buny101 Reviews

Pixels (2015)

oh dear god!

[1/10 · 25 July 2015]

Please don't feed the ego or family of Adam Sandler. Look, I genuinely like Sandler. I am a fan of many of his movies, but this one is not a good movie. He plays a video game nerd that had a chance of making it big as a child, only to come in second place, and thus be regulated to a life of drudgery. Having your best friend become president and still want to hang out with you doesn't seem to qualify as "cool" or "awesome." Just tedious. Now, as an adult, he works as a NERD, a computer guy based on the Geek squad, and installs electronics in homes (when not hanging with the leader of the free world). Aliens attack our planet, using our old video games as the basis of their attacks, and it is up to Sandler, Dinklage, and Lamansoff, all three contenders from a video game competition from 30 years ago, to save the world. There are so many problems with this movie. It's clunky. It's stupid. It can only appeal to small children, and even they must have had some traumatic brain injury to be able to enjoy this movie. Given the premise, of video game superstars fending off video game monsters, you have to know that children are going to be attending in droves. Make it kid friendly. This movie doesn't try to cater to them--a question of what to call a male maggot was answered with, "Mangina?" a cross between maggot and vagina. Funny? No. Not at all. Did the children laugh? They didn't understand. Now...am I supposed to explain to my 8 year old what a "mangina" is? The rest of the cast just phoned in their parts. I paid 17 dollars for popcorn and soda, and the the tickets were free. I could have stayed at home and watched it for free in a couple of months, and would have saved 17 bucks. Please, don't make the same mistake I did.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

umm...too much...much too much

[6/10 · 2 May 2015]

Fans will hate me. Heck, I kind of hate myself...but very disappointed in this film. Oh, even my children will hate me. My seven year old said, "Just awesome...awesome..." when asked about this movie. And, to a seven year old, it is awesome. And truthfully, the movie doesn't fail on any particular point...but there is just too much. The movie is about Tony Stark making the world a safer place by making an automated defense system, which gains sentient life, and decides that the world would be better off without mankind or the avengers to muck with it. Boiled down, it is the monster from Frankenstein that turns on it's creator. Not a bad story. The problem I have is that there are 15 characters. Hulk, Banner (so different that they have to be listed separately), Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Prof. Jane, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, etc. The characters from the other movies that don't show up get mentioned. I heard about Pepper and Loki and etc etc. Look, we've been getting 2 hour movies based on each character. A two hour movie about Captain America, a two hour movie about Iron Man, a two hour movie about Thor....if you think you can shoehorn all these characters, and 5 times as many, into one movie and try to tell a decent story, you're wrong. With all those characters, we are reduced to watching fight scene after fight scene with quick cuts to each character, and in the end, you just felt lost. You can't watch a video about DDAY and watch every soldier...so you pick up with Tom Hanks and follow his crew up the beach. You can't see everything, so you have to focus on one small element in that frame, and you go with that. They had so much to throw at the screen, it was hard to keep it going, and hard to care.

So...I don't care. I found myself more interested in the popcorn. Oh, I think it's going to be a huge success, and I will look forward to seeing it on DVD where I can pause, rewind, and laugh (and lot's of good humor, though a couple of jokes are kind of adult in nature which is odd in a kids movie), and I will enjoy the heck out of the cd. But, honestly, I got lost in the movie, and exhausted trying to keep up with all the characters, and in the end, it just wasn't fun.

It would have been awesome if it had one solo hero going after ultron, and then just getting help from the rest of the avengers....wouldn't it?

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Please don't take the Kids!

[8/10 · 15 February 2015]

Loved it! A super secret spy organization, not affiliated with any government, works behind the scenes to keep evil at bay. Headed by "Arthur," and guided by "Merlin," each of the agents who also have Arthurian codenames, conduct their own investigations into the seedy side of evil all over the globe. There are only so many seats at the round table, and so when agent Lancelot is killed, the first active agent in 17 years to die, the Kingsman begin recruiting his replacement from a group of young men and women. Our main character is Eggsy, who is sponsored by Galahad (Colin Firth), a young man who lacks many of the others social graces, coming across as a bit rough on the edges. The young men and women begin a very long job interview that is very rough and potentially fatal to weed out the lesser candidates and find the next agent worthy to sit at the round table. At the same time, Colin Firth's character, Harry Hart, codename Galahad, is tasked with finding out who, and why, Lancelot was killed.

Even thought it was R rated, I did take my two boys (7 and 9) and truly regret that decision. I know it was R...but I thought it was because of the violence and the language. For the most part, I was right. There was only one scene, in the last few minutes of this otherwise awesome flick, that ruined that expectation. I won't go into graphic depiction, but when Eggsy asks the female hostage if he can have a kiss if he frees her, she replies (in the trailer) "I'll give you more than that," and he states, "I'll be right back." It's very funny in the trailer...but in the movie, she actually states exactly what she'll do to repay him...and that's where it got awkward with my children. So...if they weren't there, I would have a great time. If that scene wasn't in there, or cut short, it would have been a great time.

I find it hard to figure out if the movie works for an adult crowd, because the action scenes are cartoonish (mostly). There is a bit of blood and gore, but on one occasion, the blood and gore was replaced by pyrotechnics. If you've seen "My Name is Nobody," and remember the scene with Henry Fonda shooting at the Wild Bunch, you'll understand what I mean. There are many references to spy movies and TV shows--James Bond, Bourne Identity, "24" and even "Get Smart." It's fun, almost a parody...and then it throws out the R-rated stuff. It could have been a much more accessible movie without that one scene...so I don't know why they are trying to limit their audience...weird.

American Sniper (2014)

good movie lousy baby props

[8/10 · 17 January 2015]

It was a solid movie. I have heard it was a rehash of Hurt Locker, but I didn't see Hurt Locker, so this is still a fresh movie for me. Basically, as a boy, Chris Kyle, the American Sniper, is told by his father that there are three kinds of people in this world--sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. Sheep are innocent people, wolves are evil and victimize sheep, and sheep dogs go after wolves with a vengeance. The movie follows our loyal sheep dog as he realizes he needs a purpose in life, and joins the Navy to be a SEAL to save American lives. The movie was fairly good, and it's based on a true story, so there is that going for it. There were a couple of issues that knocked it back two stars--the stupid prop babies were so fake, it was almost shameful. I expect props like that on movies from Lifetime, but my wife insists that they use real babies in their movies. These weren't even half way decent props, and were painfully obvious to be fakes. It is almost like they bought Penelope Pee No More at Toys'R'Us and threw it in the film. Hate to be that picky, but it did take away from the film, and thus, a distraction. The other star is knocked off due to the movie looking at possible angles, but then not really exploring them. Chris Kyle was a sheep dog, but maybe he became a little more wolf than dog, and the movie didn't let us see that "wolf" in him for very much. It could have been a full movie on just watching a man with such high ideals for himself lose his way, and then seek it back out. There were other stories hinted at that never really panned out, like his protective nature over his brother, or his father/son relationship with his dad, and so I'm not sure if there is more to the story, or if, in real life, it never panned out, either. If it didn't happen, then oh, well. But since it was glimpsed so earnestly, I kept expecting it to be revisited and resolved, and the movie just forgot about it. Still, a solid movie, and much better than A-Team (Bradley Cooper in that) and I'm glad he decided to act and not give it to Chris Pratt (his co-star in Guardians of the Galaxy and the current darling of the theater). I like Chris, but it was nice to see Bradley shine. Good job.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

Michael Bay Explosions with Turtles

[2/10 · 9 August 2014]

Wow. Explosions+Ninja Turtles=Michael Payday Bay. He'll make money. He didn't direct this but did produce it. It had his fingerprints all over it, and so it doesn't matter.

Basic story: There are villains running around the city. No one has the guts to stand up to them, and the city is almost paralyzed in fear. One reporter, April O'Neil,runs across one of their heists, and finds it is stopped by a vigilante. She wants to expose the vigilante, and then soon finds out that there are actually 4 vigilantes who still stand for justice in the crime ridden city she loves. Along the way, we'll discover past connections to the vigilantes, and a few minor (predictable) plot turns, and find teamwork, brotherhood, and a boring movie even with all the explosions.

The turtles take about 15 minutes to show up. For a movie that is just over an hour and half, that is too long, also considering that much of the story is going to have to be told in flashback...and was still boring. The CGI tries to balance between creepy and cute and stays in creepy too much. The mask on the turtles or the mask off, they don't get cute. The rat is just vile. And, isn't he the same age as the turtle? Well, turtles are long lived, I guess, and so he might be nearing his mortality stage.

There are other small faults. I could have sworn I saw the scar switch from the left side to the right side on one of the turtles. The bad guys were weak and throwaway. Seriously...how bad is the unemployment out there when you take a job with a bad guy, and they murder you just to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug? If I were another bad guy in that room, I would just casually walk over to the locker room, take off my machine gun and swords, change into my street clothes, and go take that job at McDonald's. It's bad enough that ninja turtles are gunning for you, and your own organization kills you, too? Not to mention the police or the vigilante justice that awaits you if they ever find out, so, isn't that job at McDonald's looking better all the time? They have a free meal program at McDonald's. And tuition reimbursement. But, you stay with the ninja Foot Clan? Really?

Anyways...my six year and eight year old both loved it. I was standing in a line with a guy in his 30's, who had brought his his wife and three kids to the movies. He was so excited. He told me had to drag his family there. I saw them after. He said he loved it. So...if you are a turtle fan, and there seemed to be lots of adults without kids, so maybe they are tuning into the right audience, maybe you'll love it, too. But, if you weren't a fan, I don't see a reason to spend 40-50 bucks at the theater (tickets, popcorn, soda). If you have to spend that kind of money, I'd go see Guardians of the Galaxy again. A much better movie, and funnier. Your choice.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Must see movie of the year!

[9/10 · 31 July 2014]

What a surprise! A movie that lives up to it's own hype. So many movies look good on previews and then you find out the previews were better than the movie. This movie wins, hands down.

Now, it's not an intellectual film, so don't expect anything deep. It never pretended to that type of film, though. It promised action, and followed that up with a sly sense of humor, and then more action, and it delivered on those promises. That in itself sets it apart from most films out there today.

In this film, a young boy is whisked into space, and becomes a mix of Hans Solo/Indiana Jones (the fact that they are both played by the same character seems odd in comparison). He is scavenging worlds for valuables on a bounty system. He gets into more than he can handle with his last assignment, and ends up with just about everyone hot on his trail.

There is a green assassin who wants his treasure, and then a talking raccoon and his tree buddy that are turning him over to other outlaws for a bounty. Last addition is a muscle bound psychopath who only wants to kill. This motley crew will form the Guardians of Galaxy, and take on the responsibility of saving billions of lives. It's quite a ride...and there are laughs and some tears thrown in for the mix. A great mix.

The only reason I don't go to "10 out of 10" is that there wasn't enough difference between the characters. You have a thief (Starlord), and then you have a person who specializes in killing people, the green skinned assassin Zamora....no...wait, the specialist in killing people is Rocket the Raccoon...oops...no, wait, it's Groot....oh...maybe it is Drax the Destroyer....hmmm....seems to be the biggest occupation in the group. So, a thief and four really tough guys who murder people form the group. It's still a great group, though....just a little more diversity would have been nice.

Worth the price of the ticket...but sneak in your own popcorn!.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

don't understand all the hype

[6/10 · 14 July 2014]

It was okay for a movie. The special effects were pretty good, and for that reason alone it was worth seeing. But the story? The direction? Please...lots of plot holes that the the general public have to swallow. For example...the apes live in Muir Woods (from what I can gather--it's only 12 miles from SF and close enough for them to interact...if they lived in the main part of Redwoods, it would be a 300 mile journey back to town, and stretches the belief that the monkeys could follow humans back for such a distance or interact at all, but would be a better place for the monkeys to actually live). It's just not that big. It's only 564 acres. I used to be a farmhand in Kansas, and can tell you that one square mile is 640 acres. So, all these apes are living in this paradise? On less than one square mile of woods? There are enough resources to support their colony? I don't think so. And the story of the need of the dam. I can't find any dam inside Muir woods, but if I am mistaken, so be it. But, San Francisco has other dams...one of them 25 miles away. If the apes live with this dam, you don't have to go back to it. It's not like it's the only dam in the world. Even if the other dam is more easily repaired, it is in the middle of a war zone. Go to the dam that is 25 miles away and be monkey free. That would be the smart thing. The monkeys designate a meeting spot by drawing an obscure symbol on a window. You realize, suddenly, that the drawing matches a window someplace in the city. The fact that the it must be the only window like it in the whole darn city of San Francisco, and every monkey knows exactly where that window is, why, that is nothing short of a miracle. Or the fact that a monkey picks up a camcorder and it has enough power to play the tape left in it from 10 years earlier. Or, why do they follow Caesar anyways? The movie makes a great pitch that they follow strength. OK...I would have accepted they follow Caesar because he freed them. But, if they follow strength, then why didn't a gorilla take over already? As strong as Caesar and the rest of the chimps are, they are nothing in strength compared to one silverback gorilla. This is like comparing King Kong to Bobo the Chimp. If they don't follow strength, then they follow Caesar...but then there is not plot issues later...so for convenience...well, there you go....another plot hole that is glazed over. These plot contrivances of necessity take away from the story because every time these wonderful little miracles happen to advance the plot, you sit back and go..."Wait one sec..." or at least, I do. So...special effects? Yeah...pretty good. Story? Um...lots of holes. Character development? The humans are pitiful and underwritten. The main character is doing this for his son, because his son has seen so much tragedy, and he wants to build a better place for his children (exactly the same reason that Caesar is doing this for the apes). Well, Mr. Main Character, every human left alive, of which there are only a handful, has seen exactly what your precious child has seen, too. Also, out of city the size of San Francisco, two survivors who were immune to the simian flu are father/son? Another plot contrivance? I think so...wow...it just goes on and on. People are raving about this movie. I don't get it. The story is just not there. What little story that is there is propped up by more miracles than the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could have found. If it weren't for these miracles, there would be no story. None. The fact that most of the public, and even the critics are going crazy over this is proof that there is such a dearth of original ideas and good movies out of Hollywood that even something this poorly done is head and shoulders above the rest of the stuff that they are churning out. That doesn't make this good. It just shows how abysmal the rest of the crap really is. Plot holes are just like pot holes...if you don't fill them in, you end up with a bumpy ride that no one enjoys. They didn't fill them in, but just pretended they don't exist. Everyone thinks that this movie is steak, and the rest of the movies are hot dogs. Bad news, folks. This isn't steak. It's just hamburger served on a plate with a baked potato. Not that great. Better than everything else, maybe...but not that great.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Desolation of Smug (not a typo)

[6/10 · 13 December 2013]

Peter Jackson took a trilogy of books, and made it into three movies. He then took a single book, and is trying to stretch it into three more movies. Do the math--if the Lord of the Rings had rec'd the same treatment, there would have been 9 movies in that series. Way too much. Wayyyyy to much. The Hobbit, if anyone needs to be told, is a wonderful book, but it is short on story and long on character development. This movie tries to flip that script and make it a wonderful story about a hobbit, and a dwarf seeking his kingdom, and making it an elf chick flick, and the redemption of a Bard, and let's skip the neat character of Beorn altogether, and add in Orc parties (and forget that the orcs couldn't/wouldn't travel in daylight). Let's change the character study of a odd hero and make it such a stupendous story that the title character, the Hobbit, is lost in the shuffle. Bilbo, for those that don't remember, barely did anything in the book. He forgot his walking stick. He only succeeded in delaying the trolls. He did wake up and holler when the orcs attacked their midnight camp in the mountains, but then he fell off the dwarf during their escape. He did fight in Mirkwood, and was instrumental in their escape, but after that, he is basically just tagging along with the group. And, that's OK! And even though, in the book, he is the linchpin for all the changes, it is more by his inaction than by his actions that he succeeds. Funny thing...that's what made him seem so believable, and accessible, and loved by millions of fans. The Hobbit is not just the most successful fantasy novel because it is the grandfather of all fantasy novels, but because the Hobbit was fleshed out and seemed like an actual creation. He seemed exactly like what we would be like in a fantasy setting. There is a reason that first edition The Hobbit sells for the same thing as first edition works of Twain. This movie has drawn upon the story, but it forgot to tell us his story, and instead is about ten different stories all shooting off in all kinds of arcs. Not a bad movie...but not the hobbit. I blame the director for this. He did the same thing in LOTR...he changed the characters to suit his purpose and forgot that it wasn't his story to tell...he should stick to telling the story and only show us his vision of what it looked like. He is not the creator here...Tolkien was. To think he can improve on such a story is, well, could be defined as smug. And thus, we have the Desolation of Smug.

Man of Steel (2013)

the bibilical version of superman

[5/10 · 15 June 2013]

...which is what this was. The similarities are so forced and obvious that it feels like this movie was directed by billy graham or Pope John Paul or something. There is very little "superman" of the comic book fame. Look, on the planet Krypton, babies are made to order (like a wendy's burger) with the correct dna set up. Want a warrior? get a warrior. Jor-El and his wife have a baby the old fashioned way, and thus, the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of Krypton is born. He is sent by his FATHER so that THRU him ALL MANKIND can be saved...

Even the beard he sports (and how does he shave? Really?) and working as a FISHERMAN and throwing his arms out in the form of a cross, and of course, making himself a willing sacrifice at the relatively mature age of, what? 33...just like Christ.

Look, I'm a Christian. I love Cool Hand Luke and I see the parallel there to Christ...and it was wonderful. But...this? Come on, please. I want more comic book and less new testament at this movie. I just feel like I've been preached at for 2 hours. maybe tomorrow our pastor will fly into the rafters, and the world will balance it self out.

Still, i enjoyed the fx...so giving it a 5. The restof the movie was just a reason to preach, and that got old.

The Devil's Ride (2012– )

hahahahahahaha!

[1/10 · 18 February 2013]

The only positive in this show is that it allows us to follow the most pitiful gang since the Orphans from the movie Warriors. It is almost like the Orphans actually existed! White Boi, and Diesel (running on fumes) and whatever...how tough are you when you let the camera follow you around? I am not in a MC...but I still do stuff I don't want the govt to know about. One thing I don't want anyone to know about is that I watched this show (and yet, I posted a review!). This show is laughable and as about real as Amish Mafia. Discovery should be ashamed! Perhaps they should lose their broadcasting license. This is worse and funnier than "mama's family." Pathetic. Guys, turn in your motorcycles, and get yourself a scooter. You don't deserve more than that.

Immortals (2011)

not that good of a movie

[3/10 · 15 January 2012]

Wow. Is this the future of our movies? I don't think the writer from "300" was involved in this, was he? Because this one had no real story, or at least, not one that made much sense. It would be easy to pick apart this movie at any angle, but in the end, it's kind of like kicking a disabled person. The faults of the movie are enough to qualify it for drudgery. There's not enough action for an action movie, not enough chick flick material (though they try) for the ladies, and the sets look CGI and unnatural, the fighting is ridiculous, and the twists and turns could have been plotted by a blind man. The Greek Gods, who can basically dive bomb out of heaven, but return by teleportation, are engaged in an eternal battle with the Titans. You'll wish you could teleport away from this awful movie. I would have given it just one star, but the fight scenes involving the Gods were pretty cool, but just not enough them and too short when they happened. Anyways...if you want to watch it, I wouldn't stop you. It will have some fans. I wanted to like it, had such hopes for it...maybe that's why I am so bitter about the outcome.

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

So much Glurge I now have Diabetes

[3/10 · 27 December 2011]

The good: Matt Damon, Thomas Hayden Church, Maggie Jones (Rosie), John Higgins. The Bad: The rest of the movie. The Ugly: The possible relationship love angles that might develop with the characters.

The movie itself is fairly harmless. Benjamin Mees is recently widowed, and is watching his world fall apart, quits his job and moves his family into an old house in the country that comes with it's own zoo. Of course, there are issues. But, and this is the glurge, no matter how bad it gets, the solution is right around the corner! This probably would have been a better movie if the they had told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead, they have to make up fake issues to resolve. Oh, I don't doubt there were real issues in the story, but each one seems to be solved not so much by character resolution but by blind luck. It's not that Benjamin couldn't step on a banana peel--it's just that if he does, he lands on a wallet stuffed with cash! Nothing bad ever happens to him without 10 wonderful things of greater magnitude landing at about the same time.

After a while, you quit believing in his good luck, and wonder how much of it is contrived. If you start questioning how much of this is not true, then you begin to doubt the whole story. I think if I could have been assured a true story, it would have been better. Instead, I end up doubting so much of the story...and that's a shame. It probably is a wonderful tale, but they had to introduce so many issues that were so easily resolved you just quit trusting the storyteller.

The really disturbing part? Ben's love interest is the head zookeeper. Let's see--she's 28, and Ben's son is 14. Dylan (Ben's son) also has a love interest, which is the the zookeepers little sister, who is 12. Hmm. Okay, If Ben and Dylan both get married to their love interest, it would mean that Ben's sister in law is also his daughter in law, and his son is now his brother in law. It will mean that Dylan's sister in law is also his stepmom. Freaky? I think so...

Green Lantern (2011)

too long on developing character

[5/10 · 22 June 2011]

The movie wasn't terrible. It wasn't great. It was a nice way to blow 40 bucks to spend time with the family. Well, when I put it that way, I feel I lost out 30 bucks. I should have waited for the DVD. I mean, it wasn't bad. It just wasn't great. Hal Jordan, Green Lantern, has lots of issues in his Hal Jordan life. He has a doting nephew (that we see just once...), a family still recovering from a tragedy in the 1990's (which gives the film an excuse to introduce us to his brothers, but um, just once). Peter Sarsgaard, brother-in-law to Jake Gylenhall, was pretty good. He was worth the 10 bucks. In the end, though, it was 90% character development, and by the time they got to the fight scenes (which obviously didn't take that long). If they had focused on his ring and use of his willpower, it would have been better. Instead, we get to psychoanalyze Hal Jordan for most of the movie. So...it was okay. Nothing great.

Taken (I) (2008)

worth watching

[8/10 · 2 June 2011]

The only reason I downgraded it two stars is that the director was too cute on many of his choices. Grainy footage, or flashback scenes, or quick cuts. So, from a merely technical viewpoint, it was a headache for me. But, the story? Wonderful. The actors? I am a Liam Neeson fan (even "Next of Kin," which is a sad sad movie), so I was happy to see him in this movie. The plot? Easy to follow and easy to be excited. There are plenty of twists and turns and not as many red herrings as I thought there would be. Red herrings? You know, where the director throws in a possible good guy that becomes the bad guy, or the bad guy that winds up being the good guy, or some other silly plot device. The director stayed away from these, gave us the outline of the story, and followed Liam as he chases down the bad guys. Nice and simple. The way an action-thriller should be.

Mars Needs Moms (2011)

not a bad movie

[7/10 · 16 March 2011]

This was better than some, no worse than others. I love Seth Green, and if he hadn't been listed in the credits you would have known in two seconds it was him. It looked almost too real, as every facial expression and reaction shot seemed too real. I think cartoons should be more cartoony--does that make sense? If you strive so hard to make cartoons look like real images, then why not just make a movie using real objects? That being said, the story wasn't horrible, and it is just repeating the title to tell you that mom is kidnapped by horrible aliens who wish to learn from her how to be a mother. There are reasons that will be explained. What I didn't like was that the idiots in the movie seem to be stereotyped from blacks from jamaica. So, getting past that, my recommendation is this: don't be a daddy in the theater. If you are going to watch this with your 3-7 year old crowd, it is a mommy son movie and can be touching. When it comes out on TV, i am sure the wife will enjoy watching it with her little men. As for me? Well, 8 bucks for the ticket and to keep the kids quiet for 88 minutes? Sure, not a bad trade off.

Yogi Bear (2010)

it's for the kids...i guess

[4/10 · 27 December 2010]

Not an awful movie. Not one that I would take a date to go see, though. Odd...one of the jokes was talking about getting a date with a young woman, and Yogi mentions urinating on her. I was wondering why that had to be included. Really don't want to talk to my kids about urination. To throw that into a movie that is so obviously a kids movie seems out of place, like a sex scene in a Dr. Seuss book. Or day care advertisements in Penthouse. At the very least, it was odd. But the plot is predictable and easy on the mind. There is very little deviation or subplots that play out, and the ending is easy to guess. But, again, it's a kids movie. So, I took my 5 and 3 year old, and the 5 year old giggled, and the three year old played with my smartphone. I napped. I do have one other flaw for this movie...why do they think that using Dan Akroyd or Justin Timberlake increases the sales for this movie? Or any movie out there that uses big name stars for a cartoon? What's the point? Dan was just fine, and Timberlake was very good as boo-boo, but there are hundreds of voice actors in Hollywood. This could have been a huge film for one of them. Instead, the producers overpaid two big stars that could have literally phoned in their parts. Is that why I pay 20 bucks for popcorn? Because of overpaying big stars for parts like this? I think it might be...

Legion (2010)

what a waste of a concept!

[2/10 · 16 November 2010]

I didn't rate it a two, because I did like bettany in this movie. Well, not much. So, it still garners just a two. This movie had so much going for it! It could have been awesome! You have a fallen angel, but unlike Lucifer, this one falls for the right reasons. He's here to protect the, um, is it the second coming? Well, the movie never says, actually. It also never mentions virgin birth...i figured they would, but it never did. So, I am not sure if the child the angel is protecting is Jesus redux, or just another "only hope for all humanity." Seems the director didn't want to commit to naming him Jesus. Anyways, the anguish of his choice, the disappointment in turning from God, his narrow hope in humanity...all meaty subjects in a vegetarian movie. And, what did they do with it? Um. Nothing, really. They turned it into a Alamo (not even a good alamo...a diner? I can get in there!) with the outnumbered diners facing the wrath of heaven. Which never gets really nasty. Or smart. There are a couple of plot holes that are just so glaring...See, the angels can possess a human for a while. So, early in the movie, hundreds of possessed humans arrive at the diner. Hmmm. The movie said weak minds were in danger of being possessed. So...i guess I have to believe that the diner was filled with Mensa members? All the angels had to do was possess a couple of inside workers and they would have wrapped this adventure up in record time. Still..i like the angel Michael. If you are a bettany fan, watch it for him. Otherwise, wait for the book. You can at least burn the book.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984)

i liked it. still do.

[9/10 · 13 June 2010]

First of all, this is not Raging Bull or Godfather. This is Tarzan. And this is the Tarzan that Edgar wrote for us.

To understand any of the basic plots, you have to understand Edgar and his times. At that point, it was JUST then figured out that man was an animal. A noble animal. It was the belief, or prevailing thought, that the chasm between man and animal was as great as man to an angel. So, thrown out into the jungle, does a Noble White spririt die or prevail? Adopted by animals, raised by animals, does he become animal or does he claim his birthright and be called man? And, where do the jungles begin and end? Where does civilized society start? Where does the animal kingdom extend?

That basic turmoil is Edgar's creation. Christopher Lambert does a fine job in pulling it off. I liked it, and it was what I hoped it would be. You might not agree...you can always rent the Bo Derek version.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)

weak vampires

[5/10 · 4 August 2009]

It wasn't horrible. It wasn't great. The vampires just, well, aren't that strong. Or scary. Even with swords and armor, they just didn't have any power. They seemed lost and weak. At least in the first underworld, there was a sense of them still stalking humans but under siege from the werewolves. In the second one, it seemed like a super vamp chasing vampires, but still, no suspense or dread. This one was an attempt to make the werewolves good guys. Hey, does anyone know that werewolves are monsters? Does anyone remember that? Still the movie does a half decent job of making the werewolves sympathetic. I don't understand some of the rules of werewolves, though. Some give birth to human babies, some can't change to human at all. Some humans that change to werewolf form will not change as long as they have a collar on their neck. The moon has nothing to do with their transformation. Why did I give this a five? I don't know...

Mona Lisa Smile (2003)

Hated it

[1/10 · 19 April 2009]

Let's see. Teacher goes to class. Is disappointed in what is discovered. The students are not inspired. The students don't know how to think. The students are not ready for life. The teacher goes beyond teaching simple concepts, and introduces them to the world at large. Hmm. Mona Lisa Smile. Welcome Back Kotter. Stand and Deliver. etc etc etc. I guess from all the incomplete sentences, I should have paid more attention in English class. Maybe she was teaching me about life instead of grammar. Hmm. Nope. Sum it up. Rehash of old stuff, but been done better with less talent. Welcome back kotter, though not a movie, is easily better then this dreck.

High Plains Drifter (1973)

so many obviously don't get it

[8/10 · 12 April 2009]

This is essentially a Western Ghost story. Someone thought maybe he was the brother of the dead Marshall, but what we have is a story of a man wrongfully killed and then not given a final resting spot. As one of the characters in the movie states, "Without a headstone, the dead roam (paraphrase)." Marshall Duncan was set up and murdered due to the greed of the town leaders and businesses. And the townspeople did nothing to stop or help. They, in the eyes of Marshall Duncan, are all guilty to some degree. Those that don't like the movie decry the violence and rape and thuggery of Clint. Well, it was because they were being punished for either their active participation in Marshall Duncan's murder, or their passive allowance of it. Oh, he is after the actual perpetrators, for sure, but everyone must be punished. The whole town. There are no innocent people, you see. Not in this town, at least.

Jumper (2008)

I watched it for free and still feel cheated...

[1/10 · 19 January 2009]

When the movie started, I liked the main character, Rice. I thought Hayden was doing a pretty good job acting. Not being a Hayden fan, and seeing this awhile after it was released, I did not realize right away that young Rice was not Hayden, but an actual actor. When Hayden did show up, the movie went downhill (quick). Hayden looks just like James Franco sans the acting talent (in my opinion). Of course, because of the horrible writing, this movie was going downhill quick no matter who the actor was. One of the first scenes has the TV playing in the background, and the reporter is saying, "These poor people, nothing but a miracle can save them." Does Rice use his teleporting power to pop over there and save them? Nope. Okay, we have established that Rice has no empathy. Okay. So...why should we care about what happens to him? As you probably know, the story is about a Jumpers (teleporters) and their main enemy, the Paladins. The Paladins are trying to kill the teleporters for no other reason than the fact that they can teleport. Samuel Jackson, the head Paladin, states that all Jumpers go bad. Hmm. If Rice had been saving people, maybe it would have proved he was good? Maybe Samuel was right. Okay, rooting for the paladins. Rice abandons his father, not caring about the pain he is putting him through. He misses his mother, who abandoned him when he was five. Could he not see the parallel? No. Self centered ego. Narcissistic. Just like most psychopaths. And we are to root for him? We follow Rice through a few fun filled location shot adventures, he teams up with another Jumper (sort of). Together, they take on the Paladins. Won't bother explaining anymore of this junk. It would be too painful to think about. But, you know, I can't help but think it would have been a better movie if Rice was a "Good Jumper", fighting against "Bad Jumpers", and trying to avoid the Paladins. I thought during the fight with the other Jumper (Griffin, played by Jamie Bell, to me the only bright spot of the film), I thought that Rice was going to "jump" back behind himself, Griffin would follow through the wormhole, and be stuck in a loop...would have been interesting...but that is just my opinion... Anyway, didn't even spend money to watch it. And still thought that the director should send me $5-8 dollars for wasting my time...

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

pretty good for kids and dads

[8/10 · 16 November 2008]

What a relief! A movie that dad can watch with his kid. Thank you thank you thank you. I had 5 hours of bob the builder, and so this was a pleasant relief. The jokes were funny and cute, the dilemmas were touching and sad, and ending was only a little bit corny. The violence was overboard and cartoonish (sort of like bugs bunny back in the day--sure, someone is going to be shot by a shotgun, but no lasting effects if you're the good guy). So, it's okay for the kids, i felt.

The only reason I didn't rate this higher? Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu....not that they actually took anything away from this movie, but they sure didn't add anything, either. This movie could have been made with Jack Black as Po, Dustin Hoffman as Shifu, and whoever the next 5 extras in Hollywood as the fierce five. So...while it didn't really take anything away from the movie by having them in there, since it didn't add anything, I figure it was to stoke some stars egos to cast them in a dreamworks movie. For that reason, not a perfect score....

Breaker! Breaker! (1977)

omigosh...save yourself and never watch this movie

[1/10 · 17 May 2008]

I work in an office on weekends, and there is a TV that only gets ONE channel. So, I don't have the option of turning to something better. I keep it on, though, because it provides a little background noise. Sometimes, I get a decent movie/show. Not today. Today, I got "Breaker Breaker." The city looks like a third rate set (which, of course, it is). All the actors and bad guys look like they just graduated from stuntman school. I have seen better dramatic enactments at a carnival. The special effects (flames at end of movie are more fake then Michael Jacksons masculinity). Even the horse at the end of the movie was a terrible actor... A badly acted, badly shot, badly written movie.

Curious George (2006)

It was, umm, okay...I guess

[5/10 · 18 February 2006]

Okay, I wasn't too thrilled. Let me start by saying that the first book I ever read was "Curious George Flies a Kite," and so I felt I owed a debt of gratitude to CG and his creators to see this film. As I said, it was the very first book I ever read, and since that was 31 years ago, maybe my memory is faulty. I recall the man in the yellow hat (TMITYH) being strong and confident. He was the opposite of CG and tho CG would always get in trouble, TMITYH was always going to show up, and when he did, all would be right in the world. SO, where did he go? He wasn't in this movie at all. I hate it when movies change a characters personality, and there is no clear reason why they think they have to do so. Also, CG wasn't really that curious. He was being mischievous (?) in his own playful way, but wasn't he named for his curious longing that seemed to lead him into trouble? Still, the kids liked it. The tickets were free. What more do I want?