Change Your Image
Videogamer595
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
50 Shades Adaptation is Less than Stimulating
50 Shades of Grey has become a household name in the recent years as the fastest selling paperback book ever. It's steamy premise and erotic content make it a favorite amongst the female community; its even been coined as "mommy porn." The book follows the story of Anastasia Steele, a 21 year old college student who is asked to intern for a Mr. Christian Grey, a wealthy, young entrepreneur who built a successful empire from the ground up. Anastasia and Christian develop a sexual relationship in which Anastasia is introduced into bondage, submission, and sadomasochism, or BDSM. While the book seems as if it was written by a high school teenager whose hormones have been running rampant, the movie borrows heavily from this horrible writing style and does an exact copy and paste. The 50 Shades movie adaptation spares no expense from the amateurish writing and Director Sam Taylor-Johnson converts the remedial writing into an amateur spectacle of less-than- appealing sex scenes, poor plot development, and an unrealistic and unappealing portrayal of the supposed mysterious and soft spoken Christian Grey. Taylor-Johnson spares no expense in developing the relationship of Grey and Steele, but cuts out a lot of the steaminess and important details that were explained in the book. While I did not happen to read the book in its entirety (what I did read was a complete mess), from others whom have read the book and seen the movie, the consensus has been generally negative. But, from someone that has seen the movie without reading the book, it leaves little to the imagination what could be left to see in the story from the book that the movie has left out. To be fair, the movie industry has a strict set of rules on sexual content in rated R movies, so the movie was pushing the limit to some degree but some people considered the sex scenes to be a "sexual ad for Pottery Barn." While the directing style was very amateurish, the writing seemed just as amateurish and the characters were not believable. Dakota Johnson, who plays Steele, was probably the only positive part of this God-awful film; her portrayal of naïve Anastasia Steele was well done. However, James Dornan's portrayal of Christian Grey seemed too weak and not as mysterious and ominous as Grey was portrayed in the book. All in all, the best parts of the film were the opening and ending credits. With that, I give 50 shades of Grey only one half star out of five stars.
Unfriended (2014)
"Unfriended" made me think of Unfriending the Found Footage Subgenera
"Unfriended," a teen slasher/found footage horror movie that uses an original concept of only having the characters be on the computer, takes horror movies to the next level. While its concept may have been the only thing that drove many to see it, the actual horror aspect of it was quite lacking. Horror movies are supposed to make the viewer uneasy, scared, and leaving the theater terrified. While many modern movies have failed to do this (due to lack of originality, in my opinion), Unfriended's concept may have started a new trend for horror movies. What was a stupid idea (when I first saw the trailer) turned average movie, Unfriended leaves viewers with a brutally good message: Don't cyberbully because it ruins lives. While Cyberbullying is a hurtful, and criminal (where I live), the horror twist on the new form of bullying, combined with the original concept of Skyping an entire movie, made it worthy of only five stars. In the scare, character development, plot, etc. departments, it was quite lacking; just your average, modern day horror film. One thing I would like to compliment it on is showing very little of what was happening to the characters as they died. All in all, it was just an average film but with a very interesting concept that didn't quite play out too well. Being generous, I'll give it 5 out of 10 stars.
The Master of Disguise (2002)
I disguised myself as a sleeping person while watching this movie
Quite possibly Dana Carvey's worst movie ever made, this made me dumber by the second. The acting is of the utmost horrible quality and the attempts at making the audience laugh are horrible. The only pleasure you will get out of this movie is the opening credits and the end credits. The only chuckle I had was the scenes that poked fun at the Exorcist and Jaws. Whenever I hang out with some of my friends we always watch this god awful movie because it is one of my friends favorite movies. At no point in the movie did I enjoy it. Yes, this is, somewhat, of a short review, but, all in all, don't go out of your way and see it. In fact, don't see this film at all unless you are under the age of 12 and have the mental capacity of a 5 year old.
Footloose (2011)
Brewer's Remake of Footloose Doesn't Work
This remake of the timeless, Kevin Bacon starring classic doesn't even make you want to tap your foot or even dance to the beat. No, it might make you want to get up and leave instead of get up and dance.
A fantastic director, Craig Brewer made some of the most gritty and beautifully made dramas that involve a main character, played by an African American, that has some sort of inner conflict, as well as conflict with everyday life. A great example of this is his movie "Hustle and Flow" which holds a 7.4 rating on IMDb and an 84% on rottentomatoes.com. Another great film of his is the somewhat well known movie "Black Snake Moan." Again, it involves an African American with an inner conflict and outer conflict in a gritty, edgy, dramatic setting.
But, what about Footloose? Why was it so bad?
Brewer's worst film, in my opinion, didn't work for me. Specifically, his attempts at making a remake of the 80's dance flick just didn't make me want to get up and dance. It was boring, unreal, and just didn't work for me.
But, what else could have made me give this movie a 2 out of 10?
Brewer tried to branch out and failed miserably. He wasn't himself doing this film and didn't show any parallels from his gritty dramas to this family-friendly, "funny" flick. The only thing I was laughing at was the fact that it was a terrible film. In no way, shape, or form would it make me want to watch the original film (if I had seen this before the original). Non-believable acting, terrible dancing scenes, and trying to be 50's-esque and integrate modern day conveniences, this movie just doesn't bust a move for me.
So, simply put, I'll put this in pros and cons.
Pros: >Dennis Quaid did a pretty good job in the film. His acting was sub-par, but not fantastic. >Ren and Ariel were pretty good, in the dancing scenes. It was nice to see actual dancers playing dancers. >The setting was nice and very simplistic, yet somewhat believable.
Cons: >The acting was not believable in the least bit. The dancing, however, was somewhat good. >Not like the original at all. Too much going on. >Dennis Quaid, although doing a pretty good job acting, was not the right guy to play the reverend. >Dancing was a bit too flamboyant. >The only good parts of the film were the fight scenes and the credits. >Ren did not look, at all, like Kevin Bacon and did not act like him at all.
For all you fans of this movie and look at my other reviews, please do not judge the book by its cover. Yes, it might seem that I like horror movies and the fact that I think that every film, except for horror and comedy films are crap, I do not think that. And, don't take into account that I am a guy therefore I think all dance flicks are terrible. I am open to ALL films and this one just wasn't in the cut for me.
So, all in all, the remake of Footloose is, quite possibly, Brewer's worst film. I hope that Brewer will learn to stay away from dance flicks and lean more towards gritty dramas that involve an African American lead role.
Robot Monster (1953)
Robot Monster is more like a No-Bot Monster
"MOON MONSTERS COME TO EARTH AND ATTACK AND KILL ALL HUMANS!!!"
Quite possibly one of the most infamous movies of all time, let alone a prime example of a well done "so bad it's good" movie, Robot Monster puts all other movies to shame, literally. Ro-Man, the main antagonist in Robot Monster is a sex-starved, gorilla-suit, diving helmet monster contraption that has destroyed all of humanity with the exception of a group of survivors which, coincidentally, happen to be a family. But, little do they know that this horrific creature is coming to kill them off and steal their women, once and for all.
Sounds like a pretty good premise, right?
Actually, this was a typical 50's Sci-Fi premise for most of the Sci-Fi movies made during that time.
In all seriousness, this film lacks acting, creativity with the monster (to a degree) and pretty much everything in between. A micro budget film, with a short run time, this film, to most critics, would probably be given anywhere between 3 to no stars.
But I am not like most critics.
Being only 21, I have, literally, immersed myself in almost 1000 different movies in the past 6 years. But, Robot Monster, for some reason, seems to be one hell of a masterpiece. You may be asking why in the hell I would think this film is a masterpiece if it's rated at a 2.8 on here, 31% (by critics) and 41% (by users) on Rotten Tomatoes. Well, how about it?
Although this film is a complete nuclear disaster, it shines as being one of the best, best-worst movies I have ever seen. Much like the infamous Creeping Terror (which would be released some 11 years later) would put Robot Monster near the top of the "good-bad" chain. But, just how bad can you get?
Robot Monster, undoubtedly, is one of the most hilarious and entertaining movies I have had the pleasure of screening. It gets the job done with zero screams and many laughs, but, really, was meant to scare the pants off of you. As I have said before, I am a very young movie critic with an interest in some of the oldest, and cheesiest, films of all time. This happens to be Gouda cheese quality (see what I did there?) I will award it no stars (to keep other Z-movie lovers, like myself, happy to find movies with a low rating) but, in a B to Z critic standpoint, I would award it 10 out of 10 stars. A fine example of putting two unlikely things together and making a fine piece of crap along the way.
The Creeping Terror (1964)
The Creeping Terror? More like The Weeping Terror!
Ah, yes, this is the grand daddy of them all. The worst of the worst; (arguably) the creme-de-la-creme of good-bad. A shagidelic rug monster comes to Earth to attack and kill all humans and obliterate all of man-kind.
Pretty cliché, right (aside from the rug monster part)? This no budget film has to be one of my absolute favorites of all time. It's horrible quality, no-name actors, and, best of all, "creepy" monster, which was a giant sewn rug with pipes sticking out.
But, who would have thought of making such a devilishly bad film? Surprisingly, this film was made by an ex-convict that escaped from prison. He thought of a way to make a quick buck by buying a camera and doing what any logical person would do: make a movie. Fast foreward to the production of it and release and it turned out to be one of the most well known pieces of garbage that anyone has ever seen. I mean, anyone can see that because it has a 1.6 on here.
You're probably saying something like this: Enough already! Get on with the freaking review! The Creeping Terror was one hell of an acid trip (You might get a better experience of watching it if you are under the influence of mind-altering drugs such as marijuana or LSD). The monster was laughable, the acting was cheesier than Wisconsin's dairy farms, and it looked like it was filmed in the basement of some guy's mom's house. But, aside from its harsh critical analyses from different critics and general movie lovers, this film deserves a 10 out of 10.
Yes, I know I didn't give it a 10 out of 10 because I hate it when people give good-bad movies a high rating. Hypocritcal, yes. But, that's like giving a top health award to a tobacco company.
Aside from that little digression, this film deserves nothing but the best. Yes, it's a crap film and yes it is no Citizen Kane. It is, however, a masterpiece in its own. The sheer badness of this film supersedes any masterpiece quality like Citizen Kane and Titanic. Made on almost a zero dollar budget, this film is the perfect example of an Ed Woodian director who wanted to make a great film, thought it was a masterpiece, and was shot down in the progress.
Now that I have the "Spoiler Alert" box checked, I will use it to its advantage: >The Creeping Terror shows scenes of devouring people by "eating" them. The way that it eats is by absorbing the people into a vulva-like opening, thus hinting at sexual innuendos.
>At one point in the film, you can see that the monster humping a car. Again, sexual innuendos.
>At frequent points in the film, you can see the hands and feet of the people that are "controlling" the monster. Savage, the director, hired college students to "act" as the monster, and were not paid a cent.
>It has been said that some people were "forced" to act in the film. I don't know if this claim is true or false, but judging by the acting I would say that it's true.
>The "original" monster was stolen half way into production and they had to make a new monster. You can clearly see the difference in the movie.
Overall, quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen, it is also one of the best. The crap acting, monster design, visuals, and all else add for a fun, enjoyable viewing experience. This film is a MUST SEE for any B to Z rate movie lovers.
All in all, I would give this film a 10 out of 10, but I would not like to change the ratings from its current low ranking. The Creeping Monster is one of those movies that will make you cry...of laughter.
Halloween (2007)
Zombie Zombifies this True Classic, but not in a Good Way
Being a die hard Horror fan (no pun intended), I have seen all the classics such as Lugosi's Dracula, Nosferatu, Karloff's Frankenstein, etc. But, I saw this film and, at first, really liked it. I was about 16 when it came out, so I was at that age where "Blood 'n' Guts" were awesome and everything else sucked. I left the theater thinking to myself that it was an awesome movie; my hormone-raging body was quite satisfied after seeing blood being spattered all about and seeing a few good pairs of boobs.
Fast forward about 3 years.
I, finally, watched John Carpenter's Halloween as it was called for as a homework assignment I was assigned in my senior year Film Studies class. I had watched it with every bit of excitement and quickly found myself thinking that this version was so much better than Rob Zombie's version.
So, you're probably saying to yourself, "alright already! Get on with the review!" Don't worry, it's coming. But, back to the story.
Anyway, as soon as I finished the original Halloween, I put the remake in and watched it a second time. This time, I compared the two. As Zombie's remake came to a close, this is what I thought, upon viewing the original Halloween and the remake, a second time.
Not only did this movie ruin my respect for Zombie, it completely obliterated it. His "remake" of a truly great classic ended up in sheer disappointment. He reworked the whole story and added in his classic touches (you'll notice them when you see them). If you know anything about Rob Zombie, you know he is all about 2 things: Boobs and Blood. Yes, this combination does work out pretty well, for some movies, but not this one. And, like I said, I am a HUGE horror fan, but this one doesn't even deserve to be given one star. It destroys all the slasher movies and puts them to shame. Overuse of swearing, 100's of random "F" words, implied incest, and so much blood it makes the video game franchise "God of War" look like a Disney movie, it takes "over the top" to a new extreme. Zombie's remake put Michael Myers to shame and disappointed many of the fans that have been fans of him since 1978. Zombie makes movies that are targeted for those people that enjoy seeing over-exaggerated mutilations and DDD breasts. And, if that doesn't set you over the edge, he casts his son, who, might I add, is named Pussyliquor (yes, that's pussy "licker"), as Michael Myers as a kid! Haddonfield would be bowing their heads in embarrassment, if there were such a place. A couple more things to add while I have the "Warning: may contain spoilers" checked off:
>The step-dad makes a remark about how his step-daughter has an eye pleasing buttocks. Was it necessary to have that in the movie? Absolutely not! >Buckets of blood were used to show one stab wound. Overuse? You bet it was! >The scene at the truck stop with the black guy was pretty funny, I'll admit. But, that doesn't make up for the other 110 minutes of pure garbage. >This has to be one of, if not, THE worst career decision Malcolm McDowell has ever made. But, his performance was pretty good. >(Only available in the Uncut version) the scene where the two security guards rape the prisoner was pretty unnecessary and sick.
Last, but not least, a few positives: Tyler Bates, who plays Myers as an adult, did a fantastic job. His performance was somewhat stellar. Everyone else did a poor job.
So, all in all, this film deserves no stars, whatsoever. Zombie should stick to music rather than movies; he wouldn't lose as many fans then.
Jack and Jill (2011)
Jack and Jill, More Like Crap and Nil
Being only 20 going on 21, I have been subjected to some good and bad Movies. I have seen well over 500 movies and this is one I want to erase from my memory completely. Unfunny, torturous and horrid, this makes Cabin Fever look like the Godfather and Bucky Larson look like Citizen Kane. I am an avid fan of B movies but this one doesn't even deserve to be treated as a "so bad it's good" kind of movie. Maybe it's because I grew up and found overuse of fart jokes and gag humor to be unfunny. It tries too hard to be funny and fails miserably. It's like Sandler took a dump on the script and said "write." Al Pachino's mildly homosexual performance didn't even make me smile. I've seen better movies on YouTube. If you are a fan of Sandler, this is a major pass. Disappointing and truly stupid, this movie puts stupid comedies to shame. Adam Sandler tries way too hard to be funny and truly fails. Do NOT believe all the good reviews as they were written by amateurs. It's an hour and a half of pure crap. I would rather watch a piece of paper burn than watch this movie again. And, for all you that were forcibly made to watch this or watched it, I am sorry. I rate it with zero stars as it deserves the lowest rating. I wish I could give it negative stars, but that would be impossible. Adam Sandler's worst career decision ever. As the soup Nazi would say, "no star for you!"