(in the order I saw them)
*My personal opinions* on any movie that I have watched.
December 31, 2013
December 27, 2013
Gravity
2013 - 1/5
I’m not sure I want to get into an in-depth review with this movie. I don’t know what to make of it to be honest. All I know is that I’m going to be in the minority with regards to where I stand when it comes to this movie.
As for the visual effects… well… I didn’t see this in theaters… I’m going to leave it at that… so no further comments on that!
I couldn’t really figure out exactly what the story was from the trailer, but from review I saw, it seems like a lot of it would be Sandra Bullock (as Dr. Ryan Stone) would be alone in outer space. I couldn’t help but think of the Disney movie Wall-e, in which the first half barley had any dialogue. It worked for an animated, so I was curious as to whether or not this movie would be similar and if it could pull it off as a non-animated movie. Obviously the script wouldn’t be a major part of this film, so it would have to be all story driven.
Ugh. This is the part I don’t really want to get into: the plot. I’m just saying I couldn’t get into it. I really think that the only reason I didn’t stop watching it was because I really wanted to know how it ends. But overall, I couldn’t buy into it. I’m happy this movie was only 80 minutes.
I did think that Clooney and Bullock were paired together very well. That was one thing that worked for me in the movie. Bullocks short hair aside, I thought both their looks, voices, everything else were very fitting for their characters. I had no problems with the actors and the characters they portrayed.
I was trying to think of a numerical value to give this movie that I felt comfortable with. Even when I picked a random number between 0-5, I couldn’t justify giving it any higher than a 1… and that’s only because I think that Bullock (and Clooney) did a good job.
I’m not sure I want to get into an in-depth review with this movie. I don’t know what to make of it to be honest. All I know is that I’m going to be in the minority with regards to where I stand when it comes to this movie.
As for the visual effects… well… I didn’t see this in theaters… I’m going to leave it at that… so no further comments on that!
I couldn’t really figure out exactly what the story was from the trailer, but from review I saw, it seems like a lot of it would be Sandra Bullock (as Dr. Ryan Stone) would be alone in outer space. I couldn’t help but think of the Disney movie Wall-e, in which the first half barley had any dialogue. It worked for an animated, so I was curious as to whether or not this movie would be similar and if it could pull it off as a non-animated movie. Obviously the script wouldn’t be a major part of this film, so it would have to be all story driven.
Ugh. This is the part I don’t really want to get into: the plot. I’m just saying I couldn’t get into it. I really think that the only reason I didn’t stop watching it was because I really wanted to know how it ends. But overall, I couldn’t buy into it. I’m happy this movie was only 80 minutes.
I did think that Clooney and Bullock were paired together very well. That was one thing that worked for me in the movie. Bullocks short hair aside, I thought both their looks, voices, everything else were very fitting for their characters. I had no problems with the actors and the characters they portrayed.
I was trying to think of a numerical value to give this movie that I felt comfortable with. Even when I picked a random number between 0-5, I couldn’t justify giving it any higher than a 1… and that’s only because I think that Bullock (and Clooney) did a good job.
October 7, 2013
Snitch
2013 - 0/5
For a movie that was based on true events, I'd say only 5%, if that, actually occurred in real life. I'm not saying I've done thorough research with regards to the exact events that took place, but it's obvious that it didn't play out like movie shows.
There wasn't much believability on any level, which in turn, took away the entertainment value. You can tell the director/writer had a really good premise to work with, and you knew it was one of those types of movies that were supposed to be very intense, but with how it was executed, it just didn't come across like that. Because you can see the potential that lies just beneath all the actual crap you're seeing, the movie just ends up dragging along and it was barley able to keep my attention.
None of the actors seemed to fit the role. I don't think Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson suited this character at all! I raised an eyebrow when he was getting beat up by a couple of thugs near the beginning of the movie. The guy is huge and he's casted as a regular joe? I'll admit, I like Susan Surandon, but lets be honest: she hasn't been in anything in a long while, and frankly, it shows! That character could have been played by a nobody and it wouldn't have made a single difference. All of the characters were boring, flat and I didn't care about any of them at all.
The only thing you take away from this movie, not that I didn't already know, is that the American 'War on Drugs' was just as pathetic in 1992 as it is now.
For a movie that was based on true events, I'd say only 5%, if that, actually occurred in real life. I'm not saying I've done thorough research with regards to the exact events that took place, but it's obvious that it didn't play out like movie shows.
There wasn't much believability on any level, which in turn, took away the entertainment value. You can tell the director/writer had a really good premise to work with, and you knew it was one of those types of movies that were supposed to be very intense, but with how it was executed, it just didn't come across like that. Because you can see the potential that lies just beneath all the actual crap you're seeing, the movie just ends up dragging along and it was barley able to keep my attention.
None of the actors seemed to fit the role. I don't think Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson suited this character at all! I raised an eyebrow when he was getting beat up by a couple of thugs near the beginning of the movie. The guy is huge and he's casted as a regular joe? I'll admit, I like Susan Surandon, but lets be honest: she hasn't been in anything in a long while, and frankly, it shows! That character could have been played by a nobody and it wouldn't have made a single difference. All of the characters were boring, flat and I didn't care about any of them at all.
The only thing you take away from this movie, not that I didn't already know, is that the American 'War on Drugs' was just as pathetic in 1992 as it is now.
September 9, 2013
September 7, 2013
Just Like A Woman
2012 - blah/5
I'm not going to write a review for this movie because I had no interest in watching it to begin with.
There is nothing about this movie that stands out amongst the VERY many that are like it.
I'm not going to write a review for this movie because I had no interest in watching it to begin with.
There is nothing about this movie that stands out amongst the VERY many that are like it.
August 26, 2013
30 Minutes Or Less
2011 - 0/5
I had NO idea that this movie was based on the following true event:
I had NO idea that this movie was based on the following true event:
At 2:28 pm on August 28, 2003, a middle-aged pizza deliveryman named Brian Wells walked into a PNC Bank in Erie, Pennsylvania. He had a short cane in his right hand and a strange bulge under the collar of his T-shirt. Wells, 46 and balding, passed the teller a note. “Gather employees with access codes to vault and work fast to fill bag with $250,000,” it said. “You have only 15 minutes.” Then he lifted his shirt to reveal a heavy, boxlike device dangling from his neck. According to the note, it was a bomb. The teller, who told Wells there was no way to get into the vault at that time, filled a bag with cash — $8,702 — and handed it over. Wells walked out, sucking on a Dum Dum lollipop he grabbed from the counter, hopped into his car, and drove off. He didn’t get far. Some 15 minutes later, state troopers spotted Wells standing outside his Geo Metro in a nearby parking lot, surrounded him, and tossed him to the pavement, cuffing his hands behind his back.
Wells told the troopers that while out on a delivery he had been accosted by a group of black men who chained the bomb around his neck at gunpoint and forced him to rob the bank. “It’s gonna go off!” he told them in desperation. “I’m not lying.” The officers called the bomb squad and took positions behind their cars, guns drawn. TV camera crews arrived and began filming. For 25 minutes Wells remained seated on the pavement, his legs curled beneath him.“Did you call my boss?” Wells asked a trooper at one point, apparently concerned that his employer would think he was shirking his duties. Suddenly, the device started to emit an accelerating beeping noise. Wells fidgeted. It looked like he was trying to scoot backward, to somehow escape the bomb strapped to his neck. Beep… Beep… Beep. Boom! The device detonated, blasting him violently onto his back and ripping a 5-inch gash in his chest. The pizza deliveryman took a few last gasps and died on the pavement. It was 3:18 pm. The bomb squad arrived three minutes later.
Wells told the troopers that while out on a delivery he had been accosted by a group of black men who chained the bomb around his neck at gunpoint and forced him to rob the bank. “It’s gonna go off!” he told them in desperation. “I’m not lying.” The officers called the bomb squad and took positions behind their cars, guns drawn. TV camera crews arrived and began filming. For 25 minutes Wells remained seated on the pavement, his legs curled beneath him.“Did you call my boss?” Wells asked a trooper at one point, apparently concerned that his employer would think he was shirking his duties. Suddenly, the device started to emit an accelerating beeping noise. Wells fidgeted. It looked like he was trying to scoot backward, to somehow escape the bomb strapped to his neck. Beep… Beep… Beep. Boom! The device detonated, blasting him violently onto his back and ripping a 5-inch gash in his chest. The pizza deliveryman took a few last gasps and died on the pavement. It was 3:18 pm. The bomb squad arrived three minutes later.
So, now that I know this, I can't un-know this. I've seen the video of this true story before, and I didn't exactly find it funny. Whatever decent rating I was going to give this movie went right out the window when I found out it was based on such a terrifying event. Zero.
August 21, 2013
Step Up Revolution
2012
5/5 - dancing + music
0/5 - plot, script, acting
This movie would have been a solid 5/5. Minus the talking. And minus the, what’s being called a ‘plot’.
I really liked the pace of the movie. It didn’t have much of a storyline, so things happened back to back to back, but I didn’t mind because that just meant more dancing and music. I can’t complain because I got what I wanted.
It could have done without all the ‘heartfelt moments’. I don’t understand why movies like this think they need a love story.
It was a good thing the guys were good looking, because they suck at acting.
5/5 - dancing + music
0/5 - plot, script, acting
This movie would have been a solid 5/5. Minus the talking. And minus the, what’s being called a ‘plot’.
I really liked the pace of the movie. It didn’t have much of a storyline, so things happened back to back to back, but I didn’t mind because that just meant more dancing and music. I can’t complain because I got what I wanted.
It could have done without all the ‘heartfelt moments’. I don’t understand why movies like this think they need a love story.
It was a good thing the guys were good looking, because they suck at acting.
August 19, 2013
The Baytown Outlaws
2013 - 2.4/5
Other than hearing about it from a coworker I knew nothing about this movie.
I went into this movie blind. I’m hesitant to write a full review because I don’t want to hint at anything. I will say that this movie reminded me of The Boondock Saints… but a ‘Southern’ version.
I had a good time with this movie, and it definitely wasn’t a party until the guns came out. And thankfully, they came out often!
The very first scene is an indicator of what’s to come, so if you decide to watch this movie and don’t like the very first scene, then maybe you should turn it off. If it peaks your curiousity, then keep watching!
If you go into this movie blind like it did, I think you’ll really enjoy it.
The actors definitely looked their part too. (I’ll add more about this later).
Other than hearing about it from a coworker I knew nothing about this movie.
I went into this movie blind. I’m hesitant to write a full review because I don’t want to hint at anything. I will say that this movie reminded me of The Boondock Saints… but a ‘Southern’ version.
I had a good time with this movie, and it definitely wasn’t a party until the guns came out. And thankfully, they came out often!
The very first scene is an indicator of what’s to come, so if you decide to watch this movie and don’t like the very first scene, then maybe you should turn it off. If it peaks your curiousity, then keep watching!
If you go into this movie blind like it did, I think you’ll really enjoy it.
The actors definitely looked their part too. (I’ll add more about this later).
July 30, 2013
R.I.P.D.
2013 - 0/5
When I first saw this trailer, it reminded me of Down to Earth; but an action version. It seemed like it would be a fun movie to watch, but I did think that the trailer gave too much away. I heard people saying that this movie is a rip-off of Men In Black. I have never seen MIB, so it’s not something I’d compare it to.
Ryan Reynolds (Nick) and Jeff Bridges (Roy) didn’t have any chemistry. They didn’t mesh together at all, so the comedy aspect was off. Reynolds isn’t that great of an actor, and it was really hard to understand Jeff Bridges voice most of the time. He sounded like a drunk slurring/mumbling his words. It happened throughout the entire movie and it annoyed me from beginning to end.
Acting aside, the storyline wasn’t that great either. It seemed as if they started filming it and creating the plot as they went along. They had a general idea of where it was going, but it just didn’t work. It was hard to believe that the RIPD was able to keep their business so hush-hush in the living world; so when Nick and Roy let that ‘deado’ run in the street, it was the first time that had happened? Ya right! I also didn’t think there needed to be a love story with Ryan and his wife. That didn’t fit in very well. It’s obvious why it’s there, but it didn’t work.
There isn’t much to say about the script other than it being as generic as they come. Like I said earlier, it was hard understanding Bridges anyways.
I can’t say that the next point I make is considered a saving grace, but the only thing I liked is Nicks ‘avatar’, the old Asian guy holding the banana (as the living see it). It made me laugh every time.
So if you don’t see this movie for the acting, the storyline or the dialogue, well… going to see it for the effects wouldn’t be a good call. There was nothing amazing about it. And why this movie was in 3D, I have no idea.
Skip it.
When I first saw this trailer, it reminded me of Down to Earth; but an action version. It seemed like it would be a fun movie to watch, but I did think that the trailer gave too much away. I heard people saying that this movie is a rip-off of Men In Black. I have never seen MIB, so it’s not something I’d compare it to.
Ryan Reynolds (Nick) and Jeff Bridges (Roy) didn’t have any chemistry. They didn’t mesh together at all, so the comedy aspect was off. Reynolds isn’t that great of an actor, and it was really hard to understand Jeff Bridges voice most of the time. He sounded like a drunk slurring/mumbling his words. It happened throughout the entire movie and it annoyed me from beginning to end.
Acting aside, the storyline wasn’t that great either. It seemed as if they started filming it and creating the plot as they went along. They had a general idea of where it was going, but it just didn’t work. It was hard to believe that the RIPD was able to keep their business so hush-hush in the living world; so when Nick and Roy let that ‘deado’ run in the street, it was the first time that had happened? Ya right! I also didn’t think there needed to be a love story with Ryan and his wife. That didn’t fit in very well. It’s obvious why it’s there, but it didn’t work.
There isn’t much to say about the script other than it being as generic as they come. Like I said earlier, it was hard understanding Bridges anyways.
I can’t say that the next point I make is considered a saving grace, but the only thing I liked is Nicks ‘avatar’, the old Asian guy holding the banana (as the living see it). It made me laugh every time.
So if you don’t see this movie for the acting, the storyline or the dialogue, well… going to see it for the effects wouldn’t be a good call. There was nothing amazing about it. And why this movie was in 3D, I have no idea.
Skip it.
July 29, 2013
Stash House
2012 - 0.2/5
This movie is Panic Room all over again. But with a young couple.
It was over acted. Neither of them were able to act upset/cry.
Its hard to believe that someone got shot, but is able to function as if he didn’t.
The criminals said and did the dumbest things; so it was hard to believe that they were any sort of threat.
It actually had some really good camera angles. I really liked the security cameras.
It was too dark, so at times it was hard to tell what was happening.
So you can talk to each other through the walls, but the neighbours can’t hear a big explosion… sure.
This movie is Panic Room all over again. But with a young couple.
It was over acted. Neither of them were able to act upset/cry.
Its hard to believe that someone got shot, but is able to function as if he didn’t.
The criminals said and did the dumbest things; so it was hard to believe that they were any sort of threat.
It actually had some really good camera angles. I really liked the security cameras.
It was too dark, so at times it was hard to tell what was happening.
So you can talk to each other through the walls, but the neighbours can’t hear a big explosion… sure.
There were a lot of conveniences with regards to items (the bike rack, the house warming gift, flash lights, ect).
The rain at the end was pathetic. It's one of the worst effects to use to add drama(?), especially if it's not done right.
I just can’t give this movie any more credit that I already did; 0.2 is generous.
This seemed like a movie made by films students in their first year. It was supposed to be cool, but it turned out to be a mess.
The rain at the end was pathetic. It's one of the worst effects to use to add drama(?), especially if it's not done right.
I just can’t give this movie any more credit that I already did; 0.2 is generous.
This seemed like a movie made by films students in their first year. It was supposed to be cool, but it turned out to be a mess.
July 27, 2013
Forever Strong
I honestly don't even want to bother writing a review for this movie. I think it's obvious why I watched it... I'm sure the pictures I selected give it away too ;) :P
July 16, 2013
Clueless
1995 – 4.9/5
An opportunity came up to see this in the outdoor theater at Stanley Park. Would I miss such an opportunity? As if!!!
This movie is a classic of its genre. Any teen movie made since 1995 took a page from movie in one way or another. Its been almost 20 years since this movie first came out, but this movie will never get old. Its something I can re-watch over and over again and still enjoy it. I love how it’s still relevant so many years later.
Alica Silverstone as Cher was perfect! She was very believable as the rich girl from Beverly Hill. Zero flaws in her acting. The character was so well rounded.
There was a perfect blend of other characters in this movie that worked very well with Cher; like Dionne, whose her “friend because [they] both know what it's like for people to be jealous of [them]” -Cher.
It’s great to see a young Paul Rudd and Brittany Murphy. They both did a great job!
The script was the absolute best part of this movie. Pretty much every line was very well thought out. So clever and witty. Each character had their moments. Definitely a script that can still be quoted.
The plot was simple, the script was the best, and the acting was solid. What more could you want from a movie in the teen genre! Like my 1993 Acura Integra, this is a movie that’s able to hold is value after so many years. I would say this movie a guilty pleasure, but screw that! No guilt at all!
This movie kind of makes me want to read Jane Austen’s, Emma. I’m curious as to how contemporary the movie is compared to the book.
Some of my favourite lines:
Dionne: Hello? There was a stop sign!
Cher: I totally paused.
Mel: Which reminds me, where's your report card?
Cher: It's not ready yet.
Mel: What do you mean, "it's not ready yet?"
Cher: Well, some teachers are trying to low-ball me, Daddy. And I know how you say, "Never accept a first offer", so I figure these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations.
Mel: Do you know what time it is?
Cher: A watch doesn’t really go with outfit, daddy.
Cher: Do you prefer "fashion victim" or "ensembly challenged"?
Josh: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Cher: No. Why, does it sound like I do?
Tai: Why should I listen to you, anyway? You're a virgin who can't drive.
An opportunity came up to see this in the outdoor theater at Stanley Park. Would I miss such an opportunity? As if!!!
This movie is a classic of its genre. Any teen movie made since 1995 took a page from movie in one way or another. Its been almost 20 years since this movie first came out, but this movie will never get old. Its something I can re-watch over and over again and still enjoy it. I love how it’s still relevant so many years later.
Alica Silverstone as Cher was perfect! She was very believable as the rich girl from Beverly Hill. Zero flaws in her acting. The character was so well rounded.
There was a perfect blend of other characters in this movie that worked very well with Cher; like Dionne, whose her “friend because [they] both know what it's like for people to be jealous of [them]” -Cher.
It’s great to see a young Paul Rudd and Brittany Murphy. They both did a great job!
The script was the absolute best part of this movie. Pretty much every line was very well thought out. So clever and witty. Each character had their moments. Definitely a script that can still be quoted.
The plot was simple, the script was the best, and the acting was solid. What more could you want from a movie in the teen genre! Like my 1993 Acura Integra, this is a movie that’s able to hold is value after so many years. I would say this movie a guilty pleasure, but screw that! No guilt at all!
This movie kind of makes me want to read Jane Austen’s, Emma. I’m curious as to how contemporary the movie is compared to the book.
Some of my favourite lines:
Dionne: Hello? There was a stop sign!
Cher: I totally paused.
Mel: Which reminds me, where's your report card?
Cher: It's not ready yet.
Mel: What do you mean, "it's not ready yet?"
Cher: Well, some teachers are trying to low-ball me, Daddy. And I know how you say, "Never accept a first offer", so I figure these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations.
Mel: Do you know what time it is?
Cher: A watch doesn’t really go with outfit, daddy.
Cher: Do you prefer "fashion victim" or "ensembly challenged"?
Josh: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Cher: No. Why, does it sound like I do?
Tai: Why should I listen to you, anyway? You're a virgin who can't drive.
July 14, 2013
Pitch Perfect
2012 – 2/5
1 point for Rebel Wilson
1 point for me apparently liking A Capella!
If you watch this movie for one thing and one thing only, make it Rebel Wilson! That girl steals EVERY scene she is in. She makes this movie. And I don’t mean her character, I mean her. Who knows how badly this movie would have tanked if she wasn’t in it. She has perfect comedic timing and pretty much every line that came out of her mouth was golden!
For example (possible spoilers):
(re: “Fat Amy”) Ya, so twig bitches like you don’t say it behind my back.
I’m doing horizontal running.
I’m vertical running. I’m vertical running!
I got hit by flying Mexican food.
1 point for Rebel Wilson
1 point for me apparently liking A Capella!
If you watch this movie for one thing and one thing only, make it Rebel Wilson! That girl steals EVERY scene she is in. She makes this movie. And I don’t mean her character, I mean her. Who knows how badly this movie would have tanked if she wasn’t in it. She has perfect comedic timing and pretty much every line that came out of her mouth was golden!
For example (possible spoilers):
(re: “Fat Amy”) Ya, so twig bitches like you don’t say it behind my back.
I’m doing horizontal running.
I’m vertical running. I’m vertical running!
I got hit by flying Mexican food.
Whoop there it is.
Excuse me bitch, you don’t need to shout.
Rebel Wilson aside, I think I’ve made it clear as to what other aspect (yes, singular) of this movie I enjoyed… A Capella! For those of you who think this movie is like Glee, I will beg to differ (although I don’t watch Glee, but from what I understand it’s a musical). This movie is NOT a musical. The characters do not randomly break out in song in order to explain something. This is a movie about a group of girls who enter A Capella competitions. That is all.
Yes, I did give this movie a 2/5 strictly based on the A Capella and Rebel Wilson, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the movie was complete trash. There were some good actors (Brittany Snow and Skylar Astin), and there were some not-so-good actors (Anna Kendrick and Adam DeVine).
Because I loved the A Capella and Rebel Wilson, I will gladly say that I’ll watch the second one coming out in 2015.
Excuse me bitch, you don’t need to shout.
Rebel Wilson aside, I think I’ve made it clear as to what other aspect (yes, singular) of this movie I enjoyed… A Capella! For those of you who think this movie is like Glee, I will beg to differ (although I don’t watch Glee, but from what I understand it’s a musical). This movie is NOT a musical. The characters do not randomly break out in song in order to explain something. This is a movie about a group of girls who enter A Capella competitions. That is all.
Yes, I did give this movie a 2/5 strictly based on the A Capella and Rebel Wilson, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the movie was complete trash. There were some good actors (Brittany Snow and Skylar Astin), and there were some not-so-good actors (Anna Kendrick and Adam DeVine).
Because I loved the A Capella and Rebel Wilson, I will gladly say that I’ll watch the second one coming out in 2015.
July 13, 2013
Horrible Bosses
2011 - 1/5
Although I pretty much only heard good things from everyone that had seen this movie, I was hesitant to see it. This movie was better than I expected it to be, but it wasn’t hilarious or anything. It had its moments, but that’s about it.
It had a unique/unusual storyline, and it seemed somewhat obvious that a lot of thought went into how things should play out, but the execution was shaky. The plot itself is ridiculous, but if you’ve ever had a horrible boss yourself, and for the sake of being entertained, you might actually like this. The comedy in this movie is very hit and miss.
I like how each character does a voice over at the beginning. Because I’m unsure about how a continued voice over would fit into the rest of the movie, I can’t say that that would make it better. There really wasn’t much else to voice over though.
I liked all the actors but not all the characters:
-I will always see Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green (Friends), but this movie definitely gave that notion a run for its money.
-Kevin Spacey and Colin Ferrel were really good too!
-Jason Bateman was his usual self.
-The other 2 guys suited their characters as well.
-Didn’t know that Jamie Foxx had a part; his parts weren’t that funny.
Would I recommend it to others? Ya, it’s worth watching.
Would I watch it again? No.
Although I pretty much only heard good things from everyone that had seen this movie, I was hesitant to see it. This movie was better than I expected it to be, but it wasn’t hilarious or anything. It had its moments, but that’s about it.
It had a unique/unusual storyline, and it seemed somewhat obvious that a lot of thought went into how things should play out, but the execution was shaky. The plot itself is ridiculous, but if you’ve ever had a horrible boss yourself, and for the sake of being entertained, you might actually like this. The comedy in this movie is very hit and miss.
I like how each character does a voice over at the beginning. Because I’m unsure about how a continued voice over would fit into the rest of the movie, I can’t say that that would make it better. There really wasn’t much else to voice over though.
I liked all the actors but not all the characters:
-I will always see Jennifer Aniston as Rachel Green (Friends), but this movie definitely gave that notion a run for its money.
-Kevin Spacey and Colin Ferrel were really good too!
-Jason Bateman was his usual self.
-The other 2 guys suited their characters as well.
-Didn’t know that Jamie Foxx had a part; his parts weren’t that funny.
Would I recommend it to others? Ya, it’s worth watching.
Would I watch it again? No.
July 11, 2013
Monsters University
2013 - ?/5
Where to start… with the good things I guess.
There are 3 certainties in life: death, taxes, and amazing animation in a Pixar movie. If you can count on one thing always being great with regards to a Pixar movie, its animation. Hands down, their animation has always been flawless. This cannot be argued.
So what else did I like about this movie? Well, the young version of Mike Wazowski (not voiced by Billy Crystal) was adorable! I still think that voice over actors did a great job and each voice suited the character.
Never thought the ‘bad’ would ever outweigh the ‘good’ in a Pixar movie, but here goes.
Monsters Inc. is one of my favourite Pixar movies, so when I heard a prequel is coming out, I knew I was going to see it, but I also knew it was a prequel. I’ll be honest. Pixar sequels (Toy Story aside; although the second one fell short) haven’t been that great. None have ever been as good as the first; which is the case for the majority of movies, animated or not.
It is an animated movie, but that doesn’t mean adults shouldn’t be able to enjoy it either. Pretty much all other Pixar movies has proved that. It seems as if this movie was targeted more so towards a very young audience, but oddly enough, its more so targeted towards university/college students (the ones that were young when Monsters Inc. came out). Typically Pixar movies have certain jokes/situations that are found funny by kids and adults. Pixar has always been able to keep a fine balance between entertaining kid and adult, so everyone leaves the theater happy.
When it comes to Monsters University, for adults, it brought nothing to the table. It was as if somebody had a checklist of things that needed to be included, and the director/creators of this movie went down the list and checked everything off. But what you ended up with, and it kills me to say this, is a movie that flat-lined from the beginning to end.
I didn’t laugh, not even a chuckle at any point – and that’s sad because this is a Pixar movie. There was no (what I’m going to call) “Pixar Magic” put into the making of this movie. It seemed as if people decided that there should be another Monsters movie, so they took the first idea that was thrown onto the table.
It lacked any originality and dragged most of the time. The University/College movie has been done many times before. This leads me into my next gripe: I don’t know anything about the American University/College system. Yes, I know what Fraternities and Sororities are, but other than their existence, nothing. So that's pretty much excluding everyone that knows nothing about the American system.
I can’t say that I liked it, but I didn’t hate it either; it just was. So my rating is in limbo. You’re pretty much just going to be starting at a screen blankly for 1.5 hours.
Where to start… with the good things I guess.
There are 3 certainties in life: death, taxes, and amazing animation in a Pixar movie. If you can count on one thing always being great with regards to a Pixar movie, its animation. Hands down, their animation has always been flawless. This cannot be argued.
So what else did I like about this movie? Well, the young version of Mike Wazowski (not voiced by Billy Crystal) was adorable! I still think that voice over actors did a great job and each voice suited the character.
Never thought the ‘bad’ would ever outweigh the ‘good’ in a Pixar movie, but here goes.
Monsters Inc. is one of my favourite Pixar movies, so when I heard a prequel is coming out, I knew I was going to see it, but I also knew it was a prequel. I’ll be honest. Pixar sequels (Toy Story aside; although the second one fell short) haven’t been that great. None have ever been as good as the first; which is the case for the majority of movies, animated or not.
It is an animated movie, but that doesn’t mean adults shouldn’t be able to enjoy it either. Pretty much all other Pixar movies has proved that. It seems as if this movie was targeted more so towards a very young audience, but oddly enough, its more so targeted towards university/college students (the ones that were young when Monsters Inc. came out). Typically Pixar movies have certain jokes/situations that are found funny by kids and adults. Pixar has always been able to keep a fine balance between entertaining kid and adult, so everyone leaves the theater happy.
When it comes to Monsters University, for adults, it brought nothing to the table. It was as if somebody had a checklist of things that needed to be included, and the director/creators of this movie went down the list and checked everything off. But what you ended up with, and it kills me to say this, is a movie that flat-lined from the beginning to end.
I didn’t laugh, not even a chuckle at any point – and that’s sad because this is a Pixar movie. There was no (what I’m going to call) “Pixar Magic” put into the making of this movie. It seemed as if people decided that there should be another Monsters movie, so they took the first idea that was thrown onto the table.
It lacked any originality and dragged most of the time. The University/College movie has been done many times before. This leads me into my next gripe: I don’t know anything about the American University/College system. Yes, I know what Fraternities and Sororities are, but other than their existence, nothing. So that's pretty much excluding everyone that knows nothing about the American system.
I can’t say that I liked it, but I didn’t hate it either; it just was. So my rating is in limbo. You’re pretty much just going to be starting at a screen blankly for 1.5 hours.
July 4, 2013
July 1, 2013
The Heat
2013 – 2.8/5
The plot has been done many times before, but the script is what keeps your attention – also the acting.
The easiest way to explain the script would be the following equation:
Miss Congeniality + Rush Hour = The Heat
My point being, that buddy-cop movies have been around for a while and the 2 cops put together are always on different ends of the spectrum. Same goes with uptight cops being paired with offbeat cops.
This is a funny movie… while you’re watching it. It had a lot of good one-liners, but none of them were memorable. Myself, my friend and the rest of the theater were laughing out loud quite often. But the moment I stepped out of the theater, I could barely remember any of the one-liners.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock make a great duo. This was obvious from the trailers. The characters balance each other out, and eventually they [somewhat] meet in the middle. The actors have great comedic chemistry.
To sum it up, it wasn’t original, but it was entertaining through the script and the acting was really good.
Although I’ve pretty much wrote down everything I wanted to say in my review, I’m not ready to post it yet, but I will anyways. I’ll add to it later if need be.
The plot has been done many times before, but the script is what keeps your attention – also the acting.
The easiest way to explain the script would be the following equation:
Miss Congeniality + Rush Hour = The Heat
My point being, that buddy-cop movies have been around for a while and the 2 cops put together are always on different ends of the spectrum. Same goes with uptight cops being paired with offbeat cops.
This is a funny movie… while you’re watching it. It had a lot of good one-liners, but none of them were memorable. Myself, my friend and the rest of the theater were laughing out loud quite often. But the moment I stepped out of the theater, I could barely remember any of the one-liners.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock make a great duo. This was obvious from the trailers. The characters balance each other out, and eventually they [somewhat] meet in the middle. The actors have great comedic chemistry.
To sum it up, it wasn’t original, but it was entertaining through the script and the acting was really good.
Although I’ve pretty much wrote down everything I wanted to say in my review, I’m not ready to post it yet, but I will anyways. I’ll add to it later if need be.
June 18, 2013
Just Go With It
2011 - 0/5
I will be going to Hawaii soon and I was in the mood to watch a movie that was filmed in Hawaii. My choices were Just Go With It or 50 First Dates. I picked the latter. So why am I writing the review for Just Go With It? Well, because apparently, I no longer own 50 First Dates.
There were so many random things that were added in that didn’t need to be there:
-the boy pretending to ‘smoke’ with his straw.
-the kid throwing a drink at his mom.
-and most importantly, Palmer wanting to meet ‘Devlin’.
This movie was a train wreck after train wreck! I will admit that I got 2 chuckles throughout the entire movie; but were they memorable? no. I found myself straying away several times because it was boring and cheesy. The only reason I kept it on was to see the Hawaiian background.
I will be going to Hawaii soon and I was in the mood to watch a movie that was filmed in Hawaii. My choices were Just Go With It or 50 First Dates. I picked the latter. So why am I writing the review for Just Go With It? Well, because apparently, I no longer own 50 First Dates.
There were so many random things that were added in that didn’t need to be there:
-the boy pretending to ‘smoke’ with his straw.
-the kid throwing a drink at his mom.
-and most importantly, Palmer wanting to meet ‘Devlin’.
This movie was a train wreck after train wreck! I will admit that I got 2 chuckles throughout the entire movie; but were they memorable? no. I found myself straying away several times because it was boring and cheesy. The only reason I kept it on was to see the Hawaiian background.
June 7, 2013
The Last Stand
2013 – 2.8/5
First impressions: Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is all.
Actually, for the sake of this review being longer, I’ll explain myself. I grew up when Arnold was at his peak (…if you can call it that) with T2, Jingle All the Way and Kindergarten Cop. From the first time I saw the trailer for this movie, I knew I had to see it in order to satisfy the ‘cheesy nostalgia’ void that was all of a sudden created.
Obviously this wasn’t a movie I was going to see in theaters, so yes, I did watch this movie a couple months after its release date. It was always on the list though, so I knew I’d watch it one day. Today was that day, and here’s why:
My movie-mood: mindless, comedy, action.
The movies tagline: Not in his town. Not on his watch.
Outcome: check, check, and check.
Was it good? Surprisingly yes! I was so ready to tear this movie apart, but I thoroughly enjoyed it! I have no problems saying that I was highly entertained. Does that make it a good movie? Well, no; it had its flaws. But for what I wanted and expected, it delivered. With regards to my movie-mood, I was 3 for 3. What more could I ask for!
I got a movie with a decent plot, and a big enough budget to pull it off. I can’t explain why I needed to mention the budget part, but something about the movie made it noticeable that the plot was held together because of the budget. Sorry if that doesn’t make sense, but there’s something there I can’t quite put my finger on, let alone explain.
When it comes to the acting, Arnold was as good as I remember (keeping in mind I was 10ish-years-old when I saw the previously mentioned movies). The only other person I knew was Johnny Knoxville, and I can’t say I get why his name is on the poster. There were other actors that had more screen time and had bigger roles in the movie. Speaking of which, I think Jaimie Alexander (as Sarah), Zach Gilford (as Jerry) and Luis Guzman (as Mike) all did a really good job with their roles. I thought there was a good blend of characters that made up the police force. The actors complimented one another, so that was a nice bonus. I didn’t know Forest Whitaker was in this movie, but he fit in very well as a FBI agent.
I’m not going to say that the script dragged this movie down, because it didn’t. The script for this movie pretty much existed because it would be awkward to have everyone on screen without dialogue. With that being said, I will admit this movie did have a few good one-liners that I liked*. Was the screenplay the highlight of this movie? Absolutely not. Did it work? Ya.
Overall, I got exactly what I wanted from it. Decent plot, good acting, okay script and nice camera angles. It is a movie you can have fun with. It even pokes fun at itself too! If you’re in the mood for a popcorn flick like I was, I think you’d enjoy it just as much. Definitely a throwback to Arnold's old movies.
*Some of the lines I liked (***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***)
Irv: How are you Sheriff?
Sheriff Owens: Old.
Sheriff Owens: You make us immigrants look bad.
Cortez: You fucked up my car.
Sheriff Owens: You fucked up my day off.
First impressions: Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is all.
Actually, for the sake of this review being longer, I’ll explain myself. I grew up when Arnold was at his peak (…if you can call it that) with T2, Jingle All the Way and Kindergarten Cop. From the first time I saw the trailer for this movie, I knew I had to see it in order to satisfy the ‘cheesy nostalgia’ void that was all of a sudden created.
Obviously this wasn’t a movie I was going to see in theaters, so yes, I did watch this movie a couple months after its release date. It was always on the list though, so I knew I’d watch it one day. Today was that day, and here’s why:
My movie-mood: mindless, comedy, action.
The movies tagline: Not in his town. Not on his watch.
Outcome: check, check, and check.
Was it good? Surprisingly yes! I was so ready to tear this movie apart, but I thoroughly enjoyed it! I have no problems saying that I was highly entertained. Does that make it a good movie? Well, no; it had its flaws. But for what I wanted and expected, it delivered. With regards to my movie-mood, I was 3 for 3. What more could I ask for!
I got a movie with a decent plot, and a big enough budget to pull it off. I can’t explain why I needed to mention the budget part, but something about the movie made it noticeable that the plot was held together because of the budget. Sorry if that doesn’t make sense, but there’s something there I can’t quite put my finger on, let alone explain.
When it comes to the acting, Arnold was as good as I remember (keeping in mind I was 10ish-years-old when I saw the previously mentioned movies). The only other person I knew was Johnny Knoxville, and I can’t say I get why his name is on the poster. There were other actors that had more screen time and had bigger roles in the movie. Speaking of which, I think Jaimie Alexander (as Sarah), Zach Gilford (as Jerry) and Luis Guzman (as Mike) all did a really good job with their roles. I thought there was a good blend of characters that made up the police force. The actors complimented one another, so that was a nice bonus. I didn’t know Forest Whitaker was in this movie, but he fit in very well as a FBI agent.
I’m not going to say that the script dragged this movie down, because it didn’t. The script for this movie pretty much existed because it would be awkward to have everyone on screen without dialogue. With that being said, I will admit this movie did have a few good one-liners that I liked*. Was the screenplay the highlight of this movie? Absolutely not. Did it work? Ya.
Overall, I got exactly what I wanted from it. Decent plot, good acting, okay script and nice camera angles. It is a movie you can have fun with. It even pokes fun at itself too! If you’re in the mood for a popcorn flick like I was, I think you’d enjoy it just as much. Definitely a throwback to Arnold's old movies.
*Some of the lines I liked (***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***)
Irv: How are you Sheriff?
Sheriff Owens: Old.
Sheriff Owens: You make us immigrants look bad.
Cortez: You fucked up my car.
Sheriff Owens: You fucked up my day off.
June 2, 2013
Stand Up Guys
2013 - 0.2/5
This was a movie I had never heard about until I saw it in the list of movies Christopher Walken has been in. A combination of my Christopher Walken Bias and seeing that Alan Arkin is in it too, made it so that this movie got onto my to-see list. I’m pretty sure it was in theatres for a short while, and that’s probably because it had Walken, Arkin and Al Pacino. I’m indifferent to Pacino; I’ve never been a huge fan, but I know the guy has talent.
This movie was pretty dry and dull. There wasn’t much to it. Doc picks up his best friend Val, from prison after having served 28 years. This movie is about what they do on Val’s first day/night out as a paroled man. Doc and Val pay a visit to their other best friend, Hirsch (Arkin). Arkin wasn't in the movie as much as I would have liked, but the movie does have a decent amount of screen time with the 3 of them enjoying their night together. The twist is (no spoilers because it’s in the synopsis… and I wouldn’t recommend watching this movie, so it really doesn’t matter) that Doc is supposed to kill Val by 10am the next day.
The screenplay wasn’t great, but this was my favourite line:
Val: They say we die twice. Once when the breath leaves our body, and once when the last person we know says our name.
The movie itself was about as entertaining as an old mans life. How you want to interrupt that with regards to this movie is up to you.
This was a movie I had never heard about until I saw it in the list of movies Christopher Walken has been in. A combination of my Christopher Walken Bias and seeing that Alan Arkin is in it too, made it so that this movie got onto my to-see list. I’m pretty sure it was in theatres for a short while, and that’s probably because it had Walken, Arkin and Al Pacino. I’m indifferent to Pacino; I’ve never been a huge fan, but I know the guy has talent.
This movie was pretty dry and dull. There wasn’t much to it. Doc picks up his best friend Val, from prison after having served 28 years. This movie is about what they do on Val’s first day/night out as a paroled man. Doc and Val pay a visit to their other best friend, Hirsch (Arkin). Arkin wasn't in the movie as much as I would have liked, but the movie does have a decent amount of screen time with the 3 of them enjoying their night together. The twist is (no spoilers because it’s in the synopsis… and I wouldn’t recommend watching this movie, so it really doesn’t matter) that Doc is supposed to kill Val by 10am the next day.
The screenplay wasn’t great, but this was my favourite line:
Val: They say we die twice. Once when the breath leaves our body, and once when the last person we know says our name.
The movie itself was about as entertaining as an old mans life. How you want to interrupt that with regards to this movie is up to you.
May 28, 2013
The Hangover III
2013 - 3/5
Being the third and final movie in the Hangover trilogy, I knew I’d watch it in theatres. The first Hangover was very original and funny. The second was pretty much the exact same thing, except it was set in Thailand rather than Las Vegas, but not as funny. Considering the second movie was pretty much a re-hash of the first, I didn’t really know what to expect with Part 3. I knew it had to be different, but even after having seen the trailer, I didn’t really get what the plot was.
For those of you who haven’t figured it out, the plot isn’t similar to its predecessors. Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure there was no drinking at all. Part 3 is based around the Wolfpack (Phil, Stu and Alan) searching for Mr. Chow. They are doing this because their friend Doug has been kidnapped by Marshall (John Goodman) and his hooligans. Marshall is doing this because he is after Chow and he believes the Wolfpack are the only people that can bring Chow to him.
I actually enjoyed the storyline. I didn’t mind that it had nothing to do with the Wolfpack getting drunk or roofied and blacking out, and having to retrace their steps to figure out what happened the night before. The plot was simple, it made sense and it flowed very well. It was never choppy. I also really enjoyed that this movie incorporated some things from the previous 2. I liked these throwbacks, and it reminded the viewer of certain details/parts that they may have forgotten about.
I have no problems saying that I got several genuine laughs throughout this movie. The comedy was very situationally based, and not forced at all. It’s very obvious when a movie adds a certain scene/situation into a movie just for the sake of adding that one laugh, but it never works because it just didn’t fit right; when it comes to this movie, that didn’t happen at all. Again, everything flowed very well. The script was consistent and every character had great dialogue.
Alan (Zach Galifianakis) stole the show. He was the star – he is the reason why you should see this movie. The guy was hilarious in every scene. Solid performance. I know a lot of people are saying that Alan has gone from being the lovable idiot to being a jerk, but I still see him as a lovable idiot. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms were good too. These 3 guys make a great trio. They’re individual character traits blend together very well.
I was so happy to see Melissa McCarthy and John Goodman in the trailer for this movie. Goodman has been one of my favourite actors within the last 2 years, and to see him as a mob boss in a comedy movie was great! There is nobody, and I mean NOBODY, better than McCarthy that could have been picked to pair up with Alan. It was as if these 2 were meant to be on screen together.
Overall, if you've seen the other 2 movies, you should definitely watch this one. It's better than the second, but not as good as the first (and I say this because the first was the original, so that merits a higher ranking).
***SPOILER ALERT***
When McCarthy was first introduced, I knew she’d get married to Alan. I have a feeling that that wedding night will result in a Hangover 4 (or at least a 3.5), even though this one is supposed to be the last. Also, Doug wasn’t in the hotel room.
Being the third and final movie in the Hangover trilogy, I knew I’d watch it in theatres. The first Hangover was very original and funny. The second was pretty much the exact same thing, except it was set in Thailand rather than Las Vegas, but not as funny. Considering the second movie was pretty much a re-hash of the first, I didn’t really know what to expect with Part 3. I knew it had to be different, but even after having seen the trailer, I didn’t really get what the plot was.
For those of you who haven’t figured it out, the plot isn’t similar to its predecessors. Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure there was no drinking at all. Part 3 is based around the Wolfpack (Phil, Stu and Alan) searching for Mr. Chow. They are doing this because their friend Doug has been kidnapped by Marshall (John Goodman) and his hooligans. Marshall is doing this because he is after Chow and he believes the Wolfpack are the only people that can bring Chow to him.
I actually enjoyed the storyline. I didn’t mind that it had nothing to do with the Wolfpack getting drunk or roofied and blacking out, and having to retrace their steps to figure out what happened the night before. The plot was simple, it made sense and it flowed very well. It was never choppy. I also really enjoyed that this movie incorporated some things from the previous 2. I liked these throwbacks, and it reminded the viewer of certain details/parts that they may have forgotten about.
I have no problems saying that I got several genuine laughs throughout this movie. The comedy was very situationally based, and not forced at all. It’s very obvious when a movie adds a certain scene/situation into a movie just for the sake of adding that one laugh, but it never works because it just didn’t fit right; when it comes to this movie, that didn’t happen at all. Again, everything flowed very well. The script was consistent and every character had great dialogue.
Alan (Zach Galifianakis) stole the show. He was the star – he is the reason why you should see this movie. The guy was hilarious in every scene. Solid performance. I know a lot of people are saying that Alan has gone from being the lovable idiot to being a jerk, but I still see him as a lovable idiot. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms were good too. These 3 guys make a great trio. They’re individual character traits blend together very well.
I was so happy to see Melissa McCarthy and John Goodman in the trailer for this movie. Goodman has been one of my favourite actors within the last 2 years, and to see him as a mob boss in a comedy movie was great! There is nobody, and I mean NOBODY, better than McCarthy that could have been picked to pair up with Alan. It was as if these 2 were meant to be on screen together.
Overall, if you've seen the other 2 movies, you should definitely watch this one. It's better than the second, but not as good as the first (and I say this because the first was the original, so that merits a higher ranking).
***SPOILER ALERT***
When McCarthy was first introduced, I knew she’d get married to Alan. I have a feeling that that wedding night will result in a Hangover 4 (or at least a 3.5), even though this one is supposed to be the last. Also, Doug wasn’t in the hotel room.
May 26, 2013
Fast & Furious 6
2013 - 3.1/5
I’d by lying if I said that I wasn’t going into this one without any expectations – after all, there were 5 movies before it. This movie started off strong and I was really into it. I like the direction it took with regards to how Fast Five ended, and pretty much why a 6th installment was created. After the 5th one, I was curious to see what exactly would happen in the 6th.
I’ve decided to add my thoughts on the movie on its own, and the movie as apart of the franchise.
As a franchise:
When it comes to the Fast & Furious franchise, I’ve liked the 1st, 4th and 5th ones. Number 2 and 3 were write-offs for me. Since 2001, when the first one came out, I think these movies have come a long way, and this franchise has gotten better and better (aside from 2 and 3). They’ve upped the ante every time, yet they’ve managed to stay pretty close to the original story.
For the movie itself:
I thought the plot was okay, and I was able to roll with it. As a movie goer, I am willing to suspend belief for the sake of entertainment value. I was very entertained throughout this entire movie, however, there were some points in which it pushed my movie-believability limit. I can’t say it ruined it for me because it was entertaining.
I liked the pace, but a few of the racing parts happened a bit too fast on screen, so at times it took a couple seconds for my eyes to catch up.
I found that this movie was more cheesy than the 4th and 5th movies, but pretty much on par with the 1st. The script isn’t any better than the other movies in the franchise, however, the banter between Tej (Ludacris) and Roman (Tyrese) was so well done. These 2 work so well together and they added a lot of great comedic relief.
I did like Paul Walker - still hot; Vin Diesel suited his role - my friend pointed out that his height was very inconsistent throughout the entire movie (I didn't notice); Dwanye Johnson was great as Hobbs - I still think he was a great addition to this franchise; Jordana Brewster is still useless as always; Sung Kang did an fine job as Han; Luke Evans did a good job as Shaw; Gina Carano was terrible as Riley - I hated her facial expressions and her crappy acting.
This movie is not without its flaws (which I've decided not to get into), but I did like it and I would recommend it to others.
I’d by lying if I said that I wasn’t going into this one without any expectations – after all, there were 5 movies before it. This movie started off strong and I was really into it. I like the direction it took with regards to how Fast Five ended, and pretty much why a 6th installment was created. After the 5th one, I was curious to see what exactly would happen in the 6th.
I’ve decided to add my thoughts on the movie on its own, and the movie as apart of the franchise.
As a franchise:
When it comes to the Fast & Furious franchise, I’ve liked the 1st, 4th and 5th ones. Number 2 and 3 were write-offs for me. Since 2001, when the first one came out, I think these movies have come a long way, and this franchise has gotten better and better (aside from 2 and 3). They’ve upped the ante every time, yet they’ve managed to stay pretty close to the original story.
For the movie itself:
I thought the plot was okay, and I was able to roll with it. As a movie goer, I am willing to suspend belief for the sake of entertainment value. I was very entertained throughout this entire movie, however, there were some points in which it pushed my movie-believability limit. I can’t say it ruined it for me because it was entertaining.
I liked the pace, but a few of the racing parts happened a bit too fast on screen, so at times it took a couple seconds for my eyes to catch up.
I found that this movie was more cheesy than the 4th and 5th movies, but pretty much on par with the 1st. The script isn’t any better than the other movies in the franchise, however, the banter between Tej (Ludacris) and Roman (Tyrese) was so well done. These 2 work so well together and they added a lot of great comedic relief.
I did like Paul Walker - still hot; Vin Diesel suited his role - my friend pointed out that his height was very inconsistent throughout the entire movie (I didn't notice); Dwanye Johnson was great as Hobbs - I still think he was a great addition to this franchise; Jordana Brewster is still useless as always; Sung Kang did an fine job as Han; Luke Evans did a good job as Shaw; Gina Carano was terrible as Riley - I hated her facial expressions and her crappy acting.
This movie is not without its flaws (which I've decided not to get into), but I did like it and I would recommend it to others.
May 17, 2013
Hit & Run
2012 - 0/5
This is one of those types of movies, in which someone, probably Dax Shepard, decided that he wanted to be some sort of race car driver*. This movie sole purpose was so that he can drive around in really fast cars. A plot was created to make this movie, and here we are.
(*= IMDB - trivia section: Shepard did his own stunt driving).
-It was hard to follow where they were; and although there was a time-deadline, it really didn't add anything to this movie.
-Even with the expensive cars, the movie felt on the low-budget side.
-The characters weren't too bad, but it was obvious that some were created specifically for that scene (even if it didn't really have a solid purpose).
-Some parts of the script went a bit overboard; I don't necessarily mean subject matter, but more so that the conversation just kept going.
-The choice of music didn't fit most of the scenes it was paired with.
-My friend mentioned that the title of the movie had nothing to do with the content.
-I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing really did.
-A lot of moments didn't add up to anything.
-It is listed as a comedy, and the trailer shows that, and Shepard added a lot of dry slapstick humor, but it didn't come across the way he intended.
-An extremely forgettable movie / little to no entertainment value.
-Would not recommend - has zero redeeming qualities (and I include the nice cars in that category).
I really didn't want to give this movie a zero, but I didn't like anything about it.
***SPOILER ALERT***
-Pretty much any car 'chase' scene was so choreographed. It felt as if they were going through an obvious course like you'd see on TV car commercials.
This is one of those types of movies, in which someone, probably Dax Shepard, decided that he wanted to be some sort of race car driver*. This movie sole purpose was so that he can drive around in really fast cars. A plot was created to make this movie, and here we are.
(*= IMDB - trivia section: Shepard did his own stunt driving).
-It was hard to follow where they were; and although there was a time-deadline, it really didn't add anything to this movie.
-Even with the expensive cars, the movie felt on the low-budget side.
-The characters weren't too bad, but it was obvious that some were created specifically for that scene (even if it didn't really have a solid purpose).
-Some parts of the script went a bit overboard; I don't necessarily mean subject matter, but more so that the conversation just kept going.
-The choice of music didn't fit most of the scenes it was paired with.
-My friend mentioned that the title of the movie had nothing to do with the content.
-I kept waiting for something to happen, and nothing really did.
-A lot of moments didn't add up to anything.
-It is listed as a comedy, and the trailer shows that, and Shepard added a lot of dry slapstick humor, but it didn't come across the way he intended.
-An extremely forgettable movie / little to no entertainment value.
-Would not recommend - has zero redeeming qualities (and I include the nice cars in that category).
I really didn't want to give this movie a zero, but I didn't like anything about it.
***SPOILER ALERT***
-Pretty much any car 'chase' scene was so choreographed. It felt as if they were going through an obvious course like you'd see on TV car commercials.
May 13, 2013
The Great Gatsby
2013 - 0/5
I did not see this movie in 3D. I didn't see a point in doing so.
First and foremost, I will state outright that I wasn’t much of a fan of the book. With that having being said, I will admit that I was expecting to walk out of this movie not liking it. The reason as to why that didn’t happen has to do with the movies concept of “being within, and without”. That, and that alone made it so I walked out the movie, not knowing 100% what I think, until I let it soak in. That’s not to say I didn’t have my issues with bits and pieces of the movie, but nevertheless, when a movie makes you think after the fact, I can’t make any quick decisions with regards to a rating.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I typically know the general rating I will give a movie within the first 20 minutes. Within the first 20 minutes of this movie, I didn’t really like it. By the end of the movie, I still hadn’t figured out what numbered rating I’d give it (out of 5). It's a movie that I feel that I should be giving a higher rating, but it doesn't deserve it.
The first half (or possibly the first two-thirds) of the movie was very eccentric and highly stylized. Everything from the music, the scenery/setting/props, to the extremely over-acting was too much for my liking. Some of the visuals were good, but everything put together, not so much. I am familiar with Baz Lahrumann’s work, so I feel as if I need to take that into consideration when thinking about the overall message the movie is trying to get across and how BL chose to do that. It’s something I need to chew on for a couple of days.
The only notable actor was Leonardo DiCaprio. My friend pointed out that he did a really good job showing how much Gatsby loved Carey Mulligan’s character Daisy. There were times in which the close up’s of DiCaprio’s face took away from the character. I say this because, the close up’s allowed the viewer to see DiCaprio’s age. While reading the book I pictured someone younger than DiCaprio, so that's probably why that was an issue for me.
When it comes to Carey Mulligan herself, my friend went on to say that it was hard to see what about her he loved so much; and I couldn’t agree more. Mulligan’s acting and character falls flat, so it was hard to buy the chemistry between her and Gatsby. She didn't really show any emotion.
As for Toby McGuire, I will say that I did like his narration throughout the movie. However, my problem with him lies in pretty much everything else. I don’t think he looked the part at all. I have always thought that he was a very lull actor (in the majority of movies I’ve seen him in). Yes, the movie is called The Great Gatsby, but, Jake is the narrator. We’re seeing the story through his eyes. That’s why I liked the narration, but on screen, he was the weakest link.
There were parts in which the music worked, and other parts in which it didn’t. This movie was produced by Jay-Z, which I didn’t know – which meant I wasn’t expecting the music to gear towards that genre. Jay-Z and Beyonce isn't exactly Jazz.
May 14th update:
I just realized that I didn't mention anything about the script. To be honest, there wasn't much there. You'd think that this movie would have a great script that would captivate you; considering it was based off a Scott Fitzgerald book (of the same name). Aside from Gatsby saying "old sport" and the "within and without", I can't say there's anything else I liked.
I gave the idea of being "within and without" more thought, and I came to the conclusion that it can't be attributed to the movie; it came from the book. So even that can't save the movie. What it comes down to, is that I didn't like anything about this movie.
The movie itself, as a whole: the acting, characters, plot, the message, script, costumes, settings, music, ect, didn't come together the way the book did and the way it should have. I did say that I didn't like the book, but that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. There is no way that DiCaprio's acting could carry the movie.
I did not see this movie in 3D. I didn't see a point in doing so.
First and foremost, I will state outright that I wasn’t much of a fan of the book. With that having being said, I will admit that I was expecting to walk out of this movie not liking it. The reason as to why that didn’t happen has to do with the movies concept of “being within, and without”. That, and that alone made it so I walked out the movie, not knowing 100% what I think, until I let it soak in. That’s not to say I didn’t have my issues with bits and pieces of the movie, but nevertheless, when a movie makes you think after the fact, I can’t make any quick decisions with regards to a rating.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I typically know the general rating I will give a movie within the first 20 minutes. Within the first 20 minutes of this movie, I didn’t really like it. By the end of the movie, I still hadn’t figured out what numbered rating I’d give it (out of 5). It's a movie that I feel that I should be giving a higher rating, but it doesn't deserve it.
The first half (or possibly the first two-thirds) of the movie was very eccentric and highly stylized. Everything from the music, the scenery/setting/props, to the extremely over-acting was too much for my liking. Some of the visuals were good, but everything put together, not so much. I am familiar with Baz Lahrumann’s work, so I feel as if I need to take that into consideration when thinking about the overall message the movie is trying to get across and how BL chose to do that. It’s something I need to chew on for a couple of days.
The only notable actor was Leonardo DiCaprio. My friend pointed out that he did a really good job showing how much Gatsby loved Carey Mulligan’s character Daisy. There were times in which the close up’s of DiCaprio’s face took away from the character. I say this because, the close up’s allowed the viewer to see DiCaprio’s age. While reading the book I pictured someone younger than DiCaprio, so that's probably why that was an issue for me.
When it comes to Carey Mulligan herself, my friend went on to say that it was hard to see what about her he loved so much; and I couldn’t agree more. Mulligan’s acting and character falls flat, so it was hard to buy the chemistry between her and Gatsby. She didn't really show any emotion.
As for Toby McGuire, I will say that I did like his narration throughout the movie. However, my problem with him lies in pretty much everything else. I don’t think he looked the part at all. I have always thought that he was a very lull actor (in the majority of movies I’ve seen him in). Yes, the movie is called The Great Gatsby, but, Jake is the narrator. We’re seeing the story through his eyes. That’s why I liked the narration, but on screen, he was the weakest link.
There were parts in which the music worked, and other parts in which it didn’t. This movie was produced by Jay-Z, which I didn’t know – which meant I wasn’t expecting the music to gear towards that genre. Jay-Z and Beyonce isn't exactly Jazz.
May 14th update:
I just realized that I didn't mention anything about the script. To be honest, there wasn't much there. You'd think that this movie would have a great script that would captivate you; considering it was based off a Scott Fitzgerald book (of the same name). Aside from Gatsby saying "old sport" and the "within and without", I can't say there's anything else I liked.
I gave the idea of being "within and without" more thought, and I came to the conclusion that it can't be attributed to the movie; it came from the book. So even that can't save the movie. What it comes down to, is that I didn't like anything about this movie.
The movie itself, as a whole: the acting, characters, plot, the message, script, costumes, settings, music, ect, didn't come together the way the book did and the way it should have. I did say that I didn't like the book, but that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it. There is no way that DiCaprio's acting could carry the movie.
April 26, 2013
The Visitor
2007 – 1/5
I like Richard Jenkins and I heard a few good reviews when it first came out, so I decided to watch it on my night in.
Yes, I did just say I like Jenkins, but I do have to say that all the characters were kind of boring. The first interaction between Walter and Tarek/Zainab was rushed, and it didn’t do a good job at allowing the viewer truly feel as if there was a connection created right off the bat (same goes with Walter and Mouna AND Zainab and Mouna).
I didn’t really catch if there was a point to this movie, aside from portraying the illegal immigrant issue from the point of view of a Caucasian guy that befriends a Syrian guy and his Senagalian(?) girlfriend. At the end of the day, they were illegal immigrants… fyi, I’m not a fan of the shitty treatment they receive.
How pointless was it to add a snobby, ignorant Caucasian lady, just for the sake of saying that she was in some city in South Africa, hundreds of miles away from Zainab’s home country, Senegal. Again, another example of grasping for straws, but failing to make it meaningful.
You could tell the director was trying to add a lot of sentiment between characters, but everything seemed too easy. There was a clear attempt to make a beautiful story with the content, but it just ended up being a ‘so what’ movie.
I originally gave this movie a 2, but as I was writing my review, I began to like it less and less. I don’t see myself watching this movie ever again. It doesn’t have any repeat value. I might recommend people it to certain people, but I’ve seen it once, and once is enough.
I like Richard Jenkins and I heard a few good reviews when it first came out, so I decided to watch it on my night in.
Yes, I did just say I like Jenkins, but I do have to say that all the characters were kind of boring. The first interaction between Walter and Tarek/Zainab was rushed, and it didn’t do a good job at allowing the viewer truly feel as if there was a connection created right off the bat (same goes with Walter and Mouna AND Zainab and Mouna).
I didn’t really catch if there was a point to this movie, aside from portraying the illegal immigrant issue from the point of view of a Caucasian guy that befriends a Syrian guy and his Senagalian(?) girlfriend. At the end of the day, they were illegal immigrants… fyi, I’m not a fan of the shitty treatment they receive.
How pointless was it to add a snobby, ignorant Caucasian lady, just for the sake of saying that she was in some city in South Africa, hundreds of miles away from Zainab’s home country, Senegal. Again, another example of grasping for straws, but failing to make it meaningful.
You could tell the director was trying to add a lot of sentiment between characters, but everything seemed too easy. There was a clear attempt to make a beautiful story with the content, but it just ended up being a ‘so what’ movie.
I originally gave this movie a 2, but as I was writing my review, I began to like it less and less. I don’t see myself watching this movie ever again. It doesn’t have any repeat value. I might recommend people it to certain people, but I’ve seen it once, and once is enough.
April 2, 2013
The Descendants
2011 - 4/5
I actually saw this on March 20th, but because it was Disney movie month, I didn't want to post it then.
Thank you The Descendants. I now want to go to Hawaii more than ever!
I remember when this movie first came out in 2011, I had no interest in seeing it. I have never really been a George Clooney fan; got nothing against him, just that I’ve never cared. I was in a particular mood when I decided that this movie would suit that mood. Needless to say, it was the exact kind of movie I wanted to watch.
There was something about Clooney’s voice over narration at the beginning that drew me in. The line “Paradise can go fuck itself” sold it for me. Again, it could have been the mood I was in because I had never cared for Clooney before, but right from the get go, I was on board.
This movie struck a cord with me. When I try to pinpoint the reason as to why I liked this movie so much, the answer is obvious: the script! There was a perfect balance of voice over narration and dialogue from the characters themselves. The narration was very fitting for the overall tone and vibe of the movie. What needed to be narrated was, and what needed to be said by the characters was as well. The actual script itself was solid. It was very precise and to the point, while also being very relatable. Pretty much every line had purpose and made you think. I’ll list a few of my favourite quotes at the end of the review.
This movie had a very simple plot; and that’s why I think it worked so well. What could be more simple than a movie about a guy dealing with actual life problems! Matt King (Clooney) is a lawyer who owns a huge chunk of Hawaiian land (which is brothers/cousins want to sell). His wife was in a major boating accident and he is left taking care of his 2 daughters. According to himself, he’s “the backup parent. The understudy”. He doesn’t know how to deal with his daughters and this movie is about him trying to reconnect with them.
Aside from saying that Clooney did a great job as Matt, and that Shailene Woodley did a good job as Alexandra, I don’t have much else to say about the acting. The actors looked their part.
Overall, I think the script is what makes this movie. It keeps you highly entertained, which doesn’t seem easy, because the movie is about a guy who is dealing with problems that any human can go through in their lifetime. I would recommend this to everyone, but I feel as if some people may appreciate it more than others.
Side note: watching George Clooney run made me laugh :p
QUOTES:
“I don't want my daughters growing up entitled and spoiled. And I agree with my father: you give your children enough money to do something, but not enough to do nothing”
“A family seems exactly like an archipelago. All part of the same hole. But still separate and alone. And always drifting apart”
“Whoa. Easy there half pipe”
I actually saw this on March 20th, but because it was Disney movie month, I didn't want to post it then.
Thank you The Descendants. I now want to go to Hawaii more than ever!
I remember when this movie first came out in 2011, I had no interest in seeing it. I have never really been a George Clooney fan; got nothing against him, just that I’ve never cared. I was in a particular mood when I decided that this movie would suit that mood. Needless to say, it was the exact kind of movie I wanted to watch.
There was something about Clooney’s voice over narration at the beginning that drew me in. The line “Paradise can go fuck itself” sold it for me. Again, it could have been the mood I was in because I had never cared for Clooney before, but right from the get go, I was on board.
This movie struck a cord with me. When I try to pinpoint the reason as to why I liked this movie so much, the answer is obvious: the script! There was a perfect balance of voice over narration and dialogue from the characters themselves. The narration was very fitting for the overall tone and vibe of the movie. What needed to be narrated was, and what needed to be said by the characters was as well. The actual script itself was solid. It was very precise and to the point, while also being very relatable. Pretty much every line had purpose and made you think. I’ll list a few of my favourite quotes at the end of the review.
This movie had a very simple plot; and that’s why I think it worked so well. What could be more simple than a movie about a guy dealing with actual life problems! Matt King (Clooney) is a lawyer who owns a huge chunk of Hawaiian land (which is brothers/cousins want to sell). His wife was in a major boating accident and he is left taking care of his 2 daughters. According to himself, he’s “the backup parent. The understudy”. He doesn’t know how to deal with his daughters and this movie is about him trying to reconnect with them.
Aside from saying that Clooney did a great job as Matt, and that Shailene Woodley did a good job as Alexandra, I don’t have much else to say about the acting. The actors looked their part.
Overall, I think the script is what makes this movie. It keeps you highly entertained, which doesn’t seem easy, because the movie is about a guy who is dealing with problems that any human can go through in their lifetime. I would recommend this to everyone, but I feel as if some people may appreciate it more than others.
Side note: watching George Clooney run made me laugh :p
QUOTES:
“I don't want my daughters growing up entitled and spoiled. And I agree with my father: you give your children enough money to do something, but not enough to do nothing”
“A family seems exactly like an archipelago. All part of the same hole. But still separate and alone. And always drifting apart”
“Whoa. Easy there half pipe”
April 1, 2013
Mama
2013 - 0/5
I actually saw this on March 12th, but because it was Disney movie month, I didn't want to post it then.
I’m having issues getting my thoughts out. I know I didn’t like the movie, but I can’t put it into words. I think my biggest problem with this movie was the plot. First off, it was dumb. It was SO dumb. I tried to write out a quick summary, but I just can’t. It’s just ridiculous. From here on, I plan on adding bits and pieces of IMDB reviewers reviews that will convey how I feel about this movie.
“”I'm absolutely astounded by the amount of praise this film is getting from critics and audiences.”
“Let's add another crappy pg-13 horror movie to the ever growing unfortunate list of crappy pg-13 horror movies shall we.”
“…you see Mama and all of her computer generated glory. She looks like a distorted Sarah Jessica Parker but far less scary than the real SJP. Its really hard to be scared of something that looks so unreasonably fake!”
“The plot that seemed original in the beginning turns out to be as generic as possible and one really lame ass ghost story.”
“Nothing in the film makes to much sense. There seems to be no logical reason for anything to be happening.”
“There is also a lot of plot holes. The ghost for example is clearly a good one at the start of the film. It protected and cared for the two kids for five years straight and it killed one guy, a man that was about to kill them. Not actually evil there. But then she goes evil because...? Well the film suggests that she's jealous of the new parents. But if that's the case, why does she wait so long to strike? Her power seems endless at the end of the film. It would of been nice if she had a motive because you can't simply say she's evil due to her literally saving the kids lives. Oh, and did I mention she spends most of the film trying to find her lost baby only to destroy the things bones? Why? Beats me. It's just random.”
“…the rest of this film is an absolute mess of clichés and underwritten characters.”
“The Annabel character also makes no sense.”
“By introducing her via a negative home pregnancy test celebration, followed by a brief exploration of her career as a beer-swilling bassist in a punk rock brand, audiences are immediately made to see Annabel as a nihilist toward the responsibility of being a parent. As the film progresses, it's totally transparent that her attachment toward the girls will grow and her newly found maternal instincts will keep her from running out the door. ”
“It was painfully obvious that whoever wrote this movie had no freaking idea how to end it.”
“90 minutes of your life is far to important to waste on this rubbish”
“This is truly a horrendous film and a total waste of Hollywood resources. To even associate Guillermo del Toro's (Pan's Labyrinth) name to this project is insulting and misleading.”
I actually saw this on March 12th, but because it was Disney movie month, I didn't want to post it then.
I’m having issues getting my thoughts out. I know I didn’t like the movie, but I can’t put it into words. I think my biggest problem with this movie was the plot. First off, it was dumb. It was SO dumb. I tried to write out a quick summary, but I just can’t. It’s just ridiculous. From here on, I plan on adding bits and pieces of IMDB reviewers reviews that will convey how I feel about this movie.
“”I'm absolutely astounded by the amount of praise this film is getting from critics and audiences.”
“Let's add another crappy pg-13 horror movie to the ever growing unfortunate list of crappy pg-13 horror movies shall we.”
“…you see Mama and all of her computer generated glory. She looks like a distorted Sarah Jessica Parker but far less scary than the real SJP. Its really hard to be scared of something that looks so unreasonably fake!”
“The plot that seemed original in the beginning turns out to be as generic as possible and one really lame ass ghost story.”
“Nothing in the film makes to much sense. There seems to be no logical reason for anything to be happening.”
“There is also a lot of plot holes. The ghost for example is clearly a good one at the start of the film. It protected and cared for the two kids for five years straight and it killed one guy, a man that was about to kill them. Not actually evil there. But then she goes evil because...? Well the film suggests that she's jealous of the new parents. But if that's the case, why does she wait so long to strike? Her power seems endless at the end of the film. It would of been nice if she had a motive because you can't simply say she's evil due to her literally saving the kids lives. Oh, and did I mention she spends most of the film trying to find her lost baby only to destroy the things bones? Why? Beats me. It's just random.”
“…the rest of this film is an absolute mess of clichés and underwritten characters.”
“The Annabel character also makes no sense.”
“By introducing her via a negative home pregnancy test celebration, followed by a brief exploration of her career as a beer-swilling bassist in a punk rock brand, audiences are immediately made to see Annabel as a nihilist toward the responsibility of being a parent. As the film progresses, it's totally transparent that her attachment toward the girls will grow and her newly found maternal instincts will keep her from running out the door. ”
“It was painfully obvious that whoever wrote this movie had no freaking idea how to end it.”
“90 minutes of your life is far to important to waste on this rubbish”
“This is truly a horrendous film and a total waste of Hollywood resources. To even associate Guillermo del Toro's (Pan's Labyrinth) name to this project is insulting and misleading.”
March 27, 2013
March 13, 2013
The Rescuers Down Under
MARCH 2013 is DISNEY MONTH!
1990 - ?/5
-It wasn't the least bit interesting.
-It could not keep my attention for more than 10 seconds at a time.
-I'm thinking the demographics for this movie was very young kids.
-The boy was the only decent character. None of the other characters were introduced well.
-The animation wasn't as good as Classic Disney.
-I'm disappointed with Disney on this one.
1990 - ?/5
-It wasn't the least bit interesting.
-It could not keep my attention for more than 10 seconds at a time.
-I'm thinking the demographics for this movie was very young kids.
-The boy was the only decent character. None of the other characters were introduced well.
-The animation wasn't as good as Classic Disney.
-I'm disappointed with Disney on this one.
March 8, 2013
The Aristocats
MARCH 2013 is DISNEY MONTH!
1970 - 2.9/5
-The kittens were so cute. I loved how each one had their own personalities (also that they were developed more than I would have expected.
-I kind of liked how there wasn't a strong villain.
-A cute movie.
-Good music and songs.
-Great animation. Classic Disney.
1970 - 2.9/5
-The kittens were so cute. I loved how each one had their own personalities (also that they were developed more than I would have expected.
-I kind of liked how there wasn't a strong villain.
-A cute movie.
-Good music and songs.
-Great animation. Classic Disney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)