rushknight Reviews

Critical Thinking (2020)

Finally, a movie about chess that isn't afraid play the game correctly.

[9/10 · 16 September 2020]

Chess. As a fan of the game I have watched many a movie that featured it, and have been disappointed several times when it became apparent that the movie makers had no intention of actually portraying the game as it is played. Instead, they usually content themselves with utilizing the game's mythos. We are given the impression that players of the game are very smart, they understand the "deep thinking" part of the game and live in a world far removed from the rest of us heathens, who don't know what the word "checkmate" means.

"Searching for Bobby Fisher" (1993) comes to mind as an example of one of those great movies that somehow disregarded the game entirely. I was horrified that they could make a movie about the game and purposely choose to remain ignorant of it, as if no one watching would notice. Yeah, guess who's gonna watch a movie about a famous chess player? Could it be.. other chess players?? I'm sure no one will notice that the games in the movie aren't real.

This movie is the first movie I've ever seen that uses actual historical games, play by play. It accurately uses the names of the openings, and has the actors playing the game for real as the viewer watches. The teacher talks about real historical chess players that shaped playing styles. That alone warrants 7 stars in my book.

The other two stars come from the quality of the film itself. This is not a movie about the game, it's about the people who played it. A group of "disadvantaged" kids who became winners. It's a great story. The actors did a great job. Character development was somewhat slim, but the viewer is carried along and learns to care about each of them. Their interplay is real, you really see that they are in touch with each other. John Leguizamo played a great part, I enjoyed it greatly.

The only reason I didn't give this a 10 was because I was put off just slightly by the "social justice" revising of history. José Raúl Capablanca didn't get marginalized and erased from history, that's a fabrication. He was world champion for 6 years and had a huge lasting influence on the game. Maybe the reason people don't know about him is because he was champion nearly 100 years ago. And Gabriel Maura from Puerto Rico? He did not "modernize" the game. He literally created a new version of it (called Modern Chess) which is popular in South America. That's why no one knows his name, it has nothing to do with his race. It has to do with the fact that these kids are living in the U.S. and don't play chess in South America. Shame shame people. -1 star.

Great movie, I really enjoyed it and I highly recommend it.

Camp Cold Brook (2018)

Well produced, but very stale

[5/10 · 10 May 2020]

This is well acted. Everyone involved did a pretty good job of getting into their parts, and I appreciate it greatly when actors make the effort. It's what they should be doing and speaks well of them as professionals. I give them all kudos and frankly it's the only reason I rank this a 5 out of 10.

This is well filmed, it has that quality you hope to find in a movie when you view one: clear video, steady cameras, good story-boarding.

Unfortunately that's it. Plot wise it was very unoriginal. It's been done before by only, oh I don't know.. 60 or 70 other movies? I'm being facetious of course, but seriously, it's been done before. The plot was so stale that I was able to guess the ending almost immediately after the first hint was passed out. The second I heard, "28 children died" BOOM! I knew exactly what the ending was going to be. I also guessed the part about the co-worker. I won't spoil it, though trust me there isn't much to be spoiled. It was so predictable.

Additionally I felt like there were some real holes. Many of the scenes in the film were cliches from other movies, but some of them were left somewhat uncooked. This happens mainly in the supporting characters. They'll say something like (loose paraphrase to avoid spoiler) "You know what we did!" And then we never find out what they did. Lol.

As far as being scared goes, there is little to scare you. The special effects are limited (thankfully) and when they do appear they are not terribly effective.

I think the biggest problem is that there is a very discernible lack of focus. Is this a scary movie? It's not that scary. Is it a mystery? It's too easy to guess. Is it a comedy, nope. Is this about the (NON-SPOILER CHARACTER) or the other (NON-SPOILER CHARACTER)? Maybe neither? It felt as though the intent of the film kept changing somewhere in the middle. All told, it just didn't fly with me.

Batman vs Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2019 Video)

The reviews are not lying. This is a great flick. They did a great job with this.

[10/10 · 28 April 2020]

Simply put, entertainment from start to finish. The best rating I can give is when I enjoy a movie from start to finish.

The voice acting is completely in character, the turtles and The GD Batman are all totally true to their personalities and story lines. Michaelangelo was at his best. He actually was never my favorite turtle, his "surfer dude" humor never struck home with me in the cartoon, but here it works very well. Raphael has the personality and story line that came from the 1990's movie, so he is not quite the same turtle from the cartoon, but he is dang good here also. Leonardo and Donatello both are the same as before, but even better. You know something is well made when much loved characters become more loved by the end.

Speaking of characters becoming more loved, Baxter Stockman is here too, and even he's a great character! Seriously, they just did a good job on them all. No Bebop and Rocksteady though. Ha ha, those two never get a break.

The plot is just good enough to be plausibly comic-book. This is not necessarily a kids movie, it can be surprisingly violent, although some younger folks might like it. I am in my 40's and grew up on TMNT, and this movie brought it all back, and then some.

The humor was fantastic. The jokes were totally fitting and eloquently timed. The writing was very good, the action was fun, the interplay between The GD Batman and his crew with the turtles was very enjoyable.

Seriously, this is a good one, watch it. Preferably with friends or share the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with your kids. Keep the legend alive. I've personally watched it now 4 times just for fun. That's pretty rare for me to repeat a movie even once, but this one was just good fun.

The Alpha Test (2020)

It's a comedy. No one behaves this way.

[2/10 · 26 April 2020]

This movie is not about a robot. It's about human beings being human.

Remember Star Trek? Not just the first one, but ALL of them? In every version of Star Trek there is a character who works in some way as a reflector of the human condition. Spock, 7-of-9, Kes, Data, Q, each of these characters constantly questioned every human about their reasoning and behavior, and ultimately strove (Data especially) to become more human, and in so doing forced other humans to examine and define their humanness.

Alpha is exactly the same sort of character, except she makes even less sense than any of the others. The great Sci-Fi writer Isaac Asimov conjectured that any autonomous robot ever built would have to be built with three primary directives in place. These directives became known as "Asimov's Laws."

First Law A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

While not openly cited, the spirit of these three laws is still commonplace in popular Sci-Fi movies about androids, but here in this film they seem to be lacking. Alpha has no concept of what it means to harm anyone or anything, which is and of itself a gigantic plot hole. No company would ever produce an autonomous entity that is capable of harming other people and simply put it into people's homes without even the most basic understanding of how human beings behave. Very silly on its face. It's like giving children a loaded gun and admonishing them not to get hurt with it.

And getting back to the human-mirror part, Alpha receives several conflicting orders from each human she associates with, and cannot make sense of the illogical reasoning and irrational emotions of her human owners, and thusly turns inward for her own answers. A classic "flawed humanity" tale in the same spirit as every season of "The Outer Limits," where about 80% of the episodes ended with the destruction of Earth on account of some basic human failing.

Bad costuming and special effects aside, this tale could have had some merit. After all, I have cited three very successful shows/novelists who were successful using the same idea. But unfortunately this film is poorly acted and scripted. The human characters involved are completely shallow and deliberately expose their flaws to the robot and the audience, ostensibly to get us to side with the robot I suppose. The robot is completely unbelievable, not only from the acting and costuming, but as a character itself. From the very get-go she does not behave as a robot would, and she has feeeeeelings? Riiight.

I wanted to like this movie, I love low budget inventiveness, but unfortunately this movie is just simply not well done. Plus the blood looks like teriyaki sauce.

Frozen II (2019)

Yes Disney, I'm listening. Will this be on the test?

[6/10 · 20 March 2020]

First off, a fun movie to watch. There is magic, some small mystery, a bit of adventure and also great animation. The music is good, but does not have the virtue of speaking to a deeply human need as the first movie's "Let It Go" did. All in all, I enjoyed the watch and probably will watch it again at some point.

Those who were expecting a sequel to be >= the first movie: Shame on you. Treat it for what it is, a sequel. Sequels, unlike original stories, have different motives. They are created for cash grabs, re-definitions, a number of other reasons and (worst of all) lectures.

Yes, this is a lecture. Those of you who love Disney movies in today's day and age should be all too familiar with the way Disney fills it's modern day features up with social justice propaganda and environmental stewardship instructions, or any other fad of the day. There's a little bit of it in every new Disney movie. The biggest social justice facet at this present time is women's empowerment. Strong women, male equals (or male villains). I consider it fair, women were really just exploited for some time, it's nice to see women leads, all breaking out of a shell, throwing off oppression, exploring new worlds, breaking a glass ceiling, etc, etc.

Well, the first movie served well enough for women's liberation, so we've already finished that part. So what's left? Restitution and environmental stewardship. I guessed it immediately the second daddy began telling his story. Unfortunately the plot was too obvious. The parallels with modern environmentalist complaints about dams and the age old story of the Native Americans were too readily apparent.

After groaning inwardly, I shrugged and said to myself, "What were you expecting?" and continued to watch anyway. After all, the writers at Disney have always gleaned their inspiration from the world around them. Sometimes they are a little too transparent in their motives, and we can all look back at older Disney films that are now considered "offensive," but all the same I can't expect them to ignore the current fads that make people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Disney has to be in touch with what people want, breaking out of the flow is dangerous for any firmly established business. I would never expect them to be brave, and no one else should either. Preaching to the choir is the safest money maker.

But I am glad I watched the movie. Regardless of the lecture, I still had a good time watching it and enjoyed the antics of the characters and even just a bit of the adventure. I think I enjoyed it most because I was not expecting anything to be as good as the first. It was by no means a great movie, but not the big letdown some are saying. It's a sequel people, and even a moderately good one as far as sequels go.

Dolittle (2020)

Poor casting choice. Otherwise reasonable film for kids.

[5/10 · 18 February 2020]

As said in my description. The film is pretty much as expected, a rollicking, adventurous romp through the world with talking animals as the chief entertainment. All of it centered, of course, around the character of Dr. Dolittle, the man who can speak the language of the animals.

The humor is acceptable enough, and the animals with their very human qualities are fun to watch and reasonably relatable.

But the film was weak for one primary reason: It was a poor choice to cast Robert Downey Jr. as Dr. Dolittle. RBJ is a fun actor and I love his movies, but he is not a great character actor. What other characters has he played?

Iron Man - He talked like himself, high energy and witty mannerism. Sherlock Holmes - He talked like his usual high energy self, with slight accent. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - He talked like himself. Tropic Thunder - Ok, got me here, total transformation. Probably his best. But in any other movie he always has the same energy and mannerism. It's what he's known for. It's his trademark style.

But this time his voice was purposely devoid of his usual self. Instead he talked like a quietly dignified old scholar, even when the situation didn't suit that type of voice. Bland and devoid of emotive content, his lines simply brought no life to the film. He sounded so much unlike himself and it even sounds like his voice was added later (which I'm sure it was, probably recorded separately so that he could get the "right" sound each time). In other words, RBJ was cast in the position of an elderly English gentleman, a part that completely didn't fit him at all. The poor acting and abrasive dubbing completely robbed the humanity out of the character. He was wooden and uncharacteristically reserved. They could have put any old man in this part, it didn't need to be an actor who's trademark style had to be muffled.

Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made (2020)

Disney's getting a little fuzzy on it's social curriculum.

[7/10 · 15 February 2020]

For starters, I enjoyed this movie. Young Timmy's insistence on his fantasy reminded me a little of Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes), and his imaginative misconceptions were entertaining. He was a one-trick pony to be sure, completely obsessed with the caricature of a noir style private eye, even to the point of delving into some more James Bond-ian interpretations. Winslow Fegley was a perfect casting for the part. His constant scowl and cool reaction mixed well with his childlike misinterpretation of events.

What intrigued me most was what I would call an unexpected ending. Anyone who has been paying attention lately would know that Disney sure loves to lecture people with social justice messages. Whatever the latest politically correct, feel-good fad is, you can bet Disney is making movies to preach it. We've been served a fair portion of feminist-communist androids (L3-37), misandric sorceresses (Maleficent), stereotype breaking princesses (Elsa and Anna), and transgender princesses (Alexis from Alex Is). But the most common lecture from our benevolent Disney Overlords is the "accept yourself because you're special" message, which is probably the oldest Disney message, and which comes into play here.

Our little hero is clearly misguided and is in need of some help. On the verge of middle school, little Timmy is not going to be a child much longer. At this point in his life he should be old enough to leave behind reality-distorting fantasies and imaginary father-replacing friends. For a time it seemed that this was the direction he was traveling, towards reality. He finally makes a break-through, coming to grips with the cold truth of the world and, granted, he found it a little boring and was unhappy with it. But then, with a little support from a father-figure school counselor and an ingratiating, friendly adult, he plunges straight back into his obsession with renewed vigor. And there the story ends.

Frankly, I don't think this is healthy ending at all, although it was entertaining. But if Disney is hoping to make yet another, "you should accept everyone who is different for any reason" message with this film, I feel that they overstepped hugely. In reality, a kid like little Timmy would need therapy, immediately, and support from people who want him to grasp reality. I hope we all see that.

Snatchers (2019)

Great fun from start to finish

[8/10 · 14 February 2020]

If you happen to appreciate moderately dark humor and a new spin on old horror tropes, this film is a good watch. There is no part of this film that takes itself seriously. It moves quick, the characters are static and the plot is ridiculous in the extreme. Quality entertainment.

The actors were clearly enjoying themselves in every respect, which is always very important to me in a movie. If the actors aren't into it, the audience won't be either. But in this movie it was clear that every participant had bought in entirely and they were having a great time making the movie. Their lines and emotive output was completely appropriate every time. There was not a single scene in the entire film that didn't work because it wasn't well directed or because the actors couldn't figure out how to deliver. This was very well done.

Not to mention, the girls were adorably cute and clearly loved working with each other.

The dialogue between the girls at the beginning was very superficial which led me to believe that it was going to remain a shallow teen comedy. I was happily surprised. The style of dialogue that may have seemed awful and inane at the beginning was awesome by the time the action started. I laughed a few times pretty well, the writing was very clever. Old tropes were nicely played and elaborated on.

Not to mention, the quality of the whole film is top notch. The picture is clear, the sound is perfect (although some sound effects were overkill), the special effects and gore were over the top silly but worked perfectly, the choreography between scenes is structured very well. The director knows how to make a movie.

My only complaint is that the film does what most "teenage" films do and assumes that young people don't think about or understand anything other than sex. But of course, that itself is a major factor in the plot and so it works. It's not for kids anyway.

So if you aren't a stick in the mud and can enjoy a fast moving horror-comedy, I recommend this. It was great fun.

The Cabin (II) (2018)

Rather amateur throughout

[2/10 · 26 December 2019]

It makes no sense, period.

You must shut off your brain to watch this. I recommend booze, perhaps a bowl or two as well. Invite your friends, you'll need someone to talk to so that your brain cells don't atrophy too quickly.

You will constantly think to yourself, "these people are idiots." The killer is an amateur, the boyfriend passes up every conceivable chance to arm himself with literally hundreds of possible items, and just when you think the girl is going to make a good decision, she turns it into a bad one immediately. The movie's beginning and ending have no point, and are cliche, and the setting and circumstances leave you scratching your head. Why here? Why now? Why are you doing that? Why aren't any of the things that would normally happen in this sort of a situation happening?

There is music, and it is standard fare. It's the usual bangy nonsense that the director uses to explain that you should be scared here, or worried there, and oh let's fall in love for al little while before things get exciting (just kidding, there's no excitement). It's very sad because music can be truly effective, but in this film its use is generic.

It's well filmed but has absolutely zero depth and leaves you wondering.. not about the characters or situation, but about the director and writer. How could they possibly think this was going to come off as a watchable film? All in all there was no love in this movie. The audience is not compelled to feel any sort of affection for the actors, and all the facets of the movie are simply just bland. You end up really just.. not caring about anything at any time.

Good luck guys, try again sometime. This time was just not good. I'm giving it two stars instead of one because it was at least filmed well. That much I am thankful for, but honestly just pass this up guys, it has no entertainment value at all.

Can't Take It Back (2017)

Overly sensitive ghost makes bullies feel bad.. again. Like all the rest, really.

[3/10 · 17 January 2018]

It's not the worst movie. There are some good parts. The acting is not terrible, and there are some fine moments. As for scary parts, there are a few that were notable.

Unfortunately most of the film just falls into the "overdone" category. They were trying too hard to make a scary movie by using too many scary scenes, too much scary ambiance, way too many horror tropes without any new original spin on them, etc, etc. You can't scare people by inuring them in scary scenes, their potency fades almost immediately. After that, all you have left is a dreary collection of jump scares that have no effectiveness because the viewer has already been primed for them.

This alone could have made the film much more viewable: Less time being haunted and more time developing characters who were sorely in need of development.

An additional weakness that killed the immersion for me was the poor imitation of modern day technology and social media. Obviously the plot hinges on the use of social media as a means of bullying. But anyone who has used social media knows how it works (which is nearly everyone at this point) and they know that you can or can't do this, or that this program doesn't work like that, or it doesn't react this way, etc. There were literally sound effects from the older laptops in the early 2,000s played to "add realism" to the classy, sleek looking laptops of today. Didn't work at all for me.

There were just too many places where the technology used didn't reflect reality and it kept ripping me out of the film, literally screaming into my ear, "This is a movie, remember? We're trying to make it look real without violating any copyright laws."

It came off as very weak.

But the final iron nail in this bedroom door was the weakly conceived plot in the first place. Please, how many movies are going to keep beating this dead horse of school bullying? Apparently having someone post an embarrassing picture of you online is the last straw for our young people today? What childishness. Join the army or something. Don't be so fragile.

Unfortunately the writers simply did not make it seem real for the viewer, it came off as more of a cheap ethics punch, sort of like how the Saturday morning cartoons years ago used to play little clips after the episode to teach some moral lesson to kids who apparently couldn't glean it from the show. "Remember kids, bullying is bad, and you should feel bad."

The Ecstasy of Isabel Mann (2012)

Oh shoot me.. another teen-angst based vampire flick.

[4/10 · 6 January 2017]

I'm going to abandon my usual restraint with this one. I typically try to find the good in a film, but really this movie brings us nothing new. It's just another teen-angst movie, with a bunch of little emo kids letting the hopelessness of youth get to them, and a bunch of adults secretly thinking to themselves, "It's so nice to not be a teenager anymore. How did I ever survive youth in the first place?" Oh, and throw in what is apparently a vampire or two. Just for giggles.

The film moves along very slowly, with no surprises along the way. It's pretty easy to tell what's going to happen, because we've seen it before. Many, many times, in many other movies.

Oh wait, there was one surprise.. the horrendous acting of the female lead. I normally wouldn't pick on her, because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know that poor acting can be a result of bad directing, writing, etc. But in this case, while the writing is not great it was sufficient. The directing was at least decent. Which gives our heroine no excuse for slurring her lines to the point of being completely unintelligible. Any lines that are delivered with clarity are done so with the absolute deadpan, emotionless state of a hopeless emo kid. It may fit the film, but it sure is boring to watch.

To be fair, there was some good acting in here. The investigator was great. A real jerk who does his job well, cutting to the heart of the matter with brutal and piercing intensity. Kudos to Neill Flemming, who was clearly the most seasoned actor in this mess.

Of course, the heart of the matter was difficult to ascertain, since the writers didn't feel it necessary to actually understand the motives of any of the characters. That was not important in this movie, only miserable teens were important.

In fact, it had the distinct feeling of trying to one up a certain other much loved teeny vampire film, which shall remain unnamed. Only it fails.

*****SPOILER BELOW*****

Then there was the blond friend, who actually gave a fair performance before she died by being slapped. Yeah, you heard me. Slapped. People sure are delicate in the movies these days.

In the film, "Doll Graveyard" there's a scene where a girl dies by falling three feet. Until now that was the most ridiculous death scene I've ever viewed. But now we have a contender. You can now die by being slapped. Wow.

Outlaws and Angels (2016)

Actually a waste of time.

[5/10 · 21 December 2016]

Reading the other reviews, people either loved it or hated it. Personally I found it very predictable, incredibly boring and quite pretentious.

There are no heroes in this one, everyone has a flaw in their character, making them worthy of death. Or at least, that's how it is in character driven movies like these.

But as a character driven movie, this fails badly in my opinion. The break? I could not respect the characters. All the roles were designed with simple stereotypes in mind. The dumb guy, the dirty rat, the lying father, half insane religious nut mother, the angry and ugly older sister, and of course the smart and incredibly pretty younger sis. Oh, lets not forget the talented and wise bounty hunter, who's part in this story is completely meaningless. And of course, they're all actually evil little jerks inside. Yay. How exciting.

So I spent 2 hours watching bank robbers turn murderers, beat on innocent people, sexually assault one, seduce a 15 year old, then spend the morning lecturing a child molester about how it's bad to not tell the truth. Oh, and let's just kill everyone anyway. Just for giggles.

Oh did I give the plot away? If you didn't see it coming then shame on you.

It was not the worst movie I've ever seen, as an ode to old westerns it wasn't half bad, if slow. The setting and the atmosphere took time to capture, and the director did a good job of it.

It just had no other qualities. Just another movie about how molesting a child is worse than assault, violence, home invasion, grand larceny and theft, fratricide and murder. You can do all those other things and still be a "good guy" apparently. Society has strange standards now.

Lamb (I) (2015)

An important lesson, if a little confusing.

[7/10 · 27 August 2016]

After reading some of the other reviews, it became clear to me that this movie hits a nerve for many. Our reactions are varied and emotional, ranging from disgust, panic and confusion to relief, respect and understanding.

I was intrigued, so I decided to watch it for myself.

A good reviewer will step aside from his own opinions and give the movie a fair shake from an objective point of view.

The real strength of the movie is that it pushes and breaks boundaries, which most of us adhere to. We generally believe that following these laws and moral norms will keep children safe, but the truth is that the world has never been safe. Just by living we all agree to this simple truth: life is dangerous.

The main protagonist, whose life is falling apart and who is slowly losing his grip, meets a young girl who is essentially being raised how he was. He deeply feels that this is a crime and decides that he will develop a relationship with her that, while wildly inappropriate and even illegal and dangerous, is beneficial to them both. As all relationships do, it takes a turn that both frightens and satisfies them, teaching them about love. Ultimately, it seems that they are soul mates who have found each other. The tragedy is that in this world they cannot be together, because in their current circumstances it was not healthy or safe for either of them. Note that the relationship was not sexual, it doesn't have to be.

This movie is well filmed and choreographed. The cinematography is bleak, accompanied by a soundtrack that is mostly atmospheric and moody.. and sometimes scary. All of this is designed to pull you into the hopelessness that both characters feel, while leaving you on the edge of your seat wondering what will happen next.

The film has two reasonably large flaws in my opinion: the writing and the direction.

The writing was mostly good, but deliberately obtuse. You are not supposed to completely understand what the character of David Lamb is thinking or planning. While we are supposed to think that David and Tommy's relationship develops from a deep understanding, I got the impression that Tommy was confused most of the time. When faced with David's constant deep observations about life, young Tommy seemed honestly dumbstruck. She seemed to take him on faith for most of the film.

As for the direction, the film draws on as a slow burner. What's happening next never seems to be a concern, because honestly it's fairly predictable. Aside from the question of Tommy's safety, there is little conflict to deal with. What really boggled me was the relationship that develops between the two characters. It starts off as a simple friendship, then develops into teacher/student, moves easily into father/daughter, and finally dives headlong into unrequited lovers. If I could complain about anything, I would say that the final relationship did not have enough screen time to be adequately explained. It just seemed to happen in a rush and was confusing to me.

Now then, The rest of my review is my opinion, feel free to read it or not.

Some other reviewers have written this movie off as a simple "defense of pedophilia." I don't see it that way.

I haven't lived long, but I've lived long enough to know that love is an inconsiderate thing. It can happen at the wrong time, in the wrong place, even with the wrong person. To make judgments on any other person's love is an arrogance I personally don't engage in. Can it happen between two people, even if one is a child and the other an adult? Of course it can. I won't say whether or not that love is true, it's not my place. I can only say that it is inappropriate given the circumstances. And when it comes to love, many would say circumstances be damned.

People who believe that love like this cannot exist between the young and old are completely on the wrong side of history. Relationships between very young and very old people have happened time and time again for generations. Our particular norms for the treatment of children are a very recent inventions, while we mostly agree that they are good things, they are not always right in every single case.

Deal with it.

Deadliest Prey (2013)

"We're hackers. If we can't do this then no one else can."

[2/10 · 31 January 2016]

It's all here. Wooden acting, terrible plot, cheesy special effects, lots of ridiculous and campy choreography.. And killing everyone. Just, killing everyone all over the dang place.

While I haven't watched the original yet (on my to-do list), the sequel is terrible. It's just hammy and hokey all throughout. I knew beforehand that I was about to watch a solid "B" class movie, but wow man. This one is just sub-par.

Mr. Prior (the writer) is apparently behind on the times, as his portrayals of nearly every facet of the world appear to be built entirely on clichés and stereotypes. The actions undertaken by the bad guys are far removed from typical military procedure. The evil villain was so cruel and vicious to his loyal soldiers that a few good facepalms were in order. Why would anyone sign up for that sort of abuse? Because they needed jobs? Ha ha! That's a good one.

The "hackers" seemed to have given Mr. Prior a particularly nasty writer's headache, as every bit of their dialogue was absolutely just hilariously bad and demonstrated a profound lack of technical computer skills. The audience members were also a great laugh, although I was a little confused about how they were watching a live internet feed on the TV at their favorite watering hole, and apparently doing so for nearly 12 hours.

The acting was either wooden and unbelievable or uproariously excessive. There was no middle ground.

There were some great moments though. As one reviewer mentioned, the villain at one point claims to have killed more people than cancer. Now THAT is a great line. I loved it.

Overall, the film was pretty boring. Even the action parts were handled slowly and cleanly to be point of being hard to watch.

I wanted to enjoy this, but there just really wasn't much to enjoy.

He Never Died (2015)

I think everyone wanted to be this guy at some point..

[7/10 · 9 January 2016]

One of the reviewers mentioned that this movie is the best portrayal of immortality he's ever seen. I must really concur, this was not a great movie, but it was interesting. And that's what really makes a good movie.

Our hero is an immortal being. Think vampire, then put that idea out of your head. He's worse. Completely unkillable and jaded to the point of blindness, this character has lived long enough to see it all and become so bored with existence that he figures he might as well not exist. And therein lies the interesting part. Henry Rollins plays the part well. He is stone-faced, wooden and cold (which is appropriate for the part) throughout most of the film. Just the sort of behavior you'd expect from someone who is so completely bored with his life that he is utterly uncaring about everything around him. Top that off with his superhuman qualities and you get a figure that simply demands impromptu action.

And of course, you get to see him in action. Action that he doesn't really want, but is willing to deal with. His handling of it is entertaining to say the least. Very enjoyable indeed, the scenes are played through very well and in a manner that seems both real and also a little humorous.

Since the film is entirely character driven, the writers know that in order to make the movie good, they have to make their viewers identify with the protagonist. And they do. The ancient man grapples with barely a shred of the common human needs that normal people deal with, and we see him as a stark contrast. It illuminates our human side, makes our own behavior and feelings that much more real. And even gives us a sort of sympathy for him. We want him to "come around" so to speak. Reawaken the spark of life that we all find so critical.

Devoid of most computer enhanced special effects, this movie relies on good old fashioned blood splatter and fire for the action. It has the distinct air of an old man dealing with an old problem. This is a strength in my opinion. It makes the movie seem much more real.

If there is any weakness, it would have to be towards the ending. Things change up a bit in the protagonist's character that I found somewhat confusing. Essentially, a moral is inserted. And whenever that happens in a film you always bring out the cynicism in viewers who sometimes decide that they "disagree" with it.

I give it a 7 out of 10. Much more entertaining than I expected it to be.

Night of the Wild (2015 TV Movie)

That's a lotta mutts!

[4/10 · 5 January 2016]

By Asylum's standards, this movie is a triumph. Since almost all Asylum films feature terrible CGI and brazenly atrocious acting, this film sets itself somewhat apart as it is a bit higher quality.

I didn't say it was good. Just better than the average Asylum feature. Asylum movies are characterized by a formulaic construction using an outlandish plot, poor acting, egregious errors in common sense, and insultingly horrific computer animation.

So what did "Night of the Wild" bring us? Outlandish plot. Check. We got it here. A meteorite crashes, causing all the canines from every quaint little hamlet in the county to converge upon one little town and maul every happy citizen with a sleeve. Great, I love it. It's nice to see that the townsfolk won't let a few glowing rocks from the heavens stop them from going about their town-ish business.

Then comes the acting. Absolutely sub par, but not to the point of being distracting from the movie's action. I'm traditionally very easy on the actors of such films since I don't think anyone can really save a bad movie movie by eloquently delivering poorly written dialogue. What it comes down to is staying in character, and the actors managed it well enough. I'm sure others here will be happy to rip the acting apart, but frankly I don't see much to comment on here one way or the other.

Next, we get some absolutely ridiculous distortions of common sense. I mean of course that the characters, when faced with disaster, seem to choose the most obviously insipid course of action available to them, every time, without fail. For many viewers of this genre, herein lies our blessed entertainment.

Lastly, the aforementioned terrible CGI. I'm happy to report that for most of the movie, this element is lacking almost entirely. It seems that when faced with a plot line that does not involve mutated fusions of various reptiles and sea creatures, hideously gooey and slimy otherworldly visitors, spectacularly impossible or improbable natural catastrophes and/or large robots, the Asylum studio has enough presence of mind to actually reject hastily constructed and unconvincing computer animation.

Or so I had hoped.. Unfortunately by the end of the film it became apparent that the budget was running short and they had to finish the movie in a hurry, so they filmed the car ride and the plane ride in a studio (you never get to see the vehicles moving), recycled and misplaced a scene or two (the blood and makeup mysteriously vanished for about 8 seconds), and then finally surrendered to the urge to do what they do best: add some hastily constructed and unconvincing computer animation. A patchwork finish if I've ever seen one.

(Spoiler, the ending credits are apparently ashamed of themselves because they zip up at a truly confounding speed. I knew I should have taken that speed-reading course in college.)

Altogether the movie was still entertaining, and in my humble opinion a good move in the right direction for the Asylum studio. It earns one of my higher Asylum movie scores.

More please.

#Horror (2015)

What's the point exactly?

[6/10 · 23 November 2015]

This film suffers from what can only be described as a surplus of ideas that don't really add to the final point very well. That the movie is a horror film is a given. The title makes it clear. The heavy atmosphere, the music, the ridiculous animations.. They all point to a horror film of some sort.

But unfortunately the rest of the substance in the film is something of a confusing mess.

I won't pick on the actors, because frankly I think they did an admirable job for such young actresses playing a part in such a disturbing movie. Granted, their acting wasn't flawless, it was actually rather forced. But after repeating some of their lines to myself and considering better ways to deliver them, I've decided that the forced acting is mostly the fault of the writing. The emotional context behind the words keeps shifting at a breakneck pace, and it's really hard to pull off on screen without feeling choppy.

So I can forgive the girls for that.

However, the lack of focus in this film is its biggest problem. I couldn't decide what idea the director was trying to get at in any given scene. We had cathartic confessions where the girls bond, only to be ripped apart again by petty elementary school level dialogue. We had the dysfunctional parents deeply neglecting their children, and then going haywire, the girls themselves suffering from all sorts of deeply personal problems, bullying, the concept of being "too rich to be happy", a local legend of a crazy slasher is inserted, and the idea that a person's imperfections make them good slasher bait (a popular idea in hundreds of slasher films, appropriate even for 12 year old girls it seems).

And the only thing tying it all together is the notion that being addicted to social media will cause you to disassociate yourself from reality while filming it all live for your followers to watch with interest. But honestly even that idea seems to fade away after a little while. It doesn't feel like it's as important a thing as it should be.

If you were confused at all by the last paragraphs then you understand what I'm trying to say. So many ideas, so jumbled.

The only justification for this level of thematic bombardment must be to confuse the viewer so that they don't guess what's really happening. But honestly, anyone who really watches the movie with even a little bit of attention can see what's really going on. The ending was not a surprise.

All in all I'm not sure what hook this movie is using to lure people to watch it. I think the fact that it features 12 year old girls and horror IS the hook. It's sort of morally decadent to submit girls that young to many of the things in this film.

I feel a little disgusting for having watched it, can't say I enjoyed it much. But it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen by any means. If the director can clear up the mess of ideas a little, I feel like a second shot is in order. Maybe another movie along the same vein. Maybe a sequel. Ha. Maybe not.

Unfriended (2014)

Original style, same old tropes.

[7/10 · 13 August 2015]

*****Moderately Spoiled***** (The review.. and maybe the movie)

It's really the same old story that's been done a million times in a million other movies.

A bunch of "friends" get together like always and we see right away that their friendship is actually very superficial and that there is more buried underneath the surface. It becomes clear that they have something to do with the death of another person from a year earlier.

And that is the house of cards. The rest of the movie is enduring the tedium of unraveling the "who did this, who did that," story, ultimately tying the final victims to the crime of bullying, where they then get their just deserts.

Ho hum. It's been done before. But that's OK, this time it's actually done pretty well. And that means a lot coming from me, I'm very difficult to please in this type of genre.

The entire experience is viewed from what appears to be a computer monitor, and the participants use popular social media tools like Skype, email, facebook, and other such modern conveniences to communicate, much like the manner that young people communicate today. My first inclination was to immediately assume that this would be very boring. That proved to be unfair, the story moved along at a reasonably brisk pace, proving that any medium can be effectively used to tell a story if the story is a good one. Every picture is taken from a webcam, and really the only things we get to see (aside from the usual trope of the ghost being nice enough to hold the camera up to it's victims as it kills them) are the actors faces as they interact with each other, attempting to work out the mystery.

The usual jump scares are here, the sudden loud noises and the split second of someone screaming, etc. Never scared me much, my first reaction to such things is always to laugh for some reason.

The movie's real weakness, if it can be said to have one, is that the film seems to be a propaganda piece against cyberbullying. From start to finish, you can see that the characters are clearly guilty of reveling in the misery of their peers, and that their past "crimes" are coming back to haunt them. We are expected to forget the fact that every single person in the movie, including the dead one, is guilty of doing stupid and irresponsible things online and offline, sullying their own reputations through their own efforts.

The idea that this ghost is somehow justified in murdering all of her former acquaintances comes off as rather shallow. As bad as they are, none of their petty injustices deserve a good killing.

Since the movie appears to want to make a statement, then it would be fair to say that it's expected for us to take something away from it. Perhaps a moral? So here's the moral: Don't do stupid things and then expect people to respect your privacy while you do them. And if you decide to kill yourself because people are jerks, it's your own problem. You won't be coming back from the dead to have revenge like in the movies.

You'll just be dead.

Sanctioned to Die (2011)

A testosterone fantasy

[2/10 · 10 August 2015]

It's a mantasy. One lone hero, lots of fighting and grunting, killing, violence, hot sexy women, sex, money and slick cars.

The basic story idea, that some devious villain is sponsoring an underground fighting syndicate, has been done many times before.. and certainly has been done better. The plot idea is a sound one, and honestly one that resonates with a type of viewing audience. As a kid, I grew up on "Bloodsport" so I know a little of the feeling. There's a lot of fun movies with the same plot.

In this particular reiteration of the idea, the fun is not here. I suspect that the reason is because the writers didn't take the time to fill in the smaller details that would make the plot believable. There are simply too many holes and too many inconsistencies with the real world. As a result the movie doesn't grip you at all, it just leaves you shaking your head. (The biggest question mark for me personally was how the writer expects people to believe that this "fight club" would be an internet sensation when there are NO CAMERAS filming anything anywhere. What are people watching exactly? Security footage?) In addition, the action is routinely halted by the director's insistence that the hero needed to be developed as a character. Normally I would applaud this. A simplistic character can be boring, but this time it did not come off well.

The hero begins as an angry warrior, a Don Quixote, someone who is genuinely unhappy with the world and wants to change it by battling evil wherever he finds it. But just like Don Quixote, he is completely unable to express exactly what that evil might be. Thus, he comes off as unstable, and violently so. He is constantly speaking out a bunch of rhetoric about the world's twisted and greedy leaders and such, but never names any particular politician, or even a political side. He gripes about street crime, and proves himself to be no better than a thug with a temper. He talks about saving people but ends up killing other fighters (this is legally murder, by the way). Don't even get me started on how he tosses money to teenage prostitutes telling them to "run away", which is very noble but also absolutely stupid.

As a hero, he is wanting in every respect except for muscles. He's got those. But that's just not enough to make him interesting, and in a movie like this that is ALL about the hero, if he doesn't get interesting, people stop watching. Unfortunately for the viewer, the hero does get some development time, but it is unclear exactly what it means to the hero. He didn't really seem to change at all.

Getting to specifics, the filming was actually done fairly well, the director preferred to get close in the fighting and the choreography was not quite as bad as the other reviewer suggests. The fight scenes were carefully matched to avoid vicinity errors (when the placement of objects is inconsistent from scene to scene), which was appreciated. However, the fight routines themselves were not very original and felt predictable.

The sound was atrocious. The poor balance between background noises and the music was very distracting, and I got really tired of people speaking at different volumes based on their closeness to the camera. A qualified sound editor would have been able to work on this.

The the film's real struggle was with the acting. And here I must concur with the only other review that is currently here. Every character was terrible. The sexy vixen was trying really hard to sound sexy every time she said a line, the police chief was so inarticulate that he was barely understandable, and the hero himself constantly sounded as though he didn't really understand exactly why he was where he was.. all of them left me frustrated as a viewer.

I'm giving this a 2, it was not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it also just wasn't fun to watch at all. It was pretty boring throughout.

Scar Tissue (2013)

Everyone wears a mask

[6/10 · 9 August 2015]

It's a thriller more than a horror. The acting is heavy, but that's to be expected from the type of characters portrayed. The two main protagonists carried the story pretty well. Although I do confess that I found the female lead somewhat cliché. Anyone who has read my other reviews knows that I am very picky about the "strong woman" trope that we see in movies these days. You know the sort, some really cute girl gets a part where plays a tough cop with a tragic history, she beats men up like they're children at the playground, she has no interest in relationships or other girlie things, engages in destructive behavior like drinking, having a messy apartment, and staying out too late, she lashes out with seemingly random violence at anyone around her.. I never enjoy such characters. It has always bored me with men, and it doesn't impress me any more with women.

The modern movie's propensity for pushing women into roles traditionally held by men usually leaves me shaking my head with disappointment, as it can be particularly challenging for a woman to fit into a mold that wasn't designed for her. The be fair, the lead actress in this film pulled it off much better than most women who attempt it. Kudos to her, she was convincing throughout.

The male lead pretty much did what he was expected to do: follow along until things go clearly against him, then go his own way. Really he didn't do a whole lot in this movie until the end. While the girl gets a heavy background to work with, his was sort of dubious and unclear for much of the time.

Atmospherically, the movie is dark. The idea is to delve into the depths of human depravity with the viewer in tow. Child murder (murder in general really), drugs, sex, violence, bullies at work.. It's all pulled together to stew itself into a dark adventure that aims to leave you thinking about how everyone around you might be harboring sick thoughts and desires. The filming and directing are consistent with the idea, and it serves to keep the atmosphere appropriate.

There is some gore, more or less inventively played with, and there is violence and a little bit of sex, but none of them in excess.

While the movie is consistently gripping, towards the end it makes what I personally view as a mistake: it ties the plot to a human ethical dilemma. It's almost like using a political debate as fuel for your scary movie ideas. The realism falls away a little and you are left with a mess of ideas rather than a clear single idea for the actors to act upon. At that point nothing anyone does really makes much sense. At least, that's how it seemed to me.

Good for a Saturday night movie, but unfortunately nothing special.

Day of the Mummy (2014)

This film has no soul

[2/10 · 31 July 2015]

I don't think I've ever seen a more bored group of actors pretending to be actors. The characters are completely devoid of any sort of personality, charming or otherwise. They have no notable growth as people to make it interesting. Oh sure, the hero is a sleazy, greedy jerk who also believes that people's lives are worth more than money, but that doesn't make him heroic now does it? No, it makes him pretty normal I'd say. I've known more than a few people who behave like degenerates when left to their own devices, but will still go through heck to be there for a friend in need. People are funny like that, but I can't call them heroic.

And what's with the strong lady who is hired for "security"? Looks to me like she was hired because she's hot. Not to be rude, but she seriously didn't do anything useful in this movie except drop the tough guy act and crawl into the hero's sleeping bag before the first half hour was through.

The storyline is like being fed spoonfuls of dusty Egyptian fairy tales that are obviously garbage. It sounded fake even to me, a guy who knows next to nothing about Egyptian history.

Fortunately, special effects were limited in this feature. I'm not a big fan of overdone special effects, but having the camera blink out when anything exciting happens has never been a convincing method of building the tension to me. Especially when there isn't a reason for the camera to be blinking out.

But of course the biggest weakness this movie has is the "found footage" style of filming. I don't care how clever the writers think they are. "We thought up YET ANOTHER way to explain having a convenient camera to film everything in our movie! Yay!" It feels more like a ripoff of popular video games like "Metal Gear", with the boss routinely appearing in the corner every few seconds to bark an order, and the hero's voice coming in smoothly crystal clear, like it was recorded in a studio (it was, by the way).

Are there any good bits? I feel like I should mention some, but to be honest I'm having trouble thinking of any. The performance was very dry and honestly fairly dispassionate. Sure the actors ACTED angry, sad, in pain and the like, but it just still felt.. distant. Like you didn't have to care. Somewhere along the way the movie just got so cheesy that the viewer feels removed rather than involved. It fails to pull you in.

It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it really just feels completely unexceptional and easily forgotten. In my mind, this is the greatest failure any movie can have, to be unmemorable. So I'm giving it a 2 to be generous.

Last Knights (2015)

Fairly over-dramatic retelling of an old Samurai classic.

[7/10 · 15 June 2015]

If you love medieval fantasy movies then you will enjoy this regardless of any flaws it may have. It delivers action and drama with impunity and is a nice mix of both.

It does get fairly heavy on the drama side of things, which leads to some boredom in places. The duty, honor, and sacrifice part gets tedious, because their version of these ideas are decidedly Asian-influenced. Westerners were not quite so loyal in many regards.

This movie doesn't really offer much more than swordplay and drama. The swordplay is also incredibly Asian-influenced. Everything from the swords themselves to the armor (or lack thereof), to the way they're used in battle.. it's all very ninja. There is precious little stink of knighthood in this feature despite the setting.

Cause that's what people love. Ninjas. Ninja Turtles, Ninja Pirates, Ninja Zombies, Ninja Wizards, Ninja Knights and don't forget to say a prayer to Ninja Jesus. We are a ninja-obsessed culture.

Fortunately the film makes no effort to identify the King, land and people with any particular culture. This leaves it very open to the imagination of the viewers and lends flexibility to the storyline.

And finally, add a weighty, epic-style, soundtrack with no particular cultural distinction as a frosting and you've got yourself a fun watch overall. I enjoyed it.

Mind you, if I have to watch another medieval knight hold his sword backhanded again, I may vomit uncontrollably. How did that get to be a thing? Hold knives like knives, and swords like swords. Sheesh..

Born of War (2014)

It's like an old man's tale..

[5/10 · 14 June 2015]

"When I was your age, I cut through ropes and terrorists with broken fragments of a CD and performed surgery on myself with a dull sandstone." I laughed many times.

Unfortunately, this is not a comedy.

Seriously, some parts of this movie just came off as funny. While it's supposedly an action film, the action is pretty unbelievable. For instance, the bad guys had multiple opportunities to kill the good guys (and the motive to do it with!) and yet for some reason never did it. In fact, the bad guys in general appeared to be very bad at killing, even though they were supposedly paid assassins and such.

The picture is constantly too close to the faces of the actors/actresses. So it can be very hard to watch and get's very confining. Fortunately the actors did reasonably well with it, so my complaint isn't with the acting itself. Any flaws in the acting are pretty much directly attributable to the story, which moved on in typical twisty fashion.

There are also some usual Hollywood style spins. I personally find it difficult to take the terrorists' view on things, but this film did try to essentially sway the viewer's feelings toward the opposition. But it didn't come off very effectively.

***Vintage imported spoilers for your pleasure below*** And the story was good but had many holes. When you find yourself almost agreeing with the bad guys and their diabolical plans, you feel like you've been sort of led astray. Build the pipeline, move the people, they stop fighting and killing because they don't have the land to do it with anymore.

You sick diabolical bad guys! How dare you come up with a good idea! Well, I'm only half joking. Since they killed innocent people to do it they are obviously evil. Still, when the chief villain explained the idea I was like, "Oh. Really? That actually sounds.. great." If they hadn't killed anyone to get there, it would have been quite supportable.

But all in all it was a fun watch, I was not bored.

Spare Parts (I) (2015)

Politically charged movie about immigration and robotics.

[7/10 · 12 June 2015]

What, you thought this movie was about a group of high school kids who put together a robot and competed against some of the best teams in the world? Well, it's really only partially about that.

In terms of acting, I thought everyone did great, although the kids came off as being some of the whitest Mexican kids I've ever seen. George Lopez fit the role well enough even though he really came off as more of a coach than a science teacher. Still, I'm glad to see him doing movies, as I never cared much for his TV show and I do like the guy, he has a good presence on the screen.

Filming and scene choreography and editing are all fairly well done. You won't get any of the scene jumping or hard to follow nonsense that you sometimes get from other movies. This one is put together nicely and the story flows well. It's inspiring.

Aside from the story, the movie spends a great deal of time commenting on the state of illegal immigration here in the U.S. To say that this doesn't belong in the review of the movie is wrong, since the movie is clearly about that. And how could it not be? With George Lopez and Marisa Tomei teaming up to make witty punches at conservative ideals for most of it. Demonizing conservatives in the movies has always been a favorite strategy of the left.

As I identify as conservative, and since the first punch has already been thrown, I'd like to take just a second to be clear about where most conservatives stand on immigration: not all of us believe that every illegal should be deported. We believe in a 2-step solution.

1. It is clear that Pandora's box has already been opened for the past 40 years. When you have children growing up in the U.S., in our schools, and being educated as U.S. citizens, then it's time to let those kids stay here and give them the citizenship that they should have. A selective and partial amnesty makes sense.

2. This solution must coincide with the effective sealing of the border, a task that no president or congress, Republican or Democrat, has been willing to do. That is the key element to solving this problem, and that is what most conservatives at the ground level feel needs to be done.

Some of the other reviews and comments have also indicated a few subtle skewings to the truth of the story. Apparently in actuality there were two teachers for the robotics club and neither of them were Latino. Their robot also finished third in the applied contest, which I find to be a strange change to the story as it would have been easy to simply tell it the way it was.

But all politics and subtle skewings aside, this was a very good movie. Inspiring and well made, and fun to watch. I recommend it.

Thank you for reading.

Sword of Vengeance (2015)

Stylized portrayal of Ninja-William-Wallace

[3/10 · 12 June 2015]

It starts off slow and moves on at the same pace throughout. After 10 minutes, I realized that it wasn't going to speed up.

But that's OK, because this movie is about the hero. He is, quite literally, all that matters. The hero is right out of feudal Japan, with his honor-bound "only vengeance matters" ethics, and his short clipped way of speaking with an accent that doesn't belong in Scotland. His fighting style is completely out of place and would be laughably ineffective in real life. Good thing he learned to hold his sword backwards, otherwise he'd have killed all the baddies twice as fast and the movie might have been tempted to run at a normal pace..

No other characters matter. There is a "love interest" that doesn't really make any deep connection and only exists to give the hero exactly ONE dynamic character lesson, a trio of bad guys that have exactly ONE motive each, and a plethora of other characters that might as well be nameless as they don't do much else except perform all the basic necessary menial tasks involved in making a hero look heroic without trying too hard.

There is no accuracy in terms of dress, speech, military action, governmental oversight, etc. These things don't matter, only the hero matters. He looks cool and is a total awesome dude. The movie has to rock because the hero does. Right?

In addition, it was filmed in the "bleak style" that is so prevalent among stylized films. This means they removed most of the color. I have never understood this particular method of filming. Can the world not be bleak in its own right?

And lastly, the soundtrack spends most of its time being out of place. Sometimes it sounds like something out of a sci-fi film (mostly when the hero is spinning his sword around, complete with whirly sound effects), sometimes it sounds like moody atmospheric mush (mostly when the hero is looking stoic and heroic), and usually moves itself into the typical drum-heavy orchestral epic sounding stuff (mostly when the hero is killing lots of people while holding his sword backwards). There is no reference, or even an implied reference, to any sort of traditional gaelic or celtic musical form, melody or instrument.

This is getting long, so I'll cut it off here with a final comment:

This movie is so empty of substance that it's like a skeleton of ideas that are designed to be easily fit into any genre. Take this hero and stick him into a sci-fi feature battling the evil space barons that killed his family. You don't even have to change the soundtrack. Next throw it all into a pirate feature. It will work just fine, just need to tweak the costumes a little bit.

This movie is bland and devoid of any real character. Very forgettable.