Yeah, it's really disappointing that Silent Hills never actually came into fruition, but the fact that the freaking demo is a legitmatley great game on its own definitely helps ease the pain.
Reviews
33 Reviews
Cult of Chucky
(2017)
Well....um....it's Better Than Seed of Chucky
25 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I wish I could say I was disappointed, but let's be honest. With the exception of Child's Play and Curse of Chucky, the Chucky films have been varying levels of suck. And while I can't say it's anywhere near as bad as some of the other ones, it's still not really that good per se.
-Most of the acting was pretty bland except for Fiona Douriff, Alex Vincent, and of course Brad Douriff who's always fun to watch as Chucky.
-Kind of like Curse of Chucky, the only memorable and/or interesting characters were Nicca and Chucky.
-It is refreshing to see Alex Vincent reprise his role as Andy Barclay after his last major appearance in Child's Play 2, but if you've seen the film, you'd know that it's also beyond disappointing considering how he never plays much of a role in the plot. Fan service? Perhaps.
-The story was extremely repetitive. Most of the movie consists of this: Chucky kills someone, Nicca claims that it was Chucky's fault, nobody believes her. Rinse, lather, and repeat for three fourths of the movie. In the film's final act, it does get a little interesting when it's revealed that Chucky has learned how to transfer his soul into multiple bodies at once. But then that ends before it can get fully utilized.
-There's a disturbing lack of extras. That may not sound like an actual criticism to you, but hear me out. The entire film takes place inside of a mental institution, yet the only patients we see are the supporting and main characters, one psychiatrist, and two orderlies. We never see any other staff members or patients besides them and it really made me question if this was just the most understaffed and underutilized mental institution in the world. Chances are the low budget didn't allow for a huge cast. Curse of Chucky had an advantage in that regard considering how most of the film took place in a house and most of the characters consisted of the main character's family. So extras weren't really needed anyway. But if you're setting your film in a big facility, do you really expect me to buy that the staff only consists of three people? Others may not agree and might say I'm nitpicking, but it was very distracting.
All in all, it's not very good. It's nowhere near as bad as say Child's Play 3 or Seed of Chucky, but it's far from the pleasant surprise that Curse of Chucky was. You might enjoy it if you're a die hard Chucky fan, but if you're not, well then I can't help you.
-Most of the acting was pretty bland except for Fiona Douriff, Alex Vincent, and of course Brad Douriff who's always fun to watch as Chucky.
-Kind of like Curse of Chucky, the only memorable and/or interesting characters were Nicca and Chucky.
-It is refreshing to see Alex Vincent reprise his role as Andy Barclay after his last major appearance in Child's Play 2, but if you've seen the film, you'd know that it's also beyond disappointing considering how he never plays much of a role in the plot. Fan service? Perhaps.
-The story was extremely repetitive. Most of the movie consists of this: Chucky kills someone, Nicca claims that it was Chucky's fault, nobody believes her. Rinse, lather, and repeat for three fourths of the movie. In the film's final act, it does get a little interesting when it's revealed that Chucky has learned how to transfer his soul into multiple bodies at once. But then that ends before it can get fully utilized.
-There's a disturbing lack of extras. That may not sound like an actual criticism to you, but hear me out. The entire film takes place inside of a mental institution, yet the only patients we see are the supporting and main characters, one psychiatrist, and two orderlies. We never see any other staff members or patients besides them and it really made me question if this was just the most understaffed and underutilized mental institution in the world. Chances are the low budget didn't allow for a huge cast. Curse of Chucky had an advantage in that regard considering how most of the film took place in a house and most of the characters consisted of the main character's family. So extras weren't really needed anyway. But if you're setting your film in a big facility, do you really expect me to buy that the staff only consists of three people? Others may not agree and might say I'm nitpicking, but it was very distracting.
All in all, it's not very good. It's nowhere near as bad as say Child's Play 3 or Seed of Chucky, but it's far from the pleasant surprise that Curse of Chucky was. You might enjoy it if you're a die hard Chucky fan, but if you're not, well then I can't help you.
It
(I) (2017)
Not Bad. Not Bad at All
8 September 2017
Unpopular opinion that will likely result in you guys sicking your dogs on me: I don't like the original It mini-series. I honestly don't. Do I hate it? No. I think the child actors did an okay job for what they're given and there are a couple decent scares here and there, but maybe it's just me, but I found it damn near impossible to take seriously. Most of the scares just bordered on unintentional comedy for me (I still find myself cracking up at the "Kiss me, Fatboy" line) and here's another unpopular opinion that will likely result in me getting killed or maimed: I didn't like Tim Curry's Pennywise. Don't get me wrong, I like Tim Curry, but he came off as more funny than he did scary or intimidating which probably isn't a good sign if you're doing a balls-to-the- wall horror film. Maybe the film was terrifying at the time it came out, but nowadays it's just really corny and dated. I don't think it holds up nearly as well as people say it does. But enough bashing of the original. How does the new film hold up?
Honestly, I think it's a marked improvement. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws because it does. Its biggest issue is that it can be over-reliant on jump scares at times and I can't help but feel that was because the studio felt the need to try to appeal to basic movie-goers who consider a horror film sucky if it doesn't make them jump out of their seat at least once or twice. But to be fair, most of the jump scares are at least being used to utilize something we as the audience are supposed to be afraid of and they do manage to stir in a few clever and ballsy scares in there too. Hell, there's one scare in the first five minutes of the film that I'm surprised they even attempted. I won't spoil it for you, but it's pretty shocking to say the least. So I guess you can say, it appeals to both audiences in a way. It definitely feels a lot more like a horror film than the original did.
Most of the performances were pretty good for the most part. Most the child actors did a pretty good job, the two best probably being Bev and the kid from Stranger Things. The only performance that didn't really work was the kid playing Stan. His performance was pretty iffy and I didn't really buy it at all. But good child acting is a rarity, so it is a pretty impressive feat that only one of the actors isn't very good as opposed to all of them. The kids themselves had pretty good chemistry as well and I had no problem believing the legitimacy of their friendship. But the scene stealer by far is Bill Skaarsgaard as Pennywise. Sure, he could be funny at times, but not once did I ever forget that he was also supposed to be scary and a legitimate threat. He managed to find a good balance unlike Tim Curry whose performance was so over-the-top, that I forgot that he was even supposed to be threatening.
Some of the side characters were a little underdeveloped, but they at least had a lot more character in this film than they did in the mini-series. Henry Bowers was a little more than just a generic bully and Mike was more than just the token black kid who shows up randomly near the end of Part 1. They could be developed a lot more, sure, but there's at least SOME character there.
So all in all, while I don't think it's anywhere close to being one of the best Stephen King movies, it's still an enjoyable film. It's creepy, it's funny, it's energetic, and it's effective. I see myself watching this version again a lot more than I do the Tim Curry version. From what I understand, they're making a second film about the adulthood portion. While even fans of the book and mini-series seem to agree that the adulthood portions aren't that great, I am curious to see how these filmmakers pull it off. They surprised me with this film, didn't they? So you bet, I'll be back for the sequel.
Honestly, I think it's a marked improvement. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws because it does. Its biggest issue is that it can be over-reliant on jump scares at times and I can't help but feel that was because the studio felt the need to try to appeal to basic movie-goers who consider a horror film sucky if it doesn't make them jump out of their seat at least once or twice. But to be fair, most of the jump scares are at least being used to utilize something we as the audience are supposed to be afraid of and they do manage to stir in a few clever and ballsy scares in there too. Hell, there's one scare in the first five minutes of the film that I'm surprised they even attempted. I won't spoil it for you, but it's pretty shocking to say the least. So I guess you can say, it appeals to both audiences in a way. It definitely feels a lot more like a horror film than the original did.
Most of the performances were pretty good for the most part. Most the child actors did a pretty good job, the two best probably being Bev and the kid from Stranger Things. The only performance that didn't really work was the kid playing Stan. His performance was pretty iffy and I didn't really buy it at all. But good child acting is a rarity, so it is a pretty impressive feat that only one of the actors isn't very good as opposed to all of them. The kids themselves had pretty good chemistry as well and I had no problem believing the legitimacy of their friendship. But the scene stealer by far is Bill Skaarsgaard as Pennywise. Sure, he could be funny at times, but not once did I ever forget that he was also supposed to be scary and a legitimate threat. He managed to find a good balance unlike Tim Curry whose performance was so over-the-top, that I forgot that he was even supposed to be threatening.
Some of the side characters were a little underdeveloped, but they at least had a lot more character in this film than they did in the mini-series. Henry Bowers was a little more than just a generic bully and Mike was more than just the token black kid who shows up randomly near the end of Part 1. They could be developed a lot more, sure, but there's at least SOME character there.
So all in all, while I don't think it's anywhere close to being one of the best Stephen King movies, it's still an enjoyable film. It's creepy, it's funny, it's energetic, and it's effective. I see myself watching this version again a lot more than I do the Tim Curry version. From what I understand, they're making a second film about the adulthood portion. While even fans of the book and mini-series seem to agree that the adulthood portions aren't that great, I am curious to see how these filmmakers pull it off. They surprised me with this film, didn't they? So you bet, I'll be back for the sequel.
The Good Son
(1993)
Good Idea Ruined by a Dumb Execution
26 May 2017
A while ago, I remember seeing this movie on an episode of one of my favorite web series, The Nostalgia Critic. To sum up the video in one sentence: he hated it. Even after watching the review and listening to some of his criticisms, I didn't think the movie looked that bad. So eventually, the movie came on Netflix and I decided to watch it for myself. And I feel proud in saying....I'm with the NC on this one. This movie kinda sucks.
In all fairness, the idea of delving into the psychopathic mind of a child is pretty interesting, but this movie's biggest flaw is how detached from reality it is. Macalay Culkin's character was totally unrealistic. He talks less like a 10 year old kid and more like a Machiavellian schemer. I understand that psychopathic children tend to be more isolated, emotionless, and have no sympathy for others, but when the kid starts talking like a miniature James Bond villain, I think it's fair to assume the idea of mentally ill children isn't very well represented. Every time Culkin gave one of his hammy little speeches that sounds like it would fit better in an old Marvel comic book, I found it harder and harder to take him seriously.
I've heard some people talk about how "deep" and "psychologically intriguing" this film is. And I honestly don't really know whether we watched the same movie or not. There's almost nothing to Culkin's character. We know he's manipulative and he's been able to cover his tracks for lord knows how long without his stupidly naive mother noticing, but that's about it. There's no attempt to understand his character or have the audience get invested in anything he does. The film just basically throws up its arms and says, "He's just evil." It's that simple. Pretty insultingly simple if you ask me. Culkin could've been a really complex and interesting character that could've made this movie ten times better. Perhaps he felt some sort of sick demented reason why he does all the horrible things he does. Maybe something in his past sparked his need to kill? Maybe Elijah Woods's appearance sparked his need to kill given how his relationship with his sister was fine prior to his arrival, but then suddenly after he arrives, he wants her dead. I dunno, his character is so poorly developed, we don't know what the case is other than just being an evil little devil child. If you really wanna do a psychological thriller, making one of your characters a generic villain probably isn't the best route to go. It hurts the film a lot.
This film could've been great if it was given to a more competent director like maybe, Brian De Palma or someone. I do believe that there's a good movie buried underneath, it's just blocked out by its fundamentally flawed execution. If you want a good evil child movie, Richard Donner's The Omen is your best bet. It has a much stronger and coherent story, more realistic characters, and the kid actually acts like a kid and not like the little boy version of Lady MacBeth.
I guess if you wanna make fun of how laughably hammy Culkin is in this, then I guess you'll find some enjoyment out of The Good Son. If not, then stay away. There's not much for you here.
4/10
In all fairness, the idea of delving into the psychopathic mind of a child is pretty interesting, but this movie's biggest flaw is how detached from reality it is. Macalay Culkin's character was totally unrealistic. He talks less like a 10 year old kid and more like a Machiavellian schemer. I understand that psychopathic children tend to be more isolated, emotionless, and have no sympathy for others, but when the kid starts talking like a miniature James Bond villain, I think it's fair to assume the idea of mentally ill children isn't very well represented. Every time Culkin gave one of his hammy little speeches that sounds like it would fit better in an old Marvel comic book, I found it harder and harder to take him seriously.
I've heard some people talk about how "deep" and "psychologically intriguing" this film is. And I honestly don't really know whether we watched the same movie or not. There's almost nothing to Culkin's character. We know he's manipulative and he's been able to cover his tracks for lord knows how long without his stupidly naive mother noticing, but that's about it. There's no attempt to understand his character or have the audience get invested in anything he does. The film just basically throws up its arms and says, "He's just evil." It's that simple. Pretty insultingly simple if you ask me. Culkin could've been a really complex and interesting character that could've made this movie ten times better. Perhaps he felt some sort of sick demented reason why he does all the horrible things he does. Maybe something in his past sparked his need to kill? Maybe Elijah Woods's appearance sparked his need to kill given how his relationship with his sister was fine prior to his arrival, but then suddenly after he arrives, he wants her dead. I dunno, his character is so poorly developed, we don't know what the case is other than just being an evil little devil child. If you really wanna do a psychological thriller, making one of your characters a generic villain probably isn't the best route to go. It hurts the film a lot.
This film could've been great if it was given to a more competent director like maybe, Brian De Palma or someone. I do believe that there's a good movie buried underneath, it's just blocked out by its fundamentally flawed execution. If you want a good evil child movie, Richard Donner's The Omen is your best bet. It has a much stronger and coherent story, more realistic characters, and the kid actually acts like a kid and not like the little boy version of Lady MacBeth.
I guess if you wanna make fun of how laughably hammy Culkin is in this, then I guess you'll find some enjoyment out of The Good Son. If not, then stay away. There's not much for you here.
4/10
Psycho Family
(2017)
Does the Entire Psycho Series Justice
7 April 2017
This was a surprisingly well put together documentary and so much better than I thought it would be. It's everything you'd want a documentary about the Psycho Series to be.
If you don't know what that is, The Psycho Series was a series of YouTube videos created by Jesse Ridgeway, also known by his YouTube alias, McJuggerNuggets, depicting the exploits of a spoiled slacker played by Ridgeway himself with an unhealthy obsession with video games as well as suffering through a dysfunctional family life, particularly his hot-tempered father. The biggest twist is that they portrayed it as if everything was real and believe it or not, it fooled a lot of people. Eventually, the series's story came to a close and it was finally revealed to have been staged which both satisfied and angered many fans.
Despite the fact, that there were a couple of scenes that were so obviously faked (specifically the first ten minutes) most of the film seems very legitimate.
This documentary covers absolutely everything in great detail: How the series was originally conceptualized, the growing popularity of the series, how they overcame certain issues whether it was with production or possible leaks of their charade, how the series affected both Ridgeway himself and his various relationships, and as well as the aftermath of the series finale and how everyone coped with it.
I had no doubt that there was a lot of time and effort put into the production of this series, but I didn't fully realize it until I watched this entire film. It really shows how far some people will go in order to realize their artistic vision even if it means that sacrifices have to made. It takes a lot of true dedication to pull something like the Psycho Series off and I give mad props to Ridgeway and everyone involved in the series.
I can't really go into much detail without going into spoiler territory, so I'll stop there. Whether you're a fan of McJuggerNuggets or not, there's no doubt that this is an incredible story. It's definitely a worthy watch. You can watch it for free on go90.com. I highly recommend that you do.
If you don't know what that is, The Psycho Series was a series of YouTube videos created by Jesse Ridgeway, also known by his YouTube alias, McJuggerNuggets, depicting the exploits of a spoiled slacker played by Ridgeway himself with an unhealthy obsession with video games as well as suffering through a dysfunctional family life, particularly his hot-tempered father. The biggest twist is that they portrayed it as if everything was real and believe it or not, it fooled a lot of people. Eventually, the series's story came to a close and it was finally revealed to have been staged which both satisfied and angered many fans.
Despite the fact, that there were a couple of scenes that were so obviously faked (specifically the first ten minutes) most of the film seems very legitimate.
This documentary covers absolutely everything in great detail: How the series was originally conceptualized, the growing popularity of the series, how they overcame certain issues whether it was with production or possible leaks of their charade, how the series affected both Ridgeway himself and his various relationships, and as well as the aftermath of the series finale and how everyone coped with it.
I had no doubt that there was a lot of time and effort put into the production of this series, but I didn't fully realize it until I watched this entire film. It really shows how far some people will go in order to realize their artistic vision even if it means that sacrifices have to made. It takes a lot of true dedication to pull something like the Psycho Series off and I give mad props to Ridgeway and everyone involved in the series.
I can't really go into much detail without going into spoiler territory, so I'll stop there. Whether you're a fan of McJuggerNuggets or not, there's no doubt that this is an incredible story. It's definitely a worthy watch. You can watch it for free on go90.com. I highly recommend that you do.
King Candy
(2015)
A Good Way to Kill 45 Minutes
26 March 2017
This actually wasn't bad, especially for a film created by a YouTuber which usually range from serviceable (Kickassia) to cringe-inducing pieces of garbage that should never have been made (Losing Lois Lane.) But this is the rare good YouTube film I've seen. It's not flawless and its biggest weaknesses are on the technical side and that's to be expected considering how this was made by a film student. The director goes a little too crazy with the color grading and there are quite a few instances where you just want to ask him to turn down the damn exposure, but the story and the lead character were both pretty intriguing all things considered and pretty much make up for it. I recently discovered RalphtheMovieMaker and you can tell he is really passionate about what he does and it shows in more ways than one. I can't wait to see what he does in the future. This film is not perfect by any means, but in terms of YouTube films, not perfect=absolutely incredible. I mean, it's gotta be better than watching the Fred trilogy, right?
7/10
7/10
The Boy and the Beast
(2015)
Another Fantastic Film From Hosoda
25 November 2016
Mamoru Hosoda is arguably one of the best filmmakers working in animation today. And nowhere is that more clear than in the Boy in the Beast. Coming off fresh from other fantastic animated films such as The Girl Who Leapt Through Time and Wolf Children, Hosoda crafts a funny, compelling, bittersweet, and well animated tale about mentorship and confronting your demons.
The struggles the main characters go through is done in a way that's both plausible and implausible at the same time. I really love films that allow you to relate to a character's dilemmas in a way you wouldn't expect. I also really love the relationship between the titular characters. I normally don't get into relationships that are mostly shouting and arguing, but the two share a relationship more reminiscent of a bickering father and son rather than something more obnoxious or dark. Both characters have their flaws that you would think would make them unlikable, but each has their own reasoning for being how they are and either side is completely understandable and relatable. As the film progresses, you slowly learn that both characters are on the same side of the same coin.
Its only downfall in my opinion is the third act. Without giving anything away, it's fine for what it is, but it mainly came off as kinda forced and not explored quite as well as some of the other aspects of the film. It's not terrible and it doesn't really harm the film as a whole, I feel it would've come off a lot stronger if it was explored a lot more.
But besides that, I absolutely freaking loved The Boy and the Beast. Mamoru Hosoda truly is gifted with the craft of telling stories through Japanese animation. Many people have been referring to him as the next Hayao Miyazaki. But honestly, I don't think that's necessarily true. Both are great directors and both have this wonderful ability to take realtivley dumb ideas and somehow make them plausible. But Hosoda is something entirely different. I connect to his films in a different way than I do Miyazaki's. Each has their own style and their own means of forming a connection with their audience. And this film truly connected with me.
The struggles the main characters go through is done in a way that's both plausible and implausible at the same time. I really love films that allow you to relate to a character's dilemmas in a way you wouldn't expect. I also really love the relationship between the titular characters. I normally don't get into relationships that are mostly shouting and arguing, but the two share a relationship more reminiscent of a bickering father and son rather than something more obnoxious or dark. Both characters have their flaws that you would think would make them unlikable, but each has their own reasoning for being how they are and either side is completely understandable and relatable. As the film progresses, you slowly learn that both characters are on the same side of the same coin.
Its only downfall in my opinion is the third act. Without giving anything away, it's fine for what it is, but it mainly came off as kinda forced and not explored quite as well as some of the other aspects of the film. It's not terrible and it doesn't really harm the film as a whole, I feel it would've come off a lot stronger if it was explored a lot more.
But besides that, I absolutely freaking loved The Boy and the Beast. Mamoru Hosoda truly is gifted with the craft of telling stories through Japanese animation. Many people have been referring to him as the next Hayao Miyazaki. But honestly, I don't think that's necessarily true. Both are great directors and both have this wonderful ability to take realtivley dumb ideas and somehow make them plausible. But Hosoda is something entirely different. I connect to his films in a different way than I do Miyazaki's. Each has their own style and their own means of forming a connection with their audience. And this film truly connected with me.
Mixed Bag. (And No, I'm Not a Sexist.)
3 November 2016
Kinda like Sausage Party, the new Ghostbusters isn't nearly as bad as the trailers made it out to be, but that doesn't necessarily make it anything great either. It does have plenty of faults.
Pros: -Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones have great chemistry and work very well off of each other -The special effects, while cartooney, hold up and actually improve over the special effects in the original Ghostbusters film.
-Has a fun and imaginative third act.
-Has certain moments where it does its own thing.
Cons: -Has other moments where it just basterdizes the original film.
-Most of the jokes are awkward and unfunny with only a few decent ones slipping through the cracks.
-Chris Hemsworth's character is needlessly dumb and just feels like the writer's fictional whipping boy.
-Main villain has a very weak motivation.
So, yeah. This movie's kind of a mixed bag for me. Kinda like BvS, I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed it all the way through, but I can't say it gave me nothing to enjoy either. Take it for what it's worth. It's nowhere near as good as the first film, but hey. It's at least better than Ghostbusters II. *shudder.
Pros: -Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones have great chemistry and work very well off of each other -The special effects, while cartooney, hold up and actually improve over the special effects in the original Ghostbusters film.
-Has a fun and imaginative third act.
-Has certain moments where it does its own thing.
Cons: -Has other moments where it just basterdizes the original film.
-Most of the jokes are awkward and unfunny with only a few decent ones slipping through the cracks.
-Chris Hemsworth's character is needlessly dumb and just feels like the writer's fictional whipping boy.
-Main villain has a very weak motivation.
So, yeah. This movie's kind of a mixed bag for me. Kinda like BvS, I'd be lying if I said I enjoyed it all the way through, but I can't say it gave me nothing to enjoy either. Take it for what it's worth. It's nowhere near as good as the first film, but hey. It's at least better than Ghostbusters II. *shudder.
Swiss Army Man
(2016)
A Film You Have to See to Believe
1 November 2016
If you read the premise on IMDb, then I think it's easy to assume that this movie is about as weird as it sounds. If there's one word to describe Swiss Army Man, it's strange. The story is strange. The characters are strange. The jokes are strange. But, amazingly, that's what gives the film some of its charm and likability.
Paul Dano, who gave great performances in films like 12 Years a Slave, Prisoners, and Love and Mercy, very well portrays a lonely and hopeless man who doesn't believe he deserves any rewards in life. Daniel Radcliffe, who you obviously know from the Harry Potter series, also convincingly plays a dead body who almost acts like a curious little kid that just wants to know how the world works. The two share a surprisingly good chemistry. Yes. A lonely guy and a talking corpse share surprisingly good chemistry. Never thought I'd ever say that.
The film also has its own sense of heart and humor. And kinda like I said earlier about the film itself being strange, I don't say that lightly. The touching moments and the funny moments are so weird and so unlike anything that I've ever seen in any movie, that I can't help but either chuckle at them or feel touched by them.
Where this film falls flat is its pacing. Despite the fact that the film was only an hour and a half long, it felt about an hour longer. Certain scenes between Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe dragged on for a little too long. In all fairness, most of these slow scenes are supposed to help further both characters, but at the same time, it really makes you question if there was some other alternative where the script can still achieve that same goal without boring the audience to tears. But these scenes were pretty few and far between, so I guess it only counts as a nitpick.
So is it for everyone? Probably not. This is a film that you're either gonna love or hate. Many might see this as genius. Others might see it as the stupidest goddamn thing you've ever seen in your entire life. And either side is understandable. I can't really tell you whether this film is good or bad. It's just simply one of those movies that you have to see to believe.
8/10
Paul Dano, who gave great performances in films like 12 Years a Slave, Prisoners, and Love and Mercy, very well portrays a lonely and hopeless man who doesn't believe he deserves any rewards in life. Daniel Radcliffe, who you obviously know from the Harry Potter series, also convincingly plays a dead body who almost acts like a curious little kid that just wants to know how the world works. The two share a surprisingly good chemistry. Yes. A lonely guy and a talking corpse share surprisingly good chemistry. Never thought I'd ever say that.
The film also has its own sense of heart and humor. And kinda like I said earlier about the film itself being strange, I don't say that lightly. The touching moments and the funny moments are so weird and so unlike anything that I've ever seen in any movie, that I can't help but either chuckle at them or feel touched by them.
Where this film falls flat is its pacing. Despite the fact that the film was only an hour and a half long, it felt about an hour longer. Certain scenes between Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe dragged on for a little too long. In all fairness, most of these slow scenes are supposed to help further both characters, but at the same time, it really makes you question if there was some other alternative where the script can still achieve that same goal without boring the audience to tears. But these scenes were pretty few and far between, so I guess it only counts as a nitpick.
So is it for everyone? Probably not. This is a film that you're either gonna love or hate. Many might see this as genius. Others might see it as the stupidest goddamn thing you've ever seen in your entire life. And either side is understandable. I can't really tell you whether this film is good or bad. It's just simply one of those movies that you have to see to believe.
8/10
Suicide Squad
(2016)
The Most Disappointing Film of 2016 I've Seen So Far
1 November 2016
So, I still kept an open mind going into the theater despite the negative reviews that this film received, but I'm sorry. I can't lie to you guys or myself. This movie just wasn't that good.
The plot jumped around so much that certain events in the story came off as very rushed and sloppy, most of the characters were incredibly paper thin and underutilized and were incredibly lacking in terms of chemistry, the action wasn't really anything to write home about, and the main villain I found really hard to take seriously due to both an awkward performance by Cara Delivingne and the fact that she spends most of the climax looking like a freaking luau dancer.
Now it does have its pros. Like Margot Robbie was really great as Harley Quinn and Viola Davis was really great as Amanda Waller. And most of the humor, while it never had me rolling on the floor laughing, did get a few chuckles out of me. I also appreciate that it focused more on practical effects rather than overloading on computer generated effects. (The action like I said wasn't great, but I was at least able to tell what was going on during the fight scenes, unlike a previous DC film that comes to mind.) But the film's highlight was the first third, hands down, because it both established, what I thought was going to be its style, and introduced the characters wonderfully. I had pretty high hopes during that first act and I'm really ashamed that the rest of the film was just so...blah.
So yeah. I was pretty disappointed by this one. Although, I couldn't help but feel that a lot of the film was cut for time given how the film jumped around so much and how the Joker had such a minimal role despite the fact that he was practically the unofficial spokesperson for most of the marketing. If they ever release a director's cut, I'd be willing to see it. But until or if that ever happens, Suicide Squad currently stands as a very uneven and mediocre flick that could've been so much more. It's by no means the worst film I've seen this year, but it is definitely the most underwhelming.
4/10
The plot jumped around so much that certain events in the story came off as very rushed and sloppy, most of the characters were incredibly paper thin and underutilized and were incredibly lacking in terms of chemistry, the action wasn't really anything to write home about, and the main villain I found really hard to take seriously due to both an awkward performance by Cara Delivingne and the fact that she spends most of the climax looking like a freaking luau dancer.
Now it does have its pros. Like Margot Robbie was really great as Harley Quinn and Viola Davis was really great as Amanda Waller. And most of the humor, while it never had me rolling on the floor laughing, did get a few chuckles out of me. I also appreciate that it focused more on practical effects rather than overloading on computer generated effects. (The action like I said wasn't great, but I was at least able to tell what was going on during the fight scenes, unlike a previous DC film that comes to mind.) But the film's highlight was the first third, hands down, because it both established, what I thought was going to be its style, and introduced the characters wonderfully. I had pretty high hopes during that first act and I'm really ashamed that the rest of the film was just so...blah.
So yeah. I was pretty disappointed by this one. Although, I couldn't help but feel that a lot of the film was cut for time given how the film jumped around so much and how the Joker had such a minimal role despite the fact that he was practically the unofficial spokesperson for most of the marketing. If they ever release a director's cut, I'd be willing to see it. But until or if that ever happens, Suicide Squad currently stands as a very uneven and mediocre flick that could've been so much more. It's by no means the worst film I've seen this year, but it is definitely the most underwhelming.
4/10
Fans Love It. Critics Hate It. I'm Kinda In Between.
1 November 2016
So after several times of declaring that this movie is going to be garbage and how it's going to completely kill the relevance of the characters of Batman and Superman, I finally saw it and came to the conclusion that it was...............eh. Not as bad as the Rotten Tomatoes score has you to believe, but not as good as some of the DC fanboys have you believe.
Ben Afleck was surprisingly good as Batman, even though the his character was a goddamn psychopath who killed and branded his symbol on the survivors, but I digress. Gal Gadot was good as Wonder Woman, Henry Cavill was alright as Superman, but I have no idea what the hell they were thinking casting Jesse Eisenburg as Lex Luthor. I mean I think he can be a really good actor, but man, he was just so awful in this movie. It seems like he was trying to pull off what Heath Ledger did in the Dark Knight, but it just fails so miserably. Every time he was on screen, everything felt so awkward and uncomfortable. During some of his scenes I actually heard some of the people in the audience groan. Jesse, I love ya, but you really stunk up this performance.
The plot, like I expected looking at the trailers, was all over the place. The opening was strong and I was thinking to myself, "What are the critics talking about? This is awesome." But that moment of relief was short-lived. One minute we're focusing on the backlash Superman is getting for his actions in Man of Steel, the next we're focusing on Batman hunting a Russian arms dealer, the next we're focusing on Lex Luthor trying to create Doomsday, the next we're focusing on a drive containing information on other superheroes and yada yada yada. I felt like I was watching five movies all crammed into one.
Easily the best part of the movie was focusing on Superman dealing with the backlash from the destruction of Metropolis. It felt the most realistic and it's also addressing the biggest flaw a lot of people had with Man of Steel. But it doesn't go anywhere, nor does it change the characters or plot in anyway, so it's overall just pointless. It seemed more concerned with setting up the Justice League than actually telling a coherent story. Like I said earlier, I felt like I was watching multiple movie all crammed into one. Despite all of that, it was actually cool to see heroes like the Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg, and Wonder Woman on the big screen for the first time. So that's a plus.
The action was hit and miss. Some action sequences were just constant shaky cam and flashes of lightning and rain every five seconds. (What is it with Zack Snyder movies and rain? I mean does he have a really weird fetish for it? Like I'm surprised the entire city didn't completely flood by the end of Watchmen.) But some action sequences were pretty enjoyable, like when Batman and Superman finally went toe to toe, when Batman rescues Superman's mother and the final battle with the ninja turtle, I mean ninja turtle, I mean ninja turtle, I mean Doomsday.
So the movie's a bit of a mixed bag for me. I can't say I enjoyed it all the way through, but I can't say it gave me nothing to enjoy either. So I guess my advice is, if you want to see some good action and some of your favorite heroes kicking ass, you'll probably get your money's worth. But if you're expecting something that's a lot more focused and coherent, then I'd recommend skipping this one.
6/10
Ben Afleck was surprisingly good as Batman, even though the his character was a goddamn psychopath who killed and branded his symbol on the survivors, but I digress. Gal Gadot was good as Wonder Woman, Henry Cavill was alright as Superman, but I have no idea what the hell they were thinking casting Jesse Eisenburg as Lex Luthor. I mean I think he can be a really good actor, but man, he was just so awful in this movie. It seems like he was trying to pull off what Heath Ledger did in the Dark Knight, but it just fails so miserably. Every time he was on screen, everything felt so awkward and uncomfortable. During some of his scenes I actually heard some of the people in the audience groan. Jesse, I love ya, but you really stunk up this performance.
The plot, like I expected looking at the trailers, was all over the place. The opening was strong and I was thinking to myself, "What are the critics talking about? This is awesome." But that moment of relief was short-lived. One minute we're focusing on the backlash Superman is getting for his actions in Man of Steel, the next we're focusing on Batman hunting a Russian arms dealer, the next we're focusing on Lex Luthor trying to create Doomsday, the next we're focusing on a drive containing information on other superheroes and yada yada yada. I felt like I was watching five movies all crammed into one.
Easily the best part of the movie was focusing on Superman dealing with the backlash from the destruction of Metropolis. It felt the most realistic and it's also addressing the biggest flaw a lot of people had with Man of Steel. But it doesn't go anywhere, nor does it change the characters or plot in anyway, so it's overall just pointless. It seemed more concerned with setting up the Justice League than actually telling a coherent story. Like I said earlier, I felt like I was watching multiple movie all crammed into one. Despite all of that, it was actually cool to see heroes like the Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg, and Wonder Woman on the big screen for the first time. So that's a plus.
The action was hit and miss. Some action sequences were just constant shaky cam and flashes of lightning and rain every five seconds. (What is it with Zack Snyder movies and rain? I mean does he have a really weird fetish for it? Like I'm surprised the entire city didn't completely flood by the end of Watchmen.) But some action sequences were pretty enjoyable, like when Batman and Superman finally went toe to toe, when Batman rescues Superman's mother and the final battle with the ninja turtle, I mean ninja turtle, I mean ninja turtle, I mean Doomsday.
So the movie's a bit of a mixed bag for me. I can't say I enjoyed it all the way through, but I can't say it gave me nothing to enjoy either. So I guess my advice is, if you want to see some good action and some of your favorite heroes kicking ass, you'll probably get your money's worth. But if you're expecting something that's a lot more focused and coherent, then I'd recommend skipping this one.
6/10
Hush
(I) (2016)
Tense and Atmospheric
1 November 2016
Now on the surface, the story sounds pretty standard and even kind of bland, since home invasion stories are anything but new, but it's executed fairly solidly. The main character is very easy to root for. She's not the stereotypical dumb female that we see in a lot of crappy horror films, but she's also not an axe wielding overpowered bad ass that is suddenly invincible and unstoppable. She's just a person trying to find her way out of a bad situation by any means she can. She's not stupid. She's actually really smart. In fact, there's a pretty clever scene at one point during the film, where she's imagining a bunch of different scenarios to escape from the cottage and what the final outcome will be, which is actually based off a technique she uses to find a preferable ending to her novels. Most horror movies give a character a backstory and not have it tie into anything, but this flick cleverly ties it in and it works very well. So yeah, I like the main character.
The killer, I assure you, you will despise. And I mean that in a good way. This guy is creepy, mysterious, vulgar, sadistic, and just a straight-up douche. You're just waiting for him to drop dead at any minute. But at the same time, he's smart as well. So him and the main character are evenly matched making it harder to predict what the outcome of each scene will be. It's true, we don't know much about his past or his motive behind why he's even trying to kill this girl to begin with, but in this case, I think it's just the mysteriousness behind his character that makes him all the more intimidating and unpredictable. You just never know what this guy is going to do next.
The film is also not nearly as violent as you'd expect. Sure there's blood and stabbing and some of the basic crap you'd expect from a movie about a killer, but it mostly relies on its atmosphere and suspense to move the story forward. It doesn't feel like it needs to pander to the lowest common denominator just for the hell of it. It just wants to tell its story the way it intends and feels that it doesn't need excessive gore. The film doesn't have as much dialogue as you'd expect either. Yeah, there's actually huge portions of this film with little to no dialogue. But it's still just as suspenseful, I might even argue more suspenseful, than the scenes with dialogue. It relies on its atmosphere and its intimidating antagonist in order to build tension. So the film does show an understanding of how to build suspense.
I would recommend checking out this film. It's an entertaining suspenseful thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat and might even leave you a bit disturbed. Check it out on Netflix. It's definitely worth the watch.
The killer, I assure you, you will despise. And I mean that in a good way. This guy is creepy, mysterious, vulgar, sadistic, and just a straight-up douche. You're just waiting for him to drop dead at any minute. But at the same time, he's smart as well. So him and the main character are evenly matched making it harder to predict what the outcome of each scene will be. It's true, we don't know much about his past or his motive behind why he's even trying to kill this girl to begin with, but in this case, I think it's just the mysteriousness behind his character that makes him all the more intimidating and unpredictable. You just never know what this guy is going to do next.
The film is also not nearly as violent as you'd expect. Sure there's blood and stabbing and some of the basic crap you'd expect from a movie about a killer, but it mostly relies on its atmosphere and suspense to move the story forward. It doesn't feel like it needs to pander to the lowest common denominator just for the hell of it. It just wants to tell its story the way it intends and feels that it doesn't need excessive gore. The film doesn't have as much dialogue as you'd expect either. Yeah, there's actually huge portions of this film with little to no dialogue. But it's still just as suspenseful, I might even argue more suspenseful, than the scenes with dialogue. It relies on its atmosphere and its intimidating antagonist in order to build tension. So the film does show an understanding of how to build suspense.
I would recommend checking out this film. It's an entertaining suspenseful thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat and might even leave you a bit disturbed. Check it out on Netflix. It's definitely worth the watch.
Sausage Party
(2016)
Better Than Expected, But Still Not Anything Great
1 November 2016
The trailer for this film broke the internet. For a while, everyone was talking about it and claiming that it was going to be the best comedy of 2016. I wasn't really in the same boat. While I thought the idea of anthropomorphic food items discovering the truth about their existence was a creative idea, I failed to see how well it would carry a feature film and felt like it would've been better off as a short on SNL or some other sketch show. But after seeing it....it was...better than expected. Although that doesn't make the movie amazing by default.
Like I said earlier, the concept is pretty creative and they do surprisingly take a few advantages with it. There's some pretty creative ideas buried underneath and they try to work in some satire involving prejudice, immortality, and identity. They obviously don't go very deep in depth, but they do it decently for a film whose protagonist is a talking sausage.
But the absolutely biggest flaw with this movie is the fact that it's not really that funny. By far this movie's biggest faults that bogs it down, is its jokes. While they're not necessarily terrible and there were only a few that I actually groaned at, nothing about them were really laugh out loud hilarious or even worth much more than just a small chuckle.
While the film kind of fails in terms of comedy, I do at the very least give it props for its creativity. A good chunk of the satire works, it boasts a pretty imaginative concept, and the animation is actually pretty solid (despite the working condition controversy) that actually does add to the subject they're satirizing (Pixar.) So the film overall is just okay as a whole. It isn't great, but it is a lot more creative than it should be.
6/10.
Like I said earlier, the concept is pretty creative and they do surprisingly take a few advantages with it. There's some pretty creative ideas buried underneath and they try to work in some satire involving prejudice, immortality, and identity. They obviously don't go very deep in depth, but they do it decently for a film whose protagonist is a talking sausage.
But the absolutely biggest flaw with this movie is the fact that it's not really that funny. By far this movie's biggest faults that bogs it down, is its jokes. While they're not necessarily terrible and there were only a few that I actually groaned at, nothing about them were really laugh out loud hilarious or even worth much more than just a small chuckle.
While the film kind of fails in terms of comedy, I do at the very least give it props for its creativity. A good chunk of the satire works, it boasts a pretty imaginative concept, and the animation is actually pretty solid (despite the working condition controversy) that actually does add to the subject they're satirizing (Pixar.) So the film overall is just okay as a whole. It isn't great, but it is a lot more creative than it should be.
6/10.
F.E.A.R. First Encounter Assault Recon
(2005 Video Game)
Has This Game Aged Well?
1 January 2016
Absolutely. This game originally came out in 2005, but I didn't start playing it until Christmas of 2015. And honestly, it's probably one of the most realistic, creepy, and decently challenging shooters I think I've ever played.
Pros:
-Smart AI
-Dripping in atmosphere
-Fantastic level design
-Gunplay still really holds up
Cons:
-Story is a bit tough to follow
-Graphics haven't aged that well, but it's not too bad
-Does suffer from its fair share of glitches.
But most of those cons are just nitpicks. FEAR is a fantastic game and I highly recommend it.
Pros:
-Smart AI
-Dripping in atmosphere
-Fantastic level design
-Gunplay still really holds up
Cons:
-Story is a bit tough to follow
-Graphics haven't aged that well, but it's not too bad
-Does suffer from its fair share of glitches.
But most of those cons are just nitpicks. FEAR is a fantastic game and I highly recommend it.
The Gallows
(2015)
I Have No Clever Analogy. It Just Sucked.
7 August 2015
Remember back when the found footage style was a unique style of filmmaking and only a handful of films used it? (I.E. The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Rec.) But it's common knowledge nowadays that it's become a cliché and a cheap gimmick for studios to save on production costs. Most of the time, there is almost no effort put into the film's storyline, characters, or scares. The Gallows certainly doesn't help its case.
Pros:
-A few decent performances
-Good production design
-Has the potential to be scary
Cons:
-Insufferable main character
-Bullshit plot twist that makes no sense
-Plot itself is nonsensical
-Relies on cheap jump scares
-Has a few good ideas, but they're usually screwed up somehow.
-Found footage style is given no explanation
3/10 (Horrible)
Pros:
-A few decent performances
-Good production design
-Has the potential to be scary
Cons:
-Insufferable main character
-Bullshit plot twist that makes no sense
-Plot itself is nonsensical
-Relies on cheap jump scares
-Has a few good ideas, but they're usually screwed up somehow.
-Found footage style is given no explanation
3/10 (Horrible)
Oculus
(2013)
A Very Unique Horror Film
14 December 2014
After seeing the trailer for this movie, Oculus just kind of looked like the same rehashed crap that we've all seen a million times. But after hearing about all the praise it's gotten, I decided to give it a try and stream it on Netflix. And boy I'm glad I did.
The plot follows two siblings whose parents were supposedly driven crazy by a haunted mirror resulting in the sister going into foster care and the brother, who killed the father out of self defense, being sent to a mental institution. 11 years later, the two siblings reunite and return to their old house to try and prove to the world that the mirror is in fact haunted and that the events that unfolded were not fictional. What follows is a series of events that leads the main characters to question what's real and what's not.
Unlike most horror movies, Oculus doesn't rely on violence to deliver its scares. In fact, it doesn't even really rely on scares in general. It's meant to be more of a psychological dive into the minds of our two main characters who find that the line between fiction and reality is so blurred that they can't even tell what's real anymore. And the movie tries to make the audience feel the same way by messing with our heads. Who perceived a certain event correctly? Was it really a supernatural occurrence or are the characters just losing their sanity? Oculus doesn't rely on cheap scares like most horror movies do. It takes a more complex and psychological approach to its premise. That's what makes it such a great and unique horror film.
The plot follows two siblings whose parents were supposedly driven crazy by a haunted mirror resulting in the sister going into foster care and the brother, who killed the father out of self defense, being sent to a mental institution. 11 years later, the two siblings reunite and return to their old house to try and prove to the world that the mirror is in fact haunted and that the events that unfolded were not fictional. What follows is a series of events that leads the main characters to question what's real and what's not.
Unlike most horror movies, Oculus doesn't rely on violence to deliver its scares. In fact, it doesn't even really rely on scares in general. It's meant to be more of a psychological dive into the minds of our two main characters who find that the line between fiction and reality is so blurred that they can't even tell what's real anymore. And the movie tries to make the audience feel the same way by messing with our heads. Who perceived a certain event correctly? Was it really a supernatural occurrence or are the characters just losing their sanity? Oculus doesn't rely on cheap scares like most horror movies do. It takes a more complex and psychological approach to its premise. That's what makes it such a great and unique horror film.
Paranormal Witness
(2011– )
Enjoyable Whether You Believe These Stories Or Not
1 October 2014
Paranormal Witness is a dramatized documentary series about various people who have had paranormal experiences. I've always had an interest in the paranormal and this series peaked it even higher. The only way I can describe this show is if it was a combination of The Haunted and Zero Hour (2004). Each episode kept me on the edge of your seat with it's gritty atmosphere and unexpected scares. Even with that said, there are some episodes I have a bit of a hard time believing. For example, I thought the UFO episode and the imaginary friend episode were both a bit of a stretch. While they are still interesting, I always seem to have a hard time believing that they actually happened. But that's what makes this show so great. Even if you don't believe these stories, they're still very enjoyable. So if you have an interest in the paranormal or just horror or suspense in general, then you'll most definitely enjoy Paranormal Witness.
Summer Wars
(2009)
Disappointing Compared to Wolf Children and the Girl Who Leapt Through Time
1 September 2014
I was expecting to absolutely love this movie. I was expecting to fall in love with it like I did with Mamoru Hosoda's other films like Wolf Children and the Girl Who Leapt Through Time. And while this film was in no means bad, I couldn't help but feel a little underwhelmed by it.
What's good about it: The animation is great and unique as always, A lot of the emotional scenes were handled pretty maturely, and it can be pretty engaging and gripping at times.
What's bad about it: They're trying to tell two different stories at once. One story being about a bunch of people trying to save the world from a corrupt artificial intelligence and the other being about a kid who has to pretend to be the fiancé of a girl he likes. And they're not balanced out very well. I personally think it would've worked if both of these stories were two separate films. Another issue with the film is that the characters that are meant to be important (the love interest in particular) had little to no development outside of just being the love interest. The reason behind that is because there were too many characters. A lot of the film focused more on her family than it did the actual main characters. If you want this character to have a big family, then fine, more power to ya. But you shouldn't put all of your focus on them. You should keep the focus where it should be: on the main characters.
But even with these issues, does this film still hold up? Yeah. This movie is in no mean amazing or even great, I still think it's decent. However, if you were expecting a masterpiece like Wolf Children or the Girl Who Leapt Through Time, you may wanna look elsewhere. For me, I'm glad I saw it, I just wouldn't see it again.
What's good about it: The animation is great and unique as always, A lot of the emotional scenes were handled pretty maturely, and it can be pretty engaging and gripping at times.
What's bad about it: They're trying to tell two different stories at once. One story being about a bunch of people trying to save the world from a corrupt artificial intelligence and the other being about a kid who has to pretend to be the fiancé of a girl he likes. And they're not balanced out very well. I personally think it would've worked if both of these stories were two separate films. Another issue with the film is that the characters that are meant to be important (the love interest in particular) had little to no development outside of just being the love interest. The reason behind that is because there were too many characters. A lot of the film focused more on her family than it did the actual main characters. If you want this character to have a big family, then fine, more power to ya. But you shouldn't put all of your focus on them. You should keep the focus where it should be: on the main characters.
But even with these issues, does this film still hold up? Yeah. This movie is in no mean amazing or even great, I still think it's decent. However, if you were expecting a masterpiece like Wolf Children or the Girl Who Leapt Through Time, you may wanna look elsewhere. For me, I'm glad I saw it, I just wouldn't see it again.
Wolf Children
(2012)
One of My Favorite Movies
21 July 2014
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a lot of people have probably never heard of this movie. But more people should be made aware of Wolf Children because it is one of the best movies out there. Not only is it one of my favorite animated films, it's one of my favorite films period.
The plot revolves around Hana, who falls in love with a Wolf Man and has children with him. However, they harnessed the Wolf Man's traits and abilities as well. Suddenly when the Wolf Man passes away, Hana vows to take care of his children by moving to the countryside where we witness the two children grow up and take different paths in a 12 year time span.
I could go on forever about this movie, but I'll try to shorten it. I'll try to keep this review under a year long, but I'm not making any promises. What makes this movie so great is the character development of Hana and her children. Throughout the movie, you feel like you're best friends with some of these characters which allows you to feel sorrow, pride, or sympathy for them. Another great thing about the film is the pacing. They spend a fair amount of time in each stage of the kids' childhoods which allows you to notice how they change as they grow up. Another great thing about the movie is the amount of maturity it has despite the fact that its technically a kid's film. I'll try not to spoil it for you, but it's pretty easy to spot. This film also has a great atmosphere, powerful character drama, unique animation, etc. Like I said, I could go on forever about this movie but I'm eventually going to hit the maximum amount of words that IMDb will allow.
If you haven't seen this film, drop whatever you're doing and watch it right now because it's a very touching, cute, and heartwarming film that I believe is truly a gem.
The plot revolves around Hana, who falls in love with a Wolf Man and has children with him. However, they harnessed the Wolf Man's traits and abilities as well. Suddenly when the Wolf Man passes away, Hana vows to take care of his children by moving to the countryside where we witness the two children grow up and take different paths in a 12 year time span.
I could go on forever about this movie, but I'll try to shorten it. I'll try to keep this review under a year long, but I'm not making any promises. What makes this movie so great is the character development of Hana and her children. Throughout the movie, you feel like you're best friends with some of these characters which allows you to feel sorrow, pride, or sympathy for them. Another great thing about the film is the pacing. They spend a fair amount of time in each stage of the kids' childhoods which allows you to notice how they change as they grow up. Another great thing about the movie is the amount of maturity it has despite the fact that its technically a kid's film. I'll try not to spoil it for you, but it's pretty easy to spot. This film also has a great atmosphere, powerful character drama, unique animation, etc. Like I said, I could go on forever about this movie but I'm eventually going to hit the maximum amount of words that IMDb will allow.
If you haven't seen this film, drop whatever you're doing and watch it right now because it's a very touching, cute, and heartwarming film that I believe is truly a gem.
Girl Meets World
(2014–2017)
Has Good Intentions and Succeeds in Some Areas
16 July 2014
Several years after the end of Boy Meets World, fans are finally given a continuation. That continuation being Girl Meets World. While BMW, was in no means a fantastic show, it still allowed me to identify with the characters and get drawn in by some of the comedic story lines. So what's my opinion on the sequel series? The show revolves around Riley Matthews, the son of Cory and Topanga Matthews, as she learns life lessons from both her family and her friends. And...that's about it.
I don't think I'm giving anything away here when I say that this show is just the previous series from a girl's point of view. Usually I'd call a series out if it was just a copy and paste of past material, but honestly, in this show it works. There could be a lot of stories that Boy Meets World never even touched because it's only relatable through a girl's point of view. The life lessons that Cory learned in his life are now rubbing off on his daughter. That's pretty creative. This show has the same spirit and energy as BMW, but has a completely different atmosphere and some pretty dull character drama. But the humor is still there. But it usually varies between a situation with infinite comedic possibilities (Cory as Riley's teacher) to just being awkward and unfunny (Farkle).
Overall, Girl Meets World is a decent show. It's not perfect, but it's still entertaining and likable. And best of all, it's ten times better than the crap they've been putting on the Disney Channel lately.
I don't think I'm giving anything away here when I say that this show is just the previous series from a girl's point of view. Usually I'd call a series out if it was just a copy and paste of past material, but honestly, in this show it works. There could be a lot of stories that Boy Meets World never even touched because it's only relatable through a girl's point of view. The life lessons that Cory learned in his life are now rubbing off on his daughter. That's pretty creative. This show has the same spirit and energy as BMW, but has a completely different atmosphere and some pretty dull character drama. But the humor is still there. But it usually varies between a situation with infinite comedic possibilities (Cory as Riley's teacher) to just being awkward and unfunny (Farkle).
Overall, Girl Meets World is a decent show. It's not perfect, but it's still entertaining and likable. And best of all, it's ten times better than the crap they've been putting on the Disney Channel lately.
Sword Art Online
(2012– )
The First Half is Good, The Second Half...
16 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A friend recommended this to me and I'm glad I listened to his recommendation. This show is smart, creative, and (most of time) keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The show revolves around Kirito, a hardcore gamer who joins a virtual MMO called Sword Art Online. However, he soon realizes that he's unable to log out and that if he dies in the game he'll die in real life. In order to escape from this virtual nightmare, the final boss of the game has to be defeated.
That plot, alone, is pretty epic, you gotta admit. The show had pretty awesome visuals, likable characters, convincing chemistry with certain characters, and great atmosphere. While I feel like the first half could've had a more linear story line, it was still enjoyable nevertheless. Then you have the second half.
What's good about the second half: It still has a few likable characters, it had a good beginning and it had a good epilogue that perfectly wraps up the series.
What's bad about the second half: Asuna, one the very few dignified female characters in the anime, has been reduced to a sex object and a damsel in distress. The incest love story was unnecessary, and the pointless subplots are forgotten as quickly as they're introduced. And finally, I'm just gonna come out and say it: it was just dumb.
But despite its flaws, Sword Art Online is still a very good series. Its creativity shows in both its writing and visuals. While it does eventually take a nose dive, it's still a very enjoyable series that I strongly recommend.
The show revolves around Kirito, a hardcore gamer who joins a virtual MMO called Sword Art Online. However, he soon realizes that he's unable to log out and that if he dies in the game he'll die in real life. In order to escape from this virtual nightmare, the final boss of the game has to be defeated.
That plot, alone, is pretty epic, you gotta admit. The show had pretty awesome visuals, likable characters, convincing chemistry with certain characters, and great atmosphere. While I feel like the first half could've had a more linear story line, it was still enjoyable nevertheless. Then you have the second half.
What's good about the second half: It still has a few likable characters, it had a good beginning and it had a good epilogue that perfectly wraps up the series.
What's bad about the second half: Asuna, one the very few dignified female characters in the anime, has been reduced to a sex object and a damsel in distress. The incest love story was unnecessary, and the pointless subplots are forgotten as quickly as they're introduced. And finally, I'm just gonna come out and say it: it was just dumb.
But despite its flaws, Sword Art Online is still a very good series. Its creativity shows in both its writing and visuals. While it does eventually take a nose dive, it's still a very enjoyable series that I strongly recommend.
I Am Legend
(2007)
Not the Best But Certainly Not the Worst
8 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Post apocalyptic movies have been around forever. Some hit and some miss. The film I Am Legend does a little bit of both. So, the film revolves around a scientist and his dog, as they are the only survivors of a deadly plague that has ravaged humanity. During his time alone, the scientist searches desperately to search for a cure. But the question is, is he really alone in this world gone to hell?
The good: This film has a basic, but overall decent storyline. I enjoyed a good majority of the characters, and while I didn't think the actual death of the dog was sad I actually thought the way it affected Will Smith's character was sad. The special effects were pretty good, it had a decent score, and am I the only one who just loves the monsters? I don't know. Maybe I'm just a sucker for that kind of stuff.
The bad: While the first half was good, the second half is where I thought the film started to slide a little bit. After the dog is infected by the zombie-like monster things (I don't know, they never make it clear) Will Smith tries to seek revenge. However, it goes horribly wrong, but he ends up being rescued by a young woman and her son. Now, the woman and her son are not bad characters. They just seemed kind of out of place to me. I don't why it's just something about them that drives me a little nuts. Maybe it's because I wish the rest of the movie just revolved around the scientist without the aid of his trusty canine friend. I actually think that would've been a little more interesting if it was done right. But I guess I'll just take it for what it is. And for what it is, it doesn't really harm the movie. The length of the film is the other bad thing, but there's not a lot I can say about that.
Overall, I like this film. Is it the best post apocalyptic film? No, but it's certainly not the worst.
The good: This film has a basic, but overall decent storyline. I enjoyed a good majority of the characters, and while I didn't think the actual death of the dog was sad I actually thought the way it affected Will Smith's character was sad. The special effects were pretty good, it had a decent score, and am I the only one who just loves the monsters? I don't know. Maybe I'm just a sucker for that kind of stuff.
The bad: While the first half was good, the second half is where I thought the film started to slide a little bit. After the dog is infected by the zombie-like monster things (I don't know, they never make it clear) Will Smith tries to seek revenge. However, it goes horribly wrong, but he ends up being rescued by a young woman and her son. Now, the woman and her son are not bad characters. They just seemed kind of out of place to me. I don't why it's just something about them that drives me a little nuts. Maybe it's because I wish the rest of the movie just revolved around the scientist without the aid of his trusty canine friend. I actually think that would've been a little more interesting if it was done right. But I guess I'll just take it for what it is. And for what it is, it doesn't really harm the movie. The length of the film is the other bad thing, but there's not a lot I can say about that.
Overall, I like this film. Is it the best post apocalyptic film? No, but it's certainly not the worst.
Non-Stop
(2014)
A Decent Thriller
27 March 2014
I recently saw "Non-Stop" a couple of days ago and I personally enjoyed it. It's not just a copy and paste of "Taken" like some people seem to believe. It was unique, creative, and a good deal of fun. But is it as good as other movie thrillers? No, but that's not really a bad thing. It may not be as suspenseful as other great thrillers like "Perfect Blue" or "Rear Window" but it is just as entertaining. "Non-Stop" had a few pretty silly moments and it did drag on a little longer than it really needed to, but it still did its best to keep from losing focus and keep the audience entertained. Is it an absolutely amazing movie? No. Is it a well done movie? Yes. Is it Oscar worthy? No and I don't think it's really meant to be. It's a decent thriller film that does prove to be a great time at the movies. The story is good, the action is good, most of the characters are forgettable but likable, and Liam Neeson is, well, Liam Neeson. It's just a fun movie to watch and I think it's worth at least one viewing.
Perfect Blue
(1997)
A Truly Suspenseful Anime With a Hitchcock Flair to it
25 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
If Alfred Hitchcock and Hayao Miyazaki worked on a project together, this is probably what they would make. Perfect Blue revolves around a young woman named Mima, who leaves her career as a pop singer and starts a career as an actress. While doing this, she is stalked by an obsessed fan and tormented by, what seems to be a ghost of her past self as a pop singer. This sends Mima into a deep psychological torture that may drive her off the deep end.
So what are the pros of this movie? Well, the story is probably one of the best I've seen in any animated film, the editing was superb, and the music was always perfect for the present situation. The story itself can get really confusing at times, which is probably what the film is going for, but is explained in a clever manner later on. In fact, the way Mima compares the movie she's shooting to her current situation is a pretty clever idea and it sure as hell confuses the audience about what's real and what's not. Great storytelling right there.
So what are the cons of this movie? While I don't hate this movie at all, I'm not gonna act like I don't have my problems with it. Luckily, there's only very few. The animation was bit choppy at times and I can imagine that it probably didn't look very good on the big screen. I do think Mima was a bit of a bimbo at times and the ending was terrible. "Now I'm the real me," she says. Really? That's what this movie is ending off of? But all of these are blown out of the water by the pros.
I give Perfect Blue an 8/10 because it truly is a very suspenseful film that keeps you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Whether you're a fan of anime or not, I assure you that you will enjoy this film.
So what are the pros of this movie? Well, the story is probably one of the best I've seen in any animated film, the editing was superb, and the music was always perfect for the present situation. The story itself can get really confusing at times, which is probably what the film is going for, but is explained in a clever manner later on. In fact, the way Mima compares the movie she's shooting to her current situation is a pretty clever idea and it sure as hell confuses the audience about what's real and what's not. Great storytelling right there.
So what are the cons of this movie? While I don't hate this movie at all, I'm not gonna act like I don't have my problems with it. Luckily, there's only very few. The animation was bit choppy at times and I can imagine that it probably didn't look very good on the big screen. I do think Mima was a bit of a bimbo at times and the ending was terrible. "Now I'm the real me," she says. Really? That's what this movie is ending off of? But all of these are blown out of the water by the pros.
I give Perfect Blue an 8/10 because it truly is a very suspenseful film that keeps you on the edge of your seat all the way through. Whether you're a fan of anime or not, I assure you that you will enjoy this film.
Tell Your Friends