Search
Search results
AJaneClark (3975 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower in Books
Oct 28, 2020
Dysfunctional and heart-warming
Read this before I made the decision to watch the movie, and I certainly enjoyed the book more (although the movie was not a bad one). The more I read the book, the more I was hooked, (possibly because it was quite a heavy read, and I wanted to finish it, again not because I dislike it). Many of the characters are likeable, and the material was well written.
A coming of age story of a young man beginning high school with the emotional and mental baggage of his traumatic childhood. Charlie was an unusual main lead, appearing quite odd at times and very emotional. He made friends with Sam and Patrick, and the relationship was heart warming if not a little dysfunctional.
My rating of the book, did not quite give it the max rating, as I felt after I had finished reading, I was left a little confused, and with a number of unanswered questions. At times throughout the novel, I kept thinking the next chapter will be the big reveal, but that chapter never came.
I can see why it has the following it has, went mainstream and has remained popular, but not a book I aim to reread anytime soon.
A coming of age story of a young man beginning high school with the emotional and mental baggage of his traumatic childhood. Charlie was an unusual main lead, appearing quite odd at times and very emotional. He made friends with Sam and Patrick, and the relationship was heart warming if not a little dysfunctional.
My rating of the book, did not quite give it the max rating, as I felt after I had finished reading, I was left a little confused, and with a number of unanswered questions. At times throughout the novel, I kept thinking the next chapter will be the big reveal, but that chapter never came.
I can see why it has the following it has, went mainstream and has remained popular, but not a book I aim to reread anytime soon.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) in Movies
May 11, 2020 (Updated May 11, 2020)
Ewoks (1 more)
R2-D2
May The Force Be With You: The End
Return of the Jedi- is the final movie out of the oringal trilogy. So is it my favorite one, no. The 4th one is my favorite one, it goes 4, 6, 5. It has good scenes like the battle between luke and the rancor, the battle planet desert beast, the battle on edor and the battle between Luke, Dark Vader and the Emperor.
The plot: Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) battles horrible Jabba the Hut and cruel Darth Vader to save his comrades in the Rebel Alliance and triumph over the Galactic Empire. Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) reaffirm their love and team with Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), the Ewoks and the androids C-3PO and R2-D2 to aid in the disruption of the Dark Side and the defeat of the evil emperor.
I realize that these movie are slow, and it takes it time to build up suspense. Which can be good, but its bad because i fall alseep, cause its boring.
Other than that, Return of the Jedi, is the end of the oringal trilogy and a good end to a excellent trilogy.
May The Force Be With You.
The plot: Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) battles horrible Jabba the Hut and cruel Darth Vader to save his comrades in the Rebel Alliance and triumph over the Galactic Empire. Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) reaffirm their love and team with Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), the Ewoks and the androids C-3PO and R2-D2 to aid in the disruption of the Dark Side and the defeat of the evil emperor.
I realize that these movie are slow, and it takes it time to build up suspense. Which can be good, but its bad because i fall alseep, cause its boring.
Other than that, Return of the Jedi, is the end of the oringal trilogy and a good end to a excellent trilogy.
May The Force Be With You.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Triple 9 (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Incoherent plot (2 more)
Bad acting
Dodgy accents
The worst movie of 2016
It's early February 2016. I’m sitting in my local cinema waiting for a secret screening to start. A lot of people are expecting Deadpool. A member of staff comes out to welcome us and tells us that it’s not going to be Deadpool. The film starts. It’s Triple 9 – a film I hadn’t heard a lot about, but I’m there for free, so willing to give it a try.
Daryl from The Walking Dead and Jesse from Breaking Bad are both in it, which isn’t a good sign as their movie track records aren’t so good. There seems to be some sort of well planned heist going on, lots of action, not entirely clear what’s going on. Then it’s over. Wait a minute, some of them are cops?! What’s that all about? No time to explain, here’s Kate Winslet. She’s a good actress, maybe she’ll help. But why is she putting on a really bad accent? It’s not very convincing, and I’m now finding it very difficult to concentrate on anything else that’s going on. Ooh, there’s Gal Gadot. Lots of people seem to be in this, maybe it will get better. But before I know it, she’s gone, and lots more characters are being introduced.
Some people are starting to leave the cinema. A combination of being pissed at the lack of Deadpool, and disappointment at the shit storm that we’re being subjected to on screen.
Some more action!! Some of it is actually quite good, but without context or explanation, it’s completely pointless. Matthew McConaughey is there, then he’s at home, then straight away in the next scene he’s in a diner. Hmm, it would be nice if some of this movie wasn’t such an incoherent mess!
More people leave the cinema. I wonder if I should join them. I haven’t paid for this, so nothing would be lost other than my time if I walk. But no, I don’t walk out of cinemas. I want to give this a chance and I hope that it might redeem itself.
Sadly it doesn’t. Characters start dying, and double crossing each other. There’s a bit more action. There’s Gal Gadot again, I’d forgotten she was in this. And there’s Kate and her dodgy accent again too. God I hope this is over soon…
And then it is over. Afterwards, people ask me what the film was about. I tell them I have absolutely no idea. They ask me if it was any good. I tell them that it was the one of the worst films I have ever seen.
Daryl from The Walking Dead and Jesse from Breaking Bad are both in it, which isn’t a good sign as their movie track records aren’t so good. There seems to be some sort of well planned heist going on, lots of action, not entirely clear what’s going on. Then it’s over. Wait a minute, some of them are cops?! What’s that all about? No time to explain, here’s Kate Winslet. She’s a good actress, maybe she’ll help. But why is she putting on a really bad accent? It’s not very convincing, and I’m now finding it very difficult to concentrate on anything else that’s going on. Ooh, there’s Gal Gadot. Lots of people seem to be in this, maybe it will get better. But before I know it, she’s gone, and lots more characters are being introduced.
Some people are starting to leave the cinema. A combination of being pissed at the lack of Deadpool, and disappointment at the shit storm that we’re being subjected to on screen.
Some more action!! Some of it is actually quite good, but without context or explanation, it’s completely pointless. Matthew McConaughey is there, then he’s at home, then straight away in the next scene he’s in a diner. Hmm, it would be nice if some of this movie wasn’t such an incoherent mess!
More people leave the cinema. I wonder if I should join them. I haven’t paid for this, so nothing would be lost other than my time if I walk. But no, I don’t walk out of cinemas. I want to give this a chance and I hope that it might redeem itself.
Sadly it doesn’t. Characters start dying, and double crossing each other. There’s a bit more action. There’s Gal Gadot again, I’d forgotten she was in this. And there’s Kate and her dodgy accent again too. God I hope this is over soon…
And then it is over. Afterwards, people ask me what the film was about. I tell them I have absolutely no idea. They ask me if it was any good. I tell them that it was the one of the worst films I have ever seen.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Express (2008) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
I Tried
I was rooting something fierce for The Express. Sure the trailer looked cheesy, but I wanted to give it a chance. And give it a chance I did. I gave it every chance in the book and it got more painful with every second. It follows the true story of Ernie Davis and his journey to make it to the NFL .
Acting: 7
There are some solid performances for the most part but it’s unfortunately sprinkled in with what I call Hallmark Acting. It’s painfully obvious that not everyone is on the same wavelength here. Fortunately, Rob Brown is strong as Ernie Davis which makes things a bit more bearable throughout the movie.
Beginning: 3
Very slow start, mainly because I didn’t really understand what they were trying to establish with the story. Ernie is narrating, but there are a jumble of images to start and you have to make a push to piece things together. It’s also a very cliche start to a story.
Characters: 10
I did really enjoy Ernie’s character which made the movie better for me since he was the focal point. I also really appreciate his grandparents in the story, particularly his grandfather played by Charles S. Dutton. They are full of love as they make a push to steer Ernie in the right direction. Shout out to Dennis Quaid as well playing the role of the gruff coach Ben Schwartzwalder. He had a few scenes that were definitely made brighter because of him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 3
Even without knowing the story (as I didn’t) you can kind of guess and see where things are going. I didn’t feel like they did a solid enough job of showing the obstacles Ernie had to overcome. According to this, he was a beast early on and basically never looked back from there. That’s all good and fine but it takes away from the conflict needed to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 5
Out of all the sports movies I’ve watched, this one doesn’t even hold a candle. I get sleepy just thinking about it at times. The story is ultimately memorable, but there are no real moments or scenes that stand out above the rest.
Pace: 6
Plot: 4
Resolution: 8
Given the rest of the movie, the ending actually wasn’t all that bad. Without giving anything away it was quality closure for the story. It made me wonder why they couldn’t pull this off in the rest of the movie.
Overall: 57
The Express was doing ok for a bit and then it just got really weird. There is a scene where Ernie is out on the field and there are these strange heat shimmers. This, like a number of other things, just had no place in the movie. Given a do over of some sort, this wouldn’t be a bad story to see unfold on the screen.
Acting: 7
There are some solid performances for the most part but it’s unfortunately sprinkled in with what I call Hallmark Acting. It’s painfully obvious that not everyone is on the same wavelength here. Fortunately, Rob Brown is strong as Ernie Davis which makes things a bit more bearable throughout the movie.
Beginning: 3
Very slow start, mainly because I didn’t really understand what they were trying to establish with the story. Ernie is narrating, but there are a jumble of images to start and you have to make a push to piece things together. It’s also a very cliche start to a story.
Characters: 10
I did really enjoy Ernie’s character which made the movie better for me since he was the focal point. I also really appreciate his grandparents in the story, particularly his grandfather played by Charles S. Dutton. They are full of love as they make a push to steer Ernie in the right direction. Shout out to Dennis Quaid as well playing the role of the gruff coach Ben Schwartzwalder. He had a few scenes that were definitely made brighter because of him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 3
Even without knowing the story (as I didn’t) you can kind of guess and see where things are going. I didn’t feel like they did a solid enough job of showing the obstacles Ernie had to overcome. According to this, he was a beast early on and basically never looked back from there. That’s all good and fine but it takes away from the conflict needed to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 5
Out of all the sports movies I’ve watched, this one doesn’t even hold a candle. I get sleepy just thinking about it at times. The story is ultimately memorable, but there are no real moments or scenes that stand out above the rest.
Pace: 6
Plot: 4
Resolution: 8
Given the rest of the movie, the ending actually wasn’t all that bad. Without giving anything away it was quality closure for the story. It made me wonder why they couldn’t pull this off in the rest of the movie.
Overall: 57
The Express was doing ok for a bit and then it just got really weird. There is a scene where Ernie is out on the field and there are these strange heat shimmers. This, like a number of other things, just had no place in the movie. Given a do over of some sort, this wouldn’t be a bad story to see unfold on the screen.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Daddy's Home 2 (2017) in Movies
Dec 8, 2017
Starts off great but soon veers off into not so great territory.
This year hasn't been good for the comedy movie genre. Will Ferrell in particular managed to star in one of the worst 'comedy' movies I've seen in a long time with 'The House' and even the anticipated sequel to one of the better comedies in recent years, Bad Moms, turned out to be a complete dud. So when a similar, Christmas themed sequel to what was essentially one of the more average movies in recent years came along, my hopes weren't exactly high. The original Daddys Home coasted along on the likeable pairing of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg but did feature a handful of funny elements, obviously enough to greenlight a sequel.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
As mentioned previously, Daddys Home 2 is set at Christmas time. Brad and Dusty (Ferrell and Wahlberg) have worked out their differences from the first movie and are getting along just fine as 'co-dads' to the kids. When their own dads (Mel Gibson and John Lithgow) pay a visit, they decide to have a 'together' family Christmas, and Kurt (Gibson) even manages to book a luxury cabin in the snow for them to enjoy it all in. It's a bit of a whirlwind setup, but for a while it all works surprisingly well. I found myself really laughing at some scenes, it was like watching a classic Christmas family disaster along the lines of National Lampoons Christmas Vacation.
But sadly, the momentum soon drops. Scene after scene fails to hit home, and some scenes even leave you wondering what the hell they were thinking by including them in the movie in the first place. Mel Gibsons character becomes increasingly annoying and it's all just a bit of a shame really. Things manage to get back on track towards the end of the movie but it's disappointing that it doesn't retain the high level of laughs and entertainment that kicked off the first third or so.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Short of Average
When you spend two hours on a movie like Mission: Impossible 2, you can’t help but wonder, “Did they make this just to piss me off?” I knew the answer was no, but I was pissed nonetheless. In the franchise’s first sequel, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back at it trying to recover a deadly virus from a rogue agent.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 9
Characters: 8
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
I wish I could have been in the editing room when they were working on this movie. Everytime director John Woo would mention anything about slow mo, I would send an electric shock down his spine. Enough already. You can slow the camera down, great! It doesn’t add to the value of the action. The John Wick movies are a perfect example of that. He cuts through guys with efficiency and speed. And you know what else? He does it without the damn doves! M:I 2 is a visual mess.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 3
When I think of great actions movies, this ain’t it. Not even close. It had flashes, but falls well short of being even average.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 6
Plot: 5
This movie breaks two major rules of filmmaking by having: 1. A love relationship that develops way too quickly and 2. A plot that advances based on sheer coincidence. You can’t be clever with screenwriting and take shortcuts at the same time, good writing just doesn’t work that way. At best, the story is mediocre.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 62
Mission: Impossible 2 reminds me of those cheesy action movies of old that you knew would be bad, but you suffered through it because you just wanted to see stuff blow up. Actually, it’s worse than that because it actually attempts to be a good movie and, in the process, takes itself way too seriously. Flashes of greatness, but moreso just a flash in the pan.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 9
Characters: 8
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
I wish I could have been in the editing room when they were working on this movie. Everytime director John Woo would mention anything about slow mo, I would send an electric shock down his spine. Enough already. You can slow the camera down, great! It doesn’t add to the value of the action. The John Wick movies are a perfect example of that. He cuts through guys with efficiency and speed. And you know what else? He does it without the damn doves! M:I 2 is a visual mess.
Conflict: 8
Genre: 3
When I think of great actions movies, this ain’t it. Not even close. It had flashes, but falls well short of being even average.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 6
Plot: 5
This movie breaks two major rules of filmmaking by having: 1. A love relationship that develops way too quickly and 2. A plot that advances based on sheer coincidence. You can’t be clever with screenwriting and take shortcuts at the same time, good writing just doesn’t work that way. At best, the story is mediocre.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 62
Mission: Impossible 2 reminds me of those cheesy action movies of old that you knew would be bad, but you suffered through it because you just wanted to see stuff blow up. Actually, it’s worse than that because it actually attempts to be a good movie and, in the process, takes itself way too seriously. Flashes of greatness, but moreso just a flash in the pan.
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated Megashark vs Crocasaurus (2010) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Is this B Monster Movie worth the watch?
Megashark vs Crocasaurus has a decent concept behind it as far as B Monster Movies go. 2 ancient giant animals somehow survived, hidden away, only to wake up for what is hopefully an epic clash. But does it deliver?
The acting amd writing is about what you'd expect from a movie like this. It's passable most of the time, but sometimes, not so much. That being said, top notch acting amd writing is not why anyone watches movies like this.
The movies biggest downfall is it's monsters. They look absolutely terrible and have inconsistent size from scene to scene. Let me break each one down.
The Megashark: this may be the least intetesting "giant monster" I've seen brought to screen, and unfortunately, itbis the star of the franchise (yes there is more than one Megashark movie). Terrible CGI aside, it's kills were extremely underwhelming, mostly resorting to flopping out of the water, to smash ships with it's tail as it hurtles over them, causing little CGI explosions. As an example of the inconsistent size, when it's fin sticks out of the water upon approaching a ship, it is about the size of the whole shark when it is seen flopping out of the water.
The Crocasaurus: This one is marginally more interesting with a wider range of terribly animated kills and the ability to be on both land and water.
The Clash: This was a laughably bad "battle between the two monsters. Most of it consisted of them forming a circle, both with the others tail it it's mouth, as the military poured missiles into them.
Overall, it's not at all a good movie, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional to a point. It has its moments where it reaches levels of fun for fans of the genre. If you catch it on TV ir maybe a streaming service (it's on Amazon Prime now), it might be worth a watch, but I don't recommend spending money on it.
The acting amd writing is about what you'd expect from a movie like this. It's passable most of the time, but sometimes, not so much. That being said, top notch acting amd writing is not why anyone watches movies like this.
The movies biggest downfall is it's monsters. They look absolutely terrible and have inconsistent size from scene to scene. Let me break each one down.
The Megashark: this may be the least intetesting "giant monster" I've seen brought to screen, and unfortunately, itbis the star of the franchise (yes there is more than one Megashark movie). Terrible CGI aside, it's kills were extremely underwhelming, mostly resorting to flopping out of the water, to smash ships with it's tail as it hurtles over them, causing little CGI explosions. As an example of the inconsistent size, when it's fin sticks out of the water upon approaching a ship, it is about the size of the whole shark when it is seen flopping out of the water.
The Crocasaurus: This one is marginally more interesting with a wider range of terribly animated kills and the ability to be on both land and water.
The Clash: This was a laughably bad "battle between the two monsters. Most of it consisted of them forming a circle, both with the others tail it it's mouth, as the military poured missiles into them.
Overall, it's not at all a good movie, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional to a point. It has its moments where it reaches levels of fun for fans of the genre. If you catch it on TV ir maybe a streaming service (it's on Amazon Prime now), it might be worth a watch, but I don't recommend spending money on it.
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019 (Updated Nov 10, 2019)
Does Salo stand for Boring?!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salo, based on the book called "100 Days of Sodom" by Marquis de Sade, is about 4 men in positions of power (The Duke, The Bishop, The Masgistrate and The President) who kidnap a large group of girls and boys and subject them to severe abuse, torture and even murder; just to, well, get their deviant rocks off basically. The cruel and sadistic abuse soon builds to a cresendo of sickening torture and murder.
I went into Salo VERY nervous; I'd read the Book so had a good idea of what was coming, and especially so as this Movie is always on those "sickest Movies ever" lists, and is almost always very near the #1 spot. Rarely does it ever take the crown though, and after seeing Salo, I understand why. It's so boring!! It's very diagloue heavy, which if done right makes a Movie engaging and compelling. If done wrong, as is the case with Salo, it becomes a tedious chore. Unfortunately for Salo, I was so bored with the pointless drivel that when it eventually did get to the shocking parts, I was over it and not as shocked as I really should have been. I mean, it was bad (two words: poop banquet) but I was left thinking "all that hype and waffle... for this?!" Definitely overrated. The small saving grace of this Movie was a bunch of Prostitutes, ironically. They were telling stories of their own deviancies; I found their stories shocking and they made me sit up and pay attention, some stories being more shocking than what we were seeing. I found those Women disgustingly wonderful and able to actually make something out of the literal crap-show that was Salo. I would only recommend Salo to the die hard "Sick Movie" fans (and that's for the sole purpose of ticking it off your list) and Cinema buffs because the Cinematography is quite nice. Other than that, it would make a fantastic sleep aid!
I went into Salo VERY nervous; I'd read the Book so had a good idea of what was coming, and especially so as this Movie is always on those "sickest Movies ever" lists, and is almost always very near the #1 spot. Rarely does it ever take the crown though, and after seeing Salo, I understand why. It's so boring!! It's very diagloue heavy, which if done right makes a Movie engaging and compelling. If done wrong, as is the case with Salo, it becomes a tedious chore. Unfortunately for Salo, I was so bored with the pointless drivel that when it eventually did get to the shocking parts, I was over it and not as shocked as I really should have been. I mean, it was bad (two words: poop banquet) but I was left thinking "all that hype and waffle... for this?!" Definitely overrated. The small saving grace of this Movie was a bunch of Prostitutes, ironically. They were telling stories of their own deviancies; I found their stories shocking and they made me sit up and pay attention, some stories being more shocking than what we were seeing. I found those Women disgustingly wonderful and able to actually make something out of the literal crap-show that was Salo. I would only recommend Salo to the die hard "Sick Movie" fans (and that's for the sole purpose of ticking it off your list) and Cinema buffs because the Cinematography is quite nice. Other than that, it would make a fantastic sleep aid!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated TinkerBell and the Legend of the NeverBeast (2014) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
To its Credit, Not Bad
As the scout fairies fear the Neverbeast will destroy Pixie Hollow, Fawn has to convince them that the creature is actually a gentle giant.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I have to give credit where it’s due. I have watched all three of the Tinker Bell movies that made it to theaters (not in theaters) and every movie saw improved visuals. It was kind of like watching the Toy Story movies get better over time. By the time they got to the third, the attention that went into just Lotso’s fur was unreal. I love the attention to detail in this Tinker Bell installment from the lush world to the unique creatures.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 8
At a very quick 76 minutes, this movie manages to do a lot in a little bit. I was very surprised at how much I got into it. The story flows smoothly and you’re rooting for the characters that are driving it.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
It should go without saying, but any movie that can tell a story in 76 minutes will not get any negative marks on the pace side from me. As previously mentioned, a lot happens in a little bit of time. I must also say that nothing ever felt rushed or forced, rather it was a natural pacing of story.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 10
Cute ending that put a bit of a smile on my face. The overall story was a hot mess, but at least it ended well. I was definitely satisfied when it was all said and done.
Overall: 79
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast suffers from a weak story that was obviously made for kids. Had they put a bit more time and energy into the plot aspect of things, the score would have been a lot higher. As it stands, it doesn’t quite get out of the “Folding Clothes Movie” category.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I have to give credit where it’s due. I have watched all three of the Tinker Bell movies that made it to theaters (not in theaters) and every movie saw improved visuals. It was kind of like watching the Toy Story movies get better over time. By the time they got to the third, the attention that went into just Lotso’s fur was unreal. I love the attention to detail in this Tinker Bell installment from the lush world to the unique creatures.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 8
At a very quick 76 minutes, this movie manages to do a lot in a little bit. I was very surprised at how much I got into it. The story flows smoothly and you’re rooting for the characters that are driving it.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 10
It should go without saying, but any movie that can tell a story in 76 minutes will not get any negative marks on the pace side from me. As previously mentioned, a lot happens in a little bit of time. I must also say that nothing ever felt rushed or forced, rather it was a natural pacing of story.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 10
Cute ending that put a bit of a smile on my face. The overall story was a hot mess, but at least it ended well. I was definitely satisfied when it was all said and done.
Overall: 79
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast suffers from a weak story that was obviously made for kids. Had they put a bit more time and energy into the plot aspect of things, the score would have been a lot higher. As it stands, it doesn’t quite get out of the “Folding Clothes Movie” category.