Fast & Furious

2009 – 3.1/5

I’m going to admit that the reason as to why I chose to watch this movie over any other movie, was because I wanted to see more of Paul Walker. He’s defiantly hotter in this movie than he was in the first! :D

This is the forth Fast and Furious installment and we’re promised “New model. Original parts”. That’s exactly what you get. Vin Diesel is back in the picture along with Mia and Letty. The situation is a little different this time. Both Dom and Brian are after the drug cartel who goes by Braga. Both for different reasons. It had an okay plot, a better script and the acting got better too believe it or not (they did have 8 years to improve).

The first scene gets your adrenaline pumping as if you were in the car with them. It set the pace for the rest of the movie, which was as fast as the cars. It was perfect! The race scenes were very well choreographed and fun to watch.

It was really well edited and it had some cool transitions between scenes. The editing style fit the movie a lot. Even the subtitles were well placed. I liked how they moved around and how they faded away. It’s worth mentioning that like the first, it had good music.

The Fast & the Furious (2001)

Fast Five (2011)
Fast & Furious 6 (2013)

 

The Fast and the Furious

2001 - 3/5

This is a movie that tries to be better than it really is. The plot follows the typical movie-plot graph (pictured below). But where this movie shines and stands out among the rest is integration of fast cars and good action. It increases what I like to call, the ‘cool factor’. Otherwise, there really isn’t much else. It reminds me of the movie Step Up, because you watch that movie for the dancing and music. Unfortunately, you have to sit through a so-so plot with crappy acting and terrible dialogue.

I don’t think I really need to discuss the plot. There isn’t much to it, and you can pretty much predict how things are going to play out.

When I said earlier that this movie tires to be something it’s not, I meant more so when it comes to the script. There was more than one occasion in which this movie was trying to subtly add a moral lesson. Those parts weren’t as subtle as I’m thinking the director expected them to be, and it came off as pathetic and cheesy.

The acting wasn’t a high point for this movie either. Aside from Paul Walker, everyone else sucked. Vin Diesel wasn’t that great, and neither was anyone else. For whatever it’s worth, I will say that the actors looked the part though.

Big cars, big guys, big egos. This movie has them all. It did have a bit too much ‘macho’ for my liking, but then again, you can’t have a movie like this without it. Let’s face it though, when you go to see a movie like this, you don’t go for the great plot, the script or the acting. You go for the nice looking cars, racing and action; the good music and good camera angles were a bonus.

To be completely honest, I kind of forgot how hot Paul Walker was. The man is gorgeous! :D

Fast & Furious (2009)

Fast Five (2011)
Fast & Furious 6 (2013)

Rush Hour

1998 - 3/5

-I needed to watch a movie that would put a smile on my face and this movie allowed me to do so.

-There are very few movies that can take characters with 2 different personalities and blend them well (‘Blackinese’). James Carter (Chris Tucker) had a very boisterous presence, while Lee (Jackie Chan) balanced that with his calm, cool and collected mannerisms. Tucker and Chan make a great on-screen pair and it shows that both actors enjoyed being behind the camera while filming (be sure to watch the beginning of the credits).

-The script as a whole, wasn’t the greatest part of the movie, but the culture-clash jokes were funny and tastefully done. It was fun watching Tucker and Chan squabbling throughout the movie.

-The action in this movie wasn’t silly, and it very easily could have been. The martial arts was fun to watch; you could actually see what was going on, rather than a bunch of close-ups and punch/kick sound effects.

-The movie is only 1.5 hours long so it has a good pace.

187

1997 - 5/5

Fyi: 187 is the police code for homicide/murder.

Like you, I used to think the world was this great place where everybody lived by the same standards I did. Then some kid with a nail showed me I was living in his world. A world where chaos rules not order. A world where righteousness is not rewarded. That's Cesar's world, and if you're not willing to play by his rules, then you're gonna have to pay the price.

 -Trevor Garfield 

There are many ‘based on true stories’ out there about teachers who go into urban schools and change the lives of their students for the better; for example, Dangerous Minds. If you have seen that movie or any movie like it, all I have to say is that you have not seen 187. For those of you who don’t know, this movie was written by a teacher.

The number of times I’ve seen this movie is in the double digits. I can watch this movie over and over again, and I’d still feel the exact same way as I did the first time. I think it’s fair to say that it is one of my favourite movies.

Trevor Garfield (Samuel L Jackson) is a high school science teacher in Brooklyn, NY. He is the target of a violent attack from one of the students. Several months later, he has moved to LA and works as a substitute teacher. Even though he relocated across the country, and is in a different territory, with different people, the same problems emerge. He is not only broken physically, he is broken mentally. SLJ portrays a guy that you can’t break because he’s already broken; you’d think he actually went through that ordeal!

This has to be Samuel L. Jackson’s BEST performance EVER! He plays the role of a teacher whose true passion is teaching, but is unable to regain who he was before the incident. As a viewer, I see SLJ as a guy that has been so beaten down, but refuses to give up what he loves doing.

I can sit here and write about how much I loved the dialogue in the movie. If I were to add all the quotes I liked, I may as well provide you with a copy of the screenplay. I would understand if nobody read it, which is why I’d recommend you watch the movie!

From the get-go, this movie had a dreary vibe to it. The blue tint added to the first couple of scenes in New York, the camera angles, and the cinematography created the perfect mood for the story. This movie gives me the chills every time and it had one of the best endings ever. Nothing was sugar coated. This movie leaves you with a lot of questions about morality and whether or not some actions are justified.

This movie has a great plot, great acting, great cinematography, and to top it all off, a phenomenal script. It’s hard to find a movie that has high repeat value nowadays, which is probably why I’ve watched this movie as many times as I have since its release in 1997. When you’ve seen a movie numerous times, and it still evokes the exact same emotions as the first time, it has done its job well.

R U DONE?

The Butterfly Effect

2004 - 2.4/5

The synopsis of this movie is not doing it any justice alone. I say that because I thought it was a great idea that the director added the following text at the beginning of the movie:

“It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly’s wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world”

Chaos Theory (whereby small events may lead unpredictably to large events) is a very interesting idea, and this quote puts the viewer in the right mindset for what’s to come. I do want to add that this movie is very easy to follow. You don’t really need to think about anything while watching it; put your brain on autopilot and enjoy!

I’m a fan of movies whose first scene is actually a scene you are going to see near the end of the movie… IF it is done well. The very first scene that you see in this movie is to be repeated near the end; that should be obvious (and not a spoiler). I said I like it ‘if’ the movie does it well because there is huge potential for that part to make or break the entire movie: it can give away too much or it could immediately grab your attention. In my case, thankfully, it was the latter. When the scene did come up again, I didn’t mind seeing it for the second time because this time I saw it with previous context and it made sense. Kudos to the director for pulling this off.

I mentioned earlier that you don’t need your brain. The plot isn’t complicated, but at times it may seem random because of the change-one-thing-change-everything notion. When stuff like this does come up, I think it draws you in more rather than bore you. Even if you want to turn your brain on, and try to think of things that might work in Evan’s favour, you really don’t know how it would turn out, so it would be better to keep your brain in off state. Without trying to give away too much information, I’ll say that this movie takes some turns you don’t expect, so it keeps you on your toes. You never know what to expect.

For it to end the way it did wasn’t a let down, it was understandable (side note: I watched the Director’s Cut). It had to end the way it did, but if there was ever a movie, in which you truly wanted a happy ending, this would be it.

This movie not only kept my eyes glued to the screen, but now, I want to read Ray Bradbury’s book, A Sound of Thunder about a group of people who travel millions of years into the past to hunt dinosaurs. One of them accidentally steps on and kills a butterfly, which dramatically alters the future. I also want to watch The Simpsons episode, The Treehouse of Horror V, in which Homer travels back in time and sits on a fish and alters the future ("Oh I wish, I wish I hadn't killed that fish").

Interesting bit of trivia I read on IMDB:
In early versions of the script, the character of Evan was originally Chris Treborn. When the "T" is moved over, it becomes "Christ Reborn". This was changed to Evan Treborn, which is a play on "Event Reborn".

***SPOILER ALERT***
I hated the ending. Not because of how it ended, but just because it was sad. Evan tried everything he possibly good in order to get a good outcome for everyone he loved, which meant that he had to do what he did at the end. And it just sucks because I was rooting for him, but when you counter in Chaos Theory, things happened the way they were supposed to.

No Country For Old Men

2007 - 2.7/5
(I think I'm comfortable giving this movie a 2.7; nothing more, nothing less).

I want to start off this review by paraphrasing Albert Einstein:
If I can’t explain it in my review, then I probably didn’t understand it to begin with.
If you’ve seen the movie and you’ve read my review, you will get why I wanted to mention that.

This is a Coen Brother’s movie. If you have seen any of their other movies, then you might have a slight clue as to what you’re getting yourself into. When it comes to directing a movie, they are just something else. Something I can’t quite put my finger on. This might seem like an odd thing to say in a review, but when you go to watch a Coen Brother’s movie, you have to adjust to a different state of mind. I don’t want to say that you should think outside the box, but you have to be prepared for things not to make sense.

The first time I saw this movie was when it was released in 2007. If I’m not mistaken, this was the first Coen Brother’s movie I had seen. I watched Burn After Reading in 2008 when it was released, and I’m pretty sure I watched Fargo and The Big Lebowski after that. I can say with certainty that I liked this movie more the first time I saw it. That’s not to say that I don’t like it now, but I guess my thoughts on it have faded as the years have passed.

I would not call this movie brilliant. But this movie deserves praise because I think this movie is the perfect example of a slow-paced movie that keeps you on your toes. It’s not a full-out action movie with loud bangs and screeching tires. It’s slow, dark, and serious. There were parts that I got really sucked into. It left me with a lump in my throat and me holding my breathe. The movie did that very well.

Javiar Bardem (as Anton Chigurh), Tommy Lee Jones (as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell), and Josh Brolin (as Llewelyn Moss) all did a fantastic job. Going into this movie I’d have to say that I thought TLJ would by my favourite, but coming out, I can’t say I liked any of the characters. Usually a movie has distinct characters with regards to being good or bad. When you think about it, you don’t really know who the ‘good guy’ is. Yes, TLJ’s is a sheriff, but aside from being a law enforcement representative, he doesn’t really do a whole lot of good in this movie. The viewer doesn’t get any explanation as to why Anton Chigurh is after the money, and we also don’t know anything about Llewelyn Moss. I didn’t know who, if anybody, I was supposed to root for. And I think this is adds to the confusion of the overall movie and why people have said they don’t understand it.

Usually when you watch a movie you can figure out the moral of the story by the time you leave the theatre. The weird thing about this movie is that even when you sleep on it, and give it some more thought, it’s still hard to figure out. I wasn’t entirely sure what the point was. When I did think about it a bit more, I came to the conclusion that the moral is very ambiguous. It’s up to each individual person who sees this movie to take away whatever they see fit. This is a movie that’s hard to wrap your head around. And I’m not the only one that thinks that. I read a few reviews on IMDB that said they didn’t understand it either. I don’t want to say I didn’t understand it because I believe I did. I understood it in a way that my brain allowed me to understand it. Again, my interpretation of it, is that every viewer will understand this movie in different ways.

Like I said earlier, trying to explain a Coen Brother’s film is not an easy task. This movie isn’t for everyone and I’d be very selective about who I’d recommend it to.

***SPOILER ALERT : DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE***
For anyone that has seen this movie and is curious as to what I got from this movie was this:
-The good guy doesn’t always win.
-You have to know when to back down and not try to be a hero.
-Things may not always work out the way you expect.

Django Unchained

2012 – 4/5

From what I understood, this movie was considered a 'Western'. I was very slightly apprehensive watching this movie because of that label, but at the end of the day, it's a Tarantino film, which means that it's an automatic must-see. If it is the genre label holding you back from seeing this movie, let me assure you, that you will forget about what genre it’s listed under in the first 20 minutes. I personally agree with the genre that Tarantino sees fit - that being a 'southern' movie due to it taking place in the American south.

If the length of the movie is deterring you from seeing this movie, then allow me to address that. Yes, the movie is almost 3 hours long, but no, it didn’t feel like it was almost 3 hours long. There was only one point during the entire movie that I thought the movie hit the wall and it would drag the rest of the time. Thankfully I was wrong and the movie kept going at the same pace and it even got better!

A few other things that I want to point out were the settings, costumes and music. The smaller aspects of a movie, such as the setting, costumes, and music all play a role in the overall feel of the movie. The setting/scenery provided a great background and it looked good. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m sure Tarantino doesn’t use green screens; he has sets built which make it seem genuine and realistic. That alone creates a good vibe and it draws the viewer in. Same goes with the costumes and outfits. When it comes to the music, it’s something that’s very noticeable. Tarantino paired the music with the scenes very well.

Right from the get-go, you know the script is going to be phenomenal. After the first conversation in the first scene, I was hooked. Tarantino has a very stylistic way of writing which makes it extremely unique.

Considering this movie is called Django Unchained, I believe that it is fair to assume that Django (Jamie Foxx) is the main character. How can I be wrong right? Well, I guess it’s easier said than explained – but I’ll give it a shot. The shortest way I can possibly answer that question would have to be that Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are all in this movie as well. That’s pretty convincing isn’t it? I’ll try to break it down in the next couple of paragraphs.

So don’t get me wrong, Jamie Foxx as Djano Freeman was great. The guy played the role to the T. He walked the walk and he sure talked the talk. BUT… although his performance was great, I have to take into consideration that this movie had a powerhouse of talent. That is something that can’t be ignored.

I’m not going to save the best for last, I want it to be known right away that Christoph Waltz was my favourite actor and character in this movie BY FAR! The moment he appeared on screen, I knew he’d be my fav. His way of speaking, his gestures, his facial expressions and his mannerisms as Dr. Shultz overall were amazing! The man is brilliant. That is all.

When it comes to Leonardo DiCaprio I was very curious to see how he would fit into a Tarantino movie. I never once thought he’d be the weakest link, but DiCaprio and Scorsese go together like peanut butter and jelly, and it’s always been a perfect fit. So I was just wondering what the transition would be like when he goes from Scorsese to Tarantino. When you try to size up Scorsese and Tarantino, you quickly realize it’s impossible because both directors are in completely different fields. At the end of the day, what it comes down to, is DiCaprio himself. The guy was perfect as Calvin Candie. It was a character that I hated, but at the same time, liked. How Tarantino pulled that off is nothing short of amazing, and props to DiCaprio for playing the role so very convincingly.

Samuel L. Jackson has always been a hit-or-miss actor in my eyes and there’s not denying that. There have been movies he’s been wonderful in and others that just make me shake my head. You all know exactly what I’m talking about. SLJ in Django Unchained is a hit in the bull’s-eye! If I was able to punch one of the characters in this movie (and get away with it… and make it so my hand didn’t hurt after) I would, with no doubt or hesitation pick SLJ’s character Stephen. If there were no other people in the theatre I would have screamed at the screen. The guy was just as much a villain in this movie as Calvin Candie (DiCaprio); perhaps even worse! You know SLJ did an amazing job when I want to punch the character and scream at the screen. Enough said.

Django and Dr. Shultz (Christoph Waltz) were probably one of the best movie pairs I have ever seen. They complimented each other so well; and I mean as characters and actors. Dr. Shultz is so strong and confident, while Django starts off as meek, but then grows into a strong character.

It’s hard to comprehend how Tarantino was capable of juggling 4 incredible actors, with such strong presences, being in several scenes together. How he did it (with perfection I might add) is beyond me. I would love to hang out with Tarantino for a day and try to understand what is going on in that guys mind.

Overall, this movie had an incredible script, great characters, very talented actors, an intriguing storyline, and a great setting. It was a perfect movie that I would highly recommend to everyone.

Texas Chainsaw 3D

2013 - 0/5

I knew this movie would be horrible and it didn’t prove me wrong.

I’ll be honest. I wrote most of this review before I even saw the movie. So how would I know what I would think of this movie before I even saw it you may ask? Well, you don’t need to be a genius. All you need to know is that a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie came out that has a bunch of nobodies and that there wasn’t a whole lot of hype or advertising for it. Also, it didn’t come out 3 months ago when it should have. If it came out in time for Halloween, it may have done better.

I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll say it again, but 3D is a gimmick that has yet to be perfected. The ONLY reason this movie was 3D is so it could make more money off a single ticket because the director knew making it 3D would add to any hope of breaking even. Also to make it seem as if a chainsaw is coming right at you (isn’t that obvious?).

The only reason I wanted to see this is because I enjoy seeing scary movies with certain friends. And although we watch movies of all genres, horror movies are somewhat of a tradition.

When it comes to the movie itself, the plot sucked, the script sucked, and the acting sucked. The only ‘actor’ I knew to be in this movie was Trey Songz, and that’s only because my friend had told me earlier that day (had I not been told, I would have never known). I did however recognize the ‘sluty chick’ too (the girl from Malcolm in the Middle). Having seen this movie, I can confirm that this group of actors were a bunch of nobodies going nowhere. They don’t have a bright acting future in front of them, and I’m fine with that. Can’t say I liked any of them.

There were 2 thing I was happy about and the first being the length of the movie. It was as long as it need to be and I didn’t feel as if it dragged at any point. The second good thing about this movie was the hot guy that was the cop – but that aspect wasn’t good enough to add any points to my rating (let’s face it, he’s not Zac Efron).

UPDATE (February):
A friend of mine brought to my attention that by having written the majority of the review before I even saw the movie, as well as going into the movie with the mentality of giving it a 0/5 rating, that I wasn't even giving it a chance.
Now, I feel as if I need to address this matter:
Really? REALLY??? Do I actually need to give a movie like this 'a chance'? I paid money... actual money to see this *in theaters*. From where I stand, I think that alone speaks volumes with regards to me giving this movie 'a chance'.

Jack Reacher

2012 – 2.7/5

The easiest way to explain what I thought about this movie is the following:
It’s like a long episode of something you’d see on TV, but with a bigger budget.

Having said that, I will now say that I did enjoy this movie. I thought it was entertaining. It was pretty much exactly what I expected from it. I knew it wasn’t a full out action flick. I knew it was a movie about Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) attempting to clear the name of a solider who was wrongfully detained for a shooting he didn’t commit. I didn’t know that this movie would have funny moments; that bumped my rating up for sure!

Everyone keeps saying “Tom Cruise in Cruise Control”, and ya, Tom Cruise is a type-casted actor. He pretty much plays the same character in every movie, and I think he usually does it well. I for one, think he did a great job with this role.

There was one scene that I really didn’t like. It was when 2 guys (one with a crowbar, the other a baseball bat) were coming after Reacher and they kept swinging and missing. And I don’t mean Reacher ducking and avoiding the weapons, I mean something along the lines of Three Stooges; it was extremely childish and it ruined that part of the movie for me.

All in all, I would watch this movie again. It’s a great popcorn flick, especially if the flavour you’re looking for is drama with a dash of action and comedy.

Best & Worst : 2012

Click HERE to see the list of all the movies I saw with a 2012 release date.

Favorite movies
-Wreck It Ralph
-Django Unchained
-Argo

-Snow White & the Huntsman


Worst movie
-One for the Money (I don’t know how this made it to theatres)

Pleasantly surprised with

-Snow White & the Huntsman
-Marvel’s The Avengers


Expected more from
-Gone
-Brave (I hate to put a Pixar movie in this category)
-The Bourne Legacy


Honorable mentions
-21 Jump Street
-Brave (I know I put this in the previous category, but I still think it is an honorable mention)


Dishonorable mentions
-Wanderlust
-The Dictator
-Magic Mike


Movies I still want to see
-Silver Linings Playbook
-Trouble With the Curve
-The Paperboy


Movies I wanted to avoid
-That’s My Boy

-Project X
-MIB III
-Life of Pi


I’m Just Not That Interested
-Looper
-The Campaign
-The Perks of Being A Wallflower

Best & Worst : 2011