cubsckc Reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

Why did they do this?

[1/10 · 3 September 2022]

During a time where Game of Thrones and The Sandman are getting awesome ratings why is this one being hit? One of my first impressions when first seeing this is how similar the beginning of this was to Wheel of Time which are both produced by Amazon. This show had bad dialogue and rip off ideas from other shows. I'm a big fantasy person, so when viewing this I couldn't help but role my eyes to all the rip off scenes they stole from other fantasy stories. It's a very unoriginal take and yet it also finds away to destroy great things about Lord of the Rings. First and foremost... the elves look terrible in this show. Not just visually but just the type of beings they are supposed to represent In this universe. If you were looking for mystic and wise, there is not a single elf in the entire show that fits this except or "my girl Galadriel." Why? Well they sacrificed the coolest race in this world to boost their main actress. Her bad acting as well as script suffers so bad that they needed her race of people to look so bad. They are incompetent, lazy, and cowardly.

It's been two hours and I've never seen a show where I literally walk away after the two episodes and don't feel any connection for any of the characters. Phony characters with phony personalities and a phony plot.

Phony Plot- the whole plot is hogwash. They had to make up an unbelievable plot to heighten "my girl Galadriel." Anyone claiming to be a fan of this show and saying this plot is plausible doesn't care and is lazy. I mean the concept of every victory of good over evil results in the same way because of a particular theme. So what is Galadriel actually doing then? Did they really think they could possibly eliminate the taint of Morgoth on middle earth? This was addressed in every movie. And even movies that were not created by Peter Jackson. In the Appendix it never claims to have eliminated the taint of Morgoth from Middle Earth. For decades fans have wondered what happens to orcs after a defeat... this show claims that the elves actually thought they killed every single one. The wisest of all races and the closest to the Gods appear to be the dumbest creatures.

This show is one word- A PERVERSION. It's not a good story, bad characters, lazy plot. The few lord of the rings felt like they were cut and pasted on the film. It just didn't fit and work well.

The carelessness of the show, shows no one really cares what they were doing with this. Anyone claiming they are lord of the rings fans and liking this show are sellouts. You had some people really hoping this show would work confess that it sucks. 8-10 score is unjust and disingenuous.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Fun Flick, More of an Introductory Film Into Another Harry Potter Series

[7/10 · 24 November 2016]

Movie captures the glamour and mystery that many other Harry Potter films have done. Like many of the Harry Potter films, it was able to introduce new lore into the film. Newt, the main character in the film goes to the United States with a brief case that contains a collection of mysterious creatures. He introduces a new wizard world of the United States that seems to operate separately and independently from the Ministry of Magic, Hogwarts and the rest of the European Wizard World. You can hear comparisons between how the wizard world in the United States governs as well as how good their Wizard Schools are. If and when they decide to expand the Harry Potter Universe there is a lot of potential settings and plots that they can create. The film seems to try to venture a new route that stems away from a more traditional, European, feel.

The real connection between the movie and the book is going to be Grindlewald. In fact, the plot in the film stems around his influence. As such, this creates another window and direction for the film to go to. For those fans who know, his history actually has a lot of dark vibes and connections with characters that are important to the franchise.

As far as I can tell, this film creates potential for a lot in the series. I actually think this film acts as an experiment with a different setting, different time period, and different type of characters for the franchise.

Now for the important part... WHAT ABOUT THE FANTASTICAL BEASTS... saved this for last because I'm afraid the film didn't really hit a home run on this one. I guess you care more if you really read the books and know a bit about them already about the creatures and history of the Harry Potter world. The film focuses on a few of the creatures. You briefly see a few beasts when he enters his briefcase, which is essentially a beast haven where they live together peacefully... An attempt here to not scare children I assume. If you look at the creatures in the actual book its quite a bit darker. You have a brief view of this world for a few minutes. After that there are like three creatures that escape his briefcase that he needs to put back in. The main creature that we have an issue with in his film is the Obscurus, which is essentially an wizard to develops a dark side that is uncontrollable. Not really a fantastic beast because it pretty much behaves like a possessed human being except its something the wizard creates. The film definitely fails to show the magic of the actual book. The movie portrays something more resemblant to zoo animals and fails to show the more interesting creatures. No dragons.... really?

Again, the movie does some nice and interesting things for the rest of the series. Overall, a fun flick. If you are a hardcore fan who is expecting that really looks into the creatures of the Harry Potter world, then you might be disappointed. I feel Goblet of Fire actually did a lot better job showing it's worlds creatures. Besides that though, I think the film does a good job at giving you several ways it can expand. As such, it gives you hope considering there was so much lore... history... and plots in the Harry Potter universe that it was a shame it was thought to have ended with its last film.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Creative but Limited Plot

[7/10 · 26 December 2015]

The plot is well outlined if you have seen the trailers for the movie. A blizzard keeps 8 dangerous characters in a cabin together during a Blizzard. All the characters have something in common which is their interest in a prisoner. The way it is filmed was quite remarkable. The scenery along with the props was well shot out.

Quentin Tarantino really shows his skills at making a story in which every character has a purpose and every cause and effect makes sense. Just watch for the little things in the movie that the camera focuses on. Its one of those movies where every color and shot has a purpose.

I guess the only issue I had with the film was that it was a three hour movie in a cabin with a very limited plot. There's only so many places that the plot could eventually turn. I'm not going to lie, though I had many interesting facial expressions while watching the movie, I was not impressed at the ending. My wife did not like the movie, and she gave me a dirty look every time there was a racial slur or guts getting blown apart everywhere. Though there may have been a lot of it, it didn't deter me from the artistic values of the film. Trust me, there is lot more violence and swearing in this film than any other film he has directed.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

A New Hope Retold Again with Better Graphics

[8/10 · 19 December 2015]

By no means did I dislike the movie. However, the truth is the truth and the whole movie of the new Star Wars was pretty much a retelling of "A New Hope." Just too many similarities. The only problem though is considering this a bad or a good thing. I will reserve judgment with that because of the other new Star Wars (Episode 1-3) where they really went to our minds like a wrecking ball. This similarity in plot could mean a good thing for the next two Star Wars. Like it or not, this Star Wars was definitely "true to the roots."

"History repeats itself." That could definitely be the case in the world where the light and dark sides of the force are constantly trying to get balance each other out. The trouble I found with the "New Order" was understanding how it was able to maintain itself. Its obviously what the remnants of the Empire turn to. However, they seem to have a pretty expensive military considering they don't really control populations which they can tax. They pretty much exterminate opposition which is interesting because not even the Nazis annihilated all their enemies. Just a common sense thing in order to tax.

So the bad guys don't make that much sense. I like their new look, and I think the new Sith and commanders are pretty cool. It would be interesting to see how complex they make the characters as well. Because the Episodes 4-6 didn't really go into much depth because they were essentially just the order, "The Empire" and were simply preserving it, it would be interesting to know more about why the new Sith joined. More power is too simplistic, even Anakin chose to to join the Dark Side because he felt that the democratic government had grown weak and corrupt, and we see that through some exchanges with Padame.

I was also impressed by the new good guys. Most notably Finn and Poe. They seemed very true and independent characters. Finn's character arc is very new and I would say probably the best thing in the new Star Wars. He represents very much how the Force can operate. He transforms from a Storm Trooper into someone trying to fight for whats right because choice and opportunity stumble upon his life. The scene that shows this seemed to have good symbolism.

Sinister 2 (2015)

Adds Some Story but Falls Short

[6/10 · 26 August 2015]

An addition to the Sinister 1 story, this movie continues from the last film. There are some interesting aspects if you are interested with the lore in the first film. The cop in the first film who was helping out Ethan Hawke, returns to Sinister II with the mission to destroy all traces to Bughuul. I think the movie sets up an interesting scenario because he essentially destroys the houses and tapes of the other houses. He comes to a completely different house, unrelated to the previous film. This kind of shows that there are multiple camera's that have their own victims. This is further reinforced by the radio we see later in the film. It essentially had its own series of victims from Denmark.

So the cop from the first film has burned down the other houses and goes to this new house with a mom and two kids Dylan and Zach. They are in a house that is cursed by Bughuul because the family there had been killed in a church right next to the house. We see Bughuul and the children haunting one of the brothers, Dylan with a series of different films from he first. It begs the question of whether there are several series of cameras and their own tapes and how they spread. I think an interesting thing here is the fact that the spirits of the other kids that had killed their families are the main force behind driving the living kids to kill their families. Its different and I'm wondering if they just did a random switch from the first or if thats how it was meant to be. The kids are essentially willingly persuaded to kill their families for one reason or the other.

In this film, the mother and her kids are running away from their crazy father who beats the mom and Dylan mostly. So you almost immediately see a reason for Dylan to fall victim. He also starts to go through a major competitive relationship with his brother Zach. Its a relationship that really reaches the conclusion of the film.

The movie has some good qualities, but really goes over them really fast. It has bad focus in my opinion. So many elements thrown but not explained can be very irritating. Another thing that could be taken either way is this different aspect that the ghost children essentially drive the innocent child to kill their own family... and its done willingly. I personally liked this aspect. However, the first film felt like Bughuul had more influence over the events that were happening in the film. You also felt that the kid was truly innocent and sort of controlled by Bughuul. It seems a bit different and almost a different film, and I could see how anyone would say there isn't enough Bughuul in the film.

To go back on the focus of the film, I don' think the film spends enough time with the lore of Bughuul or the characters. In this sense, it feels like another cheap horror film with several jumpy scenes, which is too bad because it certainly has a horror figure and some lore that is very interesting. The characters are also not developed well. Whats up with Zach acting like a madman all of a sudden for example? The main character searches the church but not the house? It just seems that many scenes and critical aspects were done lazy.

There is potential for the continuation of more films due to the lack of lore and understanding. The film wasn't bad, but it had opportunities to shine. Unlike most films, the first Sinister had a lot of open questions that needed answers, which left the door for the sequels to really jump up and shine, and I don't think the film really feed off that.

Ant-Man (2015)

Surprisingly Done Well... but...

[8/10 · 31 July 2015]

I'll tell you what, the first time I saw this movie in trailers, I expected it to completely fail. A dude in an Ant custom that can shrink and kick people's butts? Sounds a bit stupid. The good thing though is that the film was able to focus on the different parties involved in the movie's plot. What helped the film a lot was the infiltration part that of the Ant Man, that for me at least demonstrated his biggest strength. I hope you guys like my review, and appreciate what I like and am worried about in future Marvel Films which include Ant Man.

You have this guy who is a criminal and given a second chance in life due to his skills which are tested by the older Ant Man. Of course, the older guy is basically retired and has a daughter while at the same time having his apprentice turn against him and take away his company and weapons to sell to hydra. Though the main conflict was the fact that Hydra was about to get this new Ant Man weaponry, they were briefly shown and mentioned. Which I think was a good thing, because it gives Ant Man its own spirit as a film. One is drawn to the characters because you see their loses and what they are fighting for. The new Ant Man for example has a daughter and a second chance to live up to, while the older Ant Man and his daughter have a way of rekindling their relationship over the very thing that broke them apart.

All in all, great film. Its hard not to like the characters and the plot. What I did have a problem with was the scene were Ant Man gets into a fight with Falcon from the new Avengers. The fight was kind of stupid and what I was afraid the whole movie was going to be about. I appreciate this film as a separate identity from the rest of Marvel. Are we going to see this dude fighting powerful and almost immortal beings when we get into the rest of the Marvel Universe? It is a bit worrying because the first Avengers was very different from the second in the sense that it worked a bit better.

Jurassic World (2015)

Same Plot Like Every Other

[3/10 · 12 June 2015]

In the end, I wasn't surprised the movie was a disaster, and to tell you what, I heard about the script years ago about genetically modified dinosaurs and Steven trying to make dinosaurs man's friend. So its, not like I was thrown a curved ball of garbage.

Movie starts out excellent. Your given a world that you've never seen before. In fact its just as beautiful and new as the old movie. So yes, you are blown back. You see some of the trained dinosaurs. It wasn't totally lame, and it was somewhat unbelievable. We move to the genetically enhanced dinosaur and the roller coaster ride starts immediately. I think it was quite lazy if you ask me. Like they ran out of imagination and just started the movie way to fast. Before that, you do see some similarities to the old movie. You see the same genetic scientist from the first movie who Dr. Grant was talking to about the raptors being made on the island and Malcom was debating about life finding away. You also see that someone else took over that old dude's dream of making a park.

Anyhow, you see like in every movie that there is evil people trying to control nature. It worked well in the first film, but it really fell apart after that. You'd think they'd get the point. Spielberg likes to push this idea of people not being able to control nature. But its done so many times before that its pretty dumb now. I can't believe the security on the island decided to battle the dinosaur hybrid with raptors for crying out loud. Its pretty dumb. The genetics guy gets taken off the island before the end by the remaining security and makes it possible for another Jurasic failure.

Throughout the movie you are given way to many impossible scenarios so that Spielberg's message can be scene. The two major problems with the film is that one, its the same story plot as every other Jurassic film. Seriously, its kind of boring and lame, and shows lack of imagination. Secondly, the film becomes a confusing type of film. Is it a dinosaur film? Is it a science fiction freak film? The film was violent. But except for the beginning you don't feel that dinosaur aspect. You feel more of a freak/horror film science film feel afterwards.

Its not a good film, but like myself, I really needed to see it for myself because I really didn't know what to expect. I think it makes you to curious. But pretty much, your getting exactly what your thinking before you go in to watch it.

Windtalkers (2002)

Stupid Movie

[1/10 · 8 June 2015]

Believe it or not, I watched it a couple times a few years ago, but I watched it again today, and it was absolutely a stupid movie.

First scene tells you the whole movie. The guy in charge gets people killed because he is following orders. He must learn to break the rules to save lives. He's tasked to defend a position and everyone dies except him and its pushed in your face for the rest of the movie with several instances of people dying.

Nicholas Cage tells the last guy in the opening scene to jump from cover without giving him covering fire. STUPID! He says god damn you, because he was begging Cage to abandon their position. And go where exactly? They're surrounded in a swamp with high bushes with the enemy charging and firing in every position.

The idiots that make this movie always think they are so morally higher than everybody else. With messages like... "disobey you chain of command because only you know the right answers that lie within your heart and true justice in the world." Yeah, let the Code guys get captured and suffer a horrible death because of the great and well known Japanese tactics they implement when torturing their captures, and while your at it, let the the secret code go out in enemy hands. Seriously?

Across the Universe (2007)

Absolute Rape of a Legendary Band

[1/10 · 24 May 2015]

Phonie acting, emotion, and rape of classic works of art by a legendary band. I watched it once in the theaters when it first came out, and one more time recently. It rarely happens that my conception of a film remains the same or gets worse.

In this case, it definitely got worse. I feel that being more interested in art in movies as I've gotten older, really demonstrates how bad this film really is. Before it was simply a dislike of the horrible way the actors were trying to sing the music differently for my younger generation. It was just absolutely disgusting and pathetic. They tried really hard to change it to stay in tune for this younger generation that they warped the music and took away its meaning. I mean, you can't say those Beatles songs mean the same thing in this movie. AT ALL. The songs held meaning for a decade in history, and in this movie, though they tried to add it, it focused on a stupid and phone love story. The acting was so horrible, I think you'd be lying to yourself if you didn't think about rolling your eyes at least a couple times during this film. I'll get back on it a little later. But these are just surface things about the movies. Back to the songs though. JUDE! LUCY? Strawberry fields? You've got to have a stupid sense of imagination if your eyes didn't roll right to the back of your heads. Did people seriously sit there and go... "HOW CLEVER!" Its absolutely pathetic because this film's only support is that of songs from a legendary band.

Rewatching it, I definitely disliked the film more for destroying the classical and true meanings of the songs. Perhaps more so because the characters were played pathetically. If you think about it, Jude's story feels forced into the film simply to be clever and play "Hey Jude" and have some (if any) connection to the roots of the music by having a character from Liverpool. His character doesn't really fit in the movie though. He really has no emotion, real drive, reason for thinking the way that he does. If you think about it, every other character has a stronger sense of feeling or doing what they do because they have a stronger back story. Jude is as useless as Prudence if you think about it. Prudence's only reason for being in the film is to add Dear Prudence song. And to prove it, she's gone the rest of the film until the end. You have all these random songs being played because they are good songs, and the film tries to put them by adding a random character or scenario and having these random plot strings that kind of trail off and die.

As far as actually filming, the acting is terrible, but I've said that a couple times by now. Why are Jude and Lucy in love? They met at a bowling place, and she shared a simple story with him about her boyfriend dying. Next thing you know she goes all the way to New York and sleeps with him. That'll do it I guess. I'm not sure Jude makes Lucy feel special enough for the connection to transfer to this longing for one another at the end. To be fair, Bane/Mad Max who is pretty much Lucy's boss and secret lover in reality, had a stronger connection with her than Jude. I'm really surprised at the lack of connection.

This moves to the camera angles, art, and color added to make scenes look better in the film. The film did use color correctly and even had good concepts of film angling, but it was done totally inappropriately. We can sense a lack of connection with Jude and Lucy really... in my opinion when they get on the bus and find the circus. The reason being because the story is bringing about the decade more in its revolution. Where Jude is having fun, Lucy is living a revolution. I get the love part in the water with the blue and green color, but again, inappropriate, considering the plot has moved on. We continuously see a lack of connection, and all of a sudden we have Jude and the use of love with red in the Strawberry painting. How random, and also convenient to have a Strawberry Fields concept thrown in there.

We see how the film has separated the two characters. Lucy is in revolution due to personal losses, but then the film also artificially keeps Jude in his own bubble. The only explanation is he stays in the apartment all day doing mediocre art. There are no real camera angles that depict the true meaning and plot of the film, except when they are all drugged up. Thats all fine and dandy, but all of a sudden Lucy and Jude are to be taken seriously.

All in all, bad film. Bad acting, along with a plot that is all over the place due to the fact it is trying to be clever with famous Beatle songs makes it completely pathetic.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Movie Tries to Hard

[6/10 · 19 May 2015]

Overall an okay flick. I wouldn't mind watching it a couple more times in the future. But already, I feel that this one will be the one everyone dreads to watch when doing a Marvel marathon.

Differences between the Avengers becomes exploited when the Avengers finally destroy Hydra's headquarters and face off these two new characters that have joined the series. I actually thought it was too bad that Hydra got exterminated so quickly, I felt that Hydra always provided a great plot for the marvel heroes. Oh well. As such, Mr. Stark designs his and the world's doom by creating what is in his mind the ultimate defense for the world. Ultron, brings this "Terminator" series idea back in where technology fights its own designers. So alright, we have this concept brought back up. Its not terrible, and I guess its an alright attempt to make the Ultron plot. It really should have been assumed way before watching what the plot was going to be, given the main villain was going to be a robot. With the Avengers being manipulated and harassed by these new mutant marvel characters, they must find the courage to hold hands and fight together... should I go on? Kind of lame. It frankly felt like a waste of time to be honest. The actual Ultron character was pretty cool. Perhaps the coolest character in the movie, which is too bad because I'm a Thorn, Captain America fan. But wow! What a wimpy conflict to throw at the characters. They seriously go through an Emo phase for about an hour because Scarlet casts a spell on them. And then of course, they just had to add the Hulk getting mad at something stupid and waste a bunch of other time. The film tries to be emotional and build attachment... but it tries way too hard.

I think what bothered me the most about the movie is that I see a concept within the Marvel/Avenger series to create heroes that are completely perfect. Captain America, you see how he questions the tactics in which SHIELD gets its information and to what extent it goes to securing the people. You see it pushed here a little where literally an entire city is ripped from the earth and dropped back to the planet. Well, the movie makes it positively clear that the Avengers rescued every single civilian before the whole city crumbles into nothingness, while of course at the same time trying to eliminate hundreds of thousands of Ultron copies. It really was kind of stupid. If Marvel is really afraid of showing something like that then don't show it. Don't make it look very cheesy and completely impossible. The Marvel heroes somehow get the SHIELD club back together to help people escape a city being dropped from midair.

You get an interesting ending, like most Marvel movies, including a bit more about the infinity stones. But very vague, boring, and essentially, nothing new. Its the second Avengers film, and I find it the worse second film of the franchise. They really tried to hard in virtually every area. Just watch it and you'll know what I mean. From the beginning they are trying to be really funny with their hohohohehehe attitude where they are slaying Hydra's minions without breaking a sweat. The emotions, character development, and plot was all pretty bad. It was worth it just to see Ultron being evil.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Who Cares?

[6/10 · 22 February 2015]

I had to watch this movie because of all the hype and nominations and just couldn't wait to see something that looked interesting.

Don't get caught up by my rating though, I will say there are some nice things about this movie. Firstly, the acting was really great. Keaton and the other actors had very realistic emotions and acting. They are truly believable actors. Keaton, a washed up actor who played a fictional movie hero "Birdman," tries to evolve from an action packed star into art and theater, trying to find true emotion and symbolism. He puts everything into directing this play including ignoring his already distant family and giving up everything he owns to pay for its production. The viewer sees as the movie progresses that the main actor is slowly losing his grip in reality. As opening day comes he realizes more and more, how more impossible his dream is becoming. This is where the viewer must focus on the mood, the thoughts, and even the meaning of the background sounds/tunes. What do these mean? And how should you apply them to the ending?

Was it artistic? Yes, it was very artistic and interesting. However, the plot just seemed so boring. I applaud anyone who went through the first 20 minutes and still had patience. The plot really isn't anything new. Keaton plays a dad who made it big and lost sight of the things that mattered like his family and true loved ones. Alright, alright, same story played differently. I know the play was supposed to look mediocre, but just the added screen time devoted to showing it made the movie even more boring. Seeing these parts over and over again. The movie is simply a dead beat washed up father who stubbornly chooses to go down with the ship. Some movies you just know whats going to happen and you hate those, well... this one is kind of the opposite but its kind of dreadful.

The artistic aspect was alright. Its not something we haven't seen before like Shutter Island, Inception, or other films where you really have to pay attention and figure out what the real ending implies. After, you go wow, that was interesting, and then look back at the plot, I really don't understand how you go, wow! Awesome movie! Its more like... so what? It was good acting, but I didn't feel any connection to the characters. Who cares?

I'd watch it again in passing but wouldn't pay attention much. Movie is quite slow and at times obnoxious. Art in movies is awesome, but it is completely lacking in the passion of the viewer towards the characters and the plot.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Good... but What Happened to Jackson's Skills?

[8/10 · 15 January 2015]

I understand fans that fanatically liked or disliked the film. The film carried some new good stuff, and yet lacked so much greatness and potential that Peter Jackson has always put in his films. WHAT HAPPENED?

I had read reviews thinking that people were being picky about the movie, yet as a person that still enjoyed the movie, I couldn't help but ask, did Peter Jackson stop caring during the film? It had all the tools as well as help from some good cast. If your going to put romance then you really have to establish the connection. I felt like Fili and Tauriel were dating for sometime right when they started throwing at each other. The screen time between the battles and unnecessary Wilfred scenes kind of make me cringe. What a waste. Fili and Kili's deaths were sad but they weren't as emotional as they should have been. Peter Jackson failed to make these characters death momentus. Boromir's death was able to look tragic despite being an unlikable character throughout 95 percent of the film. Yet his death was 10 times more important and tragic than Kili and Fili. And I say that regrettably. During serious moments, I really felt Peter Jackson was either hesitant to set the mood or just didn't bother caring. The sad scenes and dramatic scenes had terrible background tunes. It made the audience unsympathetic to these scenes.

Even though the battle scenes were pretty good, they still seemed to lack... a lot... and its noticeable. The beginning of the battle is the biggest scene really. After that there's very few good battle scenes. It brings up the question of whether Peter Jackson decided to cut funding. The final battle between Thorin and Agog isn't very dramatic. It was okay, but with all the tragic deaths of Lord of the Rings, this did not come close. We had Boromir's Death, and Theoden's that had their sad and honorable endings, and as a king Thorin really should have had that moment better. No funeral? Very interesting. Again, with the duel between Thorin and Azog and the lack of a true ending for the characters we have been on a journey with for three movies, you wonder if they looked at their bank account and just said... heck with it.

Okay movie, but you have to ask with the lack of, whether Peter Jackson made the movie in such a way to just kill the series. Its very tragic as especially with the movies this year, it could have really made a big noise in the Academy Awards.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Surprised Me

[10/10 · 2 August 2014]

WOW! I'll tell you. I was quite skeptical about this movie. Its funny because during the trailer up to maybe the first five minutes of the movie I kept a pretty straight face on while the rest of audience laughed it up like a bunch of babies at Disney world. I was like... seriously? Its all giggles and smiles for you people. I really thought this movie was going to blow, and for a second I really thought this was a movie that would simply appeal to lame people. Seeing the trailers and such, I thought they were forcing more than necessary comedy for the movie and I thought it was going to be absolutely ridiculous. I guess what made me go watch it was the reviews. I always read the bad reviews to see whether or not the movie is going to be good. I was quite surprised at the limited bad reviews, because honestly we live in an age where there are simply a lot of haters, and if you don't want to waste money they actually give you an excuse not to. Many times I have disagreed with them, but hey, they have actually helped me at times too. But there weren't that many reviews and after a couple days it was a ridiculous average of 9/10 stars! I was like whoa! I had to watch it... not because I knew it was going to be good, but because there was probably something really stupid in the movie that a group of people would really like and inflate the reviews.

But honestly, I go in, and after the first five minutes I am like okay... not terrible. And we slowly see a development of the characters. The story arc is very good and appeals to a huge range of audiences because it has a neutral tone which doesn't force any ideology. In many ways the story arc is actually pretty innocent and away from politics. So in that sense it was very appealing. The main character gets taken from aliens right after his mother dies and is raised as a merchant and hire for money. The main focal point is there is an orb which actually connects the entire Marvel Universe together. So besides for the Story Arc, the "fluff" or universe is expanded and makes more sense if you watched Thor 1 &2 as well as The Avengers with these stones of power. There is one in here, and you see familiar enemies from those movies. It gives you a better view of whats going on with Marvel and future films. Back to the story arc, not knowing what it is, Star Lord takes it and connects with other Merchants who have their own agenda's to fulfill while being tracked a monstrous alien race who wants nothing more than to destroy all life in the galaxy. We see how they actually relate to one another and become friends on a quest to defeat an enemy who simply wants to destroy worlds.

The Marvel Film Industry has done a fantastic job making the villains look freaky as hell. We have gone from Frost Giants to Dark Elves to these dark mysterious dudes who maybe related to those in The Avengers. WOW! Good story, comedy adds a bit more character to the characters in the film without being ridiculous and wow to the special effects and creativity as always. Maybe the top Marvel Performance yet... I'm still deciding. Some interesting things we see, are the Collector from the end of the credits in Thor II, as well as a glimpse of Ultron.

CREDITS SUCK! Stupid ending, don't waste your time, its just a stupid joke, unless they are really going to make a Howard the Duck movies.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Good Watch but falls Short

[7/10 · 29 July 2014]

I thought the new Purge really hit the screen at first really strong. The feeling and intensity of what was coming could be felt during the first 10 minutes of the movie. However, as the movie continued and you saw the overall scope of what was going on in society instead of just the main characters, I kind felt like, "oh yeah" that makes sense, or at times "what?" So in all, I had mixed feelings about how the events unfolded.

We are introduced with a few average families. One, a young white couple who were stupid enough to wait 4 hours before the purge. The second, and African American family who locked themselves as best they could in their poor district. Right away, one of the things that was cheesy was another government conspiracy theory about the purge designed to kill the poor. I thought this was a bit more unrealistic than the first. The First focused on a rich beneficiary of the Purge, and I just feel that a) the government gets more off locating rich families if that really was the case, and b) its a lot better to go after rich families because you get benefits. As first movie showed, its only a matter of time before your defenses go down, and even wealth can't suffice against people who want you dead. The last major character we have is someone out to get revenge... we don't know why, all we know is that he has a bunch of pics of the person he wants to kill and him loading up for the night.

Despite everyone of these characters feeling like they were set and secure for the night, things get shaky, and their lives collide as they work together to survive. There were a few interesting concepts about the film that I liked. Firstly, the concept of people willingly giving their lives for money for their families. Its interesting when viewing such an extreme world where something like this existed, but its even more interesting when you view the different choices and reactions of the citizens. Secondly, I liked the concept of how both the rich and poor "purgists" had different ways of expressing their purge. They had different tools, and methods of completing their tasks. Thirdly, the movie went to one scene where the purge comes out of a family internal conflict. It was brief, but very scary at the same time, just thinking about how some family feuds could legitimately be taken to the next level if it was legal. Fourth, though I didn't like the conspiracy bullshit, I did think it was interesting how the government could use street and satellite surveillance to get what it wants. The way the portrayed the rich "Purgists" was kind of cheesy, though I would say, the way they pay for their crimes and act like life is unfair when events don't happen their way was absolutely priceless. I will admit, I had a laugh about that.

What I clearly disliked about the film really came from the anarchists and the government conspiracy element of this movie. I believe that half the movie went down hill as a result of the movie trying to force something in that had no business in it. I originally thought the group of "Purgists" with all the high tech equipment were either really rich people or retired military/contractors. It seemed pretty cool with all their outdoors gear and interesting gadgets. However... they were apparently the government. Apparently they needed them because society is really nice you see, and the purge isn't getting enough people to actually do it. Firstly... thats awesome! I guess they should stop it right! Secondly... that was pretty much the opposite reason why these purges exist in the first place. This also made a lot of contradictions to the rest of the film. In fact, the first people they kill in the film are people participating in the purge. So its like... we need these guys because there aren't enough purgers but they are going to kill purgers as well. Hmmmm....

As far as the characters go... except for the character out for vengeance, the rest were completely useless and talked a lot of rubbish. Besides for that, I thought that the main character's vendetta was such a let down. I was like... this guy is going to set himself up like that to kill one dude who wasn't even in a purge. Not to say he didn't do something bad... but... I guess one could say that that's another concept about the purge to reflect on.

As such, the film at least in the beginning had a lot of momentum. It didn't completely fail but the ending wasn't as exciting or interesting as how it started off. Its too bad, but it made for a descent watch.

The Good Son (1993)

Bad Reviews Indicate Really Frighting Concepts and not Bad Movie

[8/10 · 29 July 2014]

I was actually really surprised at the ratings of the film, so I looked at many of the reviews before putting mine down. Maybe I was missing some pretty horrible aspects to the movie. So I watched the movie again and I read the reviews. I think one of the interesting things was that people rated this movie really low because they didn't like the concept of an evil child or they added, there was no WHY concept to the reasons why the character did the things he did.

I think I was mostly surprised at the "Why" concept. Did people really not understand that this kid felt really powerful controlling the fate of others? It was quite clear that the mean kid did not like being undermined. It was in my opinion very well introduced. At first, his enjoyment in his actions were very minor due to his first time. It seemed to me that the first time he performed his bad deeds to his brother, he might have actually been scarred or stunned. Because for a while when little Frodo enters the scene, nothing has actually happened to indicate he is a terrible child. Its not until his mother treats Frodo like her own child that Macually starts to use his will to force things the way he wants. I see similarities with how kids these days press their parents into getting what they want.

I think its important to recognize the scene where little Frodo goes to the therapist and asks her about why someone could be bad for no reason, just because he likes to be bad. I think this is where people kind of go, "yeah, this movie is flawed, there's no such thing." But remember, little Frodo wasn't looking down the staircase at his mother hugging another son. Its all about perspective. It can be concluded that the bad son is probably the spoiled child, and acts up in extreme ways to get what he wants because it worked before. We have two polar characters. One character is completely helpless and his fate is controlled by the other characters in this movie, where there is Culkin, whom has deep control of his life and his wants.

On another note, kids doing horrible things to animals or killing other kids is not a unheard of concept. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there are certain mentalities that cannot be explained but diagnosed with mental disorders. People in our age have been brainwashed into thinking that kids are completely innocent in the world. Which is funny when you reflect how many times in your younger life you have laughed at someone and probably made them feel really bad, even though you didn't want to. As kids we actually hurt others more than we'd like to admit, we just choose not to admit it.

The Haunting (1999)

Worth a Watch

[7/10 · 13 July 2014]

As a horror film, I think its a descent watch compared to many out there. Its a good watch to have one night for sure. Its different from most horror films because it basically deals with spirits and a haunted house. I would say this haunted house really did have a good way to grab the attention of the fans. So as far as directing the house to appear as an identity, I would say it goes as far as hitting farther than Amityville Horror. You could definitely feel the house. I was actually surprised to see the rating of the film. First of all, there isn't anything in this film that makes it BAD. To rate it a one, shows how terrible a lot of IMDb users are, who simply don't like something and put ones. I hardly ever give out a ten or a one because its an obvious ridiculousness.

Okay, but what prevents this movie from being a big hit you ask? I would stress the acting as well as the plot are relatively underdeveloped. I think this is different from saying there is not plot or they didn't play out the plot very well. They invented a plot... and I'm just not sure many audiences can relate to it. Its an interesting plot but it doesn't really make you think you could be in a scenario like that. Part of scary movies and there suspense is that imaginative element that makes one play with an alternate universe where you could be in it. Instead, the scenario for these characters are not ones that anyone of us would like or even imagine ourselves in. As such, the protagonist and the actors aren't able to give that WOW factor. Mind you, it does have a creepy sense to it, but just doesn't hit it out of the park. I also question the use of Hansel from Derek Zoolander in this film. I actually think he made the movie less scary.

All in all, if you haven't seen this yet, I say go for a watch. It will creep you out, and could give you the chills.

After the Dark (2013)

Interesting and fun Film to Watch... Ending was a let Down

[6/10 · 13 July 2014]

The movie actually dwells on an interesting concept... which is... when it comes down to an extreme scenario where only certain people can be picked to survive... who do you pick? Its interesting reading the reviews because I can sense a lot of anger towards the subject... "Thats wrong!" or "This would never happen!" This actually was done to me back in high school, but obviously less extreme.

Essentially if you didn't read the other reviews, its about a make believe scenario where the philosophy professor has this scenario where there's a bunker that can protect 10 of 21 people until the radiation decimates. Except for three people which are not identified until later in the film, all of the students have random professions and sub details that could effect them... like... she is the world's smartest person... but she has AIDS. So they trial and error the scenarios and see the faults of their choices. All except the last one was pretty interesting and realistic. In fact, I would say that there were a lot of assumptions included in those scenarios in order to show that those types of choices that could be deemed as "heartless" are not right. However, they aren't really played out like they should be. Its too bad, because you can feel a pull from the attitude of the movie which is forcing you to see the scenario as going in one way. Just because the women aren't getting pregnant in the first few months doesn't mean they will never be able to, or that they need to switch some of the special professions or people for useless people because they can entertain or make the environment less stressful. I mean you only got ten people... There' also an internal conflict that should be looked at and identified while you watch the film. There's a reason why the professor and the main character are very emotional throughout the film. I didn't catch it until the end.

It was a fun movie to watch. I like the suspense, and would have liked to see it more developed. However, the ending is stupid and useless. They choose to sacrifice 11/21 in order to basically live a year and die at the end. They actually admit that. It was a way for the students to rebel against their professor with a happy face. Apparently a card person, and someone who plays the harp is what you need for your last 10 people on Earth. Not to mention two gay guys. Everyone who had a disease was also chosen. Some weird philosophy here.

The philosophy in this film is not really portrayed in a real sense. Its philosophical but it doesn't have those elements you would specifically learn from a course. But there is a sense of "what is right?" that one must ask themselves. For me, again, I feel like the movie tried to make it look black and white. As though, if you aren't sensitive enough to select the most useless people to continue the human race... then you have lost your humanity. Oh by the way... letting them burn from the radiation is a much finer death than just shooting them... Hey... some people are so sensitive that they really don't know what mercy is. Humanity really is a bit of compassion and heartlessness together though and I would have liked to see more of it.

I recommend you watch it. Its a neat movie. It definitely touches on sensitive subjects.

The Returned (2013)

Wanted to Like it... Unrealistic even for a Zombie Film

[4/10 · 9 July 2014]

I really forced myself to like this film because people generally rate science fiction or horror films pretty hardcore. So when I picked this movie, I decided to grade it with a grain of salt. The beginning plot actually makes for an interesting movie. There have been two zombie outbreaks before the start of the film that forced a vaccine to be developed in order to save those temporarily if they had been bitten but not completely turned.

This at first made a good start to the film. However, the film made a very basic contrary argument in form of a rude fat slob who questioned about what difference this would make considering the fact that the vaccine only worked for 24 hours. The Zombie outbreaks were considered CATASTROPHIC, and yet essentially the main character ignores any sense to the realistic possibility of another outbreak by essentially making him look like some kind of jerk who wants to kill people. I mean... is it really terrible to think at a point where the world suffered two major zombie apocalypses, that the infected should be quarantined? I suppose its what makes the movie's conflict. However, there remains the total illogical stance about treating the infected like normal people. It seems a bit far-fetched considering she has a sexual relationship with someone who is infected.

Here in lies the problem of the film. Again, the world has almost collapsed from to world wide zombie outbreaks and yet the social structure is still much intact, and as viewers we are suppose to assume that protecting those infected and not yet turned as a rational aspect. They fail to see the many issues with having unmonitored infected people walking around normally around society that play, eat, and have normal relationships with those that are none infected... If you don't see any danger in this... then you'll probably hate this review. The film even shows how close it was when one didn't take his dosage for whatever reason and infected 5 people before being brought down. In normal society there are so many circumstances in which the infection could spread without knowledge and a pandemic arising right when a normal person realizes in their bedroom that they have been infected. Yet there are virtually no one turning. I'm glad that the people of the world are very responsible in taking their daily dose and being careful at their interactions with others.... not. The main character has sex with someone who is infected... so...

Another and more central problem is the people are actually not getting their daily dose because the vaccine has run out. In fact, the major characters in this film that need it, are only able to get it illegally. The rest of the people are ignored and I just don't see how this can be ignored by the viewer. This is a major plot hole! It doesn't work at all! Yet there are virtually no zombies in the film. The film shows one, that is assumed to have turned... and yet... the rest of the world it has not. The ending of the film is a complete bust. You'd have to see it with your own eyes, but its like a message where the main character should have trusted in humanity and the good will of what they are capable of doing. Because the world is saved out of thin air!!!

I believe there are naive concepts in the film that are supposed to be seen as instead, compassionate and rational. Yet, the real trouble is hidden away completely in this film. I mean, society still looks the same. They are still worried about money, instead of the tools, food, shelter, water, protection, that I'm sure they used during both the outbreaks. I almost really want to give this a lower rating. However, I will give credit where credit was due. Good beginning, bad prosecution of the film and horrible ending. I guess, I really hope things turn up the way they do if they ever arise like the ending of this film.

Alexander (2004)

Good but Lacking

[7/10 · 8 July 2014]

I don't want to alienate anyone, because essentially there are many components to the movie that people on both sides of the spectrum disagree with. It took me 10 years to watch it again and really see something worth liking. And as such, I actually started to appreciate some parts of the movie. However, one must admit that some parts and components really take away from the focus of the film. To be honest I watched it only once in 2004 and didn't watch it until it came on HBO. One thing that really turned me off was the homosexual part of the film. It wasn't because I hate gays, but because the warriors of the film were presented as girly men. I have no problem with a gay story as long as the story is realistic. I thought Colin Ferrel did okay... But one must think of the age they are in, in which these are actual rough warriors and not cute stars that know how to fight in combat more. I view the type of warrior I was looking for as something resembling 300 or Troy. But the characters were not realistic and completely flamboyant for veteran/rough warriors. The gay component actually had an interesting part to the story because it was referred and compared to Achilles in The Iliad. And as such, reflects differently as a show to demonstrate passion guided by selfishness or that of brotherhood. The Aeneid also tried to compare the differences, which I thought was interesting to point out on this film. I also think this is the main reason why people dislike this movie. There are many gay movies before this that have been rated better, but its the fact that we have hardcore warriors who are girly men. So in that sense, there was a bad selection of characters.

Another thing that took away from the main point was Angelina Jolie as his mother and Van Kilmer as his father being relived in his memory to explain his actions as a leader. Frankly, I thought the acting was poorly acted and most of the time unnecessary. I thought that this was a key reason along with the flamboyancy of the characters to distract from the main themes.

There were some neat parts to the film. The budget can be seen with the accuracy of the make up and designs, along with the battle scenes. The battle scenes were definitely better than I remember and relatively accurate. The only problem is that at times it was kind of confusing to tell what was going on. The relations between Alexander and Hephaistus along with Achilles and Patriclus is also something pretty neat to explain the difference between how a great warrior can self defeat himself with is own passions as well as contrary where they can rule the world. The props and customs through the film are very accurate and realistic, and the only thing that prevents this form being noticed and appreciated is the acting and distraction from the major points in the film.

I don't like acting single minded, however it does seem like this was a film that showed the biggest problem and yet folly of Oliver Stones career. With a great story available to him and a large budget, it shows that his creativity is to disorganized. I went from grading it originally from a 4 to an 8 because I really appreciated the military conquest more as well as the comparison with mythology. I also like the realistic approach to how his soldiers felt about over conquest and intermingling with other peoples. This is where the story really shines. However, for me the difference between a 7 and an 8 is usually opinion, which I fear may have reflected in my new decision. As such, I put it as a seven. It deserves over a 5 because it is entertaining, and even if you dislike the film, it still makes you watch at times. But there is also a good story there somewhere that was underdeveloped and deserved the 7.

America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)

Will Make you Love This Country

[10/10 · 3 July 2014]

I was kind of on my feat about what I was going to see yesterday. The beginning of the movie really felt like some Liberal Agenda type movie because it was at first primarily focused on the people who dislike this country and their reasons. However, as the movie progressed we see how the movie goes to scholars and identifies the flaws that many of the leaders of these groups, as political and other organizations try to make the United States look like an evil empire.

Dinesh D'Souza goes in great and complete detail with historians who have published false work and who are also unqualified as historians. And yet, their work is forced to be read as curriculum in many schools. It will definitely shine a new light with the many people who are trying to make a legacy for themselves as an expense to the history and greatness of this country.

No matter your political affiliation unless you really like hating this country, you will really enjoy and feel good about it after this movie. There has been a lot of propaganda about the "Imperialism of the United States" and its evil around the world. This is probably the most worked on, informative, and honest documentary I have ever seen. If you want to prove it yourself, go to the back of the Theater with you smart phone and google all the facts that are presented in this movie. I had to watch the movie three times, and did not find any discrepancies. Some things that are identified is the myth of genocide of the Native Americans, the evil of Capitalism, the stealing of work and resources from other people, and the association of the false historians that have spread their propaganda with politicians and terrorist organizations. It is completely mind blowing when you actually have recordings of what people have said. I have truly never seen so many facts and information put into one film. There are people that sadly read this review and think, none of those pieces of information can be true, but I would beg you to open your mind and look at the facts one more time. These are the facts, presented by third person point of view from people from other countries. It also makes you question where you got your original facts from and their political and social affiliations.

All in all, probably one of the best documentaries of all time! You must watch this movie! I think that it actually reaffirms love for this country which is really important. It makes you ask if this country is really evil or it is a great leader for this world. I think anyone no matter their political affiliation wants to love this country and this movie presents itself as an opportunity to do so!

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Another Bad Sequel

[4/10 · 20 June 2014]

I understand that sequels have a tendency of trying to present a moral and I feel like the plot and conflicts were hard to comprehend. Because the trailers are everywhere its fair to say that we all know that the main character's mom left her family to go live with the dragons and make her family and people think she has been dead for 20 years. I have a major problem with this plot. Firstly, she isn't even protecting the dragons. As in the first film, there is a big dragon that's defending the nest. She simply gone to live with the dragons with a stupid outfit. Secondly, I found it amazing how cool the father and son where to see her. Like, okay thats completely understandable to abandon your people and family to go spend your life playing with dragons.

There is a villain, and like the first movie, the main character with an annoying voice ignores his father's stance on him and disobeys him to go tell him that everyone can hold hands and sing songs over a fire ... His father just told him a story about how he pretty much killed everybody in his tribe. But older people are just stupid so its okay to go out and disobey them because their old. Someone important dies because of this idiot's stupidity. This is the first time Disney made me sigh during one of their movies. Because of how fast we skim over the villain's background; who I must add is the most interesting person in this whole movie, on purpose so that we just view him as a bad guy. I thought it was interesting that in one instance, they actually say something along the lines, "There are no bad dragons. Just bad people." That fact is actually disproven in the first movie as well as the second. In fact the bad dragons never get a chance to become good. In both films they must and are defeated. So, I thought that was interesting. You are supposed to just look at this one bad guy and say, "he is the reason for all this commotion..." Of course you probably forgot his back story. But whatever, right?

When you watch the film its also interesting that the important part is to ignore the negligence of both the main character, Hiccup, and his stupid, good for nothing mother who are responsible for a major character's death as well as the destruction of their city and many other people's deaths. But they saved the dragons so its okay.

I look at it in two perspectives. Firstly, I'm like 25 years old, so I'm not to young and not to old. It was a stupid movie to watch as a youth. I'm married and hope to have kids, and in that light... the movie was much more stupid. Kids absorb things from movies, and the rubbish portrayed in this film made me want to vomit. But also, I feel like I should watch movies alone before taking my family to one of these. Seriously, lets think about it as a parent. You tell your kid not to do something because you have had experience and they go do it and get someone killed. That's actually a very realistic scenario. The movie kind of makes it okay for stupid kids to go do something like this and then when they are done with the deed you pretty much have to say something like, "oh its not your fault, now let me clean the doo doo on your behind." Not sure what to think about the mother in this movie. Was it suppose to represent women can do what they want... okay, I guess. You can get a job, become a leader, do what hiccup did and make a difference. You don't have to be a dead beat mom. But hey if that's your cup of tea then go ahead. I hate dads that leave their families to go to the bars and completely ignore them as well. Also, the amount of destruction created by the idiots in this movie is amazing. There is a carefree sense being shown to our youth. I have never had a problem with Disney films in my life. I'm not a film Nazi. But what the heck was that? Hiccup does something in the film that constantly puts him in his dragon into danger. They discover a way to continue to do it, but that with the negligence and destruction left in their wake, it gives this careless vibe.

This film has an idiotic plot and a bad message to people. I could have been happy with one of the two. I graded the first an 8 out of 10. It is interesting how you would view this one compared to many others that have posted. I really don't see the hype. Maybe their is a stereotypical villain and its much easier to absorb. However, he isn't a complete stereotypical villain. The way the villain gets defeated is idiotic as well. Just watch it and ask yourself what the heck was going on.

Just to explain my ratings a bit. Anything 5 and up, I could watch again if it was a rainy day and there was nothing else on. The only reason I rated it a 4 is because there was a couple good actors voices. HICCUP sounded like a whinny little girl. Thats another thing! I wouldn't want my son thinking its cool to talk like that. The art and background of the story was pretty spectacular. But then again... I find it interesting how fanatical people can be by posting extremely good review. Thats why I don't feel ashamed to be the odd ball out. I am not hardcore about ratings.

Maleficent (2014)

Good Adaptation Considering Audience

[8/10 · 1 June 2014]

I was actually pretty surprised at the critics reaction to Maleficent. However, I'm glad at the success of the film despite the critical reviews. The one thing that one must look at when looking at this film is the fact that the film is trying to obtain two audiences. For one, the darkness of the film is something that has made many movies awesome. However, the film also struggles to maintain its child audience for revenue. As such, I think its unfair to overlook at what the film is trying to do. For one, it didn't fail with its capture of the audiences it was trying to attract.Though some of my critical response does go to the fact that I thought the movie wasn't dark enough, I still understand why it went the way it did. A lot of these critiques say that the film isn't dark enough but also said that Tim Burton's Batman was too dark for children.

Angelina Jolie's acting was terrific. I could definitely see genuine emotions with the conflicting two feelings she had throughout the movie. The special effects were also very cool, and though I didn't see it in 3D, I think that it would be worth a 3D experience. The story line was very good as well. I believe that it was forced in one way in order to keep most audiences happy. Without ruining anything, Maleficent is seen as good but her story is explained to the actions that she did. Because of this I would have liked to see her evil go full throttle throughout the film. For those that have not seen it, I think its interesting what you think will happen in the film when I mentioned that this film was located for target audiences... hint: its a Disney film. There's also a nice "Frozen" moment at the end which I like despite the fact I don't particularly like "Frozen."

As a result, I think the movie definitely had potential to be an extraordinary film. I'm not sure if it was and maybe it was changed. Or perhaps it was Disney's plan from the start. However, it was still a great watch. I have a good collection of fantasy films, and I would definitely add this one to it.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Good Story, Average Execution

[7/10 · 1 June 2014]

I think the movie was pretty good, however I feel that my appreciate of the film is completely different from most people's. As such, I explain why it is imperative that I give my review of the film from a bias position, simply stating the facts of what the movie was trying to portray and what it actually portrayed, as well as the minor film details.

Lets look at the minor details first. The effects weren't something I didn't see before, and the acting was very basic. In fact I would say the acting was very mediocre. Even though Jennifer was supposed to have a really big part with her Mystique role, she didn't really shine. As much as I missed the old X-Men, they didn't have a lot of screen time either. Surprisingly, it was Wolverine who had the most screen time and for some reason he was less rugged then he usually is. Within his over 200 years of existence he has changed a lot in the last 5. I don't think this was done well.

The plot of the film definitely had a "Inception" type feel to it. However the idea of changing the past for the future is such a tricky thing to deal with that it gets irritating when looking at the context of the universe. The fact that the past is being messed with, indicates the fact that everything else that happened in the X-Men series did not happen. It almost adds a pointless element that I could overlook. However, they incorporated so much lore in one movie that its hard to look at the rest of the X-Men films and visualize that they actually happened considering the events that are about to unfold because of Mystique. One would also question the relationship between Magneto and Mystique that we have seen throughout every X-Men series after this movie.

The one key thing that I had problems with is the fact that film did not specifically state how the sentinels create the future they are in when the person responsible for their creation was not able to because of the events that led up to his demise of the uncorrected past. Its the small key points that makes a big hit from a great hit. I feel this was so essential to explain the rest of the series. Especially considering we don't see the government showing any signs of dealing with the mutants in such an extreme way. It was obviously an underground group and I feel they hinted to it very vaguely like a girl that looks at you once and expects you to ask her out.

One another key element that should have been elaborated on is the fact that the past effecting the future had a few different types of theorems. In one hand the idea that you could change the future if you went back into the past and the other that no matter what you did the future was inevitable. We see at the end all the good guys... but no bad guys all at the School smiling and having a good time. There should have been a point settled in here because no one actually pays attention to this fact. Did they really change the future or did they prolong it? But I feel I am making the movie more interesting than what it actually did. Did you come out of the movie thinking this? Also what happened to Stryker? He is the key antagonist of the films.

A movie can have awesome concepts, however, its the films job to really portray them effectively enough. When I see all these ratings of 10 stars, I say to myself, "give me a break." It was a decent movie, but people depend on you to give an accurate and fair analysis of the film.

Why did people grade it really high? Well for one thing this was the closest X-Men story to directly come from the comic books. Is that really enough to give it extremely high grades? They spent millions making the move, I'd expect an extraordinary story, and I feel people came from the film thinking how finite the time travel continuum really is when the story isn't really about that at all. Only comic book nerds would understand this. Except... nobody else read them and because of the ending they actually need to spoon fed. I also think the dark X- Men look of the future X-Men was completely awesome. It is definitely a new, modern, look that will inspire our current generation to appreciate.

As such, though I didn't give it a harsh rating, I am actually skeptical what grade to give it. The film's entire message didn't come out as should have, even though it had an awesome plot already created for it. Many movies have really awesome concepts to them but aren't expressed. I feel like I'm back in high school where a student speaker did all his research and knows what he should say in his speech but for some reason can't get it out. I am also very sad that the real X-Men nerds when all out in the ratings, like a bunch of kids that rated a film high because they saw a nude girl. Because it's the closest thing they've wanted to see they rated it ridiculously. I also know a few friends that went to the college computers and started rating it just to boost the score. Not cool. It's troubling considering their are potential stories that could possibly not be shown in all their glory because the direction of the film and script aren't able to show the important parts.

American Hustle (2013)

Good Watch

[8/10 · 20 December 2013]

Overall, good movie. Honorable mentions to Christian Bale and Jennifer Lawrence. They did a fantastic job with the props as well as acting (everybody). The story itself was pretty descent up to the resolution in my opinion. I had a problem with the overall ending and thought it was unrealistic, but thats my take. I think it still is a pretty good watch for the big screen and I would not be surprised if any of the actors win academy awards for their performance. The movie was enriched with a good plot. I thought that the way that corruption is played was very realistic in that sense. The movie also had shades of grey that depict how fighting against crime isn't as black and white as many of the gangster movies have tried to do. But this movie definitely makes you feel for all of the characters at some point.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Descent Depiction of the Second Novel

[8/10 · 23 November 2013]

The movie overall was pretty entertaining, but to me missed the "wow" factor. I must admit, I have read the books but I am not considered a hard core fan of the lore. I think they did a descent job of trying to adapt a lot of detail in one book. I feel however, they went through the game too fast. The original game was much more complex and entertaining. It was probably due to not straining time that they skipped some of those parts.

Unlike the first movie, this is really about the depiction of the Hunger Games universe with the showing of the districts and how the government works. The actual game that is depicted towards the end of the movie is simply the result in every sense of the word to the events of the first half of the movie.

Pretty good movie... ending actually did give a surprise. I think its because it happened faster than i thought it would. I wish Thad from Blue Mountain State had a cooler part though.