thefilmguy7 Reviews

Seed of Chucky (2004)

Truly one of the worst

[2/10 · 9 February 2019]

I can say with full confidence that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm reading that Don Mancini, the creator of this series, is worried how the new reboot Child's Play could negatively affect his universe of Chucky. All I'm thinking is, if you can survive Seed Of Chucky then I think you're safe. This movie was really bad and not in the fun way. It was painful, especially because he's kept it as part of continuity moving into future sequels. It doesn't fit at all. It pretty much killed the franchise. Like how do you move forward with darker edgier stories after seeing this crap? I know that Chucky has always had humor but this took it so far that it made the series into a total joke. It had more in common with Scary Movie than Child's Play. So many stupid, cringe moments. The jokes weren't even funny. Seed also tossed away the series own rules about how Chucky is resurrected. I credit Mancini for his creation and obviously he's put a lot of work into this series. I grew up on the first three movies so i feel bad trashing his later entries so much. This one just kind of ruins everything that I liked about the earlier films. I'm usually not a fan of remakes but part of me is interested to see a new continuity with out the baggage of some of the crazier mistakes in this series.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)

John Wicked some A$$

[8/10 · 11 February 2017]

Keanu Reeves returns in this anticipated sequel. Does it deliver everything that audiences loved about the original but bigger and better? I'd say that's a definite yes. If you're looking for story and depth then this isn't your movie. If you're looking for non stop action and where the body count is too high to keep count, then this is your movie. It was a lot of fun. The movie is gritty but it also knows how to keep things light. Reeves shows no signs of slowing down as he unleashes his arsenal of weaponry and hand to hand combat on anyone who gets in his way. It was also cool to see him and Fishburne share the screen together again. I'd definitely recommend this to fans of the genre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmsS_UV3TIE

Suicide Squad (2016)

DC on life support

[6/10 · 4 August 2016]

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. The trailers and advertising was so good that it was impossible to not feel some hype. I'm also a big DC universe fan and really wanted to see them finally find some footing. Sadly this movie was a let down. The first act is all one giant spoon fed exposition as we have only a few of the casts backstories jammed down our throats. The rest of them are left one dimensional and they never feel more real than cartoons. A good film doesn't need to spend so much time shoveling out exposition. Look at Guardians Of The Galaxy. That movie just did such a great job creating rich characters, each earning their time on screen, who's chemistry with each other was electric that you got everything that you needed to know about them.

Will Smith is great at playing Will Smith. He's as charismatic as ever and definitely adds some fun moments. However he is NOT Deadshot and portrays the character far more as a redeemable hero than he is meant to be. Margot Robbie is every bit as good as we all hoped. She's one of the few things that the movie totally delivers on. Jared Leto as Joker ... where oh where did you go wrong? This is the first cinematic version of the character that falls flat. He brings nothing memorable or interesting to the character. With how much he was hyped, with his method acting and claims about how terrifying he was on set, I definitely expected more. True his screen time is minimal but the second you saw the other Jokers that's all you needed to know that they were iconic. This Joker just wasn't. I mean he wasn't bad but he fell into that just barely serviceable category which is extra disappointing in a way. I expected so much more from him and now I'm very unenthusiastic of him appearing in future films. Jai Courtney is fun but under used. I kept forgetting that Killer Croc was in this movie. The rest of the cast does OK with what little they have.

The threat in the film is way too supernatural and cartoony to fit the gritty dark world surrounding it. It's amazing how many possibilities they could have taken with villains and that this was the best they could do is pretty baffling. The action has it's moments but is also pretty repetitive at times. Sure there was some key moments that I enjoyed. It's just as a whole the movie was a let down. The cameos were fun I guess. The music was solid but the movie some times felt like a giant advertisement to buy the soundtrack with how often songs were forced in. All in all it's just another brick in the wall. Uninspired and unmemorable. It's not going to do much to help establish the DCEU. They really need Wonder Woman to be something special to pull this series out of this state of just being "OK". They need to be great next time.

Batman: The Killing Joke (2016)

Batman: The Joke Killed

[6/10 · 3 August 2016]

Batman: The Killing Joke is one of the most iconic graphic novels ever written. We've waited years to see this adapted as an animated movie. Hopes were raised with the great adaptations of the Year One and then The Dark Knight Returns. Then Bruce Timm was connected to the project and it seemed like there was no going wrong. Sadly there was a way to go wrong and this adaptation found it. The movie shifts focus to being more about Batgirl, aka Barbara Gordon, pining over Batman and their totally irrelevant and subsequent love affair that adds NOTHING to the story. We waste half of the story on a narrative angle that's so detached and so uninteresting that you're almost ready to turn off the movie before it even reaches the comic. It's so filled with cliché dialogue and heavy in tropes that it plays like an eye rolling chore at times. Then when we finally get to the true story they add on incredibly unnecessary screen time with trivial crap like Batman interrogating criminals for the Jokers whereabouts, which in the comics was covered in a single page. Something about the ambiguous ending doesn't translate well to this film either. Now it's not a total waste. The voice acting of the great Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy is on point as usual. There are moments that they handled well from the story. It's just as a whole, really disappointing when compared to other DC adaptations.

Godzilla (2014)

"Where is Godzilla?" I was wondering the same thing Watanabe

[6/10 · 21 May 2014]

I was a bit unimpressed with the movie. They spent almost an hour totally devoted to setting up the Muto's. That entire time I just assumed that they were setting up Godzilla because why would you devote so much time to anything else that isn't Godzilla in a movie titled Godzilla? Then finally around the halfway point they introduce the title monster, except with much less build up and mystery as the Muto's. They rush through Godzilla's set up with a spoon fed exposition that lasts all but a few minutes in comparison to all of that time spent on the Muto's? Just baffling how misguided the focus was. Then finally we get these two misters to face off and ... oh wait ... instead we are going to cut away to some totally forgettable moment with what ever lame thing Aaron Johnson is doing. It's like having Superman versus Doomsday and instead of showing them fight, we watch Jimmy Olsen running to the roof of a building to get a good picture. True we finally get a pretty good fight at the very end but by that time, it's too little too late.

Passed these issues, of course there's the incredibly boring and one dimensional characters populating this world. Ken Watanabe appeared to be bored and counting the seconds until he could return to his trailer to sleep his entire performance. I wonder if the writers made it a game to think of ridiculous and convenient ways to include Aaron Johnson in every major scene of the movie. I spent the entire time wondering why the hell Elizabeth Olsen was involved at all. The only actor and character to bring any real weight to the movie was Bryan Cranston and he's definitely not as major of a player as the deceiving trailers would have you believe. Now I don't blame the cast for the lame characters. That blame clearly falls on the writing and direction.

There's good effects and a few cool action beats but over all this update felt very misguided. I understand wanting to withhold Godzilla to build the anticipation of his arrival but they mishandled that. Focusing on the Muto's as much as they did just made Godzilla feel less important. Having a balance would have worked but instead the scale was tipped way more towards the Muto's and Aaron Johnson in terms of focus. Godzilla was reduced to a few steps above being a cameo. The first act should have built up Godzilla and finished with his reveal, then have him be perceived as the main threat, only to realize that the real threat are the Muto's. Also Cranston should have been the main character as he easily would have carried the film. The way the film was handled, I just didn't feel much investment and I was bored in general.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

Not Jack Ryan

[6/10 · 19 January 2014]

It's ironic that "Jack Ryan" is part of the title for this one because this is the furthest from the character that any of the films have been. Beyond a some what similar back-story, the doctor soon to be wife, and that he works for the CIA, Ryan is not Ryan. They turn him more into a spy/field agent than the brainy analyst that he's meant to be. As a result, there is nothing in this movie that makes it stand out from the rest of it's genre. It's just another spy movie with an over the top villain that's plotting world domination. It's predictable and generic. They sacrificed what made the Jack Ryan character unique.

I'm not saying that the movie didn't work as some Bond/Bourne/Mission Impossible wannabe with bits and pieces slapped together from every spy thriller ever made. It captured successful elements from those films pretty well. It's just a shame that they relied on recycling tired and over used narrative when there is still a bunch of great Ryan books that they have yet to adapt. There should be no reason to slap together this films story when a much more talented writer like Clancy still has more stories to draw from. I agree with Peter Travers comment "It's a product constructed out of spare parts and assembled with computerized precision."

Despite following a predictable formula very closely instead of the source material, the movie still works as entertainment. Chris Pine is great, despite the writers failing him, and he really carries the movie. He could be a great Jack Ryan if they actually wrote the character correctly. Branagh delivers a pretty good villain, even though he's more suited for a Bond film. There are a couple of scenes that deliver good suspense. It's just not a Jack Ryan movie. It seems that they only used Jack Ryan for the brand name rather than faithfully trying to tell a story about him.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

Killing Me Softly ... with boredom!

[4/10 · 1 December 2012]

Killing Them Softly will go down as the movie that killed critics opinions for me. Critics out there praised this movie up the butt and I was a fool enough to listen to them and waste my money. You could have told this movies plot in thirty minutes if you scraped away all of the unnecessary and irrelevant plot threads, like a certain character whining about their wife for at least 20 minutes of screen time. There are all of these attempts at being artsy and different with editing and cinematography choices but it always distracts from what little story is there. It tries to pretend to be smart by shoving down the elections and the state of America down our throats for a cheap social commentary. Really, this is a stupid movie trying to disguise itself as a smart one.

I kept checking the time and considering walking out but thought that maybe there would be at least one surprise from this boringly straight forward story. Instead there is an incredibly unsatisfying and abrupt conclusion and you're left sitting for a moment, wondering if critics are getting paid off for their praise. Minus a good cast and some pretty visuals that were totally unnecessary and self indulgent, this has little going for it.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

The Boring Legacy

[6/10 · 17 August 2012]

I will admit that there was some good action beats, though most of them were reused from the previous films. I'll even admit that Renner was good in the movie.

However, almost every element that made the original trilogy great was absent here. The sense of urgency that made the other movies so well paced is gone. The awesome trademark Bourne music that beats like a clock is gone and is replaced with totally boring and forgettable crap. Instead of moving quickly and constantly making the audience engaged in a feeling of danger this movie seems comfortable hanging around in unnecessary scenes that don't really move the plot too much. Most movies move quickly through transitional scenes like going through an airport, but this movie takes about 15 minutes on it. The whole time you're just waiting for the movie to get to the point but it never really does. Nothing is really accomplished by the end other than one really uninteresting and drawn-out story point. It takes the movie 2 hours and 15 minutes to accomplish something that most movies get to about midway through. This gives most movies the chance to then build to some kind of greater goal, but not this one.

And the final kicker, and this should be a big one to fans of the series, they totally make everything that Bourne fought, sacrificed, and bled for in the previous trilogy meaningless. You know that awesome climax and resolution to Ultimatum where Bourne finally got the upper hand? How satisfied it felt as a fan of the series to finally see him complete his goal? Yeah they pretty much wipe that clean and stomp all over it in this one. Apparently everything that Bourne fought for didn't work and the previous three films were pretty much pointless. Thanks for spitting in the face of the fans. The Bourne Legacy my butt.

30 Days of Night: Dark Days (2010 Video)

30 days of ... what ever

[5/10 · 7 October 2010]

You pretty much get what you would expect from a straight to DVD sequel with this movie. Nothing more and nothing less. I've certainly seen worse and at least this film make some small attempt at adapting the book which it is based on. It also is some what successful at being a continuation of the first film. Of course the biggest problem is that it never strives to be anything more than what it is. It lacks vision and drive. It is so by the book that the first viewing feels like the tenth. You can see every plot point, character turn, and scare coming before it happens.

One of the bigger weaknesses narratively is that we are lead to believe that the group of vampire hunters have some idea of what they are doing and yet they jump into every situation head first. They never seem organized or seem to have a plan. They never even bring enough ammunition. They come across as a group of drunks that decide randomly to go vampire hunting.

Another issue is that Stella suddenly comes across like a military trained Rambo. If memory serves correctly, she was constantly the damsel in distress in the first film and Josh Hartnett was constantly rescuing her. Now suddenly she is leading a team of vampire hunters, knows how to operate explosives and fire arms, and is an around Ripley wanna be bad ass. I don't buy it.

Finally my last big issue is the finale which is pretty unsatisfying and anti climactic. Of course with a straight to DVD budget, that is expected. Still it didn't really seem like a great deal of effort was put into it. Also, with out spoiling anything, once the climax is over things are way too neatly tied up. Plus the film adapts the weakest thing from the book which was the resolution, which kind of defeats the purpose of Hartnett's sacrifice in the first film.

I'd recommend this to fans of the book I suppose, though it is bound to be disappointing to some degree. Fans of the original are also pretty much sure to be disappointed. If you go into this film knowing that it's smaller in every way from the original than you may get some entertainment out of it.

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (2010 Video)

Convoluted Mess

[3/10 · 28 September 2010]

DC animated films have certainly fallen to a new low in quality. You would think that targeting a more mature audience with a PG-13 rating would mean that the story is written with that audience in mind. It may have more violence and action but the story is more of a mess than kindergarten art work. Too many characters, too many locations, too much action, among many other things, make this a convoluted mess.

The story started off strong but very quickly tries to tell too much too quickly. We bounce from place to place and never really get a chance to ground our feet to get invested in what is going on. With in the first 30 minutes of the film, we bounce over months of the story and only spend a few minutes at a time on a day here and there. Because of this we never get to fully understand how a character transitions from one moment to the next. Not allowing an audience time to feel like they are a part of a characters emotional journey disconnects the audience from the character. It would be like having a character that wanted to be a cop and then suddenly skipping ahead a year in that persons life to show that they have become a criminal, never showing what events shaped that person change of heart. It's messy story telling and would make any screenwriter shake their head.

Another grave error by the film is that the story is impossible to follow unless you're very familiar with the comics. Part of a screenwriter's job in making an adaptation is to make the story accessible to people who are unfamiliar with the source material. This film fails miserably in that responsibility. I'm not even sure why Batman is included in the title since he really is a supporting character to Superman and Supergirl. I would not recommend that anyone spends money on this unless you're a huge fan of the comic. I really hope that DC animation gets their act together. I hear they are going to adapt Batman Year One and I really don't know if I trust them any more to give it justice.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010)

Best looking CGI/3D film to date

[7/10 · 27 September 2010]

I usually wait for the 3D films to come on to DVD but I decided to check this out because I was a big fan of Snyder's work on Watchmen. I was very impressed with the film of a technical level. I don't why critics are complaining that it's incoherent and hard to follow. I had completely zero trouble following the narrative and the characters. The kids in the theater seemed to have no trouble either. I've heard critics say that you can't tell the characters apart and again that's rubbish. They are all very unique in how the talk, how they move, and how they look. No trouble at all. Also it's not that violent. There are deaths but never any blood. It's about as violent as Star Wars which isn't that violent at all. The visuals are amazing and for once I support the 3D used in this film. Usually I hate 3D, and for the most part think it should be banned, but just this once it worked great. Beautiful looking CGI. It had a great tone of adventure and laughs. Having an all Brit or European cast was a great choice and made for some nice Brit humor moments. The only complaint that I can think of is that it was too much of a rip off of Star Wars. Otherwise I'd highly recommend it.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Die Hard or Die Soft?

[7/10 · 26 June 2010]

While I found Live Free Or Die Hard entertaining, I definitely think that the people behind the film lost sight of many of things that made the series special. Die Hard is like a brand name and like any brand there are certain things that people expect from it.

I know this is all old news. Countless people before me have complained about the PG-13 rating, the toned down language and violence and everything. There are far too many logistical issues like having Maggie Q get hit by a car and smashed into an elevator shaft with out a scratch. Also a big problem is the lousy music in this one. It was dry and boring. The composer utterly failed to capture the pace and excitement that has become a trademark of the Die Hard series. The only times anything resembling quality music occurs is when the composer reuses themes from the previous films, but even then he fails to capture their original intensity. The film also relies too much on popcorn action when the original did a great job of building suspense. An example is the scene where John is trying to smash the glass to get Al's attention while two gun man come into the room shooting. John must get to Al before he leaves but forces are preventing him from doing so. This kind of suspense is totally replaced in the new film for typical brainless action.

These problems are more on the surface but the real problem rests deeper. Die Hard was about your every day guy put into an extreme situation that forces him to become a hero. This guy is tough but at the same time vulnerable and human. Everything thing he did and survived through is unlikely but not impossible. In the new film, they have basically made John into a super human. He takes on a handful of people at a time, rides on the wings of jets, falls 50 feet scraping down a cement road, and all of this with just a few scrapes. In the original, John had a hard enough time just beating a few guys and he always came out of his encounters bloody. He never survived something that was impossible. By making him a super human we have lost the ability to relate with John and imagine ourselves in his shoes. Part of the success of the original came from the great job they did making John relatable and having the audience ask themselves what would they do in his situation.

Again, I did enjoy the film as a summer popcorn flick. It had some great stunts and action set pieces. It was good to see Bruce Willis back in John McClane's shoes. I'd even say that it's better than most of the action crap coming from Hollywood lately. As a typical action film it's not bad, but as a Die Hard film it is disappointing. Though the unrated version corrected some issues, most of the issues rest deeper in the narrative. I hope if they were to make another film that they might try analyzing what made the first film such a classic.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Prince Of Persia: The Waste Of Time

[5/10 · 13 June 2010]

Prince Of Persia starts off with some promise considering that it's just another conventional summer popcorn film. It has a nice little origin back story for it's hero and then a visually interesting opening action sequence. With the introduction to the mystical dagger though, the film quickly moves into a messy narrative that is so predictable that you would think that you time traveled backwards from the ending.

Jake Gyllenhaal puts in his best effort to play his cardboard one dimensional hero. Gemma Arterton is gorgeous and seems to have a nice chemistry with Gyllenhaal. Ben Kingsley is totally wasted here as he could have been played by a cut out of Dr. Evil. Alfred Molina is actually a highlight in the film performance wise but his character is totally pointless other than offering some comic relief.

The CGI effects are pretty impressive but are also so excessive that they take away believability and make you feel as though you are still playing the video game. The action scenes follow the same pattern of being impressive but too over the top. You need the audience to feel threatened for the hero and it's hard to do that when the hero can leap tall buildings in a single bound and dodge around collapsing structures like he's in The Matrix.

It is a well known fact that the ending is the most important part of any story. Sure the beginning is important for investing the audience with introducing them to the characters and the world they live in and the middle is important for raising the stakes. However it's what happens at the end of the film that resonates with the audience the most. Everything in the film is building towards the ending and with out the proper pay off the structure of the film falls apart. This is the case with the ending of this film. With out spoiling anything, something happens at the end that leaves the viewer feeling like the last hour and a half of the film was a waste of time. That is never something an audience member should feel. Stories should feel like journey's that the audience takes along with the characters. If the journey feels pointless than movie feels incomplete.

If the film had found a way of making the journey worth while in the end than I would have given it a slightly higher rating. I mean the movie wasn't with out some charms. It did have entertainment value despite all it's flaws. However it failed in it's ending and left a bad last impression on top of all it's other short comings. I wish I had the tagger so that I can turn the sands of time back to tell myself to just wait for this one on rental.

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)

The Descent in quality

[6/10 · 27 April 2010]

Where the first one took it's time introducing and developing dimensional characters and relationships this movie just skipped all of that to the gore. Even worse is that the sequel makes no attempts at trying to add something original or unique to the first. It's pretty much just remaking the best parts of the first film and the results are predictable and less interesting. Even the lighting took a turn for the worse in the film. Where the first one was dark and everything moved in and out of shadows, this one seems lit for a cheap TV movie that doesn't care to keep the creatures mysterious and scary.

I felt having Sarah suffer from temporary amnesia was a cheap plot device to get her back into the caves. Her behavior inside the caves seems random and illogical initially. Like why would she attack the rescue team and run deeper into the caves instead of trying to turn back and head out the exit? The deaths were random and pointless for the most part. They also made a big mistake reintroducing Juno as late into the film as they did. She should have played a very important role in the film and coming in earlier would have established the theme of redemption at a better spot. She barely had a enough screen time to be even worth having in the film. The ending also feels empty and pointless for the most part. There was a little nice touch with concluding the redemption theme but there were sacrifices made that meant nothing in the end.

Over all I wouldn't say that The Descent Part 2 is a terrible film, it's just a disappointing film. It could have been done a lot better for sure. Still there were some scares and it pretty much served the role it was supposed to in the genera.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Unimpressed

[5/10 · 21 March 2010]

I really was very underwhelmed with the film. It really didn't offer anything that I haven't seen before from the genera. I thought that it was predictable and very easy to figure out. There really wasn't anything that kept me guessing which is one of the most important things that a film like this must do to the audience. The film seemed to think that it was smarter then it really was. Maybe if the answer to the mystery was more mysterious I would have felt more suspense during the long drawn out scenes but instead they just bored me. Also I thought that the resolution was pretty bland and pointless. I wouldn't have minded a pointless ending if the journey was more interesting but I didn't think it was. Instead I just felt like I wasted time seeing the film.

Now it's not all bad I suppose. Some great performances from McGregor, Brosnan, and Wilkinson. I thought some scenes were well paced from time to time. Definitely not one of Polanski's greater accomplishments in cinema. All in all I thought that it was pretty forgettable.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

The Painful Bones

[4/10 · 23 January 2010]

I'm very impressed at how far Peter Jackson could fall from the quality of Lord Of The Rings. The Lovely Bones was at times painful to watch. All of the grace and talent that he showed for adapting J.R. Tolkien's masterpiece is absent here for the most part. True the performances were good. It was visually interesting. It also had a great Hitchcock type of moment nearer to the end. Otherwise though this film was very disappointing. I might even go so far as to say that it is in the top ten worst films of the year possibly. There were so many plot threads that were either terribly tied together or were not tied at all. The narrative and focus of the films themes and character developments were a mess. There was so much screen time wasted on dead ends and empty scenes. Humor was also always misplaced and inappropriate. The music choices never fit the tone. Some of the dialogue and atmosphere in some scenes were filled with more cheese than a Sandra Bullock romantic comedy. The three stars I give this film mainly go to Stanley Tucci, for a creepy performance, and Saoirse Ronan, a talented young actress and some of the visuals. There were about three to four scenes max that I thought were pretty well done. Those scenes take up maybe a little over twenty minutes of the film and considering that the running time is 135 minutes, that's pretty sad. Wait for this one to come on HBO.

Léon: The Professional (1994)

The Professional is a mess

[5/10 · 19 January 2010]

I just watched Leon The Professional and I'm a little perplexed as to why this film has such high ratings. While Jean Reno delivered a solid performance, the film felt like a mess for the most part. There were HUGE gaps in logic and reason with some of the plot points. What was up with Gary Oldman? Was he like the emperor of the DEA? The crap that he got away with is totally impossible. I don't even see how the guy could work in the DEA considering that he is a total psychotic. The whole finale was ridiculous too. Did Luc Besson bother to take any time at all in researching DEA procedures or protocols? The DEA acted more like the mob than anything.

It's one thing to ask the audience to suspend disbelief but this film takes that to a whole other level. It goes so far out of the realm of possibility in places that it becomes more of a fantasy/sci fi film than a crime action film. Also what was up with the music? It was always totally inappropriate for the scenes. It was just completely off and awkward. I really wanted to like this film. I have generally been a fan of Luc Besson's other films and I'm a fan of the cast. Unfortunately this movie was a real challenge to sit through. Now there were some redeeming moments. I liked the little moments that established Leon's character. How he drinks milk, cares for his plant, and sits in the dark. I liked some of the little moments between Leon and Mathilda. There were a few good action beats. However none of these positives are enough to give the film the kind of rating that it has here on IMDb. The film is average at the very best. It offers no intelligence or soul to it's story. The concept could have worked if it was done correctly but sadly it wasn't.

Halloween II (2009)

Halloween rotten candy

[3/10 · 14 January 2010]

I knew that this film was probably going to be bad but I didn't know that it was going to be terrible. I grew up with the original Halloween and to this day I still enjoy the first two films. I even enjoyed Rob Zombie's first Halloween film. It was interesting to see the same story told under a different light. I enjoyed the psycho analysis for Michael Myers. I had the feeling any sequel to that would be bad but I underestimated how much Zombie was capable of creating true crap. The film has nothing redeeming about it except maybe one or two cinematography techniques that I thought were interesting. Otherwise everything totally missed the mark. The screenplay screamed of formula and convention. Every attempted scare could be seen coming from a mile away. This film offers nothing new to the genera. What was up with wasting the first 20 minutes of the film on a dream sequence? True there are other horror films that have little nightmare sequences but they don't last 20 minutes. It was just a total waste of time. And don't get me start on possibly the weakest finale that I have ever seen for this series.

Zombie also showed a total disregard with honoring the characters of Halloween. Loomis, who is almost as iconic to the series as Myers is, was totally mishandled. The characters was twisted into a ego maniac who only cared about himself, money, and fame. This resembles nothing of the man we were introduced to in the last film who was willing to give his life to save Laurie. Also his stupid subplot was just a rip off of Courtney Cox's subplot in Scream 2 of writing a book and making a profit from the events of the first film. They did a terrible job of finding a way to bring Loomis subplot into the main plot. His weakly written want to redeem himself didn't add up and was totally pointless in the end. Laurie was also terribly handled in this film. She was so over the top and came across more annoying than sympathetic. There were times where I actually wanted her character to die and that is something you should never want your audience to feel. It is essential in horror films that you relate to the lead character in danger or you won't fear for them. Michael Myers himself was handled with total disrespect as well. He came across more like a giant crack head than anything else. I don't know why Zombie thinks that making Myers a giant with super human strength makes him more scary. It puts the film into a realm that you can't totally connect to because you know it doesn't follow the rules of real life. It almost becomes more like a comic book. Real monsters don't have to be huge to be scary. I think Anthony Hopkins showed all of us that with Hannibal.

I really hope that the series ends with this film but knowing the greedy suites of Hollywood, it's probably just the beginning. Well they certainly aren't getting my money again next time around. I don't waste my time with throw away films like this.

Avatar (2009)

Avatar is epic!

[9/10 · 21 December 2009]

James Cameron returns and shows these wannabe rookie directors of recent times how it's done. Finally a good "old school" film that is worth remembering. This has been one of the weakest years in film-making that I can think of. When extremely low quality films like Transformers 2, New Moon, and Wolverine are some of the biggest hits of the year, you know something is wrong. Leave it up to Cameron to save the day with this fresh and unique cinematic experience.

Avatar is everything that it has been hyped to be and is nearly flawless in it's execution. Cameron, unlike Michael Bay and every other crappy director of today, actually shows just as much care in crafting a compelling and involving story as he does in delivering mind blowing visual effects and action. Cameron knows that with out a good story and characters that action is just a bunch of noise. He really knows how to invest his audience so that when the action kicks in you are on the edge of your seat in suspense. The film runs long but everything pays off in full. There is only one plot point I can think of that doesn't have a pay off but it's barely even worth mentioning. The allegory of indigenous tribal people being forced off their land by a more sophisticated race isn't a new concept but it's executed very fresh in this story. It really makes you feel guilty to be a human being as we are the true villains in this film. You cheer for the Na'vi to kick our asses in the end. Cameron definitely does a great job of sending a message.

The visual effects are ground breaking and are undoubtedly going to clean out the Oscars. I heard one audience member say that Avatar was "the most beautiful film I've seen in years". I definitely have to agree with that statement. The creatures and the environment they live in looks so good that it could fool someone into thinking it is a place they could visit. The action always serves the story and is never there just for the sake of having explosions. Michael Bay needs to take some notes. The action is used carefully but when it's on screen it's jaw dropping. You'll find yourself cheering, laughing, and crying all with in a single action sequence. There is also a surprisingly very genuine romance at the heart of this film which makes it a great date flick. The movie breaks boundaries of genera and is made for all audiences.

The cast is also worth a respectable mention. This Sam Worthington guy came fast out of no where but he is definitely here to stay. It's very rare that a guy can make a sudden jump on to the scene and bring with him this much on screen charisma. He stole the show in Terminator Salvation and now totally carries the film on his shoulders here. He is a total natural and really delivers above and beyond. Zoe Saldana, his romantic interest, also made a sudden leap onto the scene and nearly steals the show. Her performance is the heart and soul of this film. It's also great to see Sigourney Weaver back in a big film. Now if only Cameron could give Michael Biehn a big break like that too. There isn't a single weakness in this cast.

Avatar really is the big event that Cameron has promised it to be. If I had to pick any flaw with it I'd say some of the dialogue could use revising and I'd really like the physics of how mountains in this world float explained. All in all though, it's very hard to think of anything to complain about this movie. Cameron has proved that he has still got what it takes and that time has only added more wisdom to his film-making style. This film is deserving of great financial success, critical praise, and Academy Award nominations. If you're only going to see one film this year then this would be a good choice. It is a movie that must be seen on the big screen. I don't care how big and impressive your HD TV is because it can't possible do this film justice. Hopefully this will remind audience and filmmakers what movies have been missing these days. Story is the most important aspect of any film. Filmmakers must remember this or films are doomed to mediocrity. Avatar is a must see!

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: Some Must Watch While Some Must Sleep (2009) Season 2, Episode 16

A bad trip

[2/10 · 4 December 2009]

Wow with episodes like this it's no wonder the show got canceled. The second season really just got caught in a downward spiral in quality. It increasingly lost sight and focus of what the show was supposed to be. This episode was just ridiculous. My top favorite films are stuff like Donnie Darko, Fight Club, and The Fountain. So I'm definitely a fan of cerebral mind benders but this episode just did a terrible job at trying to be smart. It was just a mess and the worst part is that it was a mess that meant nothing in the grand scheme of the show. This whole episode was just a waste of time. I just don't know what the creative team was thinking with this crap. This show had a lot of potential but they just totally lost their way by this point.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Predictable Activity

[3/10 · 1 November 2009]

Films that used to garner this much hype lived up to it. Now days audiences seem easily impressed by mediocre films. I am very rarely bored during films of this genera but I found myself looking at the time in between fits of yawning. This film has nothing scary to offer except some moments where things jump at the screen. The tension of the scenes poorly builds up and rarely if ever delivers anything memorable. The dialogue is atrocious and unbearable in most of the scenes. In all of these types of films, people always ask the camera man to turn off the camera and why is he still filming, and as an audience member I'm wondering the same thing. Repeatedly in this film his girlfriend asks him to stop filming and yet he continues. Even going so far as to push the camera into her face when she is emotional or scared seeming more interested in capturing the moment than showing any care or compassion for her. They continually go over the same points and the same arguments in between every haunting. Their reasoning and solutions are both predictable and ridiculous. This film just follows the conventions that Blair Witch and Cloverfield established before it and has nothing new to offer the genera. All of the films pretty much begin the same way and end the same way. You'd think that they would be interested in mixing it up and surprising the audience but apparently they take their target audience for suckers. I guess they judge their audience correctly seeing as some how this garbage has made as much money as it has. All it does is rip off much better films before it in hopes of luring an ignorant audience to the theater. Classics are no longer made but just copied. I'm beginning to wonder if we will ever again see anything truly original from films or if we are trapped in a void of cinematic butchery. The sad truth is that as long as ignorant audiences keep flocking to see this ripped off trash then Hollywood will continue to shovel them out.

Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (2009 Video)

Superman/Batman are shaking their heads

[5/10 · 1 October 2009]

I think anyone who was a kid during the 90's was a fan of the Batman animated series. It was just unlike any other cartoon we'd seen before and it was so faithful to the heart of the character. Plus we got the best Batman voice of all time Kevin Conroy. Even though I've outgrown the animated series, I've still remained fond of the old days and I check in on what they are doing from time to time. I was really impressed with Gotham Knight animated film that came out around when TDK came out. It was really fresh and unique to the Batman animated world. I was looking forward to seeing more mature animated Batman films that adults could enjoy.

When I heard about this film, that it was PG-13, was an adaptation of a comic, and starred Kevin Conroy, I was very interested. I'm sorry to report that the film is a major let down. It's all action and no substance what so ever. It's as though Michael Bay had directed the movie. It's just non stop fight and fight and then the movie is over. There is no time taken to construct much of any narrative and the one that is there seems more suitable for a video game. And don't get me started on the totally moronic finale with the transformer wannabe.

It's a huge step down from the direction that the series was taking with Gotham Knight. The only reason that this film got a PG-13 is because of a totally unnecessary use of a swear word that adds nothing to the scene or the story. With out the swear word and this film is definitely a kid film. I'd say it's more for children than even the 90's animated series. I really think that they should go back with the direction they were taking with Gotham Knight. Continue to take risks and tell edgy stories. There are so many amazing graphic novels from the Batman universe that would make amazing animated films if they were done with respect.

Watchmen (2009)

Watchmen is a cinematic masterpiece

[10/10 · 29 July 2009]

Amazing film. Bringing a graphic novel as layered and complex as the Watchmen to the screen is no easy task and Snyder did a brilliant job. Watchmen was as unconventional, intellectual, cerebral, and unique to the cinema world as much as the graphic novel was to the comic book world. It's hard to not compare this to the novel but as a film it is brilliant. Zack Snyder truly did the story justice. Look around online at where other filmmakers before him wanted to take the film. There was even one script where they updated it to be in present day and have the threat be from terrorists. Snyder single handedly saved the Watchmen from a cinematic nightmare. He had the script reworked into the closest adaptation of any graphic novel to date. I would like to shake his hand and thank him for being one of the few filmmakers these days that actually cares about being faithful to the source material of film adaptations. Beyond being faithful, Snyder brought an amazing style and vision to the project. He brought an independent film sensibility to a big budget picture which not many people have the guts to do. I don't think enough can be said on what a great job he did.

I think some of the complaints people have about this movie is interesting because they are very contradictory. Some say the film is too short and some say it's too long. Some say that the movie suffers from sticking too close to the book and others say it's from not sticking close enough to the book. From beginning to end I can't say there wasn't a single moment when I checked the time. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of this film. I also speak from a fan's perspective when I say that this movie is probably the closest adaptation of a comic book to date. Yeah there are some details left out but there are already people complaining about the length. Imagine how many people would complain if this movie actually had every single thing from the book in it. It would be like five hours long! The fact of the matter is that the spirit and the heart of the book is definitely present in every moment of the movie.

Some people are also complaining about the music used in the film. With exception of maybe a song or two I loved the soundtrack. Since the film is a period piece, and these characters are such a big part of American history from the 1950's on, it makes sense to blend the music of the times into these characters lives. This is the story of what would happen in our world if these characters existed in it. In our world music is very tied into our history. I just really don't see the big deal. I think it's just because people aren't used to hearing this sort of music in this genera. Again this just goes to show that this movie dares to be different from the rest.

I think the problem for the non fans of the book is that they just thought this was going to be another X Men. THIS IS NOT THE X MEN or is it any other super hero film you have ever seen before. This is risk taking super hero story. It's got the spirit of an independent film. It is truly unique. I saw some parents brought children to see this film. Wow great parenting. This isn't a movie for children. It has extremely graphic and gruesome violence. It has sex and nudity. Watchmen earns it's R rating. Yeah it still has the action and the fight scenes audiences have come to expect from a super hero movie and they are certainly impressive. Unlike other super hero films though the action scenes aren't what drives the story. This is a character piece. The film, like the novel, takes it's time developing the complex history of the characters and the world they live in. Each character is so rich and unique that it's very hard to find a favorite. The actors are perfectly cast to bring these characters to life. It's as though they are jumping out of the pages of the book.

Watchmen is definitely under appreciated and under rated. It's a shame that mainstream audiences didn't really seem to get it. Then again these are the same people that made Transformers 2 one of the biggest hits of the summer so it's almost a compliment that they didn't get it. Like Fight Club, Donnie Darko, and The Fountain, Watchmen will find attention from a more intellectual group of people that can actually appreciate all of the nuances, philosophy, and social commentary that this film has to offer. Apparently this is too smart and cerebral for the typical audience member. Watchmen dared to be different in a time when most films are afraid to challenge conventions. Films used to be praised for that. Apparently not any more. If this came out ten years ago it probably would have met more success but these days people don't want to think at the movies. They just want conventional and simple. It's a shame but I have a feeling that Watchmen will find a larger audience on DVD. It is an experience that should not be missed. It's the freshest super hero story ever told.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

X Men Origins: Wolverine was a disaster!

[4/10 · 15 July 2009]

I'm sorry to report that all of the terrible things that critics have been saying about this movie are all totally true. A major let down. I grew up a huge fan of Wolverine. As a kid I collected the comics and they were my favorite from X Men because they were darker and more psychological. When the movies came around they reignited my interest in the character. The movies changed some aspects of his personality and such but I thought that in general the character was treated with a lot of respect. Especially the first two with the third film being a bit of a disappointment. When I found out about this Wolverine movie I was immediately excited about it. Especially after the first awesome trailer came out, which very deceivingly, made the movie look like it was taking a cue from Batman Begins and handling the material with great respect. The more I read from the filmmakers the more I got pumped because they went on and on about how faithful they were going to be and how mature the film was going to be. It was my number one pick for the summer.

Then the reviews started to come in and almost all of them were bad. I kept hoping that the critics were wrong but my interest in the movie did get shaken. It's a good thing too because had I seen this movie with the amount of faith in it that I had then I might have thrown burning fuel at the projector. Even with lowered expectations the movie was a massive disaster. They were neither faithful, dark, or mature in how they handled the movie. The whole movie is pretty much a spit into the face of the fans of Wolverine. They turn the whole thing into one big promotion for other mutants and their possible spin off movies. They promised that they would make a deep psychological Wolverine and here they couldn't have failed any more in that attempt. I thought that this was going to be as epic as Batman Begins and instead it was about as epic as a Saturday morning cartoon. True Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber did the best they could but they were surrounded by one of the worst productions I've seen in a super hero film.

The script was filled with every predictable cliché in the book. I felt like the whole movie script was a scrap book to previous action and comic films. The comedy was always misplaced and always fell flat. The direction was totally uninspired and unoriginal. The special effects are bad enough to earn a razzie award. There was a kid behind me that called out, those look like cartoons the first time Wolverine inspected his adamantium claws. If a kid can spot that out then that really tells you something. I have no idea where all of the money for budget went but it certainly wasn't much towards the effects. Last but not least, the movie totally butchers the back story to the character. For months I've been reading interviews with people from the movie promising that this movie was for the fans and how faithful they were going to be to the source material. They basically lied to everyone. The movie has none of the weight or depth that was promised. Having a running time of only 1 hour and 45 minutes was a pretty good indicator of that. This movie should have at least been 2 hours 10 minutes to fit in everything the way it was meant to be.

Marvel could have had themselves their own Batman Begins but instead have a film with depth of a cartoon. Now it's not the worst comic book movie of all time or anything but it's very far cry from the best. There are entertaining action scenes. Some small moments of something hinting at the depth that the whole movie should have had. It wasn't boring or anything. Just irritating. It's really a shame. I think if there was ever a movie that should be remade immediately then this would be it. There is an amazing film waiting to be made for Wolverine. This certainly wasn't it. If they just treat the material with respect they will be off to a good start. They should have paid Bryan Singer any amount of money that he wanted to come back for this. Or get Chris Nolan who of course is busy with Batman. Imagine how amazing this movie would have been though if Chris Nolan had been in charge. This movie was supposed to show the birth of Wolverine and instead I felt like I attended his funeral.

American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002 Video)

American Psycho 2 is offensively bad

[2/10 · 22 June 2009]

This film comes no where even close to earning it's title. I would even go so far as to say that this may be one of the worst films ever made. The original American Psycho was an intelligent psychological study from the perspective of a sociopath living in the yuppie culture in the 1980's. It was both eerie and haunting yet at the same time humorous. Christian Bale expertly breathed life into the character of Patrick Bateman and largely contributed to the film becoming a cult classic. The sequel has none of the the qualities that made the original so great and if it weren't for the title and a poor attempt to include Bateman in the story, you would think that it was a low rate made for TV slasher flick. It is clear that the creative team behind this film have absolutely no respect for the original or the insight into what made the original work. There really isn't a single redeemable element in this waste of celluloid. The acting was bad, the story was terrible, the direction was uninspired, and even the music was unbearable. The narrative twists pretend to be clever when they are about as far away from as possible. This is the greatest insult to the original imaginable. A huge spit into the face of the fans. Why anyone would even consider making a sequel to American Psycho is beyond me. I'm going to pretend I never saw this film as soon as I post this comment.