ashleynwaldron Reviews

The Avengers (2012)

A great movie

[10/10 · 11 December 2014]

Firstly... For all the viewers complaining who aren't comic book fans, and don't like comics... What did you expect? It's a movie based off of some of the most popular comic characters in Marvel Universe. That's the point.

Now, I'll admit, there's not a lot of surprise. Not a lot of twist, or plot. It's a character driven superhero film. Not about the great twist, or the psych thriller. That's not its purpose. It's not meant to be a movie to make you thing, or to shock, stun, surprise or terrify you.

We enjoy comics for one reason: they're fun, and good characters. I mean, think for a second... Imagine X-Men without Wolverine, Gambit, and Rogue. Imagine reading about Hydra without Captain America. What makes comics great isn't just the story, or even mostly the story. It's the characters.

The Avengers pulled together a great cast of people who lived and breathed their characters. Robert Downey, Jr. gets most props, but I didn't find any of the Avengers to be severely lacking. Even Scarlett Johansen as Black Widow pulled the part off fairly well.

So yes. Plot? Simple; some might even say childishly so. Plot twists? Absolutely none. Worry about characters dying? Of course not, they're the good guys. An ending we couldn't see coming? Nope, everyone knew going in that the Avengers would win.

But it was a good, simple movie, with great characters. And honestly... I enjoyed the change of pace. This was a movie anyone could watch. My 6 year old son loves it, my 45 year old father loves it, and even my 65 year old grandmother watched the entire thing with the family, and enjoyed it.

So yeah, if you're looking for twists, plots that make your head hurt, something that makes a 'statement' or fights for a 'cause' you will be disappointed. But if you're looking for a good family film with great characters, a lot of laughs, some serious moments, and some really cool gadgets? This is the movie for you.

Night of the Templar (2012)

Not great... but not terrible either

[4/10 · 4 January 2013]

While this wasn't a bad way to pass an hour and a half, Night Of The Templar is definitely nothing I would waste my time watching twice. While the acting was good, the setting good, the idea behind it was good... The problem lay in the very obvious reveals. A few reviewers commented on how the 'suspense' will keep you guessing, and trying to figure out 'who dun it'. I strongly disagree. It was quite obvious from the beginning who the 'good guys' were; so obvious that, for the first half of the film, I thought that they had made it so obvious as to fool to the viewer. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. The only 'suspense' or 'guessing' I did was wondering which one of the 'bad guys' descendants was which. And even then, it was only for the first few minutes of the films, until their deaths revealed who they'd been.

Everything fell into place in very obvious ways. There was no suspense, no build-up, no twists. And it's sad, because this easily could have become a great movie. Again, a few great actors, believable settings, and an original idea gave this movie every opportunity to be great. But the obviousness of the entire thing ruined it.

Several people commented on the film quality; personally, I liked the older look. I've always preferred older movies to the new HD. Maybe it's because I'm an Indie fan, and that's mostly what you get with Indie movies. Dunno.

One final thought... Paul Sampson really needs to lay off the Botox. His lips looked they were going to explode.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Absolute worst in the series; maybe worst movie ever

[1/10 · 12 December 2012]

I read somewhere that Sienna Guillory only got the part because she looked similar to the character from the game; watching her acting skills, I can definitely believe it. I can think of very few movies with worse acting than hers.

And that's only the start of this train wreck. Having never played the games, I can't comment to the similarities, but I've been told that this movie more than the rest was based off the games. If that is the case, they obviously didn't repeat that mistake with the latter films. Poor casting, worse acting, plot holes you could drive an eighteen wheeler through, terrible dialog, things so unrealistic as to give even the most avid zombie-genre fan pause.

For example... The dead are coming back to life; Alice, Jill, and their rag tag team have to leave the 'safety' of the church, so where do they go? Traipsing through a graveyard. Genius. Nemesis using a chain gun to destroy all the STARS members, but leaving the lone civilian standing in the middle of said STARS members still standing, even though the bullets never stop. Dead STARS to the front, rear, left and right of LJ get blown away, but not him.

Then of course, there's the actual plot holes. We go from seeing Alice leaving the hospital wearing little more than a bib and a lab coat, to her fully dressed (although I use the word loosely, considering the clothes she put on where nothing more than scraps), fully armed, with a motorcycle... and riding in to the church where a small group is huddle, saving them just in the nick of time. From there, we follow them around as the 'desperate doctor' calls them on every phone in the city, offering them a deal: if they save his little girl, he'll get them past the walls. What walls, you ask? Why, the walls that Umbrella installed, walls that completely seal off the city... Walls that apparently nobody was concerned by in the first place.

I could go on, and on about this disgrace of a movie... But suffice to say, there wasn't a single redeeming quality to this movie. If I hadn't started watching this series after the fourth movie came out, I probably wouldn't have, if I had seen this train wreck first. Don't waste your time, or your money.

Dark Harbor (1998)

It's... different

[5/10 · 22 November 2012]

Very few movies leave me confused as to whether or not I enjoyed them, but this one did. I watched this as one of only two Norman Reedus movies I hadn't seen, and... well...

After watching it through a second time, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. It had its good parts and bad parts... Some of the lines were either poorly scripted, or the actors just weren't feeling it that particular day, since most of it is very well done (and Rickman and Reedus are obviously fairly decent actors), but certain lines just seem... very forced. Again, given the actors, and the majority of the movie, I'd say it was just awkward scripting.

The copy that I seen had horrible sound quality, which did make it a little difficult to comment honestly, since I'm sure I missed at least 1/4 of the dialog. Also, not sure if it was (again) just my bad copy, or if it was meant to be filmed as such, but it had a very grainy, almost old-movie style quality about it. It didn't take away from the movie, but something about the grains irritates my eyes, which again, makes it difficult for me to rate the movie as a whole.

Positives were, the acting was for the most part, excellent and thought-provoking. Sometimes, the tension almost does seem to be a bit too much (there were several points where I almost felt like leaving the room, before I remembered it was just a movie), but... Again, not really sure how I felt. I've seen a few reviews that said they had to watch it quite a few times before everything became really clear; I'm not sure if I care enough to do that.

Octane (2003)

Well...

[4/10 · 22 November 2012]

I watched this movie only because I'm a huge Norman Reedus fan, and this was one of the few movies of his I hadn't seen.

One of the biggest problems with this movie was the pace. It spends forty minutes just showing Senga (mom) and Nat (daughter) bickering and arguing, which definitely does nothing to endear Nat to the audience. Then it briefly picks back up... only to slow down again. This definitely isn't something I'd watch on TV, just because I probably ended up skipping through an hour of this hour and forty five minute long movie.

Another problem was actually -and I hate to say it- Norman Reedus's character of the 'Recovery Man'. He pulls the role off well, but... well, there really wasn't enough of a role for him to do much with. He follows the group along, okay, so far so good... But then you get the impression that he's been following them for years as a tow-truck driver, but never gets anywhere, and just happens along Senga and Nat, and decides to sort of follow them, but not really. Then finally at the end, just as his character starts to get sort of interesting, boom. Movie over.

Also, as far as this being a horror, or thriller... There really was no substance to it at all. There's nothing remotely scary, or even chilling. The camera work was amazing, and did give off a creepy vibe, but the story itself was... very blagh, is the only thing I can think of.

Normally, I would say not bad for it's genre, but again, it really doesn't fit into a genre... Comparatively speaking, it wasn't horrible (especially compared to some of the trash passing itself off as good cinema lately) but it just didn't do anything for me. Again, it was more of a 'when is something interesting going to happen?' rather than 'what's going to happen?'.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Favorite movie of all time

[22 November 2012]

I absolutely love this movie. Lost count of how many times I've watched it over the years. Yeah, there's not much 'plot', I'll agree with that. But it's not meant to be a thoughtful, well-planned commentary. It's meant to be an action movie, with the occasional humor thrown in.

It's not really a 'vigilante' movie. It doesn't discuss the 'right' or 'wrong' within the movie itself. Again, if you're looking for a meaningful, or poignant moral ending, this isn't the movie for you. It's a face-paced action movie.

I'll admit, I do have a thing for Norman Reedus. I've really enjoyed most of his movies, which probably colored this a little bit for me, as this was one of his first starring roles (or at least, one that took him anywhere). But the idea of the Irish twin brothers who basically stumble into this job of cleaning up the streets of Boston is an interesting twist on things.

I guess at the end of the day, I don't know WHY exactly this is my favorite movie... I just know it is.

Gossip (I) (2000)

Decent movie

[7/10 · 22 November 2012]

This was -over-all- a pretty decent movie. Nothing that would make my favorite shelf, but a movie I could definitely watch a few times a year. It's got an interesting plot and story-line, and most of the actors were top notch.

Now that being said, there were two things that kept this movie from being an excellent movie. The first one was Lena Headey; her acting was mediocre at best, and in certain parts, down right awful. But this normally wouldn't be enough to knock off too many points, but the second problem...

The ending -while decent- was definitely one that required you to suspend your disbelief. It leaves you wondering, "What was the point?".

But the acting by James Marsden, and Norman Reedus were amazing, and almost make up for it. Marsden plays the manipulative liar, who really isn't a bad guy, one who almost leaves you feeling a certain amount of pity at the end. Reedus was amazing; probably one of my favorite performances from him. The shy, SoHo, bohemian artist thing works really well for him. The interaction between the two men are some of the most interesting parts of the movie, and show the dominant/subservient or leader/follower relationship perfectly.

Passable performances by Joshua Jackson and Kate Hudson. Nothing stellar, but nothing to complain about either.

Again... Decent movie, one that could have been a hit with a few tweaks, and a different actress for Jones, but nothing that will make a 'favorites' list any time soon.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)

Epic disappointment

[1/10 · 17 November 2012]

After discovering the first Boondock Saints in high school, it instantly became my all-time favorite movie. I've lost track of how many times I've watched the movie over the years, or how many times my husband and I have laughingly quoted some of our favorite lines.

So when I first heard they were doing a sequel, I was thrilled. Especially when -after such a long amount of time in-between- they even had a lot of the original cast. Could this get any better?

And then, my husband watched it with his brother one night. Came home, and told me not to even bother. I was shocked. It couldn't be that bad right? He assured me that it would even taint the first one for me.

I couldn't believe that. There was no possible way. And yet... when I sat down and watched this god-awful train wreck of a movie, I couldn't even force myself past the first twenty-five minutes.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this. The terrible script, and crappy, awkward dialogue? The idiot who was supposed to be Rocco's replacement? Whoever that stupid, horrible acting bimbo was? The horrible, crappy villains?

This movie was probably the biggest sequel disappointment I've ever seen. And my husband was right... While I still love the first movie, I can't watch it without thinking of this fail movie.

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

Selective watching

[10/10 · 16 November 2012]

After watching all the seasons in one shot (over a two day period), I think I can understand why so many people raved about the first season, while the second season floundered.

Season one is an excellent opener. Introduces us to the characters, and the world (and what's going on in it) in some very cliché ways, but hey... there's a reason it's become cliché, and that's because people like it. The tensions are well done, without becoming soap-opera-y, and the action keeps you moving along with the show.

But season 2... The first half of season two reverses that. In many cases, the tension is so thick as to make even the viewers uncomfortable. The soap opera relationships that begin forming -Lori, Rick, and Shane, Glen and Maggie, Andrea and Shane- feel forced, and contrived, with the characters bouncing from emotion to emotion, choice to choice on nothing more than whims and bad dialogue. BUT... if you stick with it to episode five, and follow it from there... It's not too bad. It really starts to pick up again towards the end, and has a pretty decent ending (although there still is the occasional soap opera moment).

Season three has started off much like the first season: with a bang, and one that just drags you along for the ride.

But I might be slightly biased. I'm a huge Norman Reedus fan, and started watching this show for his character of Daryl, and he's still my favorite.

So I guess in conclusion... Watch season 1. Watch the first half of season two on reruns, or something that you can skip through certain parts. Start paying attention around episode five. Follow it through, and you won't be disappointed when you start following the rest of us on season 3.

Psych (2006–2014)

Love this show

[10/10 · 13 April 2012]

Even if nothing else, the premise behind this show makes it unique. We've seen plenty of shows with psychics before, and we've seen plenty of police procedural shows. But a psychic detective? A fake psychic detective at that? Add to that a great cast, and great script writing, and you get this gem. This is one of my favorite shows to watch for a multitude of reasons. The first reason is that -compared to most shows today -it's relatively clean. It's something I can sit down and watch with my twelve year old sister, and not have to change the channel every two minutes. It's got some swearing, yeah, but it's relatively light, and the sexual innuendos are kept at an absolute minimum. I also love that it's a funny police show, when you boil it down. The humor is what makes the show stand out from the multitude of police/crime shows out there. Most (NCIS, CSI, etc) have their funny moments, but over all, they're serious shows. Psych is a funny show, with a few serious moments thrown in. Ninety percent of the lines make me laugh, especially the banter between Shawn and Lassiter. And again, the cast just flows together so well. All of the actors are great actors/actresses, and their on-screen chemistry is great. No stilted lines, or scenes, and some of the scenes with Shawn and Gus going back and forth just about make you wet their pants. All in all, this is one of my favorite TV shows. Yeah, it doesn't have a lot of meat to it, and the cases are -for the most part -side notes to what's actually going on, but it's still hilarious. A nice break from the more serious, melodramatic shows on television these days.

Sleepers (1996)

Overall, an incredible film

[9/10 · 11 March 2012]

I think the biggest reason this movie is so underrated is because it was claimed to have been based on a true story. Whether or not it was (and I personally have my doubts, especially after reading the book), don't let that distract you from the movie. Most of the movies we watch aren't based on a true story; even if they are, most embellish, or outright lie anyways. So put the 'based on a true story' part out of your mind before watching this.

Overall, this was a gritty, emotional type movie. My first thought upon seeing some of the big names in this was, 'another movie with the names, but no meat'. I was so, so wrong. All of the actors did amazing in this, including the younger actors. I read a lot of reviews saying how great Robert De Niro did, but I personally thought the best actor was Ron Eldard, who plays the adult John Reilly. The scene where -as an adult- he meets his childhood abuser was so real it was almost painful. You can almost physically see him go from tough street punk to a scared little boy again, almost instantly. Also, Billy Crudup did an exceptional job as an adult Tommy. Brad Pitt's acting was... credible, but I wouldn't say it was anything other than passing grade. Jason Patric's was by far the worst of the film.

The abuse scenes were (for the most part) tastefully done, to where we know whats happening, but it's not turned into a porno, as are many of your modern movies about childhood sexual abuse. The end scene of them laughing around the table, interspersed with the horrific photos, and sad endings, was very moving, to the point where I was almost in tears.

While I'll admit, it all did play out a little to neatly (with everyone of the guards getting their just desserts), over all, this was yet another amazing movie to come out of the nineties, that somehow got brushed under the rug.

King Arthur (2004)

Not historically accurate. At all.

[1/10 · 17 February 2012]

I hate movies that have false advertising, and this movie tops the charts for how much garbage they try to pass off as 'historically accurate'.

Arthur, a Roman? He might have had Roman blood in him, but from what we can gather from the time, the Romans had already been gone for quite some time before Arthur appeared on the scene.

The Knights of the Round Table being from... Well, it shows them in a fielded country, which combined with most of their looks, would make me assume Gaul. But then you have Lancelot, who looks/fights/dresses like he's from the Middle East. All of them Roman conscripts (who aren't Roman), who have been fighting in Britain since they were twelve (and survived fifteen years, without running off)? They all wear armor that either blends together multiple times/regions, or is just so historically inaccurate it almost hurts your eyes. The differing weapon styles (almost none of which would have been taught in the Roman army) combined with historically inaccurate/region inaccurate weapons... Put it all together, and you get... well, this train wreck of a movie

Guinevere being a 'warrior princess' who leads troops into battle, and has ridiculous accuracy, especially after getting all of her fingers broken/dislocated? Firstly, women of that time didn't go into battle. If need be, they could and would fight on the home front, during raids or the like, but they didn't go marching into battle with the boys. Secondly, the clothing she wore? She would have been branded a harlot and hung/drowned/burned at the stake. She wouldn't have made it out of her bedroom -never mind the house -wearing clothes like that before somebody killed her. And lastly... I've had a lot of broken fingers. It's not as simple as, reset, wait a day or two, and you're back to normal. Doesn't work that way. And there's no way a woman of her size, with or without broken fingers, would have been able to shoot a bow of that size and make as far as the men. Not possible. Even if she knew how to shoot, which is as likely as her walking around in those outfits.

Combine all the 'historically accurate' mistakes (and I've mentioned only a few) with the terrible acting, and you get a movie that makes you want to hurl. Clive Owen tries giving these Brave Heart type speeches that fall flat on their face due to his monotone inflection, and blank face. The only thing that ever changes is his pitch, never the inflection. Louder or quieter, it all comes across the same. Keira Knightley doesn't do much better, with stupid clichéd lines, a bored or pained expression throughout, and a 'I'm as good as any man... Save me!' attitude. There's no redeeming qualities to this movie whatsoever, other than the shots of the scenery, which were quite beautiful. Otherwise... It was a puke fest, the whole way through.

Luster (2010)

Good movie

[10/10 · 17 February 2012]

I originally watched this because I'm a huge Tommy Flanagan fan. And I loved it. Good twists, great acting all the way around, with a good ending. If you're looking for a blood and gore horror movie, this isn't the movie for you, but if you like creepy, psychological thrillers, I can't recommend this enough.

Andrew Howard does a great job of portraying the insomniac man, who is slowly losing his mind due to lack of sleep. He pulls off the character perfectly, all the way through the movie.

Tommy Flanagan is hilarious in this, as the crazy, homeless vet who is trying to help out Thomas Luster. Every time he was on screen he made me laugh.

It starts off at a slow pace, and gradually builds up, reaching the peak about mid-way through, and drags you along for the rest, keeping you on the edge of your seat.

True Blood (2008–2014)

The first two seasons are decent, but it goes downhill from there

[3/10 · 17 February 2012]

I was a huge fan of the first season. The second season wasn't too bad. By the time I reached the third season, Alan Ball had apparently come to two decisions, both of which completely ruined the show.

Firstly: To have a good season finale, you have to kill off several important characters. It seemed by the time we hit season four, Mr. Ball decided that you couldn't have a good finale without killing off several characters, each time killing off a more important character. At the rate he's going, he won't have any to kill off other than Sookie, Bill, or Eric.

Secondly: Every scene must have sex. Completely random sex. In the first season, there was sex, yes. But as it went on, it seemed like every scene had to have sex, to the point where it started seeming like a bad porno. Awkward moment? Sex. Angry moment? Sex. Somebody's just died? Sex. Upset moment? Sex. People standing around, looking bored? Sex. No matter what happened, Mr. Ball's solution was sex, sex, sex. If I wanted to see that much sex, I'd watch a porno. While I'm not complaining about the sex in the show, I am complaining about the lack of plot. This has turned into 'let's see how quick we can get the entire cast naked!' or 'let's see how many people we can have sleep together!'

All in all? Watch season 1. Force your way through the confusing, and jumbled season 2. Don't bother with the last two, or if you do, expect to be disappointed. Bad dialogue, worse sex scenes, and no plot abound.

21 Jump Street (1987–1991)

It's something to pass the time

[6/10 · 17 February 2012]

While not a bad show, 21 Jump Street has several flaws. They push a clear political agenda of the time, they sugar coat everything, it's highly unrealistic, and they throw in random changes, and never explain them.

That being said... It's not a terrible show. It's got some good actors in it (although I have to say, Holly Robinson was not one of them), and it's a cute show to watch if there's nothing better on. It was made to target a younger audience, while pushing the social and political agendas of the time, but it's still got that wholesome sort of image. Something you could sit down and watch with your teenage children.

Hero Wanted (2008)

Could have been a great movie

[6/10 · 17 February 2012]

I originally watched this to see Kim Coates and Tommy Flanagan. Can't stand Cuba Gooding Jr, so that probably biased it a little for me, but even with that...

This had the potential to be a great movie. Interesting -albeit sometimes confusing -plot line, the story is told in reverse order at times, which makes it a bit hard to follow, but nothing too serious.

The character of Liam Case (played by Gooding) could have been much more fleshed out. Instead, we only see the result of what he's doing, with no real clear motive on why. Even with Gooding's mediocre acting skills, there was a lot missing, that could have made it ten times better.

Other than him, this was a fairly good movie. Nothing that would make my favorites list, or even something I'd watch more than once, but it's not a bad little movie to pass the time.

Eragon (2006)

The CGI dragon was the best actor... What does that tell you?

[1/10 · 3 January 2012]

I loved the Eragon books. Read the books that were out, and was over-the-top excited when the movie was announced. I left the theater thinking, 'Poor Christopher Paolini... They killed his book, and he'll never get another shot like that'.

Yes, it was that bad. And if you really want the full depth of the horror, look at the most common theme in all the reviews. Terrible, abysmal characters. I won't argue between actors/script to say who made it horrible. I'm not familiar enough with any of them to say. But the fact that 90% of people who watched it agreed that the best character was the CGI dragon (with voice props to Rachel Weiz), you might have a bit of a problem. But take a moment for that sentence to sink in. The only redeeming quality was the CGI dragon. The main character, his mentor, all other back up characters... And the only one who gets any mention at all is Weiz, who -I'll admit- manages to bring a good performance to the role even using just her voice (which I think proves my point that she could act her way out of a wet paper bag)

They left out at least half of the book plot in the rush to condense a 500+ book into a an hour and a half movie.

And the eternal conundrum of books-to-movies...

If you enjoyed the book, you won't like the movie because too much is changed, or left out. But if you haven't read the movie, you'll be left grasping for the plot, wondering what's going on. Either way? Lose- lose scenario for movie-goers.

The only people who liked this were people who watched Michael Bay films. CGI fans who thought Saphira looked awesome. Which she did. Unfortunately that's not enough to cut it for me. These days, any idiot can come up with decent CGI if time and money are put into it.

Sons of Anarchy (2008–2014)

A good watch

[10/10 · 3 January 2012]

I just recently started watching this show, and really liked it. Yeah, it's got some unrealistic parts... but when was the last time we watched a TV show that was realistic? It's more realistic than most, and it's got an interesting plot, with some really kick-ass actors.

The name that drew me into watch this was Katey Sagal. I was a huge fan of Married... with Children, and from the different things I'd heard, I felt I had to watch her in this. And I was right. Her character is amazing. Maybe it's just the bitchy attitude coming out, but she makes me laugh.

But, I was surprised at the acting of a few people I had never heard of before. Kim Coates (who I guess is a big actor in Canada), Tommy Flanagan, and Mark Boone Junior, for instance, were amazing. Part of it was that they were good actors; the other part was that these characters -unlike so many today -are human.

They all have flaws. They all make mistakes, do some screwed up things (Tig's little speech about necrophilia for instance...), and are more than a little screwed in the head sometimes, but they're still over-all good people. Not perfect people, but realistic people. People with flaws.

Now, that being said, the glowing part of the review done... Charlie Hunnam bothers me. Not sure if it's his acting, or a poorly written character, but since everyone else seems to pull it off, I'll assume he's just a crappy actor. His swagger in the first season made me cringe, and all I could think of was the 'gangsters' who walk like they gotta take a crap. His lines are delivered either in anger, or sarcasm. There never seems to be any other emotion. Even when he tries, it comes across angry or sarcastic.

Still, definitely worth watching. No, it's not the most realistic thing in the world, but it's still a good watch.

Oh... a little PS... For all the people saying that 'real bikers' wouldn't act this way or that... Are you a real biker? No, I'm not saying necessarily that they would act like they do on the show... But I love people who complain about a certain group not acting a certain way, while they're not part of that group. Like up-town Manhattan liberals complaining about how hard it is to be black in the south. Just a little side note.

Twist (2003)

Great movie

[9/10 · 3 January 2012]

I first watched this with a friend of mine after weeks of poking and prodding. I don't like 'poor-me' type movies, and I felt this had that written all over it.

Well, needless to say, I'm glad I watched it. A lot of movies about hustlers and hookers now present this... idealized view of it, I guess. Like this glamorous lifestyle with a bit of danger thrown in.

Most of these kids out there are doing what they do for the same reason Dodge is. It's better than what they get at home. And I think somewhere along the way, we've lost sight of that, but this movie slams it back home.

Some of the scenes were heart-wrenching. From Dodge with his brother, to the opening scene with the John.

I will agree with one of the other reviewers: Oliver really added nothing to this movie. They sort of forced his character into the script just to go along with the Oliver Twist theme, and it just didn't do anything for the movie.

But even with that, definitely a movie I'd recommend for those looking for this type of thing. Definitely a sad look at the lives of kids on the streets.