Red Riding Hood (2011)

This movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. I mean, really bad. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, I have personally renamed ‘ADD: The Movie’. I completely mean that as a complement to the kinetic nature of the film. Here, we have ‘Cliché: The Movie’. Because the film is just one big cliché. It is really bad. I don’t like this film. The movie’s main fault doesn’t come from the effects, the atmosphere, or even the actors. Gary Oldman is a brilliant actor, and even here he has been reduced to a stick of wood. And on that logic, I don’t blame the actors. I blame their agents, but I don’t blame the actors. The problem with Red Riding Hood is it’s extremely bland script and Lifetime-quality direction by Katherine Hardwick, who directed…Twilight. Hardwick directs with such an ineptness that it sickens me. And the script…wow, the script. I’m currently watching The Rite on my computer, and I don’t want to look up the screenwriter, because it’s just not worth it. Their basic idea had a lot of promise. I am a huge fan of films that spin classic stories, especially fairy tales. When you have the story of Red Riding Hood mixed with Rashomon, you get Hoodwinked, a movie that I care for very much. So I even know that Red Riding Hood can be done well. The film basically does chronicle the Red Riding Hood story. Amanda Seyfried plays Valerie, a girl whose village is under attack by a werewolf. She wants to marry a man, but she has been promised to another. All of this is happening while the wolf is attacking. And in order to stop the wolf, the village hires a man named Solomon (Gary Oldman) whose methods of killing the wolf are…less than orthodox, to say the least. This man really has no conscious. He is crazy. But, things happen, and the wolf is still at large. The film trudges along at this pace, which is pretty slowly, for a good bit of the film. It’s not that the film is so bad it makes me angry, it just makes me sleepy. The film is slow, and clichéd. And then the film gets to the final twenty minutes, and this is where I got mad, The film begins to stick true to the story a bit more, begins to get more exciting, and is a good bit more fun. And then, it stops being good. It’s just a run-of-the-mill fight scene after that. So I was having fun for about two minutes in a movie that is 100 minutes long. So on that ratio, the movie is…bad.
1/10

Old Dogs (2009)

I watch a lot of movies. I mean, a LOT of movies. I watch a lot of movies for a fully-grown adult, let alone a thirteen-year-old dork. And even bringing all those films into account, I have to say-this was possibly one of the most painful experiences I’ve had in a good while. This film is a giant mess of bad jokes with these two actors that were once respected, and is terrible. I hate this movie. And I know that ‘hate’ is a strong word. Not strong enough for this movie. I cannot encompass my hate for this movie. The two actors that were once respected that I speak of are Robin Williams and John Travolta, who have both fallen into obscurity. Actually, they’re not obscure. They just make a lot of bad movies now. Either way, these two idiots find themselves in a predicament when Robin William’s character finds out that his Vegas fling from seven years ago resulted in two children. And when the mother has to go to prison for trespassing, he has to take care of the children. And then goes the traditional kiddie movie formula. Awkward, happy, sad, really happy. All of the formulaic kiddie films, heck, most comedies and romance films have that formula too. And that is why I respect the ones that go off the formula. Either way, this sticks to the blandest of the formulas, and doesn’t even have clever jokes to back it up. I’ve seen movies that go on with the formula, but are still funny enough to redeem themselves. Not here. This movie is just not funny. The entire film I was just angry. The comedy wasn’t funny, the characters weren’t charismatic, the film wasn’t good. Also, the dramatic parts of the film are decently awful. Williams and Travolta are both terrible here. There is a bit here where the two mix up pills, and the side effects make them mess up a huge business deal. And by that, I mean that they use five minutes to hit the Japanese below the waist with golf equipment. Now, isn’t that just genius filmmaking? However, there is one bit in the film where I was laughing. Justin Long has a cameo in here, and during the entire five minutes he was on screen, I was actually cracking up. I felt terrible at laughing at this movie, but I cannot deny that I did. But the rest of the time, I was just mad. This movie made me mad. Of course, I’ve seen worse movies, but this is easily one of the worst out of ’09. This movie is just bad. I do not like it. Do not see it. I’m being frank and angry, solely because I’m watching Red Riding Hood as I write this. Just…don’t see this. Simple as that.
1/10

Seven Samurai (1954)

This is a really long movie. And there is a lot about this film that can be taken out. Not that it’s done bad, the film is a masterpiece on all levels, it’s just that it is so long. It makes the director’s cut of Amadeus look like an episode of Mad Men. And yes, the film is a masterpiece. The writing, directing, cinematography and acting are all so unnaturally strong, it blows you away. And even in the scenes in the film that are just dialogue among the samurai are amazing. This is some of the best written dialogue I have ever witnessed in my entire life. There is just so much of it. The film chronicles the dark days of a group of farmers as they anticipate an attack from a group of bandits, which possibly could leave the farmers dead or on the verge of. So in order for them to protect their lives, they hire a group of samurai to protect them. For a premise this simple, the film really does drag it out. I know that I am sounding repetitive here, and I apologize for that. But that’s my single major complaint about the film. Granted, I am glad that I got to see the film in its original format, but I do want to see an edited version so that I can see the parts that are brilliant as well as interesting. For lack of a better comparison, I’m gonna compare me awaiting an edited version of the film to when I was listening to a person talk about how he wanted to see a version of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with all of the human parts taken out, where it would just be the robots. Now, the slow parts here aren’t as awful as the human parts in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but they’re just slow. And maybe it’s my fault for anticipating an action martial arts film. It is listed as one of the best action films ever made, but this is not an action film. This movie is a drama through and through. And a dang good one, might I add. (NOTE: In the first thirteen years of me watching movies, I have only seen three movies [including this one] that were over three hours long-Titanic, the Peter Jackson 2005 King Kong, and Seven Samurai. These are all amazing films, and if you have the patience, check them all out) (NOTE 2: The film is in Japanese, and has English subtitles. One of the earliest movies that I remember seeing was watching Godzilla Vs. Mechagodzilla when I was eight, huddled up in my bedroom with a portable DVD player. I loved it. So as you can probably tell, I don’t have an issue with subtitles. But if you do, I just wanted to alert you)
8.5/10

The Last Airbender (2010)

[written 13 minutes into the film] Don’t let anyone tell you differently-this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I haven’t seen 15 minutes of this, and I already want to make the movie end. It is so terrible. The ‘actors’ are so terrible I am going to lose my mind. The only emotion in their eyes is-“Getting a paycheck”. I have 90 minutes left. *sigh* [20 minutes in] Seven minutes has felt like a century. Right now, I’m watching the title character scream, have a flashback, and then get a glowing arrow on his face. Now, in a cartoon, this would have worked. In the cartoon, it did. This film is based off of the extremely amazing Nickelodeon series Avatar: The Last Airbender, where while I did not watch it constantly (it came on right around the same time that I really got into The Office), what I did see was amazing. The film does the television show no justice. Now, I see Dev Patel (who was in Slumdog Millionare, the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, if you can believe it) have daddy issues. The film wants me to care about this guy. I’m supposed to feel emotion. I do. And that emotion is pain. [33 minutes in] Honestly, this last ten minutes have been pretty terrible. There’s been lame karate poses, decently bad special effects, but not a lot of people have talked. And that’s a plus when all of the actors are so wooden when they speak some of the worst dialogue written. Well, it’s been 33 minutes, I might as well attempt to explain this film to you. Basically, the plot of the TV series is that these two siblings find, and release from being frozen The Avatar, who is a child named Aang that is destined to save the world from the evil Fire Tribe. The Fire Tribe is one of four tribes, and each tribe represents their group of people who have the ability to bend, or control, these elements, fire, water, air, and earth. The Avatar is the only one who can bend all four elements, and can bring peace to all mankind (remember, this entire synopsis is from what I know of the TV show. If I hadn’t seen the show, I would not have a single idea what is going on). [52 minutes in] Oh, that’s why everybody hates Shaymalan. I know enough that the film doesn’t have a twist ending, as long as it keeps to the source material (even though it’s done a bang-up job doing that so far.) Also, I might as well add that Oppa (I have no idea how to spell it and no care to look up), the giant creature that Aang and the others ride to go places, kind of looks like a mix between something from The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl and Where the Wild Things Are, but worse than both of them. I just thought that I’d add that. [I hr. and 16 min. in] I officially hate this movie. Honestly, I cannot think of anything that could make this movie go higher than the 0/10 that I plan to give it right now. Shaymalan, what happened to you? The Sixth Sense is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. And now this? A-you need to stop casting yourself in your movies. That’s right, I saw you. B-I’m pretty sure that without the twist ending, you just stop and freeze up. It sure as heck seems like it. [1 hr. 29 min.] Okay, I take back what I said. This movie is not a 0/10. It just got boosted up to 0.5/10 because there is an action scene in here that was actually pretty amazing. It’s short, but I actually did enjoy it a good bit. I recommend you watch it on YouTube. [I hr. 32 min.] Cool battle scene over. Back to the normal monotony of terrible dialogue. [Movie over] Well, there’s an hour and forty minutes of my life I’m never gonna get back. Honestly, this movie was so terrible I’m surprised Tobuscus didn’t make a literal trailer for it (No offense Toby, your videos are hilarious, but I question your choice in trailers sometimes). But jokes that only five people are going to get aside, this movie is terrible. This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. And right behind Standing Ovation, this movie is the second worst movie I have seen all year. And I have seen a good bit of movies this year.
0.5/10

Whatever Works (2009)

As I said in my review of the Woody Allen film Sleeper, I have finally caved in and started watching the magnificent films of Woody Allen. And what magnificent films they are. Now, if you have read my review of Sleeper, you know that I love it to death. Whatever Works, I love a good bit less. But I still find it to be an extremely good film. The film, not starring Woody Allen like most of his other films, stars who is basically the clone of Woody Allen, Larry David. David plays a man who is not having the best day. Or week. Or month. Or year. Or decade. He’s just kind of been out of luck his entire life. He tries to kill himself by jumping out of the window, and lands in a canopy. And this man’s bad luck has made him so cynical it’s hard to believe. To put it in retrospective, let me just say this. I’m assuming that you have read some of my other reviews, and so I am assuming that you know that I am a decently cynical human being. Compared to the main character in Whatever Works, I do not have a cynical bone in my body. That’s how cynical this guy is. But his cynicism begins to fade when he meets a girl (Evan Rachel Wood) who opens up his heart and helps him life. What follows is what we know now today as a classic Woody Allen film. A sweet romantic comedy-drama with some really funny jokes. There is a recurring gag where David’s character talks to the camera and says unnaturally cynical and funny things. As with the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, these are some of the best parts of the film. But remember, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is a much better movie than Whatever Works. But, Whatever Works isn’t a bad film. It isn’t even the worst Woody Allen film. It is a decently good film. You can get some honest entertainment out of this. But this isn’t a feel-good movie. David says in the beginning-“Now, this isn’t the feel-good movie of the year.” And he’s right. This is a bittersweet film, a movie that is some good, if hard-hearted, entertainment.
7.5/10

Sleeper (1973)

With the new Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris coming out, and it getting phenomenal reviews, I decided to finally cave in and start watching the movies of Woody Allen. And all I have to say now is-why did it take me so long? I cannot vouch for all of the films of Woody Allen, but I have to say on Sleeper-it’s pretty dang good. The film is futuristic slapstick, something that is decently difficult to do right. The film is written, directed, and starring Woody Allen as a man who wakes up 200 years in the future only to find that he is the single human being that is without an identity, so that the underground plans to use him to stop the government and the ‘Ares Project’, which is (SPOILER ALERT) a plan to recreate the dead dictator from only his…nose. (SPOILER OVER) This entire movie is like that. It is just a beautifully silly comedy, which is honestly a modern-day Three Stooges. It is that good. It is a brilliantly funny slapstick comedy that is one of the best comedy films I have ever seen. Woody Allen is just a genius. The film is rated 80th on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 Greatest Comedies of All Time. And 99% of the time, the AFI is never wrong.
9/10

How Do You Know (2010)

How do you know when a movie is so unnaturally average you can’t tell if you like it or if you don’t? Because that is what this movie is. This film is the pinnacle of just perfectly average filmmaking. On a comparison of the romantic comedy genre, the film is better than films like Leap Year or Something Borrowed, but is decently worse than some pretty great romantic comedies in recent memory, films like Definitely, Maybe and The Wedding Singer. So in the end, the film just clocks in at perfectly average. That’s the only way I can describe this film. The film follows four characters going through life at difficult and trying times, starting with Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) getting fired from a women’s softball team, and having issues with her cocky, arrogant, stupid, and free-spirited boyfriend (Owen Wilson, playing the same role he did in the Meet the Parents franchise). This man is so dumb and annoying; I wanted to light him on fire. And remember this-I like Owen Wilson. This is easily the worst character in the entire film, and the least funny. But I need to continue with the synopsis. Also, (extremely awkwardly, might I add) the film adds George (Paul Rudd), whose business is being accused of fraud. His problems all assume from his father (Jack Nicholson, who beautifully throws out two f-bombs [the max for PG-13 movies] in one sentence, which is kind of awesome). George gets set up with Lisa over a big misunderstanding, and they continue to leave and meet up constantly over little things (the typical romantic comedy situations). What follows is just your typical romantic comedy; you know what’s going to happen. The film doesn’t do anything new, but there are actually a few moments where I laughed hard. But honestly, the film is just your completely average romantic comedy. And that really isn’t a bad thing.
6/10

21 (2008)

The critic universe has not been kind to 21. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has scored a 35% (the percentage of critics that said the film was good). I guess that I fall into that 35 percent. I love these kinds of movies. These movies that take a simple phrase and twist it into a brilliant thriller (for example-fighting for Fight Club-drugs for Limitless-and card counting for 21). And 21 is not a brilliant thriller. It is a dramatic thriller that takes a true life story and makes it interesting. It takes the true-life story of a group of MIT students that took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the casinos by card counting in blackjack and turns it into a dramatic thriller that is a lot of fun to watch. The film’s main character is played by Jim Sturgess, who I have never seen before in a film, is not terrible, but he really isn’t good either. His acting just seems extremely melodramatic and soap opera-like. And his teacher is played by Kevin Spacey, who is brilliantly abrasive and verbally violent as always. Don’t get me wrong, I love Kevin Spacey, but I think the man has some anger issues. No one should be able to play angry that brilliantly so many times in his career. But he does. And rounding out the cast is the casino worker (with some legitimate anger issues. I know card counting is frowned upon, but that doesn’t mean you can beat someone up brutally for it), who is sporadically seen in flashes, played by Laurence Fishburn (who every single time I see him, I feel like I’ve done something wrong). If nothing else, the film is inspired. It shows that people are actually trying to make a good film, and not cash in. But, the film does have its faults in it. As with its main actor, the film can be a bit melodramatic at times, and does falter and is uneven at times as well. But in the end, 21 is a movie that is the reason that the movie industry makes a lot of money-pure, unleaded fun.
8/10

The Roommate (2011)

This movie should have been called ‘The Boring’ because that’s what it was. This movie is so mind-numbingly dull that it makes The Eagle look like 300. The film is not only boring, it is uninspired, poorly written, lazy, dull, and terrible. To sum the film up in a nutshell, it is Single White Female with a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And now, if you were thinking about seeing this film, I hope that you have changed your mind by now. And if you haven’t, I am going to stress this to you right now-DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! This is what I have heard from so many of my friends, the ones that actually paid to see it in the theaters. Because of the fact that you’re reading this now (and I am assuming other ones I have written), I think that you can tell that my mission is to watch every single movie and tell people if they are any good. So I will watch any single movie that is released (legitimately, tomorrow I’m watching Dylan Dog: Dead of Night), and express my thoughts. And my thoughts are this-DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! There is legitimately only one good part of this film, and it makes me even sadder because of the fact that it is wasted on this horrible film. The single good part of the film is Leighton Meester, who plays a psycho mental crazy lady who stalks her roommate. Few performers have the ability to take terrible dialogue and make it great. Meester has that ability, bringing terrible dialogue to being just mediocre. But what is phenomenal is her facial expressions. When she smiles, it is perfection, demonic innocence, to say the least. And in her eyes. Oh, when she has to portray an emotion, I want you to (if on the off chance you’re still gonna see this movie) pause the film, recognize the emotion that she has to portray, and study her eyes. I can tell here, this girl has the potential to win an Oscar someday. I’m really waiting for her to be great in a film that is great along with her. But anyway, she is great in this film. But not great enough for the film to even be redeemable. It is a terrible film. Let me reiterate this again-DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I legitimately hope you’ll listen to me.
1.5/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Adios, old pal, old friend. Harry Potter, the boy who lived. You went out with a bang. And with the best movie in one of the greatest franchises in…basically…ever. This movie is genius. It does everything right that it could have done wrong. The film is possibly a perfect movie. It is one of the greatest movies I have seen in my entire life, solely because it had so many chances to ruin itself and never did. The film never sold itself out (Harry Potter never said ‘accio Coca-Cola!’), it never became an effects-ridden franchise, it holds the drama and emotion at the front lines and puts the wizardry in the background. It is an impossible task, one many have attempted and few have succeeded in performing. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 succeeds perfectly. And it seems to be one of the films least likely to succeed this well. The film picks up right where the first part left off, having the great battle of Hogwarts, the epic showdown between Harry Potter and Lord Voldermort. That is the movie. In a nutshell, the movie is just a big war. It is the fantasy version of Saving Private Ryan, dark brutal war, filled with casualties, and filmmaking at its finest. I just love this movie. The writing, direction, and tone of the film matches the book perfectly, the acting reflects everything I wanted, and the film is just amazing. It is easily the single best movie in the franchise, and as of right now, it is the second best movie of the year, behind the ever-so-brilliant Super 8. And just to give you some perspective of that, I was debating whether Super 8 or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 would get the top spot…for a week. I have way too much free time on my hands.
9.5/10

Skyline (2010)

*sigh*. The best way I can sum up Skyline is like this-it feels like an independent student film that somebody pumped a couple million into. And I’m not talking about the Reservoir Dogs or Donnie Darko kind of independent film, this is the kind of indie film that I can’t even reference because nobody except for the filmmaker and the filmmaker’s family have seen. Well, maybe I’m being too harsh. Actually, no. I’m not. If this film didn’t have the special effects, and was in a normal limited release for indies, even people like Roger Ebert would forget about the film three weeks later. And the film isn’t painfully bad. It’s just boring. It tries so desperately to be a hip alien invasion film, but it ends up as a movie with a bunch of hipsters running and screaming around their apartment while mildly interesting things happen outside and we get small glimpses of it. These movies are the kinds of movies that Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of all those brilliant years ago, just with a higher budget. The acting is still the same awful acting, the dialogue is as wooden as the tree I used to climb when I was five, and the direction feels like the Brothers Strause were asleep through half of it. Now, the duo had previously directed Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem, which I was smart enough to not even consider seeing. Before this, they were visual effects directors, and it shows here. The few moments in the film where you actually see the aliens are kind of fantastic. But they are definitely not enough to elevate the film from carrying a dull script, terrible acting, shaky camerawork, and sloppy directing. I saw the film on Netflix Instant (I have absolutely no idea when it is going to be off, so this review applies to the date that I am writing this, but I am assuming that by the time that it is off, you can find it at any library that carries movies. Probably a good five copies), and I really don’t even recommend that. The film isn’t so-bad-it’s-good, it’s just bad. Don’t even see it for free. I wouldn’t even see it again if someone paid me (actually, it depends on how much we’re talking here).
2/10

Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

Let me start off my review by saying that (in my opinion) this movie is really not as funny as people make it out to be. It is a decently enjoyable Robin Williams comedy, there are a few jokes that miss their mark, and the film’s heart is definitely in the right place, but the film is uneven and falters quite a bit. The film follows Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams), an out-of-luck actor on a bad day. He just lost his job, his son’s birthday party is a complete disaster, and his wife decides to divorce him. Due to him not having a good source of income, custody is handed over to his wife, and he is only allowed to see his kids on the weekends. This kills Daniel, and in order for him to be able to spend more time with his kids, he dresses up as a housekeeper named Mrs. Doubtfire who works for their family. What follows is a bunch of decently clever jokes, mistaken identity, him forgetting to change back into Daniel, ect. The stuff in this film isn’t bad, it’s just extremely tedious. You can only go so far with some jokes, and the film knows it, so it just walks right onto the next one, whether the transition is organic or not. Now, if there is one thing in the film I can praise 100%, it would be Robin William’s performance. I have seen Robin Williams do some of the dumbest shticks in films before (Flubber, Hook, Jack…), but here, he plays the role brilliantly. You can see the emotion on his face. This is the same actor that won an Oscar for Good Will Hunting, I can tell you that much. In the end, Mrs. Doubtfire is just an average comedy. There’s nothing bad about it, nothing to turn people away. The film’s fault is that it just seems a bit too uninspired at times.
7.5/10

Daredevil (2003)

Maybe I’m partial to superhero films, but I hope I am not. I do my best to show what movies I think are good and which ones I think are terrible (*cough*Catwoman*cough*). In my opinion, at least, there are just a lot of good superhero movies out there. And I know that some will disagree with me, but I consider Daredevil to be one of those good superhero films. I have never read the comic book Daredevil, but I do know enough about the basic characters to compare the film to it. From what I know (and remember, that’s not very much) about Daredevil, the film is decently close. The film follows Matt Murdock, who as a young boy, was in an accident, and toxic chemicals got in his eyes, making them unusable. Later, as an adult (played by Ben Affleck), Matt is a blind lawyer by day, and is a masked vigilante at night. He goes by the name Daredevil, and later meets a girl named Elektra (Jennifer Garner) who is as much a ruthless machine as Daredevil is. They team up to fight Kingpin (Michael Clark Duncan) and his assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who can throw anything and hit the target perfectly. What follows is the simple formulaic superhero film. But the great thing about the superhero movie formula is that it still is effective, even if it has been used many times. All one needs is to be decently inventive, as Daredevil is, in order for the film to work. My two favorite parts of this movie is the acting, which I find to be very great. I am a supporter of Ben Affleck, and I believe that when he is able to pull out his acting chops, they are effective. Same with Jennifer Garner, who is more than able to pull off some great performances, and has many times. As for Colin Farrell, well, he’s Colin Farrell. He’s great in just about everything he does. The other aspect of the film that I love is the direction and visual aspects of it all. The film’s tone is very dark and it is directed quite sharply, especially when you see the world through Daredevil’s eyes. Well, not really eyes. What happens is that, since he’s blind, his other senses are extremely heightened, and work like a radar system. It’s kind of difficult to explain, but it’s still quite innovative, which is hard to do, especially in the 21st century.
8/10

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

The films in the Harry Potter franchise mean so much to me because they seamlessly blend emotion and fantasy together to make one of the greatest franchises in film history. And for me, the series is beautiful, but some of the films go beyond that, and are my favorites in the series. Sharing the plate with Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire stands (for me, at least) as one of the best Potter films. That is because it makes the brilliant (but extremely difficult to pull off) transition from a light family fantasy to a dark fantasy epic. The film, as based off of the book of the same name by JK Rowling, continues the epic story of Harry Potter, the boy who lived, as he goes to his fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. For reasons that are unclear (and that would take me much longer than my usual review length to explain), Harry is picked to compete in an extremely dangerous tournament, which is usually only for persons over the age of seventeen, which Potter is not. He then has to compete in the three deadly challenges, all why Voldermort is getting stronger by the second. Honestly, if you haven’t been following this franchise from the beginning, you’d just be lost by now. So I recommend that you start from the beginning, and work from there. You can’t pick and choose with the Harry Potter films. But still, this is one of the best films in this brilliant franchise, and it will stay that way. I just love this movie. The writing, directing, acting, and…just…great. I’m sorry when I do this, but I just don’t have a lot to say here. It’s good, but just as awesome as the rest. Sorry. NOTE: One of the competitors in the tournament is played by Robert Pattinson, who would later grace us with his presence in the Twilight films. How, how the mighty fall.
9/10

Yogi Bear (2010)

Let me start of by saying-Yogi Bear does not deserve the hate people (including me) have been giving it. I didn’t even bother to see it until I saw it at the library (where I didn’t have to pay anything) one day. I was being reluctant and harsh. Granted, it’s not the next Citizen Kane, but it’s better than most of the CG-animated/live-action films out there for kids today. The film, like most of the films of this type, is based off of a carton, here a Hanna-Barbera one. The film basically follows the plot of the show with some additions and changes, having a national park inhabited by a kleptomaniac bear (and I don’t care what you say, that bear is a kleptomaniac) named Yogi (voiced by Dan Aykroyd), and his associate, Boo-Boo (voiced by Justin Timberlake). Yogi has a desperate need to steal picnic baskets (or as he says, pic-a-nic) for some apparent reason. And there is also Ranger Smith, who tries so hard to make him stop. He doesn’t. And eventually, around the same time that a documentary filmmaker (Anna Farris) comes along and a governor candidate threatens to shut down the park, Yogi finally messes up so much that it gets shut down. The film then gets turned into a clichéd save-the-park storyline, but the film still tends to work. Well, I really shouldn’t say that. The film works for what it is. As a movie that is aimed at kids, that has CG animals interacting with live-action humans, you could do a lot worse (Alvin and the Chipmunks, Hop, Garfield, Scooby-Doo, I could go on for a while). The film sticks true to the cartoon, and while it doesn’t break any new ground, and the film still has the pop music, and the bathroom jokes, it’s decent entertainment. It actually does have some jokes that are very smart and clever, and that took me by surprise. Still, if you want to entertain your kids, you should just have a PIXAR marathon, but you can do worse.
5.5/10

Catwoman (2004)

Why does this movie exist? It is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen in my entire life, ever. The entire film is just so mind-numbingly idiotic that my brain hurts when I think about it. I hate it so unbearably much. The film is not a superhero movie based on the DC comics character Catwoman. It is an awful superhero movie where they put the DC and Catwoman names on there to make money. And you know what’s the worst part about all of this? This movie made money. This movie made a good amount of money. This is why I don’t trust the American public when it comes to movies. This is why when I get into arguments with my friends about this stuff, and I don’t back down. Why is Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World making $45 million while Catwoman makes $82 million? This all just baffles me, and it makes me sad. The people would rather go see a Michael Bay film than see a Woody Allen movie. That is what makes me sad. Either way, I might as well end this rant and start talking about the movie. The film stars Halle Barry as Patience Phillips (who is not in the comics), a girl who dies but is brought back to life by…magical cats? And then…she has cat-like superpowers. And she goes against the biggest threat she can find, which apparently is a cosmetic that kills people. And that’s basically it. The film isn’t Catwoman. I don’t even read Batman comics (the character of Catwoman had originated from the Batman comics. Granted, Batman isn’t even mentioned once in the film), and I can tell that. But it’s not just the plot that’s stupid. A brilliant writer can take even the most preposterous of ideas and make them sophisticated and witty (heck, even I admit that Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World sounds kind of stupid at a core basis, but that film is brilliant). Not here. Here, all we get is clichéd dialogue, awful character development, and events that make no sense, even in this ridiculous universe the filmmakers have created. But even the worst of scripts can be made somewhat-redeemed by the direction, score, cinematography, actors, ect. Either way, that doesn’t happen here. The writing is awful, but the other aspects are arguably worse. The direction, effects, and cinematography go hand-in-hand in movies, and so all of them are terrible at once. The film has the ability to use practical effects for someone jumping twenty feet, I’ve seen it before. But here, they use CG that looks like something out of Shrek 2. And no, even though Shrek 2 has some pretty good animation, it’s still animation, so I was not complimenting the film. Actually, the only compliment that I can think of for the film is that it’s less than 2 hours long, so when twenty minutes feels like an hour has passed, I don’t have to sit here for any longer than I have to. So other than that, never assume that I am complimenting this film. The cinematography of the film is also very terrible, shaky, scary, and just bad. And the direction is also terrible. I blame the director for most of this film, because he has the power to stop all of this terrible. He just chooses not to. And the acting? The director is bad, but even if the actors are directed terribly, they can still pull through decently. Not here. Not even Halle Barry, who is a very good actress. She has won an Oscar, and she has pulled off a superhero film before. She was Storm in the X-Men trilogy, and she was great there. But here, she was just bad. This entire movie is just terrible. I hate it so unbearably much. I am honestly considering giving this film a perfect 0, but I’m going to be nice. Oh, and one more thing. Don’t even get me started on the costume.
0.5/10

Rango (2011)

Shame, Depp. Shame. I did not like this movie. And this isn’t like Paranormal Activity, where I was expecting a lot and got a terrible film. Here, I was expecting a mediocre film and I got a film that is terrible. Now, after hearing a lot of great things about Rango, I started to warm up to it more on my expectations. Even so much that I was smiling when we were about to start the film. And while I did enjoy the first 5 or so minutes of this film, it all went downhill from there. And I have to say that there were a few moments that I did like about the film. One or two parts, I laughed out loud or just shook my head in amazement. And for the rest of the part, I wasn’t necessarily bored, I was just disappointed. One of my main complaints is the story, and that is one that the creators could never get around. I’m not really a huge fan of westerns, or animal-centric films (the main exception to this rule being Finding Nemo). Nobody could help that. Then it was the characters. I love Johnny Depp, but even he couldn’t bring life to a character as mean-spirited and self-centered (and often one-dimensional) as the title character to this film. Also, too much of the film is centered on him. My favorite movie is Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, who has a very self-centered character, but has enough time for the supporting characters so that I didn’t mind. Here, it’s just a big sloppily-written mess around this jerk lizard who I didn’t feel for at all. Now for the other aspects. The animation is spectacular, for me possibly the best animation for a film I’ve ever seen. But while it makes me not completely hate the film, it’s not enough to redeem the film. It’s like 2012. Great visuals, but not enough to redeem it from an obviously hastily written script and a lackluster production. For those out there that love these kinds of films and are die-hard fans of Johnny Depp (I couldn’t even tell it was him), I’d say probably rent it. For anyone outside the spectrum, don’t even spend a buck to rent it at Redbox. It’s just not worth it.
3.5/10

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

This is a very well made film, to say the least. I just enjoyed it greatly. Now, it is by no means a great film, it isn’t going to be listed as one of the greatest thrillers of all time, but I sure had fun. The movie is a unique blend of different genres, mostly science fiction, romance, and thrillers. But also in the film are traces of comedy, action, drama, fantasy, and mystery. The film is based off of a short story by Phillip K. Dick (who wrote the source material for such films as Blade Runner, Minority Report, and…Paycheck) titled The Adjustment Team, which I have yet to read (in a while, I plan to read that and The Minority Report. But I’m not here to talk about my summer reading schedule). The movie stars Matt Damon as senate candidate David Norris, a man who lost out on a previous election for various reasons, and is back again. Along the way he meets a free, reckless, and joyous dancer named Elise (Emily Blunt), and a team of not-so-human beings that control our destiny. And David’s destiny is miles away from Elise’s. From there, this film has a choice of being a very dark sci-fi thriller, or a light romantic thriller. The film takes the route of being a light romantic thriller, and pulls it off very well. As a huge fan of dark hard science fiction films like Moon or Minority Report, I can appreciate the simplicity of The Adjustment Bureau. The film treats the romance of David and Elise with such wit and the adjustment bureau as such a power that the film balances itself, even though every now and then it teeters to the brink of just being completely ridiculous. Thankfully, it never falls in, and the film still works well. I just enjoy this film. It’s a great date movie, even a great film to see with your buddies. It’s just one of those films that has a little bit for everyone, even if all those bits aren’t done completely perfectly.
8/10

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Harry Potter, the franchise that lived. This is arguably the single greatest franchise of the 21st century. And with the release of the final film in this great franchise, I am re-watching all films in this brilliant series, even if not in chronological order. I am starting off with the second film in the franchise, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, based off of the book of the same name (like all the other films in the series) by JK Rowling. Personally, as a fan of the series (I have seen all the movies released and read all of the books released), this is one of my favorite movies in the series. This is, however, not one of my favorite books in the series, but I don’t care to get into that right here. I review movies, not books. Either way, the film begins where the first one left off, having Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliff), after his miraculous defeat of Lord Voldermort, goes back to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Witchery for his second year, meeting up with his friends Hermoine (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), until bad things start to happen again. The Chamber of Secrets has been opened, and a giant snake creature called a basilisk is petrifying students. As more students get knocked off, the stakes get higher, and Harry has to save Hogwarts, and many of the students. Here, we have one of the greatest adventure films since Indiana Jones. I think that this film is better than its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Granted, it’s still a great film, but I like this one better. It is a beautiful family adventure film, mature but not dark. Well, it’s still dark, but not dark compared to even the film that followed it, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban. Beautiful, adventurous, dark, and amazing. This is a fantasy epic starring a bunch of kids, and without any major inappropriate content. This is a fantasy epic for adults, teenagers, and children. Yes. This is the Star Wars of the early 21st century.
9/10

The Waterboy (1998)

Am I the only one that finds it bad if after the first sentence the main character says, you want to reach into his throat, rip out his vocal cords, and throw them into lava Temple of Doom-style? Maybe that’s just me. And in this movie, Adam Sandler isn’t the only one guilty. Kathy Bates’ character in this would just not shut up. I wanted to strangle her with Adam Sandler’s vocal cords. And that’s not the reaction that people in movies are supposed to get. Even the most awful villains that I just hate with all my energy, that I want to personally end myself, I don’t want to end them because I just want them to shut up, like I do here. As you can probably tell from this review already, The Waterboy is easily one of the lesser Adam Sandler films. One of the worst parts is that the film was released in 1998, the same year that one of my favorite Adam Sandler films, The Wedding Singer, was released. On its own, The Waterboy is nothing more than a stupid comedy that isn’t doing any major damage. But here, next to The Wedding Singer, this movie is pretty bad. The film follows the adventures of a very stupid 31-year-old waterboy, Bobby, (Adam Sandler) who turns out to be great at football, much to the disdain of his mother (Kathy Bates). To make matters worse for her (even though I don’t care), Bobby begins to date a girl (Fairuza Balk), who she does not approve of. Honestly, why am I even bothering? The plot doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there are some jokes that hit, and a lot of jokes that miss. The film is just too annoying to keep itself from being anything better than average. And the film is just mediocre. Honestly, sometimes, mediocre is a compliment to this film. I am starting to understand the hate for Adam Sandler. I really wished I would disagree with it all, that they were just being pretentious. But they’re not. He’s just not that funny sometimes.
5/10

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Maybe there’s a problem with me watching this film nine years after its release. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who cares? Maybe it’s bad that I am watching it after seeing Unknown, a movie with a decently similar story. I enjoyed Unknown very much, and while I did enjoy The Bourne Identity, I did not enjoy it as much. Based off of the novel by Robert Ludlum, the film follows the adventures of Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) a spy who is found by a fishing boat in France, and nursed back to health. He has no idea who he is, and he has no idea why people are coming to kill him. Slowly, you find this out throughout the film with him, and it’s decently interesting. The film is about a solid as one of the lesser Bond films. Granted, a lesser Bond film is Quantum of Solace, and that movie’s still pretty dang good. Here, when you’re finding things out along with the character, you’re captivated. But the best part of the film is the action, which is actually pretty inspired and fun to watch. And Matt Damon is great as always. In the end, The Bourne Identity just turns out to be an average spy thriller that is good, if not great. Will I watch the sequels? Yeah, sure. I might rent them from the library. But will I flock to see them? No. I won’t. (I’m sorry this review is short, I just don’t have a lot to say about this film. I’ve made my peace, and I have nothing else to say. I wish my review could break 300 words, but I don’t think so. Sorry. This is all I’ve got. And yes, I am dragging this part out to make my review longer. Guilty as charged)
7.5/10

About a Boy (2002)

As a reviewer of film, I am qualified to treat every genre neutrally. And I do my best to do so. I don’t have a reluctance to watch horror films, and I don’t automatically write off drama films as boring artsy films. I do my best to follow these rules, and many others that I do not care to get into right now. Either way, I still am allowed to have a favorite genre (to my knowledge), and I’m pretty sure that would be the comedy-drama genre. And of course, I am only talking about the films that are done well; the films that make me laugh and cry at the same time. Films like Juno, Forrest Gump, Persepolis, and now, About a Boy. Based off of the novel of the same name, About a Boy tells the story of a man named Will (Hugh Grant) who does nothing for a living. Yes. His father wrote a famous song many years ago, and he is living on the royalties to this day. He is also of the womanizing type, and finds that his favorite type of woman to win over is the single mother. In his master plan for doing so, he goes to a ‘single parents’ meeting, and invents a fake son. He meets Fiona (Toni Collette), a depressed and suicidal mother, and her son Marcus (Nicholas Hoult). Marcus takes a liking to Will, and even after he finds out that his son is fake, he keeps the secret and tries to get him to hook up with his mother, in order to keep her from having a successful suicide attempt. Now, this film sounds so dark from what I am saying, but it really isn’t. It takes the dark outline and layers it with smart humor that keeps the film light, enjoyable, and a great film to watch. And this is a great film to watch. I highly recommend this film. It is both funny, tragic, sweet and sour. I wish there were more movies like this in the world. If there were more movies like this in the world, the world would be better. These movies are movies that help people; these are keeper-uppers that I watch when I’m sad to boost me up. They deal with serious issues, and sprinkle them with comedy. Yes. Movies can make the world better. Movies like About a Boy can make the world better.
9/10

Insidious (2011)

I love horror movies. And by horror movies, I’m not talking about slasher movies. I am talking about legitimate horror films that attempt to scare you and stay with you. And if they fail, at least they tried to do something more than have someone get cleaved in half by a plate of glass. Insidious not only tries to make a successful horror film, it pulls it off pretty dang well. And considering that it was produced by the director of what I feel is one of the worst attempts at psychological horror, Paranormal Activity, and directed by one of the creators of one of the kings of the gore-or (as I like to call it) genre, Saw, the feat is double impressive. The film is basically a remake of the 1982 film Poltergeist, which I love undeniably. Both of these movies have not scared me because of jump scares, but because of what might be a jump scare. And that is what makes a good horror film. And in all honesty, a good horror film is hard to come by these days. This is probably the single best horror movie I’ve seen since I saw The Last Exorcism last year. Every year there are about one or two really solid horror movies. And the main thing that made me sad about watching Insidious is that there is only one (or none, maybe, sadly) left this year. The film basically follows the simple plot of Poltergeist, being that a normal suburban family is haunted by ghosts. The young child is possessed, and is taken to a different dimension (the Other Side, the Further, it really doesn’t matter). And the villain at the end, where it was an unknown force in Poltergeist, here it is Darth Maul’s long-lost cousin, who for the sake of everything awesome, I am naming Frank. So Frank is after the kid, and with the help of psychics, his father (played by Patrick Wilson) goes into the other dimension to save him. With a plot that has been done very well before, I was skeptic of seeing this film, but I am glad I did. The only complaint I have about the film is Patrick Wilson’s performance. He just felt cardboard in the film. But the rest of the cast is very good, especially Rosa Byrnes, who has become one of my favorite up-and-coming actresses this year, with this film and X-Men: First Class. She, and the other actors (Wilson excepted) are very good here, and add to the suspense. And suspense there is many. The film is terrifying, dark, ingenious, and as soon as you think it’s going to have a nice little Poltergeist-like ending, it goes off into a direction you don’t expect, and has a nice little ending with a killer cliffhanger. I just pray that they don’t make a sequel. Because I do not want them to mess this film up. You know what? I’m probably not going to go to sleep tonight.
8.5/10

Tooth Fairy (2010)

(NOTE: If you are eight or under, I don’t recommend you read the final section of this review) The tooth hurts. Even from the tagline to this film, I knew it was going to be a mess through and through. It was awful, but it wasn’t as awful as I would think. But granted, I was expecting a complete train wreck. Let me put it like this-I was expecting a movie that would make me want to claw my eyes out. Instead I got a bunch of fairy puns that were harmless to say the least. I didn’t enjoy it, but I’ve seen worse. A couple months ago, I saw this movie on an airplane coming from Los Angeles, and I chose not to watch it then, but was still acknowledging its existence. I figured I could do better, and continued to play Sonic the Hedgehog on my iPod. And after seeing, I’m relatively sure that I made a good decision. The film was paired with Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakuel, and I wonder now: why do airplanes only show bad movies? And yes, this is a bad movie. But there were a few moments where one of the supporting characters got a laugh, but all of those were brought down by the typical kiddie-film crude humor and other types of extremely broad humor (and not the Spongebob seasons 1-3 kind, the Spongebob seasons 4 onward kind). The film stars Dwayne Johnson as a hockey player known as ‘The Tooth Fairy’ because he knocks people’s teeth out. He also crushes the dreams off small children, and so he is forced to serve as a tooth fairy under the rule of Julie Andrews. Later, the kiddie film formula is put to use-arrogance, change, bad comedy, things get good, things get bad, things get good again, credits. I’m pretty sure that’s how you categorize a formula film-a film where you can take the basics of most films in that genre, apply it here, and it doesn’t feel out-of-place at all. (Eight-or-under children, believers, any of that sort, stop reading right here) I don’t believe in the tooth fairy. To me, the idea is complete rubbish. I can understand Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny (to an extent), but not here. Mythology that was handed to me as a very young child is completely trashed here, and that upsets me. A lot of this film upsets me. Not recommended.
2/10

Date Night (2010)

When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. When life gives a director Steve Carell and Tina Fey, you get Date Night. The film really doesn’t have a lot of issues with itself. Its issue is that it’s a very good comedy film, not a great comedy film. And with your two leads being Steve Carell and Tina Fey, it should be a great comedy film. The film follows a married couple, Phil and Claire Foster (played by Steve Carell), whose lives have become so unbearably monotonous that you wonder how they function. Even their date night has become monotonous to the point of horror. But that changes when they attempt to go to a fancy resteraunt but can’t get a reservation. So they decide to steal someone else’s reservation. It’s really not that bad. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if I find myself doing the same stupid thing twenty years from now. This one harmless decision leads Phil and Clair to be chased by cops, politicians, criminals (including the ones whose reservations they took), and multiple others from downtown NYC. And the cast of all these people are amazing, including Common, James Franco, Mila Kunis, Mark Whalberg, and more. The cast of this film is the best part. They all work together and just are perfect. The problem with the film is that they are caged by the director, who also notably caged Ben Stiller in Night at the Museum. Now, a lot of directors do much worse, but Levy is notable for me because he takes great talent and tones them down. Now, besides that exception, I had a couple good hard laughs in this film. The film’s title is Date Night, but that is the closest thing to a romantic comedy about this film. This is a flat-out comedy, with a decently misleading title. But I really don’t care. If Steve Carell and Tina Fey made Desperate Housewives: The Movie, I would watch it before I watch a sequel to a film like Blades of Glory, which I find pretty funny. That is the power of Steve and Tina.
8.5/10

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

These movies get better and better with every movie. Now, I saw all three of these films in succession, Mission: Impossible, then Mission: Impossible II, and lastly, Mission: Impossible III, or stylized, M:i:III. But I’m not a big fan of the stylization, so I’m just gonna call it by its real title, if you don’t mind. Either way, this film is directed by JJ Abrams, who would later go on to directing the Star Trek reboot and Super 8, all of which are fantastic films. This film, his directorial film debut, while not as strong as the other films he’s worked on (also, he produced Cloverfield, which is completely epic), is definitely a great film. I think it’s the best one in the series. Well, Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol comes out later this year with JJ writing and producing, so who knows. But this is the best one yet. The film begins where the previous one left off, again starring Tom Cruise as IMF agent Ethan Hunt, and he’s got another evildoer to stop. And now to complicate things, the villain will do anything to get to Ethan, including kidnapping and threatening to kill his fiancée and later wife, played by Michelle Monaghan. Michelle was good in Eagle Eye, and she was great in Source Code, and she’s great here. Cruise is great as always, and there are also a lot of other spectacular supporting characters, including Laurence Fishburn, who continues to scare me, and Simon Pegg, who continues to make me laugh even in an extremely serious action series such as this one. The cast is better here, the writing is better here, and the direction is definitely better here (and yes, JJ does his notable lens flares). I recommend this entire series, but if you’re going to watch any single one of them, you really need to watch this one.
8.5/10

Vantage Point (2008)

This is what happens when you take two films that are sort of similar and then smash them together. You get movies like Vantage Point. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I did enjoy this movie, I just did not love it. Now, the two films in question here are Rashomon, a famous Japanese crime thriller, and any James Bond film. Now, mash those two films together, and take away the James Bond name, and you’ll have something resembling Vantage Point. The film follows the assassination of the President of the United States, witnessed from eight different viewpoints. The film gets progressively better as it goes along. It starts out as a convoluted, uncomfortable, and odd mess for the first thirty minutes of the film. Then, it goes to the viewpoint of Forrest Whittaker’s character, who actually has a heart. I actually cared about this characters, and I was enjoying my time with him. But then I saw the transitioning white light fifteen minutes later, and all I could think was-“NOOOO! What was good was ending, and I’m gonna end up hating this.” But I was wrong. It seems the Forrest Whittaker whipped the filmmakers into shape with his segment, as the film did get progressively better as it went along. The film started to make more sense, it was paced better, the actors were better, and the film was just a much-better made action thriller. And that took me by surprise, and it was a good surprise. The film turns itself on its head, it is actually pretty well-made, and I just thought it was good. If you have some free time on your hands, check it out. But it’s nothing to go nuts over. NOTE: Sigourney Weaver is listed as one of the main stars of this film, but she is not. She has an extremely small role here. Listing her as one of the main cast members is about the same as listing Drew Barrymore in the same line of names as Neve Campbell in Scream. Wait, they did that. And they did it here for the same reason-star power. And there’s nothing wrong with that, I was just saying that she is in the first ten-or-so minutes of the film and then about a minute more. So don’t go expecting her to have a role as big to the film as her role in Alien. I was, and I was let down. So just warning you.
8/10

Source Code (2011)

What the heck just happened? That was my initial reaction to seeing Source Code, the second film from director Duncan Jones, who directed the sci-fi thriller Moon. Duncan Jones directs this film with such a crisp grasp, that this is his film all the way. He is the star of this film. On screen, the star of this film is Jake Gyllenhaal (of Donnie Darko fame), and he plays the role beautifully. Speaking of the rest of the cast, Vera Farmiga is great as the captain who is working on the source code project. Jeffery Wright could have done better as the designer of the project, and Michelle Monaghan, did a better job than I expected. Now I’m not sure what the plotline of the movie is, and I’ll try to explain it without spoiling it. Gyllenhaal plays a man who has to go back in time for eight minutes of a man’s life who was killed from a train terrorist attack. The film is inventive, crazy, and completely one of a kind. And I loved every minute of it. This completely destroys Inception, and leaves it in the dust. I understood Inception, but not Source Code. If you want your mind to be blown, see Source Code. And if you want to understand it, see Source Code three more times.
9.5/10

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

You know what; maybe I’ll actually start paying attention when Sony Pictures Animation releases another movie. The first movie release by the company was Open Season, a movie which I openly hated. Then came Surf’s Up, a movie that while I was warmer to it, I didn’t by any means enjoy it. So that’s the reason it took me two years to see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, the company’s latest effort. Well-third time’s the charm. This film is definitely the best one they’ve made so far. And to put another accomplishment on them, they take a story from an extremely short children’s book of the same name and effectively turn it into a full-length film (something I think that films like The Polar Express failed to accomplish). The plot varies from the simple plot of the book. In the book, it just rained food (to my knowledge. I read the book a very long time ago). Here, a scientist named Flint Lockwood (voiced by the hilarious Bill Hader), who is a failed inventor, and just wants to make something that will save his town, an island who can only produce sardines, which are ‘super-gross’. He then does just that, with the help of his pet monkey Steve (Neil Patrick Harris). He creates a machine that turns water into food, and his machine works, until it gets shot up into the sky. The town later rains food, bringing in a first-time weather reporter and love interest for Flint (who I am pretty sure has never kissed a girl), Sam Sparks (voiced by Anna Farris). The food makes the town happy, and fed, and now, the entire world is giving them notice. But the people get greedy, and the food starts to get bigger. There is a glitch in the machine. And the food gets bigger and bigger and the people get greedier and greedier, until everything crumbles down. And while I’m pretty sure that this qualifies as one of those movie messages that you all know I am akin to hating, I really don’t care here. I was distracted from the groan-inducing messages pressed on me with beautiful visuals, great voice acting, and some of the smartest comedy I’ve seen in recent memory. The film has the charm of the better PIXAR movies, and has the humor of Arrested Development. I know I’ve made a million Arrested Development referenced, but that is my favorite TV show, and it is super smart and super funny, and so is this movie. It’s actually better than it should be. I just love it, and I am pretty sure I’m gonna buy the Blu-ray and watch it multiple times. Out of all the mainstream animated films outside of the PIXAR realm, this is probably the best one.
9/10

Persepolis (2007)

Oh. My. God. This film is great. It is one of the single greatest films I have ever seen ever. It is nothing but amazing. I can only find one single problem with this film, and here it is-they have a montage, set to the single most clichéd montage song in history-Eye of the Tiger by Survivor. And don’t get me wrong, I do love that song. But after seeing Aliens in the Attic, I’m giving up on any montage with that song. Montages are clichéd enough, but that song in a montage has basically become its own cliché. Either way, besides that one thing, there are actually no problems with this film. It is perfect. The film follows the life of an Iranian girl as she comes of age during the Iranian Revolution. This is a completely true story, and was written as a graphic novel in 2000 by the main character. Now, there have been some autobiographies that have been butchered on film, but not here. This is due to one single key component that is remarkable if not admirable at the very least. This component is that the film is co-directed by the author of the graphic novels, and it is her story. She is in control of her story. And she cares about her story. The thing is, a director, even if they have never directed anything before or anything they have was complete garbage, if there is a story that they care about enough, it will be good. And here, it is great. The film is loaded with drama, wit, and heart. Now-a-days, few films have one of these qualities, let alone all three. There are just not a lot of films like that out here anymore. And the shame is, not a lot of people are going to see this movie. For one, it’s a strange animated film rated PG-13 that is strange, surreal, and not for the demographic that usually watches animated films. Secondly, it is a French film, which means that it is going to be weird (and I don’t mean anything offensive by that. The last French film I saw was a movie where a baby grew wings), and also subtitled. Now, for this film, there was an English dub available, but I decided not to use it. I picked the subtitles. Honestly, subtitles do not irritate me, it irritates me when the characters’ mouths don’t match the words they’re saying. It just brings me out of the film. Either way, I don’t know a lot of people that are okay with subtitles like myself. And that makes me sad. But still, subtitle-phobic or not, this is a film that needs to be seen. It is honest, beautiful, truthful, hilarious, tragic, and near-perfect. NOTE: The film, while it was France’s entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, it did not score a nomination (which it should have), it was nominated for Best Animated Film. It lost the award to Ratatouille. And while that film is very good, it’s no Persepolis. This is my favorite animated film I’ve ever seen, tied with Wall-E and Toy Story 3.
9.5/10

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006)

This movie is actually probably better than it should be. It is uneven, and at times is unfunny or awkward, but it does have one trait that made me like it, even at its low points-creative. The movie was brought to us by Ivan Reitman, who most people now-a-days know as Jason Reitman’s dad. But back then, Ivan made some films such as Ghostbusters and Stripes. And while this film doesn’t have the same kind of fun or humor of those films, it still is pretty good. The film’s plot concerns a man (Luke Wilson) who begins to date this girl (Uma Therman), who he later finds out is a superhero. He then dumps the girl. And what happens when super powered individuals make enemies? They set out to destroy those enemies. And when I saw the premise of the film, I figured that the film would have the relationship between the two mains for about ten minutes, and then have her trying to kill him for the rest, but no. The first HOUR of the film is spent on their relationship, and the film is just kind of mediocre there. It was enjoyable, but not great. Where the film gets a lot better is the half-hour after that, which features a fellow employee/love interest (Anna Farris) the co-worker/best friend (Rainn Wilson) and a supervillian (Eddie Izzard). Well, these people were in the first hour, but I’m mentioning them right now. Either way, it’s the third act that makes the film. It’s funny, creative, insightful, and new. The first hour, just seems kind of mediocre. The writing for the film isn’t bad. The directing isn’t bad, but doesn’t feel like someone who directed Ghostbusters. The acting isn’t bad either. Luke Wilson is…good, and so is Uma Therman, but what makes the film is the supporting cast in Anna Farris, Rainn Wilson, Eddie Izzard, and also Wanda Sykes. The film just overall evens out as above-average film, but not anything exceptional or to be remembered.
7.5/10

The Crucible (1996)

WARNING! BECAUSE THIS MOVIE CONTAINS HISTORICAL EVENTS, I WILL BE DISCUSSING THEM IN DECENT DETAIL. I’M PRETTY SURE THESE COUNT AS SPOILERS. I AM PUTTING THIS HERE SO NOBODY CAN YELL AT ME. I AM GOING TO STOP PRESSING THE SHIFT BUTTON AND START MY REVIEW IN ONE…TWO…THREE…Meh. I saw this film literally two days after coming back from Massachusetts. When I was there, my favorite part of it was going to Salem to see the Witch Museum (NOTE: If any of you get the chance to go to Salem, go to the Salem Witch Museum. It is amazing). And at the museum, I was more captivated there for an hour than I was here for 2 hours. And it would be possible to make a one hour story two hours long without just some useless filler. And that’s what a good bit of this movie is. Just useless filler to make the movie longer. Because it’s apparently a rule now that dramas have to exceed the two hour mark to be good. And I’m fine with that, as long as it’s a good two hours. But the rest of the film was actually pretty good. It gave these true stories somewhat of justice, and actually kept me interested. Daniel Day-Lewis is very good in the film as John Proctor, who defended the accused witches and was later hanged. I don’t bother telling you what is going to happen in the film, because it’s basically a history lesson. And if that upsets you, I’m sorry. I put the warning at the beginning of the review for a reason. Either way, the rest of the cast is pretty good, if a little over-animated at times. I say this because they’re all so serious. You know how in Airplane! how the characters were all so serious which made the comedy work? Well, imagine them in Salem, without the jokes. It kind of took me out of the film. Which made me sad, because I was really hoping that I like the film as much as I enjoyed Salem. Also, I do have a personal attachment to this. The day I was leaving Boston, I found out that I am indirectly related to John Proctor…so…yeah. Did the film do the story justice? Not necessarily, no. But if you play this as a historical drama in an artsy theater, nobody’s gonna complain. But then again, nobody’s gonna request it either.
6.5/10

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

I am definitely going to be in the minority about this, but I thought this one was better than the first one. Mission: Impossible II is superior to Mission: Impossible because it has characters instead of test dummies, and plot instead of sheer confusion. Now, granted, I like the first Mission: Impossible, but I don’t love it. This film, while I still don’t love it, I do like it a lot more. Here, the torch is passed down to John Woo, who is probably most known for directing the film Face/Off with John Travolta and Nicolas Cage. While this film is nowhere near the critical acclaim that Face/Off had, it’s still gotten decent reviews, but still worse than the first one. And I don’t see why. The film feels more like a James Bond thriller than just a standard action film, like the first one. And that’s why I like this movie more. Here, Tom Cruise reprises his role as Ethan Hunt, who finds himself having to stop an evil mastermind that created a virus that kills people in a very gruesome and disturbing way. This sounds so awesomely Bond-like that I was ecstatic throughout the entire film. This seems like John Woo’s tribute to the Bond films. Honestly, I was waiting for the scene where the villain strapped Ethan on a table and attempted to fire a laser straight through his entire body. But no, sadly. Either way, I do like this film more than I did the second one. It had better action, was more plot-driven, and had better characters than the first one did. Definitely recommended.
8.5/10

Unknown (2011)

As many of you know, I am not the biggest fan of the Liam Neeson action flick from 2009, Taken. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I gave it a decently negative review. That’s because the film was convoluted, unnecessary, and kind of dull. Not here. Two years later, Liam Neeson returns with a high-octane action-thriller that is one of the smartest movies I have seen all year, and that makes me very happy. The film just works. It takes what could have been just a mediocre thriller and twists it into a mind game that leaves you guessing until the end. And I was guessing until the end. I really had no single idea what was going on with that film until it was spelled out in front of me in the end. And it is decently difficult to confuse me that much. Personally, I like Unknown more than I do Inception. And I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that, but I really don’t care. Either way, I probably need to start explaining the film. The plot concerns Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) a man who is in a car crash, then a coma for four days, and then wakes up only to find that he has been replaced. His wife (January Jones) has no idea who he is, and the taxi driver (Diane Kruger) who was driving the car in mention is nowhere to be found. Well, she gets found, and she and Martin try to unravel the mystery that they’re locked up in. The mystery keeps on going on until the end, which is a shocker, which even though it is a bit far-fetched, I can honestly say that I had no clue what was going to happen at the end. And I credit this solely to the writers of the film, Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cornwell, based off of the novel Out of My Head by Didier Van Cauwelaert. The writing of the film is just spectacular, and at sometimes, its greatest strength. Now, I have not read Out of My Head, and considering the fact that my book pile is pretty up there right now, I don’t think I will be soon. But either way, while the writing is the strongest strength of the film, it surely isn’t the only one. Liam Neeson is great here, as he is always in every single film he’s ever been in, Diane Kruger is great, and even January Jones is not terrible, which did surprise me. Also, in a smaller but still great performance is Frank Langella, who I saw recently in The Box, which is better than this film, but only slightly. Now, the film isn’t perfect. For one, the film had a green tint throughout it, which kind of bugged me, and also sometimes the plot just gets so far-fetched and convoluted I was just shaking my head wondering what just happened. Unless we have a year that is just flooded with films like Sucker Punch, this movie is not going to make my ‘Top Ten’ list for 2011. But does that mean it isn’t worth checking out? No. If anything else, this is a movie that deserves to be checked out.
8.5/10

Sucker Punch (2011)

This movie does not make a lick of sense. For starters, the film is directed by Zack Snyder, who set the phrase ‘style over substance’ in stone. He says that he has been planning this movie for years, I’ve even heard that he’s been working on this idea since he was a teenager. This is his dream project. In the 2010s, there have been two directors with pretty respectable resumes, and they both made their dream project involving dreams. The first was Christopher Nolan, who made his dream project last year with Inception. While I didn’t love it as much as other people did, I still find it a very enjoyable film. But the next one is Zack Snyder, king of slow-motion. This is the first Zack Snyder film I have ever seen. I’m not a big fan of hyper-stylized films, so-yeah. I’ve never seen 300, or Dawn of the Dead, or Watchmen, any of them. And after seeing Sucker Punch, I plan never to. Directors tend to bring their all to their dream project; they pull out all the stops. This film has some sort of a plot, but I don’t care enough to explain it for you. So here’s the abridged version-A girl goes completely insane. That’s all you need to know. Because the rest is too insane and convoluted, it hurt my head. You know? I’ll actually try to explain the plot. In the 1950s, a girl (Emily Browning) goes to a mental institution after accidentally killing her sister; and the mental institution seems to be like some kind of training for striptease, I don’t know. Either way, they have to do this dance, and in order to complete this dance, this girl goes into an imaginary world. From this moment on, she should have been put away by herself, she is mental. But no. Apparently her dance is amazing, because…killing zombie robot Nazis in your mind is a great dance? Either way, she needs to escape, and she enlists the help of four other girls (played by Vanessa Hudgins, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, and Jamie Chung) to help her. They then need to collect five items in order to escape, told to them by a strange man who reminded me a little bit of Frank Langella in The Box. The writing of this film is just awful. Obviously, the story is a complete mess. But some writers could have made it work. Not here. Also, the directing is decently atrocious. I’m pretty sure that they only had the green screen for a few days, so they filmed half of what they needed, and then had to slow it down to make for a good running time. Some other directors could have ever taken this awful script and made it good. If Edgar Wright, JJ Abrams, or Duncan Jones made this, it would be pretty cool. But here, nothing. Actually, that’s not true. There were some moments in the middle of the film where it was actually pretty cool, and then I was sucked in. But five minutes later, the film went back to real life out of dream land and I was mad again. But, I started to warm up to it eventually and actually started enjoying myself. But then that ending…oh, that ending…It makes even less sense, and is so completely unnecessary that I wanted to scream. But I was watching it on my iPod on an airplane, so that might bad idea. Wait, there is one more thing I can say that is good about the film. I really hate flying in planes, and the film made me not want to vomit or freak out. But honestly, any film could have helped me with that. So an accomplishment? Not so much.
2.5/10

The Eagle (2011)

I was going into this film with pretty low expectations. I was kind of mad. I rented this movie from my library, and I actually meant to reserve The Adjustment Bureau, but I accidentally rented The Eagle. And considering the fact that I could have rented Date Movie, I have to say that this is one of the better films I have rented. It isn’t great, at sometimes it isn’t even good, but it is always watchable. At the beginning of the film, I was confused and had no idea what was going on. So I sat through fifteen minutes of the film and I was already angry. But after that was over, and the film started to heat up, it got better. For about ten minutes, it started to get decent, and then Jamie Bell’s character came on screen. Every moment that Bell is on screen I was actually pretty interested. The film follows two men in 2nd century Rome, where the son (Channing Tatum) of a famous soldier that lost Rome’s famous golden eagle goes to get it back. Accompanying him is his slave (Jamie Bell), who is native to the land where the eagle is. What later happens is a tale that could have taken two routes-A historical action adventure or-A historical drama. Now, from the feel of the film, I know that it would not have worked very well as an action adventure film, it just seemed too serious. The best moments of the film are when it just has the two main characters talking to each other. You can actually feel that these two people are people, not characters. The actors are very great. Well, better said, Jamie Bell is so amazing in this film that he can carry Channing Tatum’s faults as an actor. I just loved Bell in this film. Also, as another point for him, he is the only one that doesn’t seem like he is being so insanely serious as if his life depended on it. Everybody else does. Especially in the final fifteen minutes of the film, it seems just so serious. That’s why the middle of the film works the best. It is the greatest Roman bromance in a while. And dang. The word Roman is even in the word bromance. See it? Here it is-bROMANce. Kind of cool, huh? Yeah. But the film is just a good film that is smart and fun, if a bit forgettable.
7.5/10