the most important thing to find out is do kids like the movie. Because if they do, Rodriguez definitely achieved his goal and this film was a success. Unfortunately I have no idea since my younger cousins haven't actually seen it.
Why did I watch the film then, you ask. Curiosity on how one of my childhood movie sagas would continue. And in all honesty, while I haven't seen the originals in over a decade, I remember them a lot better. But maybe my expectations were just lower back then and this is a decent follow up.
Either way, I give this film a 6 on 10. While the film has a strong script (as far as weird kid's movies scripts go), which makes the film watchable and definitely entertaining if the subject matter tickles your fancy, just everything else about it is a turn off for anyone but a kid. I would not recommend it to adults or teenagers. If you happen to have Netflix and are running out of good kids movies to occupy your child's mind, this isn't a bad choice. Otherwise, do not go out of your way to get this movie.
The Master of Disguise (2002)
Not that bad, BUT DANA CARVEY?
Usually I like to write a very constructive review that analyzes the good and bad of any movie. But I just can't.
It's not because this movie was that bad. In fact, when I was younger I actually enjoyed it. While it is nothing good, it isn't bad either. In fact, at least it's entertaining for a child.
It's just the fact that the protagonist is played by Dana Carvey... I didn't know who he was when I was a kid, but I do now and it hurts seeing him reduced to nothing.
It really hurts... It hurts so bad it ruins the film entirely, as well as my mood when I think about it. If you're reading this and don't know who he is, I beg you to check out his SNL work. He is an amazing comedian.
Overall, this film is nothing horrendous. It doesn't have much of a message, the comedy can only be enjoyed by small children, and it's quite forgettable. But it's harmless entertainment for children. Adults and teens will want to sit this one out... especially if they know who Dana Carvey is.
I Love You, Beth Cooper (2009)
Flawed but Harmless Fun
If you're planning on watching some really top grade comedy films this is not your movie. But if a friend of yours harmlessly asks "wanna watch "I Love You, Beth Cooper"" don't say no.
Its problem is that It's a fun movie that just seems like it could have so much better. The film's script, heavily based on the critically acclaimed novel, noticeably benefits from its smart humour. Unfortunately, the humour doesn't play out that way the whole time because of some bad line delivery. This is probably the director's fault. The material in the script seems like the kind of material that could have benefited a lot from good execution and its just a shame. It was the kind of humour that could have been quoted from a cult following for ages to come. Ala Wayne's world and mike Myers.
The bad line delivery is also a fault of the cast, that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, notably the girls.
What it comes down to, is the film is a cheesy PG-13 teen comedy that works, just not to its full potential. There are a lot better movies out there, but I still enjoyed the movie.
It gets a seven out of ten.
Mardi Gras: Made in China (2005)
An Outstanding Contrast Between Fun and the Labour That's Behind It
Look, this documentary will by no account win an award for the best documentary. And that's because it's not your typical documentary: it's unbiased. There is no narration to guide you through, think for you, and give you an opinion. You're just presented the edited footage of both interviews with people enjoying Mardi Gras and the young girls creating the infamous beads in China.
Redmon isn't interested in getting preachy and forcing a message down your throat. You get to decide what to make of it. He also provides you with everything you need to make up your mind from interviews with frightened workers to the wealthy distributors in America. Everyone get's a chance to defend themselves.
Go out and get a copy if these kind of documentaries interest you. It will surely send some chills down your bones as you watch little girls who live in their factory, work 14 hours a day, and are only allowed to leave on Sundays... if they don't have extra work to do.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Into Darkness is an Exceptional Film
Light Spoilers: Won't Ruin Anything
Into Darkness is an Exceptional Film. Movie's of it's genre (action-adventure) are barely done this well in this day and age. They're usually subject to easy praise that they don't deserve (Captain America, The Avengers, etc...) which makes me avoid them at all cost.
This film, though... It's like a carefully crafted 1970's action-adventure film made in the age of CGI.
Some people don't like this style because it isn't the original Star Trek. I get where they're coming from. This film is more like Indiana Jones in space with a Star Trek theme than the original Star Trek films. But honestly, it's too late to complain about that as the reboot was already made and released to critical acclaim.
And who really wants someone to remake the old Star Trek films. They are already made and if you miss them, just go back and watch them. With all the bad remakes going on, I'd rather watch something different and creative rather than the film that would ultimately ruin Star Trek. J.J. Abrams just knows what makes a good movie.
Why 9 out of 10? This movie is a must see, but did have some distracting flaws. For instance, the original Spock makes a ten second cameo that feels really out of place (it's not even explained) and the ending is kind of anti-climatic. These flaws aren't significant, but they do hurt because they felt like lazy decisions on part of the writing team.
Either way, great movie and a must-see for anyone who is a fan of action movies, sci-fi, Star Wars, the original Star Treks (although, you must be open-minded), and the reboot.
The only people who won't like it are those who know they hate these kinds of movies. Definitely not for you, but the reboot definitely is and maybe it would even get you into the series.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Flaws Ruin What Should Have Been Truly Spectacular
To begin, I find it annoying that all anyone complains about is the music not fitting the times. I think that's one of the strong points of the film. I really don't like all the artists involved in the film (besides Jack White) but the music worked well. It shouldn't be a problem unless you believe that a movie needs to be 100% true to the source material.
I liked the visuals, too. It was all very cool, and it wasn't overdone to the point where it distracted from the story.
THE PROBLEM IS THE STORY ITSELF
Let's get something clear: if this movie would have been handed over to a great director... let's say David Fincher... in post-production it would have been movie of the year hands down.
The only thing that ruined the film was the editing. And yes, it RUINED it. It killed this film. The most aggravating part of it all is we all know by now this is just "a certain director" trying to pretentiously assert to us that he is "arty" and "edgy."
Which is fine, unless you destroy all sense of pace that the film has!
The pacing was just awful... especially in the first half.
It was edited so literally every thirty seconds the location changes. Meanwhile our narrator, Tobey Maguire, speed reads what seems like too much dialogue. It hurts to watch these scenes.
Everyone says the second half is better: and while it is, it's only because the acting was so strong it occasionally broke through the bad editing. Especially DiCaprio. This film could have been the highlight of his recent career. I honestly didn't feel as invested in the characters as I should have been. There were a few really well done scenes, and they only made me more angry at he bad one's.
Tobey Maguire is another problem. I don't think it's his fault. I think it's just the approach he decided to take or the director (sorry Baz but it has to be said) instructed him to take. He just wasn't that interesting or notable, with the exception of a few scenes where he works to his strong points. It's not good that the movie is centred and narrated by such a weak character.
While the acting and sets/animation are truly AMAZING, the flaws just kill the film. It's not the must-see movie of the year like it should have been, it's just a decent film.
Bottom line: Baz Luhrmann should not be allowed to work on post-production with the exception of special effects. He's a great director, visionary, and writer... but man he does not get pace. If you're doubting the importance of pace, go see this movie. Maybe then you'll understand.