Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Captain Fantastic (2016)
Propaganda Much. Communist Propoganda up the arse.
I can handle movies that have differing opinions than my own... it's when movies distort/change historical facts and/or ignore them all together to publicize their views (which is the definition of propaganda to the laymen), is when my butt starts to itch.
If you consider a couple honorable mentions of the communist worshiper family spoilers, than spoilers below. After only 25 minutes into the movie every communist leader/dictator has been put on a pedestal. One of the younger kids has a shrine of Pol Pot. The older, accepted into Yale son has to correct his dad, to paraphrase, is no longer a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, he's a Maoist. The daughter goes on a communist rant and the dad gives her the eyes of approval, which I believe is the 3rd communist rant and we're only 23 minutes into the movie at that point. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It's not even a side point, this is the central objective of this movie... to push this communist propaganda.
In the modern society of two factions were everyone chooses and/or gets thrown on a particular side and typically unanimously supports all of their teams decisions merely because it's in defiance of the other team doesn't apply to me just for your information. The knee jerk reaction for many is, he's in defiance of this communist propaganda, he must be some Neocon. There are many more spectrum's than the two they spoon feed us, but that's neither here nor there. For the time being this movie is complete and utter nonsense with a political agenda. It's kind of unfortunate, because the movie has some subtleties to offer if you can get beyond it's political agenda, I unfortunately couldn't. I can get past a certain amount of propaganda, but this movie takes it to another level.
War Dogs (2016)
Pleasantly Surprised! Very Entertaining!
Not a huge explanation or anything, but I was surprised, although the movie is rated decent, I found it to be much more enjoyable than the ratings suggest.
A slight critique. The wife used in the movie is way too hot. I'm down for hot chicks in movie roles, but that chick is supernaturally hot, thus giving it an unnecessary fake vibe.Don't get me wrong, I'll take that over something like Point break for instance where we have to pretend that Keanue Reeves is madly into this chick who is unbangable to 95% of the population.
Anyways, the characters are easy to root for (Effraim, the Jonah Hill character turns out to be the biggest jackhole ever, but we find that out later). They're not really committing any crimes. The only thing slightly criminal was selling Chinese ammunition to the US government and disguising it as Albanian or Russian ammo in which I theorize the US government was fine being in the dark as to the actual point of origin, but was forced to react when the man heading the workers in charge of repacking all the bullets got stiffed and outed them.I wouldn't be surprised if the US gov. organized it in the first place, however, since when is the government trying to cut down on spending, so who knows? Cutting the Albanian workers out of their money is biggest example as to just how bad of a person this Effraim dude is. I take these shows based on true events with a grain of salt, however all of the points that check out make this Effraim guy about as shady of a human being as one can get. Apparently he really did try cut everyone he possibly could out of being paid, for a bigger payday when it was already a gargantuan payday. But to cut your partner out of his 30% and to cut the dozens of workers who slaved to repackage the bullets for however many weeks over a measly 100k (allowing you to make several million more) is beyond criminal. It's one of the worst things I've ever heard. I would have been pissed if they/he only ended up paying them 100k, but to stiff them? It's so unethical and painfully stupid. What did you think would happen? Oye Vey! So, the way the movie ends is a mixed bag. I liked that David Packouz didn't have to do jail time and that the sweedish dude paid him his cut in the end (in real life Effraim kept all of the profits and they added Packouz getting a payday). Anways, not really a review, but I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but the level of crooked by the Effraim dude I found a bit disturbing. I don't even find killers as disturbing.
The Invention of Lying (2009)
Horrendously Bad Movie! This is as bad as it gets! A Once in a decade type of bad movie!
About once every 10 years I watch a movie that I know 5 minutes into is a dreadfully bad movie based on the style that is being used. When this happens there's no possible way that a movie could end up being good... not because I'm stubborn, but the writing/style (directing style, etc) is completely off.
The last time this happened to me is when I watched the Mummy in the theater. I would have left had I not been there with a date... as a result, I sat through one of the worst films ever made. This time I was a bit sadistic, because I continued watching it even though I had the option to shut it off.
This movie fails because it overdoes the truth telling premise to the nth degree, thus completely killing any humor or any entertainment value that could possibly be taken out of this steaming pile of crap of a movie. Less would have been so much more, rather they just have all the people instantly go up to other people saying something insulting to them or embarrassing about themselves. How is that funny?
Oh Hello, I'm jerking off, boy are you fat. And it's just this slapstick nonsense that is continuous and is painfully unfunny. And all these people who have apparently known one another previously all go throuh these first impression insults of one another to appease the viewer... I guess? If the truthful thoughts were subtle and occassional they would have a value to them to both the characters and the viewers..What impact could embarrasingor/hurtful/harsh truths have if every thought is just that? Exactly, Absolutely no impact! And it has no impact on humor or entertainment. So yes, this is a whopper of a bad movie.I just can't imagine how a writer/director could be this out of touch. This movie is as out of touch as a Tommy Wiseau movie.
A Quiet Place (2018)
When an entire film is nothing but logical fallacies... what's the point?
Sure, not everything needs to add up or make sense in a movie/show, so I allow logical fallacies to a degree but when a story doesn't abide by any degree of logical sense or consistency, it's no longer really a story. It's the equivalent of a person with Alzheimer's talking or it's someone with a 5 second long attention span telling or listening to a story.The movie writer is essentially saying, I have no respect for the audience's intelligence. Nothing I write makes any sense, but that's alright because the audience is stupid and won't hold my feet to the fire and unfortunately the writer is partially right, because enough of the audience rewards this. Hopefully audiences will stop incentivizing this, because it's gotten to the point where we accept this mindless movie writing style as being the norm... of course this movie is the utmost extreme of that norm.
I couldn't even begin to go point by point through all of the nonsense that this movie throws at us, so I'll just mention the first nonsensical thing to happen, which is a perfect demonstration of the monster pile of crap this movie is, because one instance has 10 ridonculous things going on simultaneously... the balls on this movie. What would have possessed the kid to play with his electronic space shuttle in extreme form (with lights and sound effects) in that particular moment or at all for that matter? Sure, kids aren't the sharpest, but the kids already gone 89 days... the kid would have to be a buddha master at not making noise at that point. He's had to learn sign language and walk around on egg shells for 89 days, but he's like, I'm falling off the wagon and I need to play with my shuttle in complete clueless/fearless form right now, while my family walks ahead of me. And why would the dad lead the front and the kid lead the back... doesn't make any sense at all? And why are they spaced so far apart? The dad's practically 400 meters in front of the kid. And did going to the pharmacy really have to be a family endeavor? As if these creatures could zip through steel and rock, which apparently, they can until it's not convenient to the plot, such as when the kids are in a car and it can't get at them, in which case being in a strong enclosed structure would easily protect them from these creatures, but I digress. Maybe the kid was smarter than we think and he committed suicide to remove himself from this steaming pile of crap of a movie.
What's entertaining about watching dream sequences? Absolutely nothing! This was gruelling to sit through!
I was excited going into this show. I'm a big Jonah Hill and Emma Stone fan and know that either one is capable of single handily carrying a show, but unfortunately this show simply can't work, regardless of the actors. More than 1/3 of the show is dedicated watching dream sequences (episodes 4, 5, 7 & 8 are entirely dream sequences). Dream sequences are not fun to watch, never have been never will be. The viewer knows that there isn't anything at stake for the characters, so it's not a fun watch... it's actually painfully boring to sit through (humor doesn't work, etc.). I think back to The Sopranos and the dream sequences... Overall it was such a small portion of that show, so it didn't completely drag the show down, like it does to Maniac, but it made for some boring moments indeed. And it's not like some deep seeded type of thing where the viewer most interpret the meaning, rather we have to sit and watch a character come to a realization as a result of something in their dream. It's extremely mundane and never fun to watch. Even though the show is centered around this study that is centered around them going through these dreamlike scenario's, we don't need to watch the characters go through the entirety of their dreams, we just need the gist of the dream and to observe the characters get whatever understanding they need from the dream. Can someone please send the memo out to the movie/show industry that dream scenarios in movies/shows don't work... please? I would rather staple my nuts to the side of my leg, before I would knowingly watch another dream sequence in a movie/show ever again. This includes those cliché moments where something drastic happens, such as the main character being killed, but low and behold the character is merely dreaming... stop doing that.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was originally intended to be a movie, but it was turning out to be too long, so they decided to make it a show. It will be great, we'll actually play out all of the dream sequences, you'll get to do all types of improve while playing out the dream scenarios it will be a real hoot (I personally would never use the word hoot, but the type of person with this idea would). I could see why this storyline would do good on paper, but not in practice and I could see why this script would attract someone like Jonah/Emma. What they didn't realize is, while it may be fun/exciting to get to play a wide array of characters, they're playing a wide array of characters under false pretense. Sure, you get to play a wide array of characters, but they're one dimensional character's that no one cares about. This works for skits, but not for movies/shows.
Then nearly 1/3 of the show is dedicated to the doctor's storyline. This one isn't as objective, whereas the dream storyline is unanimously crappy for all people of all ages at all points in time, but I wasn't drawn into the doctor's storyline, but maybe that was just me? It's difficult to be enthralled in the doctor's storylines, when so little is divulged about their characters in the first place. There's nothing wrong with not letting the viewer in on what's going on, but the confusion better be centered around characters that the audience knows in the first place, otherwise it's merely confusion without a purpose. Sure, these confusing characters essentially impact characters who we are familiar with, so it would work if small portions of time were dedicated to these doctors, however almost as much time is dedicated to them as the lead characters... oye vey!
That leaves us with about 1/3 of actual tangible show, which is the portion that I thought was decent. The show ends on a charming note, which can't possibly undue the many hours of boredom that we had to endure. This show is a dud, I really hope they don't make a 2nd season even though it would be a completely different show without the experiment scenario. It's best to put this show to a dreamless rest and let Jonah/Emma move on to greater things.
A Ghost Story (2017)
Repetative long slow ghost shots in an attempt to convey a message that the movie completely reveals anyways at a later time from random dude at a party.
Dude! Where does one begin. I understand it. I really, really do, but I still found myself punching myself in the sack for entertainment throughout this life is meaningless ordeal. Actually, how could you not understand it, the movie reveals everything through that guy who gives that spiel at the party. So, we have to endure all these long slow shots, to convey the message that they will later reveal anyways, then why put us through this drab, meaningless crap in the first place? Sure, it would still be painfully boring, but at least it would make sense if they didn't reveal it anyways.
I appreciate independent films, I appreciate the extremely tiny budget of this movie and under different circumstances I appreciate long extended shots in movies when you have multiple variables that have to be perfect or else the shot doesn't work, however in this instance, how can you go wrong? It's the equivalent of pointing the camera, turning it on, then turning it off after 5 minutes or whatever. I'm not going to go back through to figure it out, but I'm curious what the running time is on just the extended ghost standing in place shots. It has to be 75% of the movie. Did they really need Casey Affleck for the ghost scenes or did they exercise the most utilized stand-ins in cinematic history? On this scene we're going to need you to stand in place for a reeeealllllllllllll f_kin long time. Someone must have heard Affleck say, do I really need to be here for this, can someone else stand here in place like a jackhole, I have other better paying gigs to work on. Casey, you have the perfect timing with the way you move in the sheets, so yes, we need you for this shot.
The movie lacked emotion, which was the movies intent... everything felt drab, which was the movies intent. So, at the end of the day, what's the point of this life, what's the point of this movie?
BTW I wonder what jackhole they got to play ghost #2.
Lady Bird (2017)
A decent movie but how many times are they going to make this movie?
The teenage angst girl coming of age plot-less (and I don't mean plot-less as a negative in the slightest) movie. This has become a new genre of movies like westerns, dystopian future movies. etc., except in these the plot-lines don't deviate very much from one to the other. The teenage girl is misunderstood, has one friend. At some point she will have a falling out with her friend, typically because the protagonist starts to hang out with the cool kids, only to realize the cool kids suck, so she eats crow and apologizes to her former best friend and they're on good terms again. This time the teenage girl coming of age is done without the sarcasm (so at least that's original), which is usually heavy with the protagonist in these movies (which I don't mind one way or the other). I'm only scratching the surface.
I walk away from these movies always the same. I liked the movie, but it's nothing I would watch again or recommend to most segments of the population, which isn't as harsh at it sounds. There are just much better movies that I would give my seal of approval to before this. The mother/daughter relationship in this movie is insanely common, so to those who that resonates with it may just make the movie worth watching over a movie that I would consider to be a better movie. This movie will also likely work better for you if you haven't seen the other half dozen or so of these that they've made and another dozen or so movies with similar components.
This movie did an exceptional job with the various dialogings throughout, particularly between mother & daughter, but also several scenes between friends/teenagers. It did a good job portraying the high strung Type A personality mother with an underlying jealousy towards the daughter with the dilemma of loving her at the same time. The writer director (who I haven't looked up) I would imagine was giving an account of their personal experiences particularly pertaining to the relationship with the mother. The ending gives me mixed feelings. I'd imagine that this is the circumstance of so many mother daughter relationships. From the daughters perspective, they brink on the cusp of acceptance/forgiveness (letting the mothers negative behaviors, such as jealousy towards them slide) and acknowledging the positives, or is the negative behavior towards them to the degree that it's a relationship they need to cut loose? I can guarantee that this is the case with more than 50% of mother daughter relationships. In the end does the mother deserve the respect and love the daughter gives her? I don't know the answer to that.
Wind River (2017)
Unoriginal Movie that becomes so silly it would make Rambo III cringe.
The way the movie begins it tricks us into thinking that it has a creative logical solution to it's premise, however as the movie unfolds we realize that we've been bamboozled. It's as if they had the premise for the movie, then they handed the baton to Tommy Wiseau to finish writing the script.There are so many amateurish aspects to this movie I couldn't begin to bullet point them all, but here are just a few honorable mentions.
When the movie reveals to us what led to the victims demise, it's such a silly circumstance. Whoever wrote it was very uncreative and out of touch in the realm of human observation.
And did you know that in ? degree temperatures you can have a prolonged conversation, but if you begin to run in it, after 100 or so feet your lungs will explode? Now I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and pretend that it's much colder than it obviously was.... but it wasn't cold enough for Corey to ride his snowmobile with his face and hands covered, but if you run in it, you better watch out. And my money would have easily been on the guy running 6 miles in the snow to safety. I guess I've seen one too many episodes of I shouldn't be alive. People achieve that with broken arms/legs and feet. I can't believe something so nonsensical made it past the cutting room floor. Shows how little respect the writer/director has for their audience.
And I just love the scene where nearly everyone was just shot dead and Corey finds the FBI chick under the house and smiles at her and asks if she's ok, as if he came from another set where a bunch of people hadn't just been shot to death (some of whom were his friends). Maybe he's a sociopath? Anyways it seemed really out of place.
Now I picked up on many of the symbolism's throughout and if it actually had a believable/decent storyline I would have cared enough to piece together the rest... When you have such a weak storyline, symbolism's serve no purpose because they go right out the window.
Wastes of lot of time on unnecessary/repetitive dialogue. Most of the humor falls sooooo flat!
There were some things I liked about the movie, but I will just make mention of a couple things that sucked!
Alright! We get it! Eddie is a hypochondriac! I don't understand why the movie dedicates 1/4 of it's total run time on dialogue and scenes related to Eddie being a hypochondriac.So, we already get a full dose of it while we're at Eddie's house. Now it cuts to them talking before coming up to the sewer/tunnel and the conversation is something along the lines of Eddie thinking every plant is poison ivy. The hypochondriac talk continues the entire time while they stand in the entrance and while some of the kids proceed a little ways into the tunnel (several minutes). I can't believe that they didn't catch this in the cutting room floor. Not only did they not catch it, the very next scene after they leave the tunnel cuts to them ridding their bikes and they have the balls to dub in more dialogue of Eddie being a hypocondriac. AT this point it's already soooo insanely old, but that's only the tip of the iceburgh.
What were they thinking? Did they think this was humorous? Is performing a rendition of the same joke several dozen times funny?
Which takes me to how unfunny this director must be. The movie utilizes Richie for most of the movies so called jokes. Early on Richie has a couple chuckle worthy one liners, but after that the jokes fall so insanely flat... they bomb so hard that they're cringe worthy. It's so bad that you would think that this movie was directed by a foreigner. If you're not familiar, humor almost always does not convert well when people learn a new language, then write jokes in that language regardless of how well they know that 2nd language. That's how most of the humor plays out in this movie.
The Disaster Artist (2017)
So Bad, it's Bad!
I'm not sure if it's because I have a bias having already listened to the audio book (audio book is recommended because Greg Sestero does a perfect Tommy Wisseau impersonation, which really adds to the story), but I really wanted to like this movie and pretty much wrote it off as liking it even before I watched it. I was already a fan of The Room and the Disaster Artist book and had seen several interviews in reference to the movie, so liking this seemed inevitable, but it was horrible. That's what I theorize happened. People wanted to like this movie and it has such an interesting back story that they tricked themselves into thinking they liked it? Much like the room it didn't feel like a real movie. It's hard to imagine that this was a normal budgeted movie with normal actors and a normal director, because every aspect of the movie felt B rate. The only part that didn't was when they were reenacting scenes from The Room. I was in a full theater and this movie attracted minimal laughs. It got a handful of chuckles, mostly forced chuckles, but no real laughter.
I am absolutely beside myself that James Franco got nominated and won best acting awards for this performance. It's easily the worst best actor award ever given in the history of cinema and I have nothing against James Franco's acting in his other roles, but this was bad... he does one of the worst impressions of Tommy Wisseau that I've ever heard. It's not even close.
Anyways this was disappointing and has me baffled because no one in the theater where I watched it was laughing. It's such an interesting story in general that I think perhaps that carried it through such a ridiculously bad movie. I think that movies and books are two different formats, so I usually get annoyed when book readers whine about a movies interpretation of a book, but in this instance the movie is so far removed from the book. One thing the movie did was, they completely cut out all of the really horrible crap that Tommy did and would do, instead turned some of his lessor antics into minor nuisances to keep him likable to the audience. Anyway I look at it, this movie was really bad.
It has it's flaws, but not when it comes to entertainment. I was enthralled throughout the movie..
Even though I find/found myself critiquing certain aspects of the movie, I can't deny how completely enthralled I was throughout the movie. It's 130 minutes long, but it didn't seem like it. If anything it seemed rushed or trimmed in a couple of areas. If you blink you could miss the training portion and the Segway going into the final fight. Yeah, there's some cliché' elements, but the story build up of the two brothers is enjoyable and does a good job at making us root for both brothers equally (until the last fight when the one brother goes villain).
Predictability isn't always a negative attribute and in this instance it's not and doesn't pretend to not be. The movie instead focuses on the story development of the two brothers giving them both equal development time. So the interest is just watching the story evolve into the inevitable conclusion of the final matchup. What we don't know is, how it will evolve, which brother will win and even which brother we'll be rooting for. At first it seems as though it's a no brainer. The homeless veteran Tommy vs. the brother Brendan with a hot wife who may be losing his home. As it develops though we see Brendan as always being the underdog even in their youth and he's definitely established as the underdog in the arena throughout, so it gives a good balance between the two brothers. The movie kind of overdoes it though, by making the younger brother unforgiving towards the older brother to a degree that doesn't make any sense... his extreme animosity towards his brother, particularly in the final match surpasses anything I could possibly reference.
The biggest annoyance's throughout pertain to the unusually large periods of time dedicated to the unforgiveness scenes. It's like, we get it, your dad did a bunch of nasty crap and you don't forgive him for it and refuse to have a conversation about anything other than training with him, however you showed up at your dad's house only to then not want to talk to him? And to go through an entire training duration without having a conversation with your dad about anything other than training, must be some kind of Guinness record. I would definitely have trimmed the I don't forgive you interaction time from 40 minutes to about 10 minutes (especially since nothing really happens with it anyways) and split the 30 minutes to more training development time and more Segway going into the final fight. Both brothers win their final match before they face each other, then we blink and they're already in the cage fighting one another (5 minutes to be exact). The buildup for their fight at that point should be milked for all it's worth, especially since everyone in the Warrior world just found out that the two finalists are brothers. I don't understand why such a meaty part would be trimmed out or not included in the movie?
Subtle annoyances/flaws. 1. So, Tommy goes from being a lush and popping pills with no recent training, to beating the ever living crap out of the top middleweight contender in the country? Then he ends up meeting that same guy in the semi finals? If he beat the crap out of that guy without training, we can only imagine how much of a mismatch that's going to be, so why would the movie do this? At the very least they should have made the first match closer.
2. Oh yeah and I love the part where Tommy apparently carries 3 full bottles of pills on him at all times. Not 1, not 2, but 3 and his dad knows that he has exactly 3 bottles on him because he knows the difference between 3 pill bottles rattling over 2 or 1. That's like Sherlock Holmes type crap.
3. At first it seemed a tad farfetched that Brendan (teacher) would get suspended because he chose to partake in organized fighting in his off time. Then I remembered that the department of education isn't logical or consistent when it comes to anything, so I definitely wouldn't put something like that past them.
4. Why did the dad just make it to the fight in the 3rd round. At that point it had been at least a day and a half since he got drunk. It made sense that he missed Tommy's next fight after getting drunk, but why wouldn't he make the start of the brothers fight? Was the start of the fight at the same time as his favorite TV program? How did he know that the fight wouldn't be over at that point? It seems like the movie cut out an important part to the story before the brothers got into the ring together, but if it was more time dedicated to unforgiveness they made the right decision to cut it out.
All in all, I was thoroughly entertained, so even with it's flaws this was a very enjoyable movie.
This movie is like watching Wolverine ail around in pain for 2 hours, actually that's exactly what it is!
Nearly everyone I've ever come across unanimously says that this is an overrated movie and I couldn't agree more.
Approx 95% of the movie is dedicated to Wolverine gimping around like a zombie, wincing in pain.
Little makes sense, it's just a sloppy movie with little to no logical sequencing.
The one chick needs Wolverine to take her and the kid to the border, but why? She has bundles of cash. She could pay anyone to take her... people who aren't radar magnets like wolverine. And could they make up their mind about the kid. One minute she's running around like she has led up her butt the next minute she's running around like Benny Hill. Also one minute she doesn't understand English the next she understands English, but speaks in Spanish, the next she's bilingual. And the old dude's best day in a long time is the day that he gets an entire family killed.... good times!
This movie is significantly artificially inflated because homeboy dies in the end.
The Last Descent (2016)
It's like being stuck head first in a cave having religious hymns sung to you.
It's actually not that bad. As it is, I'm addicted to these survival type movie/shows, like I Shouldn't Be Alive for instance (which they don't make anymore, but it's my favorite). As far as I know I've seen every one of these type of shows in existence. I was expecting a made for TV style production value, but this actually has one of the best production values out of any of these shows and the acting is good. It feels like an authentic movie.
The movie took a chance and went for it, trying to add a more in depth creative element to it and I think it ends up taking away from the movie, as opposed to focusing more on the rescue efforts going on. And I mean by creative element, John regularly zone's out into this dream world. Each time there's this person in the background giving him the stinkeye and we're like, who the hell is this jackhole? We later find out that it's his unborn son, meanwhile he must hate his other kid because he barely gets an honorable mention. Anyways, I couldn't help but think of Happy Gilmore when Adam Sandler regularly zone's out and each time there's the dwarf on the tricycle, which is just super random. At least the dwarf puts us in a happy place, the dude/s who they show (his unborn kid at varying ages) give off a Michael Myers vibe. Shouldn't his son chillin in the background be radiating a warm/positive energy? Is his son angry that he has to grow up without a father and he has a bunch of built up resentment? It's a wonder he didn't beg the rescue workers for coffee and amphetamines to prevent this evil bastard from trying to get him in the dream world.... it's like a bad acid trip.
I had seen a documentary before this in ref to this incident, but it's difficult to conceptualize and the movie doesn't make it any clearer. Perhaps there ins't a way without actually seeing it for yourself. I'm sure rescue workers did everything in their power to free the dude and if there was a way they would have probably figured it out, but in 28 hours or whatever it was it would seem as though one could chisel their way out of Alcatraz. Why didn't they chip around him? Why didn't they douse him in peanut oil like they mentioned at one point? They obviously know what they're doing, I just can't conceptualize it. Another thing that annoyed me which I'm sure they did, I just don't understand why they didn't demonstrate it once during the movie. We/I'm going to pull you, take as deep of a breath in as possible just before I/we pull.
Anyways, it's not that bad of a movie. I liked the discount Ryan Reynolds character who was the main rescue dude. Actually all of the characters were really good... the acting is good. It still had my sucking back tears.
Natalie Portman's Australian accent is horrible!
Boy meets girl. They fall for each other... the end. Sometimes it's on a sinking ship. Sometimes it's while they're looking for treasure. Sometimes it's while people are trying to kill them. Sometimes it's just for the hell of it. This time, it happens when the world is coming to an end and there is only 3 weeks to live. Sometimes one dies, sometimes they both die, sometimes no one dies. Sure the occasional romance story can be entertaining, but does ever frickin story by default have to be centered around a romance? Will we ever be able to sink a ship, end the world, or anything we can name that won't be centered around a love story? I'm counting down to the day when that happens. Sure, hooking up with another person or finding the one is fun, but there's deeper meaning to the human experience.... isn't there?
I'm glad that they didn't name this - Leon the Professional Part 2... In 15 Years It Won't Matter Anyways. Obviously they couldn't bring Leon back, but it was nice to see how Matilda ended up.
Little spoilers below Random thoughts; I got a kick out of the meat head still going to the gym, however an entire restaurant staff still going to work with a less than a week to live... pretty lame.
Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
Can you imagine how crappy the authors story would be?
So when the Dustin Hoffman character reads the story, he's moved by it and thinks it's some beautiful masterpiece. So let me get this straight. An IRS agent (Harold) with OCD follows the exact same regiment daily. He ends up auditing some chick from a bakery that he starts taking a liking too. He begins to hear that someone is narrating him, so he tracks down the Dustin Hoffman character who helps him narrow down the author that may be writing his story. Harold begins to live less regimented, he hooks up with the chick from the bakery, he tracks down the author who's writing his story. Apparently this is such a beautiful masterpiece that the story should really end with him dying? That's a masterpiece? How? Did they edit all the good stuff out of the movie? Now don't get me wrong, the movie is OK, but you want us to play along and pretend that this story is a bring you to tears masterpiece? I'm sorry I won't play along, my imagination only goes so far.
Cop Car (2015)
CinemaSins was wrong on this one. This movie is an insult to kid's intelligence and the viewers.
Is this how adults think kids act/dialogue
do adults really think kids are this stupid behind closed doors? No wonder why kids are jackholes, because they're treated with such condescension and given such little respect. I can't stand kids, yet apparently, I inadvertently find myself being one of the most empathetic people when it comes to kids. The level of the two kid's stupidity in this movie (or the writer's stupidity) is the equivalent of dying from dehydration because they forgot they were thirsty type s__t! And I'm not talking about the kids taking the cop car either. I'm talking about virtually all their dialoguing and actions outside of this. However, they did go from the extreme of running up to the cop car, touching it, then running away (I swear I'm not making this up) to a minute later, putting the keys in the ignition and driving away? Who writes this stuff?
At one point they take the riffles out of the cop car and they're trying to literally shoot one another with bullet proof vests on, but luckily for them they didn't figure out how to shut off the safety. So, imagine being a 9-year-old who found a person all bloody and bound in the trunk of a cop car, who's crying and pleading for his life before during and after you open the trunk. What would be the first thing you would say or do? These kids stick riffles in the guy's face and ask if he's a bad guy. Apparently, they would kill him if he said yes (now we find out later that the kids didn't think the guns worked, however there are contradictions, like at one point the one kid suggest shooting the ties off). I'm not saying two 9-year-olds wouldn't be cautious. He is in the trunk of a Sheriff car after all, but the guy's tied up and bleeding. I guarantee you that 100% of non- mentally challenged people 5 and up would first wonder and ask, what happened before anything else (also who are you, are you OK). Skepticism would possibly come after the confusion/wonder and the questions, not out of the gate. At this point it's not outside the lines of reason for the kids to free a bound man pleading that's a realistic kind of kid stupid. It's the conditions they have, which make it such a gargantuan insult to kid's intelligence. If he doesn't tell their grandma, mom, step dad or any of their teachers, he can go. You've got to be F-ing kidding me? Do I even have to break down the many ways this is beyond the realm of stupidity for a 9-year-old? At first the kids don't have anything to cut the ties with, so the one kid says let's shoot them off and proceeds to point the gun at the ties which are directly in front of the man's face. Even if action movies were the extent of a 9-year old's knowledge on guns, a kid would have to know that the bullet would pass through the plastic into the mans face. You can literally go line by line in this movie picking it apart, for example, continuing from there. The boys must find something to cut the man loose. The one kid finds a pocket knife from the car and tells his friend as he's handing it to him, "the tweezers and the tooth pick are missing, but it has the knife part". Who gives a s__t about the tooth pick and the tweezers. Why mention this? Then just before they're about to cut him loose the one kid says, "you can't have this cop car, it's our cop car, we found it and we're not going to let you have it, okay". I f__king give up! These kids aren't considered mentally challenged either. The dude who wrote this dialogue is beyond ignorant just because he was obviously this stupid when he was 9 years old, doesn't mean that you could find two kids on a continent let alone in the same area to be that stupid and it's extremely ignorant to think that there would be. So, they free the guy, he turns out to be bad and he throws them in the back of the cruiser. As the man goes off to go do something about 200 meters away the one kid whispers "look" and the other kid loudly goes "shhhhhhhhhh" and the other kid whispers back "he can't hear us". So, these kids are essentially just now figuring out how sound works for the first time. To make a long story short the inevitable happens and the one kids shoots himself. It really doesn't matter if the kid/s live or not in this instance, because we know within a year or so the odds are astronomically in favor of both kids being dead it goes against the laws of nature that these kids made it to the age of 9 as it is.
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
Dinner for Schmucks is a dreadfully bad movie! It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Oh man, this was a dreadfully bad movie! I just stumbled upon it and even though it wasn't reviewed well, I liked the premise. I wasn't expecting much, but I thought I was going to get at least a little something from it. This movie takes a funny premise and essentially takes the least funny angle on every element within the movie with an over the top cartoonishly silly approach. It's a premise that needs to be treated with an element of realism that ties into the reality we are familiar with
as a result jokes would land harder and overall it would be a more enjoyable experience. This movie gives us nothing that is relatable to our world. You couldn't try to make this movie any less funny. This movie should be rated much lower than a 5.9 on IMDb.
The vast majority of the humor in this movie is sooooo cringe worthy unfunny. Sure, there are a few moments that made me laugh, but if you throw enough crap at the wall some of it's bound to stick, but it's amazing how little does. The whole storyline associated with that art dude was sooooo insanely unfunny on every level. Steve Carrell's/Barry's big theme to his character is, he creates art with dead mice . He uses the mice to depict famous/historical people (Benjamin franklin, Jesus, etc). Seriously! That's the funniest thing they could come up with? I mean 1/5th of the movie is dedicated to this mouse joke . I guess it's a joke? What were they thinking? The whole girlfriend/relationship storyline was painfully cliché and beyond cringeworthy and of course is consistent with being over the top silly. And the whole ex-girlfriend or whatever she was . Seriously? Oye Vey! The Swedish couple . redic! Then the move finally gets to the dinner and makes the audience suspend disbelief. We're supposed to believe that all the business big wigs were really enamored with Barry's weirdness as though he was a huge riot, but none of it occurred while we were watching it. He really wasn't that weird in comparison to the others and his big display with the mice wasn't really that bizarre or funny? Who knows, I'm done? This is such a repugnant piece a crap of a movie and the director and writers should be ostracized and never allowed to be a part of any creative process ever again.
Cartel Land (2015)
Excellent Documentary! This documentary
There are many reviews on here that are ridiculous and simply based in idiocrasy! There are actually people docking the documentary because it films a U.S. vigilante/border patrol guy from an observational perspective, who these reviewers disagree with, therefore they dock this documentary for it, whereas otherwise they claim to have enjoyed it. It just so happens that I disagree with the guy as well (or at the very least recognize what the dude is doing accomplishes nothing). This documentary does nothing to persuade the viewer to the vigilante border guy's view, rather it observes the guy telling his story. Then you get to see for yourself what this guy is doing based on his actual actions (no bias propaganda). Actually, every action that we watch the guy carry out is of him stopping some poor scared people trying to get over the border. At no point does it attempt to convince us that these scared people are cartel members or that he should be stopping these people. If anything one is more likely to disagree with the guy after seeing what he is doing for yourself. These people who are disgruntled over the observation of someone they disagree with genuinely have a serious mental disorder. Whether you agree or disagree with the guy, it's interesting to hear what his perspective is and watch exactly what he is doing. Rather than taking his or someone else's word for it. The guy convinces himself that he is doing something against the cartels even though there is nothing we see to support the guys claim... so why can't these nutball reviewers differentiate? It's simple, they have a mental disorder. Anyways, that wasn't the theme of the documentary, it's vigilantism. Two different kinds of vigilantism, but they both correlate in that they are people taking it upon themselves to act in areas where the government refuses too. However the story over the Mexican border is where this documentary excels. You should understand after seeing this, Government/Cartels are in bed together if not one of the same thing. This applies to everywhere in the world. A different word for it is used everywhere, in Mexico they're called cartels.
So yes, I think this documentary captured a bunch of amazing stuff and tried to come up with a way to work both stories into the documentary. As a result, should I rate this doc a 6 or a 7 because both stories felt loosely tied to me, even though it captures what was and is going on in Mexico (and everywhere in the world I believe) unlike anything ever has before and both stories are very entertaining. In my opinion, this is the best reference that I have ever seen demonstrated before as to a pattern that continues to go on, over and over and over again throughout history. In Mexico you have the Cartels, In Russia you have the KGB, in the US we've had a bunch of ravenous groups over the years in which the government pretends to be against, but at the end of the day they do absolutely nothing to stop them and come to find out they are in bed together. So, surprise people the government (gov. is just a generic expression, but you could say the state, the CIA or the powers that be which control gov.), are the real manufacturers of these drugs (there are several instances over the years where this has been declassified information (particularly the CIA). Even though we see in this documentary, the newly united government are the ones out making the drugs (so whether the state/gov are the actual manufacturers, they are always at the very least the ghost manufacturers and get paid/kickbacks the same either way) and these horrendous gangs/cartels are the ones selling their product. This documentary demonstrates the Mexican government/military does nothing to stop the cartels and in fact come to the cartels aid. Then they show what happens to the liberation groups that wake up and fight back, they eventually get infiltrated/ convinced/paid off by the government to step aside and/or join forces and then you're right back to square one. Like that Papa Smurf clown. I'm curious if the guy was an infiltrator from the start or if he was bought off. One thing for certain is; he allowed some audience members running some cointelpro tactics to overpower him in a speech. In that instance, I believe they essentially had a handful or more of rehearsed and planned criticisms to bounces off one another in tandem, which can easily and effectively bring an entire audience who would otherwise be in support of the speakers cause, against the speaker and the cause. This stuff is taught in CIA/FBI training and I'm sure in many other gov organizations around the world. Another way is just through media control and what not, they convince the people through propaganda or whatever the "horrible" things that the people/liberation group are doing. In this instance, I feel certain that the crowd criticism was a planned cointelpro tactic 100% without any shadow of a doubt.
Anyways, this information has been known by some people for years, but this is probably the first time that I've ever seen someone in the thick of it actually capturing it on film as it was happening they actually captured the entire process from start to finish It's amazing! This documentary (the Mexico part) is an essential demonstration of something that people really need to be aware of.
Absolutely Dreadful; One of the worst acted/directed shows I've ever witnessed
The episode was god-awful. Haven't seen the rest of the show and I'm definitely not compelled too after watching one of the greatest disasters in the history of cinema. I could almost see there being a cult following in the so bad it's good category for admiring how laughably bad it is. There's nothing wrong with the general storyline, however it's nearly every conversation within that storyline and the acting is painfully bad unanimously (Winona Ryder easily wins the worst acting award). I could turn a blind eye on the kids acting to a certain degree, but everyone else on the show....oye vey!
In most circumstances I would say to give a show a chance before writing it off after only one episode, however this is so bad, that it's a problem in the directing. It feels like it was directed by Tommy Wiseau. A problem like that doesn't just go away after the first episode. This feels like a highschool movie project. Back to Winona Ryder... her character is in identically one character mode in every scene. And the character mode that she's in is hard to compare to anything I've seen before. She's in this perpetual frantic mode, but she doesn't seem genuinely frantic/panicked/stressed out. There are no words to express how ridiculously bad her acting is. I may just fast forward to the parts that she's in in the next episode, just so I could have a good laugh, which I'm sure will get old quick unless she transitions into another bad acted expression, but so far it's been just one expression in every scene. This show is rated well so my only rationale to that is, people are so desperate for anything science fiction related that they will embrace anything that falls into that realm. If this isn't a sign for how much demand there is for anything science fiction related than I don't what is.
Update - I watched the whole series. I don't take back how ridiculously bad the first episode is, but the show is decent after the 1st episode... not great, but decent. If that was the pilot episode I don't know how the show got picked up. The acting improves a lot after the first episode. Winona's is still bad, but it improves from laugh out loud bad. Why aren't there warnings telling people how bad the first episode is? Anyways, consider this a warning!
Just a funny note - In the 3rd episode there's an ex machina within an ex machina within an ex machina. I don't think I've ever witnessed a show have the balls to do that before. Thankfully it's not a pattern. I'll let a show slide on the occasional ex machina, because even the best of shows have them. In case you're curious what it was; Mild spoiler alert - it entails, a dude stumbling upon a coincidental house of a chick he knows that he just happened to have a random moment with earlier that day. Then proceeds to secretively take pics of them. In the process captures an astronomically coincidental picture, and the furthest fetched of them all. The next day the dude already has blown up prints of the pics and while walking around at school the same people who he took pics of decide to randomly grab the dudes school bag and see what he has inside only to find out that he took pics of them the night before. Oye Vey!!! The compounding odds are about several billion to one.
The Island (2005)
Surprisingly a pretty good movie!
Apparently this movie came out 10 years ago, but I had no knowledge of it until today. I'm normally not a big fan of these high budget mainstream action flicks, however this movie has an original entertaining premise, that had me enthralled. I just looked this up on IMDb and, while it's ranked pretty decent, I'm surprised this didn't do very well in the theater. Meanwhile a complete piece of crap like Armageddon can do 200,000,000. I guess I'll never figure it out.
I noticed other reviewers saying that this felt like a 2 part movie, but I didn't think anything of it until I saw some reviews saying that. The first half went pretty fast for me, even though it's the slower portion of the movie. It may just be me, but I was more entertained during the non action sequences, but they have some really big budget action sequences going on.
I acting was top notch all around. I enjoyed the Steve Buscemi character a lot (relatively small role, but was a major plot driver in the movie).
Anyways, if you're someone who is prone to like action movies, I don't know how you pass this one up and who knows you may still enjoy otherwise. Maybe it helps if you find the premise intriguing, which I definitely did.
Great Show overall. This was a painfully cliché episode! Did the network write this episode?
Overall this was a pretty good show aside from this episode. It didn't even seem like it was directed or written by the same people. It was such a painfully cliché episode... it felt like a 1980's sitcom where they want to cover an "important" subject matter and it plays out like a public service announcement. For a show that was typically so original, they completely bent over on this episode. All I could figure is; this was an episode made specifically to please the network. Maybe the network was upset about there being too much anti authority going on... perhaps they were getting heat from people who interpreted the show as belittling drug use and underage drinking, so they went to the other extreme on this episode, which was so bad that it would even make an anti drug public service announcement cringe. Essentially, Lindsey smokes weed then finds out that she previously made arrangements to babysit. As a result of smoking weed Lindsey acts as though she's on a very deep acid trip. It's embarrassing to watch.
I figured it would be unanimous that this was a hated episode, but anytime you have an emotional episode where one of your main characters dies/almost dies you're naturally going to receive inflated ratings as a result, even if it is a bad episode, which this was. Parts of the episode were good. I did like the Bill story-line, but the rest of the episode was extremely corny.
The Walk (2015)
Watch Man on a Wire Instead. This is a Ridiculously Bad Movie! Even the Last 30 Minutes is Nothing of Note!
What a strange movie. The movie is narrated over by Joseph Gorden-Levitt as Philippe Petit, which is especially weird since a Documentary Man on A Wire was already exists that does this. Why not just do a dramatization of events rather than a documentary narrative style recreated? Which does not play out well. For one, Philippe Petit (the wire walker)is a very dramatic and expressive when telling the story, which is great for a documentary style when he's telling the story, but when you have an American actor doing an over dramatic French accent narrative to copy the real life guy, it comes across as a bad actor doing an over the top French accent (there's really no way you get it right as an actor).
The dialogue style is one of the worst that I've ever seen, especially since it's based on real life events. It's the kind of movie if you were involved in it in anyway you ask to be permanently removed from the credits. One of the silliest moments is the cop scene on the roof.... I can't even put it into words. The dialogue and the acting style is very cartoonish and/or like something you would see on the Three Stooges. This style is prevalent throughout. I really have no idea what the director was going for. It's embarrassing! I'm embarrassed for any movie critic who gave this a positive review (they have no business being a movie critic). I understand that some will agree that it's a dreadful movie, but the visuals in the last 30 minutes make it worth it.... not really. The special effects/visuals are nothing to be admired and even if they were, it shouldn't have the power to carry such a ridiculously bad movie.
Spoilers Of course they change things to make it more movie friendly which is fine, but how it actually ended is a bit different. Essentially this Philippe Petit dude instantly got a really big head upon completing the wire walk. He gets released from jail while two of his friends get extradited back to France (banned from the US forever) and Philippe gets cleared (which is fine). I believe it's the same day or the day after when he gets released, he's doing press conferences when some chick wants to give him a warm celebration so he goes off and does that while leaving his girlfriend and friends hanging and it doesn't stop there, he essentially permanently leaves all of his friends and people associated with the wire walk hanging. So all of his friends who made it possible for him to achieve this dream and who were there with him from the beginning, he dropped all of them like a bad habit the second he was done with his wire walk. He never spoke to his girlfriend or any of the many people involved with it ever again... not even a thank you. It's actually a very bitter sweet ending to the documentary, which is what you should watch and skip over this piece of garbage of a movie.
Rescue Dawn (2006)
Weird Movie, Weird Style! It lacks Emotion... Was That The Point?
What a perplexingly weird movie. What makes it even weirder is, it's based on a real person and event. Typically if a movie is based around a real event, the movie goes for more of a realism type approach, but I'm not sure what the the movie was trying to achieve? Did they not want to depress the audience, so they decided to cover this story in a way that the audience wouldn't have to be emotionally impacted by it? Where to begin? When Dieter (Christian Bale) gets captured and brought to the leader (not sure the leaders title). His demeanor was that of a US teenager in Europe for spring break or at least the way movies like to portray American teens over seas. Cocky, like the world owes them something and just immature, whereas I can't imagine anyone in a situation where they were captured acting like that.
It gets weirder as it goes into the various torture thing they do to Dieter... it's done in more of a comedic way, rather than upsetting. The fact that it's based on a real person makes me think that no, and someone completely dropped the ball and if I had to guess that someone was Christian Bale. As if he was incapable of playing this role and it came out in more of a dark comedic style. And they went a little over board with the insanity part of it. Then when is friend gets his head hacked off, it's not a sad moment and it isn't sad for Dieter either. Anyways, I give up trying to figure this movie out. It felt as though the movie was on anti depressants.... no emotion whatsoever in reference to things that should have been really upsetting.
After 31 Seasons, Survivor Still Remains an Awesome Show!
As far as entertainment goes, at times it really doesn't get any better than Survivor. Especially the first season or two you watch. I've never been the type of person to change up my plans or not schedule any plans just because a show I liked was going to be on TV... that is until Survivor (the first season or two I watched that is). I would be so exited leading up to the show and be completely enthralled throughout. I remember cramming for my midterms/finals and even though I didn't have any extra time to spare I couldn't skip out on Survivor (a couple times).
As a viewer it can be an emotional roller coaster, which is why it takes a rare breed to endure several seasons of Survivor, but I think it's worth it too endure it. You'll probably have to take a several year hiatus multiple times, but it's always enjoyable and rewarding to start watching it again. I'd be willing to bet the reason why many people stop watching is because of frustration, rather than lack of entertainment. Frustration because of bad winners, emotionally retarded people not being voted off, etc, etc. One of the first hurdles most people have to get through is; often times the better physical as well as mental players will get voted out early more often than not (more so as the show has gone on compared to the beginning). The key to enduring that and the show as a whole, is to except the luck factor. Sure there's all the cliché talk during the show of people saying, you beat me because your still in the game and I got voted off or people going out with 3 left and saying I got 4th place. It's one thing for a contestant to say you outplayed me because you made it further, because that's just being a good sport, but it's a completely different thing for the viewer to have such a naive/dimwitted/idiotic way of observing the game. Forget all that nonsense... accept the fact that there is a ton of luck in the game (for example one contestant won the game twice and this person is probably in the bottom 5 of all time winners in ref to strategy), sometimes more than others. While frustrating at times the luck factor keeps the game exciting, because anything can happen and anyone for the most part can win. Also in the very early seasons if someone was emotionally retarded they would get the boot early, but as the seasons progress the socially inept people often times make it deep in the game, because it strategically makes sense to keep non threatening players in the game (though seldom win it). Which is why the 3rd/4th/5th/6th/etc. place talk is so ridiculous because there are a multitude of reasons why people land where they do that are external to skill level and ability to play the game. If a player goes deep in the game, but never puts themselves in a place to have a shot at winning and someone else has their cards lined up so that if they do go to the end they can possibly win, but end up getting the boot at 10... the 10 is way more impressive. Anywho, I had to take several leaves of absence along the way, with the longest being after season 6 (over 5 years)... got sick of the jury asking the question, if you win what would you do with the money and emotional nonsense external to the game dictating the winners, but I was pleasantly surprised coming back after my leave to watch seasons 7 and 8. BTW for the most part as the seasons progress the jury starts basing the winners on the game they played.
Anyways they do an awesome job with the show as a whole, even though they most likely metal with the game, trying to keep the entertaining players in the game longer... ironically more so in the earlier seasons, because so much was depending on the future of the show. The show has always been good at spoofing on itself right from the first season. The cutting room and the camera people have a good sense of humor. Something as simple as someone being angry or super dramatic and then the show pans to an animal that's analogous to the situation. If the show wasn't spoofing on itself (in a sense) this would come across really corny, but instead it's hilarious and there are several subtleties such as this that enhances the overall show. Anyways, I'm rambling on too long, so I'm just going to cut out, but if you stopped watching the show or haven't seen it as of yet, I highly recommend this show, there are few if any shows that are as entertaining as Survivor, especially when you're new to it.
The Revenant (2015)
Visually Awesome! Mundane Storyline! Bear Scene is Epic! Overall Worth Watching!
The one thing that really got me thinking upon completing this film is, how did DiCaprio know that this was going to be a good movie? I can't imagine anything about the script would cause an A list actor to jump on the role. It's essentially a vengeance type film (someone wronged/killed you or your family)... this film adds the extra element that the hero has to achieve this while being on deaths door and has to drudge through insanely beautiful terrain to do it. Also to note, the bear attack scene is unbelievable! It's the best CGI I've ever seen. Anyways, did DiCaprio go to a psychic, or maybe I'm just missing something? I would love to know what caused him to choose this role? I can imagine he wanted the challenge of doing something different from anything he had ever done before. With one of the big challenges in this role being very little dialogue and having to rely on facial expressions etc. Very difficult role and he was excellent as always (I'm not sure if this will get him the best actor nomination, but it may). I can imagine one of the motivating factors was, Dicaprio had just completed Wolf of Wall street, which I wouldn't be surprised if it holds the record for the most dialogue for a character in the history of cinema. So DiCaprio now jumps completely on the opposite side of the spectrum in this film.
Overall this movie is worth the watch for most people. As I said, the plot is very simple, but the visuals are perfect.
Some nit picks, which has spoilers. Watching the hero of the film drudge around in constant pain gets to be kind of draining. I can take it for a little bit, but dude! And when Hugh (Dicaprio) eventually catches up to the villain dude... I understand they want to make it suspenseful, but to me it comes across really lame and cheesy when everything for the most part had taken the straight arrow realistic movie style to that point only for it to result in your typical hero meets villain final fight scene, with back and forths with both people getting stabbed and beat etc. Hugh had been spot on with the gun up until the final scene where he grazes the villain at point blank range. Now we get to watch Hugh take more abuse...oye very!!! I would have rather the suspense revolve around the villain breaking away from Hugh to were it seems as though he just might be home free only for Hugh to do something drastic in order to find him and/or catch up with him. No need for corny back and forths.