Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The House (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Worst movie I've seen in a very, very long time
Usually when I review comedies I start off by complaining about how disappointing they tend to be these days. Sometimes they manage to prove me wrong (Bad Moms), sometimes they’re not quite as bad as I was expecting (Baywatch). The last time I was seriously annoyed about how bad a comedy was it was Office Christmas Party, but even then that managed to raise a laugh or two. The House though, well that goes way beyond that, taking it to a whole other level by having absolutely no laughs in it at all!
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Will Ferrell is Scott, Amy Poehler is his wife Kate. When their daughter Alex gets into the university she wanted, they’re over the moon. Especially as the town runs some kind of scholarship program, paying for one lucky students education each year. This years lucky recipient is due to be Alex but when sleazy city councilman Bob decides to cancel the program in favour of building a huge pool for the town, Scott and Kate need to come up with another way of raising the money. Recently divorced neighbour Frank has a big empty house and between them they hit upon the idea of building a casino in his home, somewhere for the locals to come and spend all their money. Things go well for a while, then things get way out of hand. Cue the opportunity for some riotous, hilarious humour…
Only there’s none of that. It’s riotous, but this is just such a lazily written movie that the humour is non-existent. Featuring a date rape ‘gag’ within the first five minutes(?!) it just gets progressively worse from there. Pointless, nonsensical playground style bickering, name calling and random violence feature heavily throughout in a scatter-gun attempt at trying to raise a laugh. All of this ends up coming across as either poorly written, badly improvised, or both. Even the editing is a total disaster – in one scene Amy Poehler has a guy standing right behind her, cut to another camera and he’s gone, cut back and he’s there again, cut back and he’s gone!
The biggest disappointment about this is the complete waste of talent. Admittedly, Will Ferrell is on a downward spiral anyway since his Anchorman days and the brilliant Step Brothers, but you’d still expect more from him than this. One of my favourite TV shows, Parks and Recreation, stars Amy Poehler as the hilarious Leslie Knope, so I’d expect way more from her too. Even her movie roles haven’t been too bad so far. I guess it just proves that if you’ve got a seriously dud script on your hands, there isn’t really much that anyone can do to fix it. This isn’t just a bad comedy, it’s a bad, bad movie.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
JoyKilla (6 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Dec 5, 2017
Justice Beer League
Contains spoilers, click to show
What should have been an epic film for the decade fell flat on many levels. I got burned out with the whole superhero theme a while back. So I may have brought a little heat into the burning fire.
They took nearly 4 hours of a film and cut into barely 2 hours. Imagine the editing room floor for just a moment. So much was cut in this movie and seemed so choppy. You can see the edits that most try to hide. The bad guy of the film looked straight out of a cartoon. Which wouldn't be bad if everyone else wasn't portrayed to be a real life character.
It's a good popcorn family flick but for fanboys who have waited years for this movie will be greatly saddened.
They took nearly 4 hours of a film and cut into barely 2 hours. Imagine the editing room floor for just a moment. So much was cut in this movie and seemed so choppy. You can see the edits that most try to hide. The bad guy of the film looked straight out of a cartoon. Which wouldn't be bad if everyone else wasn't portrayed to be a real life character.
It's a good popcorn family flick but for fanboys who have waited years for this movie will be greatly saddened.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Daddy's Home 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 6, 2018 (Updated Feb 6, 2018)
The first Daddy's Home was hardly a comedic masterpiece. It was sub par for the most part and only really borderline enjoyable thanks to a cast that seemed enthusiastic and game to play a part in it. For the sequel, like Bad Mom's (a franchise where it's first movie was actually great) it has decided to bring in the grandparents. That didn't work out well for A Bad Mom's Christmas and it doesn't work for Daddy's Home 2 either.
There's nothing wrong with the performances in this one as such. Nobody is all that great, but they do the best they can with the material. The material however is the problem. This script is dire. It's a comedy without any jokes, a christmas movie without any heart and a family story where almost everyone is unwittingly unlikeable. I can't think of a single joke, a single moment that made me laugh and when a film contains Farrel, Wahlberg, Gibson and Lithgow- that's unforgivable.
There's nothing wrong with the performances in this one as such. Nobody is all that great, but they do the best they can with the material. The material however is the problem. This script is dire. It's a comedy without any jokes, a christmas movie without any heart and a family story where almost everyone is unwittingly unlikeable. I can't think of a single joke, a single moment that made me laugh and when a film contains Farrel, Wahlberg, Gibson and Lithgow- that's unforgivable.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Anaconda (1997) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022
Is there a better example of a film that's so shit but so great at the same time than Anaconda? I would argue that there is not. Something bad about Anaconda - Ice Cube making "your mum" jokes. Something good about Anaconda - Ice Cube making "your mum" jokes. Something bad - Jon Voights dodgy Paraguay accent. Something good - Jon Voights dodgy Paraguay accent...you see where I'm going with this. Everything that makes this movie shit also adds to its weird brand of 90s monster movie charm, right down to the snakes facial expressions sometimes being disturbingly human. I'm also a fan of how Johnathan Hydes character goes from being the token pampered rich dude who is uncomfortable in a jungle/safari setting and has a silly amount of suitcases (there's always one of those fuckers in these kind of films) to the only one who I wanted to survive. Character growth right there.
God bless Anaconda for being so entertainingly shite 🖤
God bless Anaconda for being so entertainingly shite 🖤
Rickstrong23 (216 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jan 2, 2018
Dcs awnser to avengers
I had waited to see this movie .lots of bad reviews .but i liked it over all.as a whole.its gotta be hard to intergrate 6 heros in a movie.but being a marvel guy over dc .i still enjoyed it .there were holes .the whole end of the world thing wasnt really felt in my mind.and seemed to easy to win.but maybe jucstice leauge 2 will be better.green lantern should be apart of that.jason mamoa who i like as aquaman was ok.felt thrown together.
Glen Banyard (13 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 12, 2019
Several potential plot holes (1 more)
One bad error
End of the era
So to date I have seen this six times, pretty much done the cinema checklist, bring seen it in 2D, 3D,4DX and IMAX. It still never fails to get the emotions running at one scene for me.
It's it perfect? No, there are potential plot holes, and one very noticeable continuity error, however given for a film running 3 hours, you don't notice it pass at all.
I maybe bits as I have been a comic book geek for too many years, and even a bad Marvel movie is still pretty good, this though, a whole new level
It's it perfect? No, there are potential plot holes, and one very noticeable continuity error, however given for a film running 3 hours, you don't notice it pass at all.
I maybe bits as I have been a comic book geek for too many years, and even a bad Marvel movie is still pretty good, this though, a whole new level
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
"is that a monkey?"
There are very few things that I respect more than a movie that is unafraid to embrace its own stupidity. Kong: Skull Island has thinly written characters, extreme tonal dissonance, bad dialogue, and a complete and utter disregard for the talents of Oscar-winning actress Brie Larson, but it’s absolutely glorious in its brazen spectacle. Its thin characters and tonal dissonance don’t matter as much because it thoroughly commits to its premise, and it seems like the movie is one ridiculous–but hilarious–visual gag after another. The bad dialogue is all part of the fun. It’s not trying to be something it’s not, and that’s something I appreciate in any movie, especially a nostalgia-laced B-movie blockbuster about a giant ape.
Some might draw connections to the time era explored or the interplay between man and nature, but the movie succeeds at its main goal: entertain the hell out of the audience. Actors like Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are (pretty) pieces of cardboard in this, but seasoned vets like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly thoroughly understand what it is they’re being asked to do. They both ham it up big time, with Vogt-Roberts’s visual flourishes adding to their performances in beautiful ways throughout. They both give pitch perfect performances that are 100% appropriate for their roles, and Reilly in particular becomes the heart and soul of the story. As an actor, the best response to a movie like this is to embrace the ridiculous, and Jackson and Reilly certainly do.
However, the ridiculous can sometimes move aside to reveal a visually stunning movie with a large heart. The production design is gorgeous, and the classic shot–a character whose back is turned to us, staring up in awe and fear at Kong–is breathtaking. The movie itself has that type of reaction to its own character, to its own force of nature, looking up in wonder and childish glee as Kong destroys another piece of its surroundings. This is big, bold, and confident filmmaking, precisely because the movie understands what it’s not.
Some might draw connections to the time era explored or the interplay between man and nature, but the movie succeeds at its main goal: entertain the hell out of the audience. Actors like Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are (pretty) pieces of cardboard in this, but seasoned vets like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly thoroughly understand what it is they’re being asked to do. They both ham it up big time, with Vogt-Roberts’s visual flourishes adding to their performances in beautiful ways throughout. They both give pitch perfect performances that are 100% appropriate for their roles, and Reilly in particular becomes the heart and soul of the story. As an actor, the best response to a movie like this is to embrace the ridiculous, and Jackson and Reilly certainly do.
However, the ridiculous can sometimes move aside to reveal a visually stunning movie with a large heart. The production design is gorgeous, and the classic shot–a character whose back is turned to us, staring up in awe and fear at Kong–is breathtaking. The movie itself has that type of reaction to its own character, to its own force of nature, looking up in wonder and childish glee as Kong destroys another piece of its surroundings. This is big, bold, and confident filmmaking, precisely because the movie understands what it’s not.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Oct 24, 2018 (Updated Oct 24, 2018)
Good ensemble cast (2 more)
Cool set design and use of space
Nice cinematography
Enjoy Your Stay
In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to go into a movie without already knowing a bunch of information about it. Somehow Bad Times At The El Royale managed that. Even though I was a week late to seeing this movie, I was still able to go into it with very little knowledge about what was going to unfold. That in and of itself is an impressive feat in 2018.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
I had a great time with this movie. I loved the cast here, Jeff Bridges and Jon Hamm are among my favourite actors working in Hollywood and I though that Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job playing the villain for a change. The rest of the cast were fantastic too, other than Dakota Johnson, who was pretty wooden, (as we have come to expect from her.) As an aside, Cynthia Erivo's voice completely blew me away, I know that she has done some Broadway shows in the past, but she sounded incredible in this and I liked the way that her singing was tied in with the plot.
Bad Times is written and directed by Drew Goddard, who was also behind Cabin In The Woods and there are some similarities here, if you swap the horror elements out for mystery. I have also seen multiple reviews compare this to a Tarantino movie. There are obviously similarities in the structure that this film uses and the out-of-chronological-order structure that a Tarantino movie tends to follow, but I'd argue that Bad Times has it's own distinct and unique style.
I also thought that the cinematography was very effective throughout the film. The opening scene was very well shot, as was the scene when Hemsworth's character was introduced. The score also worked well with the plot and the dialogue and script were well written too.
The main negative that affected my enjoyment of the movie, were the decisions made regarding the pacing. The movie is split up so that we see things happen out of sequence or they are seen more than once from a different perspective. We are introduced to each new character and then we are given their backstory via a flashback. The main issue with this structure is that the flashbacks break the momentum of the events happening in the current story. Without spoiling too much, towards the end of the movie, everything comes to a head and an intense fight/shootout breaks out. Then, for some unknown reason, the filmmakers decide to slam on the brakes and give us another arbitrary flashback. It totally broke the immersion and intensity of the shootout sequence for me.
Overall, I had a good time watching Bad Times. I had no expectations going in as I didn't know much about the movie other than what had been shown in the trailers and I enjoyed witnessing what the movie had to offer. If you are looking for an exciting, suspenseful thriller, then you could definitely do worse than spending a stay at The El Royale.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
That Song
So this movie, why does this movie get hated on so much. Well one- no micheal myers in it. Two- the plot doesnt connect to the other movies. Three- the plot makes no sense. Four- the title of the film, lies their are no witches. Their are many reasons why this movie gets hated on. That why so many people love it, well because it is so different from the others, it is a oringal film, it is so weird, its so bad its good. Their are other reasons why people love this movie. So what happens in it you may say well....
Hospital emergency room Dr. Daniel "Dan" Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacey Nelkin), the daughter of a murder victim, uncover a terrible plot by small-town mask maker Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), a madman who's planning a Halloween mass murder utilizing an ancient Celtic ritual. The ritual involves a boulder stolen from Stonehenge, the use of Silver Shamrock masks and a triggering device contained in a television commercial -- all designed to kill millions of children.
Also that damn song, that annoying song that plays on the tv.
So would i reccordmend this movie, well yes i would. It is so different from the others, its own movie.
Hospital emergency room Dr. Daniel "Dan" Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacey Nelkin), the daughter of a murder victim, uncover a terrible plot by small-town mask maker Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), a madman who's planning a Halloween mass murder utilizing an ancient Celtic ritual. The ritual involves a boulder stolen from Stonehenge, the use of Silver Shamrock masks and a triggering device contained in a television commercial -- all designed to kill millions of children.
Also that damn song, that annoying song that plays on the tv.
So would i reccordmend this movie, well yes i would. It is so different from the others, its own movie.