Movie of the Day - February
For all of 2012, I shall be watching one movie a day, recording my findings and reviewing the film. This is the collection of movies I watched through the month of February...
List activity
1.5K views
• 1 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
29 titles
- DirectorVíctor GarciaStarsJolene AndersenSteven BrandDan BuranTwo college friends unwittingly release Pinhead and his minions.February 1st, 2012 - To say that this movie is a steaming pile of crap would actually be an insult to excrement . Due to Dimension having to have this film written, shot and produced in weeks (yes, I said WEEKS) so that they wouldn't lose the 'Hellraiser' franchise rights, this little kick in the sack of horror fans was released. Let's get the big issues off the table: no Clive Barker input on the film and no Doug Bradley as Pinhead...why the hell even bother making the movie at all? Rights be damned, if there isn't a movie to put out, don't put out the movie! And that's the biggest problem with this movie: at the end of the day, it simply has no reason to exist. The plot is stupid, creating a rediculous idea of a teenager suddenly deciding to be a killer, becomes a Cenobite, decides to return home, and tortures his and his best friend's family...Im not even sure which part of that plot summary to rip apart first.And even bad storyline aside, even the worse script at least serves a purpose. The eventual villain of the film, Nico (yeah, Im spoiling it, but who cares, you shouldn't be wasting your time with this trainwreck anyways) has so many personality shifts, its hard as hell to keep up with what's actually happening in the story. However, it doesn't start with Nico...every character in this movie is just wasted. Everyone is either a stereotype, annoying, or pointless. Emma, the "love interest" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) has a subplot that delves into her actually getting joy out of the puzzlebox of the damned that goes absolutely nowhere. Ross, our burely "hero" (again, loosely) is a joke of a character, having his real heroic moment when the villain is already beaten, making his overall arc basically pointless. And then...*sigh*...Pinhead. Granted, without Doug Bradley, the character comes off as a parody of Pinhead. Whenever he speaks, I keep expecting the Waynes Bros. to pop out and make a joke about him being an earring tree. The design just feels wrong, and the character never comes off as being the Pinhead we all know and love. Say what you will about the sadomasacistic undertones (by the by, this movie is a gorefest, but really, the gore is pretty damn tame. All the carnage happens either on screen, or the effects are so laughably bad, they can't be taken seriously) but the Hellraiser franchise has always been one of my favorites because it took itself so seriously. Pinhead wasn't a man cracking jokes like a Freddy Krueger, or slaughtering for the sake of pure violent death like Jason. Pinhead tortured because he he was a judge of the wicked. He surely wasn't a being of good, but he couldn't be considered evil either. He is bound by law to not give into his darkest fantasies, and turns those fantasies against his deserving victims. "Hellraiser" wasn't some over the top 'teenagers getting slaughtered in the woods' concept because it was too good to do that...AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MOVIE IS! In all due respect to Dimension, maybe it would have been for the ebst if they would have just let the time lapse and give the liscensing rights to another studio, because any studio could have done a better job then this flaming dog turd. For a complete lack of story, lack of understand the genre, lack of actors who can act, special effects, for half-assing a flick out in THREE DAMN WEEKS, and for dumping on a once great franchise, I give this movie 1/2 out of 5 stars, and Im being extremely generous giving out that 1/2 star as well.
- DirectorWes CravenStarsRachel McAdamsCillian MurphyBrian CoxA woman is kidnapped by a stranger on a routine flight. Threatened by the potential murder of her father, she is pulled into a plot to assist her captor in a political assassination.February 2nd, 2012 - Wes Craven is mainly considered to be a horror movie director, and in more recent years, a relatively terrobile one, which is horrible, because he is one of the founding fathers of the great 80s slasher flick generation, and is pretty much an icon in the genre as a whole. However, in between the terrible flicks of 'Cursed' and 'Scream 4', Wes directed this movie, a thriller, and shows how he still has a world of talent as a director. The film features a rather interesting concept, as the lead character of Lisa (played by Rachel McAdams) is basically a captive on a flight by Jackson (Cillian Murphy). Its the type of 'damsel in distress' scenerio that hasn't been played out much, but in retrospect, it works. Lisa is the manager of a hotel who Jackson blackmails to have the Deputary of Homeland Security moved to a specifically scouted room at the hotel in an assassination attemt. If Lisa doesn't cooperate, jackson will order a hitman to kill her dad (played by Brian Cox). The cat and mouse game between Lisa and Jackson is well crafted, and the journey that these two go on from flirting with eachother at the beginning, to trying to kill eachother at the end, is quite the trip, literally taking them across the nation. The movie is also ripe with detailed eye-candy, almost every frame telling a story on its own, from the kid with the headphones on the flight, to the MILF passanger flirting with Jackson, to my favorite character, Cynthia, Lisa's co-worker (played perfectly by Jayma Mays). I guess if I had to make a complaint about this movie, its that the last 30 minutes of the film turn it into a straight forward action film, using car chases, gun shots, and explosions. They are nice, and well done, but they don't really feel like they belong in this movie. More so, because of that last half hour, when the plane lands, the entire pace of the movie changes, and you lose the concept that actually draws you into the film in the first place. Actually, out of the hour and a half of this movie, I would venture to say only 25 minutes to a half hour take place in the air, which is a bit of a let down, but its just nit picking. Still, this is a really good movie, well crafted, brilliantly acting, and of course, brilliantly directed. I do hope that as Wes Craven goes later into his career, we can see alot more 'Red Eyes' and a lot less 'Scream 4s'. RedEye is a really enjoyable thrillerthat offers alot, and has a little bit of something for everyone, and I highly recommend this as the type of movie that might be enjoyable for those who are looking for a thriller that doesn't take itself too seriously, but doesn't treat the audience like they are *beep* either. I give this movie a really good 4 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorHarold RamisStarsBill MurrayAndie MacDowellChris ElliottA narcissistic, self-centered weatherman finds himself in a time loop on Groundhog Day.February 3rd, 2012 - I watch this movie every year, and it jsut gets better and better everytime I see it. The true love of 'Groundhog Day' is more then Bill Murray's bitter sarcasm (which is top notch), or its genius concept on time travel that hasn't quite been played with before. It's the fantastic attention to detail. Not a single scene in this movie is wasted. When a side, forgettable character is introduced to the audience, they are almost automatically forgotten. But then, that side character ends up becoming an almost essential character, helping shape Phil Conners into the man he is. From Ned "Needle Nose Ned" Ryerson, to the homeless old man, everyone means something, and it really isn't even until the end of the movie that we understand what their role is in Phil's cosmic universe. Another thing that I love about this movie is that it is one of the most quoteable movies ever made (which can often be found in most Bill Murray movies). "I don't know where you're heading, but can you call in sick?" is a line I find myself saying everytime I embrace someone in a hug, most of the time having the receiver immediatly get the quote (and laughing my ass off at those who didn't). Just by the quotes alone, this movie will always be legendary. But that's the thing about this movie: it doesn't have to depend on being a simple good comedy, or dependable on select scenes, or select quotes, or select characters. It is a fantastic, well rounded movie. Everyone can find something that they like about 'Groundhog Dog', no matter what their personal preferences are. Harold Ramis made what could be considered the perfect movie, but there are two big things that sorta bother me: Rita (played by Andie MacDowell) just seems average. Not really someone that I would dedicate 34 years of my life, stuck inside an infinite warp of time, to try and win the heart of. She seems like a fine woman, but I would think it would take more then the 'girl next door' to win Phil's heart. Also, for a movie that plays with the concepts of time, the movie is relatively short, jsut over 90 minutes. I would love to see this movie as a standard 2 hours just to see how much more Murray could have done, reliving the day over and over again. Still, I love this movie to death. I watch it every year, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 4 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorRob MinkoffStarsEddie MurphyMarsha ThomasonJennifer TillyA realtor and his wife and children are summoned to a mansion, which they soon discover is haunted, and while they attempt to escape, he learns an important lesson about the family he has neglected.February 4th, 2012 - Alot of reviewers harp on this movie as being bad. Personally, I think 'bad' is a bit of a strong word. Is it a good movie? Heavens no. Though it's immediate problems could be due to its lousy timing. 'Pirates of the Carribean' had recently come out, and everyone's expectations of 'Disney Park-Based Films' were transformed, leading to the average viewing expecting more adult oriented content to its films. While that may have been the original idea, obviously, 'The Haunted Mansion' didn't get the memo. The film is written like a made for TV Disney Channel movie, only with the words 'ass' 'crap' 'damn' and 'hell' tossed in, seemingly to make the movie more edgy...however, it doesn't work. The 'edgy' moments seem really out of place, seemingly crammed in at the last minute for god-only-knows-why. Eddie Murphy is disappointing, but really, it's not Murphy's fault. The story doesn't quite know what his character should be, jumping from workaholic Dad, to comic relief, to hero, to straight-up-dumbass, to father of the year whenever its most convenient in the plot. Even your best actor would have trouble with that role. Terrance Stamp (god, I miss watching Superman 2) looks bored as hell in this role, looking like he wants nothing more then his paycheck to move on to the next role. Though, I will admit, the side-character actors like Jennifer Tilly and Wallace Shawn are always fun, and were entertaining whenever they were on screen, but sadly, they weren't enough to make this movie work. However, that is most of the bad, but there is some good. First of all, the set for the film is gorgeous. The design team who put together the movie obviously had alot of love for the original Disneyland ride, and this movie demonstrates it. The effects are also pretty good, from zombies coming to life, to singing statue heads, to suits of armor suddenly spiringing to life. All in all, this isn't a great movie, but it suffers to a means of being afraid to go all or nothing. Personally, I would like to see a Haunted Mansion movie that is a hell of alot less funny. Going back to 'Pirates of the Carribean' movie, it worked so well because, while it did have a few funny moments, it was a straight forward action movie. 'Haunted Mansion' should have done the same with the horror genre. Focus on what was scary about the original ride and elaberate on that. Don't just take the setting and make it into an hour and a half SNL skit. There are rumors that Guillermo del Toro will direct a new Haunted Mansion film focusing more on fright with no comedy elements to it. I think that's the more effective way for a HM movie to go, and with anyluck, it will be jsut as classic as del Toro's past films. I guess I would recommend this film mainly to kids, as it could at least be mildly entertaining in an 'Are You Afraid of the Dark' means, but really, the film jsut wasn't that great, and I'd have to say its just a bit below average. 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorBarry SonnenfeldStarsAnjelica HustonRaul JuliaChristopher LloydCon artists plan to fleece an eccentric family using an accomplice who claims to be their long-lost uncle.February 5th, 2012 - This is what a TV show to movie transition should look like. 'The Addams Family' was one of those TV shows that seemed relatively difficult to make into a theatrical film. It needed to capture the spirit, fun, creepiness, and camp value of the television series, only for an hour longer, and on a much, much bigger scale, and for the most part, the film succeeds. First, it needs to be said: this film is probabily one of the best casted movies ever made. Raul Julia WAS Gomez. Anjelica Huston WAS Morticia. Christopher Lloyd WAS Uncle Fester. Not only was Christina Ricci the perfect choice for Wednesday, but she practically stole the show in her role. She played the part of homicidal little girl and girl next door so flawlessly, you can't help but know that she was destined for big things. I also appreciated alot of the subtle shoutouts to the classic series like Morticia cutting roses and leaving the weeds, Gomez playing with his trains, and Fester's lightbulb in his mouth. The best movies based on extablished franchises are the ones made by people who loved said franchise, and it shows. But, sadly, there is quite alot about this movie that does bother me. First of all...Im not quite sure about the means they went about with the plot. I mean, Fester is missing, so a conwoman poses her son to disguises himself as Fester, chooses to befriend the Addams, then its revealed that he really was the actual Fester all along? WHAT? Granted, its 'Addams Family', but that's still a little too farfetched. And even still, why is Fester the 'star' of the movie? The entire plot centers around him. Nothing against Christopher Lloyd, or even the character, but Fester was always more of the side character then essential lead. Also, alot of the sight gags are relatively hit and miss in the movie. While every scene with Pugsly and Wednesday is entertaining, and Thing is always cool to see, other gags just fall flat. Gomez and Fester's brother song comes out of nowhere and sorta halts the entire movie, as does the 'passageway to the secret room' scene, specifically the slide. But still, these are minor problems, taken for what they are, and it doesn't make the film necessarily any worse, but they did need to be addressed. All in all, this is a fun comedy that is the perfect mix of creepy and funny with a world of imagination to keep the audience entertained. I would recommend this as a family flick, probabily to be watched closer to Halloween time, but there are a few over-the-top scenes, so I'd also suggest this for the older kids, and not so much the young ones. "The Addams Family" is a decent, fun, nostalgic flick with a fantastic cast, and is entertaining from start to finish, with only the occasional hiccup. I give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorBarry SonnenfeldStarsAnjelica HustonRaul JuliaChristopher LloydThe Addams Family try to rescue their beloved Uncle Fester from his gold-digging new love, a black widow named Debbie.February 6th, 2012 - Its strange to see a good tv-show-into-movie flick. It's even stranger to see a good tv-show-into-movie-sequel. But 'Addams Family Values' does more then that. This is the movie that I wish the original would be like. 'AFV' is what I like to see in movies based on original franchises: taking the plot that everyone knows about and expanding upon it, taking the characters to their limits, and bringing them into scenerios that we've never seen before. Pubert Addams being born would normally be the Jar-Jar Binks of the franchise, but it works because the film is almost making fun of the 'bring a new character in' formula. Wednesday and Pugsly going to summercamp was also a genius idea that I wish could have been used in the first flick (they were nothing but background characters first time around, which was a bit frustrating) and feel like they were put in their proper spot. The casting is once again fun, and I can't help but just smile and every every single second Raul Julia is on screen. Now...sadly, this movie makes the same mistake that the first one made...Fester is, again, the star. The entire plot ends up revolving around Christopher Lloyd's character again, but this time, was a little more disturbing (could have gone my entire friggin' life without watching Fester climax...). Once again, this movie screams fun, and as good as it was storyline wise, it's not much better then the original, but that really isn't a knock to either movie. 'Addams family Values' is a rare sequel that is good, entertaining, and you really don't need to have seen the first movie to enjoy it. All in all, its fun, but it still seemed like it could have gone to a next level. Still, for what it is, its enjoyable, and the crowd I recommended it to in my last review should enjoy this one as well. Just as the last movie, I give 'Addams Family Values' 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJ.J. AbramsStarsChris PineZachary QuintoSimon PeggThe brash James T. Kirk tries to live up to his father's legacy with Mr. Spock keeping him in check as a vengeful Romulan from the future creates black holes to destroy the Federation one planet at a time.February 7th, 2012 - This is the Star Trek movie that people have been wanting for the last two decades: a motion picture that not only brings back the original characters from Generation One, but also explores the origins of how the bridge crew of the USS Enterprise came to be...but it's not. See, I love JJ Abrams. I really liked Super 8. I was friggin' addicted to LOST. When I heard he would be directing the new 'Star Trek' movie, I practically crapped my pants. However, I've come to notice a re-occuring concept: if Abrams is involved, alternate dimensions are to follow. And that's one of the big 'FUs' of this movie. We're not following the young version of the characters we know and love. We're following these people who roughly look like, sound like, act like, and answer to the names of said characters, but due to Nero dicking around with the space/time matrix, everything gets vaguley clustered. But, the good news is that really, that is nitpicking. True, its not the same classic characters, but in many ways, it could be argued that it is better. Let's start with the cast: I am actually a fan. Chris Pine avoids going the Shatner route and makes Kirk his own...which once you think about it is what the character needs. I enjoy seeing a young Kirk screw up, lose fights, and get his ass kicked. It really makes James T. Kirk seem more...*choke*...human, making him come off as more realistic on screen. Meanwhile, I know people crap on Zachery Quinto's portrayal as Spock, but he didn't do a bad job at all. No, he's no Leonard Nimoy, but seriously, who could follow Nimoy's spock? Its iconic. It's impossible to top, but Quinto did his best, and it really came out well. The rest of the cast is also good (my personal favorite is Simon Pegg's 'Scotty') with, sadly, one big exception...Eric Bana's Nero should have been iconic. He reset time, killed Kirk's father, and destroyed the entire damn planet of Vulcan. Awesome feits, but the character himself is as bland as bland can be. We hear of all these reasons why he's angry, and why he is looking for revenge, but it becomes too 'show, don't tell' to make an impact. Plus, when characters try to speak to him and explain why his quest for revenge may be a bit much, he goes even MORE over the top. Nero could have been something of legend, but he simply comes off as far too 2-dimensional, as this role begs for a better villain. The effects for the movie are good (the glare does get REALLY friggin' annoying after a while), Nimoy's cameo is nice (if not a little forcefed), and it's awesome to finally see an epic space battle in a Star Trek film. Despite its faults, its a really good movie, standing as a love letter to the original franchise, while FINALLY breaking the curse that all the even numbered Star Trek movies were bad (this film is actually the 11th film in the franchise). It's good to see that the franchise is back, and I can't wait to see what Abrams has in mind for the sequel (*crosses fingers and hopes for The Borg*). I give this movie a relatively satisfied 4 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorSteven E. de SouzaStarsJean-Claude Van DammeRaul JuliaMing-Na WenIn the midst of a civil war in South East Asia, a general intensifies the climate of violence by kidnapping 63 UN delegates. To free the hostages, a colonel leads a group of fighters, who will have to use all their skills to be successful.February 8th, 2012 - This is, argueably, the stupidest movie ever made...and man, is it fun. Imagine if the Adam West Batman series had a multi-million dollar budget, but just for ha-has, they casted Jean Claude Van-Damme in the lead. That's pretty much what 'Street Fighter' is. It's sorta a bizarre funhouse mirror version of the video game where all the characters, in theory, should be picture perfect. I mean, Van-Damme looks like Guile. Ming-Na looks like Chun-Li (helluva lot more then Kristin Kruek as well). Raul Julia...well lets face it. Raul Julia IS M. Bison. No one else could have done that role. But in the movie's defense, the actors and actresses are pretty much based on video game characters that, aside from single frames of dialouge, really lacked character at the time. The writers had to build those characters up from scratch, so who the hell are we to say they are wrong. The again, lets face it, this movie doesn't know what the hell it wants to be. It doesn't want to take itself too seriously, but then it makes us want to believe that Bison is a legit threat...but then Bison worries about where to 'put the food court'. We should be feeling sad about the final fate of Blanka, but we've really only seen about 2 minutes combined time of him in the entire movie. Really, what it comes down to is cramming too many characters and too many plots into one hour and forty minute movie. Half the characters in this movie could have been cut out (especially Ken and Ryu, who should have actually been the stars of this vehicle who, sadly, are so useless and out of character, they might as well not exist). So, lets see...if the casting is bad, the design is bad, and the writing is bad, is there anything good? Well...it depends on your definition of 'good'. Don't get me wrong, this is a bad movie, but its still entertaining as hell. Its a film that, deep down, has alot of heart, and that heart helps you to enjoy it. See, video games are almost impossible to make into good movies. From Super-Mario Bros. to Mortal Kombat to any piece of *beep* Uwe Boll gets his grubby little hands on, they always get made, and they always come out bad...but at least Street Fighter actually tried. Street Fighter took a relatively bland (in all due respect to the fans of the game; Im not trying to knock it whatsoever) fighting game and tried to give both fans and movie goers everything that they want. All the characters. All the moves. The look. The feel. A hell of alot of effort went into the movie, and one can appreciate that effort, even in a bad movie like this. Again, its stupid, but its stupid fun at its most purest form. If you feel like watching a 'so bad, its good' flick with friends, you will enjoy the hell out of this (or if you're in the mood to hear some good one liners. Guile's mid-movie speech is so awesomely bad, it NEEDS to be seen). Still, as much as I enjoy it, I have to be fair, and give 'Street Fighter' 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorRonny YuStarsJennifer TillyBrad DourifKatherine HeiglChucky, the doll possessed by a serial killer, discovers the perfect mate to kill and revive into the body of another doll.February 9th, 2012 - "Bride of Chucky" is a mixed bag. One can appreciate that the film-makers were so focused on making this into a straight forward horror film, branching upon what the original 'Child's Play' was like, while others can aprpeciate that this was the Chucky film that officially began making straight forward humor undertones of the movie, allowing the film to finally say "Yeah, its silly, but at least we're in on the joke", but does that work for the franchise? Well...yeah. At least for this movie, really. Most of the humor is still relatively subtle, not cramming it down the audience's throats too badly, and considering that there are now two evil killer dolls, that really allows room for alot of pretty interesting gags. The casting of Jennifer Tilly as Tiffany was pretty damn good. Tiffy rides that line between sex-symbol and 'one of the guys' type of girl so flawlessly that I can't imagine anyone else playing the role. Seeing the late, great John Ridder as Jade's uncle is also pretty fun, especially since as funny and loveable as he was, he plays a villain flawlessly (see the Buffy the Vampire episode "Ted" to see just how good he can be). But, alas, there is ALOT of bull *beep* to dig through as well in this movie. True to form, Katherine Heigel (in one of her first film roles, no doubt) is horrific. But on no! It's not just a bad Katherine Heigel. It's a bad TEENAGE Katherine Heigel. her character is so obnoxious that quickly into the movie, you find yourself actually rooting for Chucky. She's like Bella from 'Twilight' in this movie: she bitches, tells everyone what she wants, then when she gets what she wants, she bitches somemore. And the rest of the actors aren't much better. Everyone is either bland or a stereotype, but stereotypes and 'Childs Play' pretty much go together like homicide and bad-plastic puns. Also, there are a ton of plotholes that just beg for explanation. From Chucky somehow leaving fingerprints from his human corpse (wait...what?) to Jesse and Jade getting out of trouble because...I dunno...a police captain said so, to Jesse and Jade thinking they can live the rest of their lives together on the $1000 Tiffany promises them, to Tiffany's pregnancy (Oh yes...I WILL get to 'Seed of Chucky' in due time...), there are moments that are so unexpected and impossible to fathom, I am actually forced to question a movie featuring puppets doing the deed in a movie not called 'Team America'. Overall, there is alot to be entertained with in this movie, but I could see this being a movie that hardcore horror flicks would hate (and from what I've heard, most do). Personally, this movie is just...okay. It's not horrible, and it does have some pretty fun scenes, but I would rather the Jesse and Jade plot be tossed out the window to really focus more on Chucky and Tiffany. Being an okay movie makes this movie average, and being an average movie gives "Bride of Chucky" an average 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorDon ManciniStarsJennifer TillyBrad DourifJohn WatersChucky and Tiffany are resurrected by their innocent gender-confused child, Glen/Glenda, and hit Hollywood, where a movie depicting the killer dolls' murder spree is underway.February 10th, 2012 - Ironically, there is a scene in this film that essentially reviews itself. At one point, the complete idiocy of what is happening around Chucky finally catches up to him, to which he says "I have had it! That's it! There is a limit to how much I can take! Look around you, Tiff. This is nuts...and I have a VERY high tolerance for nuts." This is how I feel about the entire movie. "Bride of Chucky" took the relatively humorous concept of a supernatural killer doll and made it fun, allowing the audience to be in on the joke, while still having some dark, scary moments in it. "Seed of Chucky", however, decided '*beep* it! We're going to make the entire flick funny.' Which is fine...if this wasn't designed to be a horror movie. Everything about it just seems off, as if this movie was designed to be a comedy, then horror concepts were spliced in as an after thought. Don't get me wrong, this is a very gory movie, still retaining the 'buckets of blood' the audience expects from a Chucky movie, but the kills lack any type of fright to them, getting rid of the dark and shadowy kills that Chucky is known for and, instead, has the audience see them coming from a mile away. It's not quite torture porn, but it comes damn close. Another problem that I have are the plot holes. Sure, "Bride" had plotholes you could drive a truck through, but "Seed" has plotholes you can fly a spacestation through. Glenn has a 'Made in Japan' birthmark, but Good Guy dolls were made in Jersey. Glenn urinates himself frequently, despite not having either male or female organs. Chucky and Tiffany are bright back using film replica versions of themselves, despite having no connection to their last forms whatsoever. *SPOILER!* Tiffany goes into Jennifer Tilly's body, despite that we see Tiffany die in her doll form. "Child's Play" spent 4 movies setting up specific rules, and "Seed" threw them all out the window for a *beep* masteration joke. Now...there is some good. Once again, Jennifer Tilly is alot of fun in this movie, this time showing how good of a sport she is by playing a stereotype version of herself (honestly, the 'taking the horror movie into the real world' thing always seems stupid from me. Didn't we learn anything from "Wes Craven's New Nightmare"?), John Waters makes an unexpected, yet very welcomed, acting portrayal as a trashy tabloid performer, and as much as I crap on him...I actually like Glenn. The idea of a pacifist living doll is kinda a neat twist that Im surprised hasn't been touched upon. And then...*sigh*...there is Redman...what the hell can I say about Redman? First, Redman cannot act. Ever. The man has had starring roles in at least two motion pictures, had his own sitcom, and still can't act his way out of a paper bag. Second, in this role, he's supposed to play a version of himself directing a film based on the Birth of Jesus....shouldn't this film be called "National Lampoon's Seed of Chucky"? Third, why Redman? Hell, John Waters is in the freakin' movie? JOHN WATERS IS A DIRECTOR! I could by John Waters making a crappy 'Birth of jesus' movie starring Jennifer Tilly. That would have been damn funny! But no, we have to give that role to Redman! DAAAAAAAH!!!! *sigh* Folks, I wanted to like this movie. Hell, I am so in love with the 'Child's Play' genre that I actually saw this movie in theaters opening day, but sadly, not even the genius, iconic voice of Brad Dourif could have saved this movie from sucking. Still, for excellent puppeteering, a decent design for Glenn, John Waters, and Jennifer Tilly still being one of the hardest working women in cinema, Im going to be generous (I would have gone much MUCH lower...) and give this movie 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorSam LiuLauren MontgomeryStarsWilliam BaldwinMark HarmonChris NothA good version of Lex Luthor from a parallel Earth comes to the Justice League's dimension for help to fight their evil counterparts.February 11th, 2012 - Standing as my second favorite DC Animated movie (I'll review my favorite sometime before the year ends), this is a very good movie, telling a sleek, well-rounded Justice League story with fan service up the ying-yang. I like how this movie was meant to take place between the animated series "Justice League: Starcrossed" and "Justice League Unlimited", but with a few tweeks here and there to allow it to stand on its own. The Earth-3 'Evil Counterpart' universe has always been one of my favorite storylines, and seeing them animated is an absolute treat. James Woods' role as Owlman makes this character an almost instant classic, reaching the same levels that Kevin Conroy has for playing Batman....but, sadly, that's one issue I do have with the film: the voices. The one draw back to the DC Animated movies is the constant use of celebrities in place of established voice actors. William "Don't Call Me Billy" Baldwin is a decent enough Batman, but it makes you wish for Conroy now more then ever. Also, Mark Harman is a fine Superman, but he's no Tim Daly. Considering that this movie is unofficial canon to the animated series, it was begging to have the original series voice actors back, but its a small price to pay for the rest of the package. The animation is crisp and beautiful, standing as some of DC's best. The writing is fantastic, but it does have a few minor issues, one of them being with the fact that this flick is just so big, some characters have to take a backseat to the action, like Green Lantern (but DC has about 8 billion other GL based animations, so I think he's gonna be okay...). However, the climatic showdown between Owlman and Batman for the fate of the multiverse is thrilling, Slade "Deathstroke the Termiantor" Wilson being the Earth-3 President is an awesome nod, Martain Manhunter and Rose Wilson's side-love storyline is an interesting take (though I HATE the way they ended it), and the scene with the Justice League B-Squad is pretty much worth the DVD price itself (I wouldn't dare spoil who the members of the B-Squad are. You'll simply have to see it for yourself). "Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths" is fun for all comic book fans, but if you found yourself blindly dedicated to the animated series as I am, not only is it hard to not pick out all the differences and annoyances, but you'll also see BIG comparisons to the Justice League episodes "A Better World" (which isn't really a BAD thing, but it needs to be said). This is a really good flick that set the standard for how good DC direct to DVD movies can be, and for that, I give it a highly recommended 4 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorShawn LevyStarsBen StillerCarla GuginoRicky GervaisA newly recruited night security guard at the Museum of Natural History discovers that an ancient curse causes the animals and exhibits on display to come to life and wreak havoc.February 12th, 2012 - This is a very fun family film, well designed, well written, an interesting concept, and beautiful special effects. However, this films main problem can be described in one simple word: filler. Maybe its just Ben Stiller, but but every joke in this movie (90% depending on slapstick sight gags) can never speak for themselves. After said joke is told, the movie finds it necessary to spend up to a minute explaining it. Prime examples: every scene with Ricky Gervais (who is, sadly once again, wasted in this role), Stiller's run ins with the Huns, and of course, Stiller's nearly 2 minute long run in with Dexter the monkey, and all the different mannerisms as to how he's a monkey. Without these misplaced filler scenes, this could actually be a much better film...but also a much shorter film. Then again, there is no real hate on Stiller. Ben Stiller plays Ben Stiller, the role that made him a multi-millionaire. It's not a bad thing, per say, but here, as Larry, the character is relatively generic and bland. The script tries to make his character come off as a relative failure, due to business ventures and jobs not working out for him, but I don't feel that the character conveys that too much. If he was really the hopeless loser, the second the T-Rex comes to life, he would have had a *beep* this' attitude and left that moment. But, then again, maybe Im being too hard on Stiller. After all, his role is pretty much the only weak-link in an otherwise stellar acting cast. Robin Williams plays a fantastic Teddy Roosevelt. Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan play off eachother so well, I'd love for them to do more buddy movies together. Dick Van Dyke shows that he hasn't missed a step since the 60s, nd blew my mind as to how good of a villain he can play. Basically, "Night at the Museum" is a relatively good movie, but you do sorta have to suspend your disbelief at the door. The concept of an Egyptian tablet that brings the museum to life leaves so many questions that it will just make your head hurt, so it's better to simply zone out, sit back, and enjoy. Plus, the flick actually caused ticket sales for museums all over the country to increase, so it can't be all bad. I enjoyed this movie (much MUCH better then it's sequel, which we won't even bother discussing thankyouverymuchlockthedoorwhenyouleave), and give it a slightly above average 3 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJon GunnBrian HerzlingerBrett WinnStarsBrian HerzlingerDrew BarrymoreJohn AugustSince the second grade, Brian has had a crush on Drew Barrymore and now 20 years later he wants to fulfill his dream by asking her on a date.February 13th, 2012 - This is a very sweet, very fun movie...but it's rather hard to not smell just little bit of bull hooky. Brian Herzlinger, the star and director of the documentary, seems like a nice enough guy, and the plot of the average guy getting a date with Drew Barrymore is a very good concept...but everything in the movie seems a little too convienent for words. From happening to know someone who knows someone who knows Drew actually getting close enough to meet the actress one on one, to sneaking into the 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' afterparty (funny how the flick, at no point, points out just how bad that movie is), it all just seems to work itself out a little too well, but hey, maybe Im thinking a little too much into it. I guess the main thing is the fact that Brian buries himself so much into film that it's hard not to think that this was the film that was supposed to fire him into film stardom. Brian (or at least the way he is portrayed in the film) does seem to be the average-joe-off-the-street, but at times, he does play it up a little thick. Personal training, facials, and the previously mentioned after party mission make him seem more like a fool then a man following his dream, but then again, its hard not to find him relatable and rather likeable. Alot of people say that it is a work, and its hard to tell if it is or not (Andy Dick just shows up at one point in the flick...not even as a gag or anything. He just...appears), but Im judging this movie on what it is, not what it is supposed to be. Parts are good, parts are bad, but the ending is really fun, and it's hard not to smile at least once during the last 10 minutes of the movie. Im not a big documentary fan, but for what it is, I like it. It's a tad bit too much of a fluff flick, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. All in all, I give it a 3 out of 5.
- DirectorQuentin TarantinoStarsJohn TravoltaUma ThurmanSamuel L. JacksonThe lives of two mob hitmen, a boxer, a gangster and his wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.February 14th, 2012 - One of my favorite movies of all time, "Pulp Fiction" has an interesting concept as to tell several different stories that intertwince all about criminals, murderers, drug users...and STILL makes the audience care for them in an 'honor amongst thieves' sorta way. Quentin Tarantino shows just how masterful of a storyteller he is, not only in a frame-by-frame concept, but his dialogue is perfect. His characters have a habit of speaking and reacting the same way most people would in an average situation (Samuel L. Jackson speeches aside), making the story of the frankly impossible that much more possible. The acting is also top notch, ranging for Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, and my personal favorite, and yours, Captain Wacky himself, Christopher Walken. To find flaws and disappointments in this movie is really hard, but not impossible. One of my personal biggest pet peeves is that this movie was the linchpin note to what will quickly reveal Tarantino's ego. I love love love love LOVE him as a writer, but I could not despise him more as an actor. Try as he might, he doesn't come off as a bad ass, and he never will. But, again, if that's the worst thing that the movie that brought us concepts like 'Bad Ass Mutha *beep* wallets', Jack Rabbit Slims, Shooting Marvin in the Face, Big Kahuna Burger, and the Gimp, it's not too shabby at all. I recommend this movie to everyone, and think its one of those movies everyone should see at least once. 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorMel BrooksStarsCleavon LittleGene WilderSlim PickensIn order to ruin a western town, a corrupt politician appoints a black Sheriff, who promptly becomes his most formidable adversary.February 15th, 2012 - This is, without a doubt, the greatest parody movie of all time, and argueable the greatest Mel Brooks film ever made. The western drama, unto itself, is something that has always been a perfect genre for parody, but Brooks perfected it. Everything about this film just clicks, dealing with issues from racism to creed, but walking that perfect line between ridicule and topical. Cleavon Little brings Sheriff Bart to life, making him one of the most likeable characters ever brought to the silver screen, using his own personal charm and dedication to ethics to win over those who would judge him by his color. Gene Wilder is...well...Gene Wilder. He's always a fun treat in every movie he touches. Harvey Korman pracitcally steals the show as Headley LaMarr, such a pitch-perfect stereotypical villain with some of the best one-liners ever heard. My personal favorite part of the movie is the last 15 minutes, which could very well be the most surreal ending to any movie ever seen. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a good laugh. It's a practical guaranteed good time. 4 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJonathan FrakesStarsPatrick StewartJonathan FrakesBrent SpinerWhen the crew of the Enterprise learn of a Federation conspiracy against the inhabitants of a unique planet, Captain Picard begins an open rebellion.February 16th, 2012 - Widely considered by critics and fans of the Star Trek franchise alike to be the worst of the currently released 11 movies, but is 'Star Trek: Insurrection' really that bad? Well...yeah, actually. The logical way to go about making a good ST movie (or any movie based on a television show, really) is to always raise the stakes. Make the characters go through situations and battles that they have never faced before. Events and crisises that we have never seen in the show before...and that is the problem with 'Insurrection' in a nut shell. Yes, Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, Worf, and the rest are still thoe loveable, classic characters we all know and love...but nostalgia alone doesn't make a good movie. This film sticks so close to the rules of the TV show that it might as well be nothing more then an extended episode (The recent 'X-Files: I Want To Believe' movie also having the same vibe for the same reasons). Sure, there are interesting concepts, such as Picard acting against Starfleet, leading to the innter turmoil battle between fighting for federation vs. fighting for personal beliefs, but the movie doesn't follow that close enough, instead trading in for stupid subplots about the crew degressing into aggressive, hormonal, almost 'teenage spirited' individuals, tiresome space battles, and a final battle that is almost impossible to stay interested in. 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' is one of the finest television shows ever broadcasted, and for there to have only been a single good movie from the franchise (First Contact is AWESOME) is a travesty. The franchise deserved a better story, and the fans deserved a better movie. For being nothing new, boring as piss, and leaving the fans desperate for a proper sendoff to TNG (trust me...they sure as hell aren't gonna get it in Nemesis...), I give this film a boringly-bad 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJean-Claude Van DammeStarsJean-Claude Van DammeRoger MooreJames RemarA group of gentlemen of fortune visits a legendary "Lost City", located in Tibet. They plan to steal a priceless statue "Golden Dragon" during the martial arts tournament.February 17th, 2012 - "The Quest" should be the stuff of legend, taking place on a very grand scale that is rarely seen in most action movies. However, it has two very big problems: 1.) Van Damme co-wrote it, and 2.) Van Damme directed it. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not slamming on action stars turning director whatsoever. Clint Eastwood and Sylvester Stallone both cranked out good films that they also starred in, but in this case, it's different. In those cases, it worked because the directors also played flawed anti-heroes, living in a down and out world, trying to make things a little better. In "The Quest" however, Van Damme isn't just non-flawed: he's the friggin' superman. Trying to win sympathy as a down and out clown who must win a fighting tournament to help the children of his viliage, the character of Christopher Dubois, instead, comes off as too perfect and non-relatable. He goes through so many changes from clown, to slave, to lacky, to fighter, to champion...and it all comes off as too easy for him that it practically becomes boring. It also doesn't help that the other co-writer, Frank Dux, was the inspiration for the character, making the self-pleasure undertone of the character development even more wretched. However, there is one HUGE redeemable concept to this films credit. That horrible 'Street Fighter' review I gave a couple weeks back? THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT MOVIE. Honestly, the fighting is beautiful, and the tournament undertones of each fighter representing a different fighting style is internesting, and the blending/mashing of those styles against eachother is candy to the eye. That, and the tournament and reasons for fighting making sense, offering the winner a massive dragon statue made out of pure gold (huh...this could very well be an excellent Mortal Kombat movie as well). But still, even with Roger Moore completely tossing the James Bond persona aside to play a rich, snyde character that is something of a moron, this movie has trouble being saved. All flash with little substance, but with little attention to detail on a cliche'-filled script, its hard for the flick to be anything but average...which I guess is better then bad. 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorEdgar WrightStarsSimon PeggNick FrostKate AshfieldThe uneventful, aimless lives of a London electronics salesman and his layabout roommate are disrupted by the zombie apocalypse.February 18th, 2012 - "Shaun of the Dead" stands as my favorite movie of all time...and people constantly ask me 'Why?' Sure its funny and makes for a fairly decent parody movie, but really, it's more then that. Generally speaking, 'SotD' is the perfect movie. What other movie has laughs, horror, drama, romance, and more English-ness then team time with the queen? Really, this movie has a little something for everybody, from fantastic one-liners, to a brilliant cast (most of whom are from British television shows ranging from 'The Office' to 'Spaced'). Simon Pegg, as I said in my Hot Fuzz review, is a jack-of-all-trades, taking every role that he is given and making it work, but considering how much involvement he had in the writing concept show just how the labor of love making this movie is. And speaking of labor, this movie has dozens of hidden gags that only the true horror movie fans would get, referencing the likes of "Dawn of the Dead", "Night of the Living Dead", and the "Evil Dead" trilogy. Though, I will admit, as much as I love the movie, it does have a habit of being a tad bit too British. The average-American viewer might be a bit lost in some of the insider dialogue, but its a small price to pay. And, it has to be mentioned...for a spoof, this film probabily has one of the scariest, over the top, bucket of blood moments in cinema history in which one of the lead characters is torn limp from limp in amazing bloody detail that NEEDS TO BE SEEN! "Shaun of the Dead" is an interesting movie that is damn near perfect, and stands as one of the most enjoyable movie experiences that never gets old. It is my honor to give "Shaun of the Dead" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJoel GallenStarsChyler LeighJaime PresslyChris EvansA sendup of all the teen movies that have accumulated in the past two decades.February 19th, 2012 - I believe it was Mel Brooks who once said "If you are going to make a spoof movie, make sure that the genre you are spoofing is one that you love." Sadly, with the likes of "Dance Movie" "Superhero Movie" "Vampires Suck" "Meet the Spartans" "Disaster Movie" and literally dozens of other movies along the same lines, it appears that this idea of 'labors of love' have been lost...however, in 2001, a movie came out that stood as, in my opinion, the last good spoof movie. That flick? "Not Another Teen Movie". Here is a movie where you can tell that the writer and director really are teenage movie fans as every single cliche (and practically every single teen movie itself) is established in this, a virutal love letter to the 80s. The pretty ugly girl. The popular jock. The bitchy cheerleader. Every role is perfectly picked out, featuring some damn funny work by Chris Evans and Jamie Presley, amongst others. This movie is so rediculously packed with eye candy for the movies that have come before it, ranging from shout outs to "Pretty in Pink", "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", "The Breakfast Club", "She's All That", "Never Been Kissed", and even a brilliant, scene stealing role from miss teen movies herself, Molly Ringwald (who even, in my opinion, has the best line in the entire movie with the straight faced *beep* Teenagers...") However, much like those same spoof movies that came after it, "NaTM" also suffers from having to depend a little too much on the gross out humor, which alone is funny, but a little goes a long way, so when a lesbian kiss consists of one of the smoochers able to apply for social security, it becomes pretty dang cringe worthy. "Not Another Teen Movie" overall is both a blessing and a curse. It showed how the spoof movie can still be relevant and fun as hell if given enough effort and love, but at the same time, it paved the way for less then stellar flicks along the same lines to cram itself down our throats. The movie is good if you want to enjoy a mindless laugh, but bare in mind: if you haven't seen the movies it pokes fun at, you will be lost. Big time. Luckily, I DID get the references, and I enjoyed the movie. 3 1/2 out of 5.
- DirectorJohn McTiernanStarsSean ConneryAlec BaldwinScott GlennIn November 1984, the Soviet Union's best submarine captain violates orders and heads for the U.S. in a new undetectable sub. The American CIA and military must quickly determine: Is he trying to defect or to start a war?February 20th, 2012 -This is the type of movie that is hard to review because its a arguement between personal opinions and general audience expectations. "The Hunt for Red October" is a naval/military movie through and through, something that I have little to no interest in. However, just because I have no interest in it, does that mean the movie is to blame if I have difficulty getting into it? Well, no. Not really. But at the same time, much like I said in my "Shaun of the Dead" review, the best types of movies are the ones that offer a little something to everyone as a jumping on point for the movie. In my most honest opinion, that's this movie's flaw: it's a talkie. Its a major, total, upfront, 90% of the entire movie talkie, and that's usually fine, but as I said earlier, when you don't usually follow military films, its hard to understand what is going on. As a third-party spectator who is simply coming along for the ride, it can become rather difficult to keep up when the only way you can keep track of who is doing what is via Russian singing and the designs of the uniforms. However, there is still quite alot of good in this movie: Alec Baldwin's role as Jack Ryan is extremely entertaining and stands as the best type of protaganist one would want to back, but that could be because he's the only character in the movie that is allowed a fair amount of backstory. We see Ryan's homelife, his family, a glimpse into his hopes and dreams, and why he does his job. It allows him to be the most relatable character. Another thing I love about the movie is the music, as a beautiful Russian chorus guides us through the movie, creating its setting along the way. So, in a nutshell, if you love military style movies, you're going to love this. Personally, I don't, but Im not going to crap on it just for personal taste. It has alot of like, and alot to simply be down right confusing, so I give "The Hunt for Red October" 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorRobert IscoveStarsSander VanocurJane KaczmarekBree Walker3 fragments of an asteroid hit USA, China and France. The events are covered by TV news reports. More meteors come. Is it natural events or alien aggression?February 21st, 2012 - On October 30th, 1938, Orson Wells set out for one specific goal: to scare the living piss out of everyone who happened to own a radio. On October 31st, 1994, the CBS corporation looked to do the same exact thing to everyone who owns a television set. "Without Warning" is a mockumentary, beginning its broadcast as a simple, made for TV movie (featuring a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo by Loni Anderson...who I cannot wait to get to in my future '3 Ninjas: High Noon on Mega Mountain' review) that suddenly cuts to a breaking news report, featuring three seperate meteorite strikes on Earth that seemed far too specific to be coincidence, aiming at the fact that it could be caused by an extra-terrestrial attack. 'Without Warning' really does stand as this generations 'War of the Worlds', taking advantage of its made for TV budget and even playing with it to a degree with the use of commercials, static interference, and even actual file footage to make it seem as realistic as possible. Aside from vetran actors such as Jane Kaczmarek and John de Lacie, 'Without Warning' relied mainly on using established news anchors like Sander Vanocur and Bree Walker...which is both a good thing AND a bad thing. On paper, it seems like a good idea to screw with the audience by using well known news journalists, but on the other hand, acting is not their strong-suite, so its hard to by conviction if there is an alien attack, and they have the same attitude as if they are giving me a five-day forecast. Another problem is, in all due respect to the movie, it's lack of balls. Constantly, be it during commerical breaks or random text-pop-ups throughout the movie, it finds itself reminding the audience that it's not real. Understandly, this was done by CBS to avoid a degree of panic, but it seems almost like the movie wanted to have it both ways: not creating panic while still taking itself seriously. I would have rather avoided all the warnings and leave the audience blind. Anyone who misses the fact that 'Star Trek: The Next Generations' Q suddenly took up a job as a field reporter deserves to be left out of the loop. Still, for a TV movie, this movie is a stroke of genius, and I highly suggest it to those who are a fan of mockumentaries, specifically the 'Paranormal Activity' 'Cloverfield' or 'Blair Witch Project' group. Overall, I give 'Without Warning' 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorTony ScottStarsTom CruiseTim RobbinsKelly McGillisAs students at the United States Navy's elite fighter weapons school compete to be best in the class, one daring young pilot learns a few things from a civilian instructor that are not taught in the classroom.February 22nd, 2012 - The movie that perhaps defined the 80's, 'Top Gun' is pure cheese, through and through. Don't get me wrong: when you have Tom Cruise, jets, and topless beach volleyball all in a movie made during a decade where the world was searching for its identity, you clearly were not going to get 'Citizen Kane', but 'Top Gun' seems like a movie that isn't entirely sure what it wants to be. Is it a fun filled, macho jet movie? Is it a love story? Is it about a pilot's quest to get revenge for his fallen friend? I had mentioned earlier that I enjoy 'Shaun of the Dead' ebcause it has a little bit of everything for everyone, with different genre styles mish-mashed together as one, and to its credit, 'Top Gun' tries to do the same thing...but sadly, the genres simply don't mash well together. The musical sequence in which Cruise's character, Maverick, looks to win his dream girl over not only comes out of nowhere, but it is beyond cringeworthy. Even more so, but when Maverick ends up actually winning the girl over, its so suddon and random that it defies all believeability. Now, to those who enjoy this movie, I know what you are thinking: 'Screw all the sensitive stuff! We like this movie for the jet action!' Well, to each their own, but really...the jet action isn't all that good. The effects for the jet scenes are piss-poor, the use of stock footage so obvious that Im surprised the editors actually are able to use the same jet twice. Another problem that I have with this movie is *SPOILER WARNING!* with the death of Maverick's best friend Goose...the hell? Its so random and so pointless. Is it supposed to make Maverick man up? Want revenge? Grow to rage against the machine? I don't know. It makes Maverick angrier, but it doesn't exactly direct his anger anywhere. At the end of the day, I will admit that this is a bias review, and much like 'Hunt for Red October', Im not really a fan of fighter jet movies, so this could be another movie just not designed for me. Its corny, has some cliche elements, and does have noteable dialouge, but for the most part, its noteable for how bad it is (and yes, I know people who actually say 'I feel the need...THE NEED FOR SPEED' and say it in a serious manner. It hurts my soul every time). However, judging it as a movie onto itself and taking expectations out, I am forced to give 'Top Gun' a less then stellar 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorJames CameronStarsArnold SchwarzeneggerLinda HamiltonEdward FurlongA cyborg, identical to the one who failed to kill Sarah Connor, must now protect her ten year old son John from an even more advanced and powerful cyborg.February 23rd, 2012 - Im not sure if 'T2' is the greatest movie ever made, but it is, without a doubt, the greatest sequel ever made. Once one thinks about it, this is almost the impossible sequel. With 'The Terminator', lightning struck. It was the perfect combination of sci-fi and horror, making The Terminator itself stand as an iconic character, even if he would be making a one time apperance. Though, when the movie became a success, a sequel was bound to be made. People were optimistic. People thought it would be good. People were, however, not expecting it to be THIS good. "Terminator 2" takes everything that is perfect about the first movie and simply adds to it, allowing us to meet John Conner (played by Edward Furlong, one of the few good child actors) as well as bringing back Linda Hamilton as Sarah Conner, and of course, Arnold himself as The Terminator. Making Arnold the hero this time around was a stroke of genius, taking something as terrifying as the Terminator, and making him a force for good, actually looking to protect instead of destroy. Casting Robert Patrick as the T-1000 was picture perfect, not only making the villian almost as iconic as the hero, but adding its own personal sense of dread in his own unique way, raising the stakes from before. I think the best thing about this movie is the fact that almost every character in the movie have their own personal journey. Sarah goes from broken, battle damaged soldier to a selfless, strong willed mother. John goes from troublemaking boy genius to a caring, compassionate leader of tomorrow. Hell, even the Terminator himself goes from literal robot to a deep hero, almost capable of being human unto himself. For 1991, everything about this movie still is a visual treat, from special effects to weapons handling to explosions. Its a crammed movie, but even crammed, it still comes off as smooth and enjoyable, still standing timeless over 20 years later. "Termintor 2: Judgment Day" stands as one of my top ten favorite movies, and has been for quite some time. I like to imagine films like this standing more as James Cameron's legacy then the likes of 'Avatar', but to each their own. It is a flawless movie to me, and it gets better and better each time I see it. I am very happy to give this film 5 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorGeoffrey SaxStarsPaul McGannEric RobertsDaphne AshbrookThe newly-regenerated Doctor takes on the Master on the turn of the millennium, 31 December 1999.February 24th, 2012 - I am a huge Doctor Who fan, leaping in during Series 2 of the reboot, and have happily enjoyed the series since...but thanks to this movie, I almost didn't. "Doctor Who" was an American attempt to reboot te franchise, giving it a whole new direction and mythos, and proceeds to rather violently bollocks it up. The main reason most people seem to have a problem with this movie is usually summed up into one word: Americanized. I'll admit, considering that the Doctor Who franchise is born and bred in England, its hard to not take a bit of offense at the fact that the 7th Doctor is 'killed' via a gang style shooting, the 8th Regeneration taking shape in the same style as Frankenstein's monster (complete with movie dialogue in the background), and of course, The Master being played by Eric Robers (wait...what?). I personally think that the main problem with the movie is that you can tell the writer, director, and producers were fans of the show, but not the die-hard fans that only a David Tennant or a Russell T. Davies can use to drive the show. Paul McGann, god bless him, simply wasn't the best choice for the Doctor (I swear, it seems like the only Doctorish thing he does in this movie is get captured), and former Doctor Sylvester McCoy deserves much MUCH better then what he got. However, there are actually some things about the movie that I like. I like how, for a Fox related reboot, the movie still follows DH canon, storyline, and doesn't simply restart the story as other reboots are known to do (something that would come to play in the future series). I also like the idea of the Doctor coming to America and having an American companion, even if it was only for one adventure. The concept of the adventure taking place during December 31st, 1999 is a neat touch too, dealing with a 'specific moment in time'...though it makes one ask why the movie wasn't made in 1999. The problem with recommending this movie is that the target audience is rather obscure. Fans of the current series will hate it, and non-fans will be relatively bored and/or confused. Its not the worst movie one will ever see, but that doesn't make it good. Sadly, I can only give 'Doctor Who' 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorChris SivertsonStarsLindsay LohanJulia OrmondNeal McDonoughA young woman who was missing reappears, but she claims to be someone else entirely.February 25th, 2012 - The torture porn genre of horror is a touchy subject. Often attempted, and rarely successful. However, in the defense of the films such as 'Captured', 'Hostel', and the 'House of Wax' remake, at least those films were aware of what they wanted their finished product to be. 'I Know Who Killed Me', however, has no freakin' clue what it wants to be. Does it want to be torture porn? Sorta. But it also wants to be: a slasher, a drama, a psychological thriller, an artpiece, and often times, a really crappy music video. 'I Know Who Killed Me' is what would happen if Showgirls were a Lifetime Television Movie, setting up an actually interesting concept of a girl getting kidnapped, found, and suddenly having the memory of a totally different person, and honestly, if the film would have directly dealt with that, it could have been a decent movie...but screw that! We have Lindsay Lohen! Who needs art, integrity, and a plot that actually makes sense when we have having pole-dancing! Another point that needs to be made is, yes, Lindsay Lohen is in this movie, but its sorta hard to say she is at fault. The 'other girl' she plays in this movie is obnoxious as hell and almost impossible to give a crap about, but that's not directly her fault. The character is written poorly, and most of the problem stems from there. The fact that she plays a double amputee, in all due respect to those who have experienced the pain of amputation, makes the vivid 'sex scene' a miserable experience to watch, and sadly, that's not the worst thing about the amputation subplot...oh no! She ends up getting a bionic hand. No, I did not make this up. This does not fall from my 'Transformers' review: THEY ACTUALLY GIVE A CHARACTER A BIONIC HAND! And no! It's not supposed to be a 'graphed on hook' or 'manaquin style hand'. The doctor (played by the dude from Outkast for some reason) gives her a 'human like hand that completely works the way a real hand does', aka 'we wrote this in because we don't have a green screen budget, so Lindsay is going to wear a glove'. The idiocy of the scene knows no end. See, I'll be spoiling this movie's ending, but the entire subplot of the movie involves stigmata, and more appropriately, the way stigmata can sometimes effect identical twins (example: pinch one twin, the other feels it). That alone could not only make for an interesting movie, but its a subject that Hollywood hasn't really touched before...but again, we have to those EVERYTHING into this movie! Stigmata turns into a stupid slasher flick in which a killer doesn't actually kill Lindsay's original character, so the other character saves her, even though the killer (who is Lohan's piano teacher who feels rejected that she chose writing over music) buries the first Lohan alive for plot convience, and they figure out they are twins, and...................You know what? I think the idiocy of this movie just broke my mind for a second, so I'll make this short and sweet: "I Know Who Killed Me" sucks, pure and simple. It took a decent and interesting idea and fed it to the sharks just to cash in on torture porn. I recommend this movie to those who get off on amputees (Im sure they are out there) and am only awarding this movie 1 out of 5 stars because the supporting actors and actresses actually try their damnedest to make this stinker work, and for the most part, they are alright. But other then that, this is perhaps one of the worst movies made in the last decade. 'Hellraiser: Revelations' is worse, but Im sure if you gave this stinker 3 DAMN WEEKS to film as well, it'd get the same score.
- DirectorSteven BrillStarsAdam SandlerWinona RyderJohn TurturroA sweet-natured, small-town guy inherits a controlling stake in a media conglomerate and begins to do business his way.February 26th, 2012 - Unlike other critics, Im not afraid to admit that I am a BIG Adam Sandler fan...or at least I was until Sandler decided in his more recent films to overly enthesis the fact that he is, was, and always will be the hero of the film (but those are reviews for another day). 'Billy Madison', 'Happy Gilmore' and even 'Big Daddy' and excellent examples of good Sandler films, ones in which there are gross out, likeably dumb jokes, but tons of heart that actually make the films good. In the late 90s and into the early 2000s, SandlerMania was running wild, as each and every film the man touched was instant gold. 'Mr. Deeds' is one of the films that came out right at the end of that run, standing as one of his more noteworthy flops. But is it really that bad? Well...no. It's an okay movie (no Billy Madison), but it just doesn't really have the same idontknowwhat to make it fantastic. Personally, I have a theory. I call it the 'Sandler-Neutral-Zone', in which if there is a movie where Sandler either plays ultra nice ('Little Nicky', Grown Ups, etc) or overly mean ('Eight Crazy Nights', 'Funny People', etc), its most likely going to suck. Only films where he plays not too nice and not too mean does he really shine. In 'Mr. Deeds', Sandler doesn't just play nice: he plays the nicest bastard you'd ever meet. Sandler is so sickingly sweet that it becomes almost a put off. Now, the idea of a 'fish out of water coming to New York and becoming a billionaire' is interesting, but giving twenty thousand dollars to a couple in a restraunt because its their anniversary? No one is like that! Also, the film finds it important to point out that Deeds enjoys writing greeting cards which are awful, which would be funny...except the movie likes to treat the cards like they are poetic gold. Really? Couldn't get a Hallmark writing into the writers' room, Sandler? Also, as sad as it is to say, I hate Winnona Ryder's role. I usually am a big fan of her as an actress, but the 'reporter falling for her own story' cliche has been done to death, and her 'small town school nurse' duel identity is almost as sickeningly sweet as Deeds himself. The film does offer some fairly decent laughs (Deeds' butler, played by a pre-Transformers John Turturro, is actually a likeable breath of fresh air for the movie, and is entertaining everytime he's on screen) and tries to have the same amount of heart as Sandler's other movies, but its just not likeable. Also, the ending seems really rushed and forced, a twist ending that is so out of left field that you can tell it was thrown on just to get any type of happy ending. However, if you're a Sandler fan, and just looking for a stupid laugh, I recommend it, but sadly, I was looking for more. Much more. And for that, the best I can give 'Mr. Deeds' is a 2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorGeorge LucasStarsEwan McGregorLiam NeesonNatalie PortmanTwo Jedi escape a hostile blockade to find allies and come across a young boy who may bring balance to the Force, but the long dormant Sith resurface to claim their original glory.February 27th, 2012 - Legend has it that there are only two movies that every living, breathing nerd has to hate: 'Batman and Robin' and 'Star Wars: Episode One'. True, 'Batman and Robin' is god-awful, but really, at the end of the day, Episode One isn't really all THAT bad. Don't get me wrong, its far from the greatest Star Wars movie (and simply due to the rest being at such a high standard, I suppose it could be considered the worst), but I have two schools of thought as two why this movie is so throughly despised. One, this movie has bad moments. Quite alot of them, in fact. Jake Olsen as Anakin, too much focus on too many characters, and anything involving Jar Jar Binks standing out as the biggest moments. But that's the big thing to consider about the flick: moments. Let's take Jar Jar, for example. Yes, he was a non-stop pain in the ass, but the movie didn't entirely focus on him, giving every moment he wasn't on screen (or at least the moments he wasn't speaking) a breath of fresh air. In fact, there are moments in this movie that are so insanely good that one could pretty much forget the bad, like the Podrace, and the badass Quigon/Kenobi vs. Maul battle. Also, let's focus on Jake Olsen for a moment. Yes, he's a bad actor. Yes, they should have written the part for an older actor, but I don't even think Anakin as a character is so bad. The Podrace scene shows that he can stay cool and focused under pressure, and his young faithfulness to his mother, yet with a deeper desire to become strong and follow his heart was good at planting the seeds that would forge Darth Vader. The 'yippee' and 'wizard' complaints are, all in all, just nitpicking in my opinion. The other school of thought is the hype period. Star Wars came out in 1977 and Phantom Menace came out in 1999. Considering that it was over 20 of hype and anticipation building, NOTHING could have lived up to the hype. Everyone was expecting instant gradification in the film. Everyone expected Anakin to immediatly become Vader, the Federation to suddenly become the Empire, the Death Stars' creation, and Chewbacca kicking ass with a young Han Solo. When the fanboys didn't get any of the following, they were outraged, which is also bullcrap. Everyone seems to judge this movie more on how they wanted it to be, what it could have been, and how its stacked up to the other films as opposed to what the film is on its own. Is it perfect? Hell no. Does it need improvement? Sure, Lucas could have made a few tweeks here and there, but is it the worst science fiction film ever made? Is it the 'Manos: The Hands of Fate' of our generation? Absolutely not. I think on its own merit, the Phantom Menace is an interesting, but in need of a few cuts here and there, movie, and an interesting introduction to the Star Wars saga. I think for those who saw it years ago and hated it, watch it again and give it another shot. You might see something that you missed. Im happy to give 'Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace' a not too 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorRussell MulcahyStarsMilla JovovichAli LarterOded FehrSurvivors of the Raccoon City catastrophe travel across the Nevada desert, hoping to make it to Alaska. Alice joins the caravan and their fight against the evil Umbrella Corp.February 28th, 2012 - What's the point of writting a review for a "Resident Evil" movie? Really. Its relatively pointless. The people who hate the franchise have already heard the hate, time and time again, and I certainly have nothing new to add. On the other hand, the people who love the franchise are obviously morons, and probabily cant read as it is (relax, I keed). In 'Extinction's' defense, however, I can at least say there is a little good. Both the first and second movies were absolute clusterfudges, bringing in too many different ideas and concepts, from action, to superheroism, to drama, to slasher, to suspense, that it was hard to keep up. 'Extinction' is relatively different from that, allowing the franchise to primarily focus on it's bread and butter: the zombie fans. It allows more zombie killing and straight forward brain eating goodness that people allow, though the backdrop does become a little distracting. While the concept of the Umbrella Corp takes something of a backseat (for the most part, anyways) to the ideas of this being a straight forward zombie/end-of-the-world movie, I feel like the concept is pushed a little too far. Example: Vegas ends up being a baron wasteland distopia buried in sand? In what? Months? Jeez! Also, like my review for 'Apocalypse', Alice once again stands are the benchmark for overhyped heroes, standing as the typical 'stuff can't get done and the day can't get saved until Alice gets here'. We do get a little more backstory about Alice being part of a cloning plot to make the ultimate super soldier, which is fine, except for the fact that IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A RESIDENT EVIL MOVIE! Hmmm...on retrospect, I think the best way to describe this franchise is as a leveler tool: whenever the franchise improves on one aspect, it gets even stupider in another aspect, keeping the idiocy of the movie good and equal. Other then that, there really isn't much else to say. It's not much different from the last two movies, and doesn't have anything better this time around. In fact, with the lack of Jill Valentine this time around, Im forced to take away the half-star the previous movie was given. All in all, this franchise is dead, but people still keep seeing the movies, and the movies keep getting made (for some ungodly reason). You know the drill: avoid at most costs, and try and enjoy a good zombie flick instead. 1 out of 5 stars.
- DirectorSofia CoppolaStarsKirsten DunstJason SchwartzmanRip TornThe retelling of France's iconic but ill-fated queen, Marie Antoinette. From her betrothal and marriage to Louis XVI at 14 to her reign as queen at 19 and to the end of her reign as queen, and ultimately the fall of Versailles.February 29th, 2012 - Im pretty sure that Sofia Coppola suffers from the same disease Tyler Perry does: she seems like such a hard working, kind women that no one wants to tell her that her movie sucks. People seem to love 'Marie Antoninette', for critics seem to either love it, or at least acknowledge it as a fairly decent movie. Sadly, I do not see it as either. 'Marie Antoinette' is to the degree of having Kirsten Dunst wearing victorian clothing in your house, smiling like a crazy person the entire time, while having a 'Now THATS What I Call Music" album playing in the background. Every single moment of this movie strikes me as more of a commercial for shoes, pastries, or hair care products then an actual biographical film. Oh, but I know what you are thinking: "But Hype, Sofia Coppola admitted that it's not a REAL biographical movie, and more of an abridged version to relate more to the audiance."...which would be fine if Coppola simply would have written and directed an entirely fictional movie. The fact that she purposely fudges the aspect of a real person's life (one who died by having her head sliced off, by the way) as a means to entertain is relatively dickish. But really, Im not here to judge the realism of the flick; Im here to judge the film on if its a good movie or not. The main cast, with Kirsten Dunst, Jason Swartzman, Molly Shannon, Rip Torn, Steve Coogan, and others are fairly good for what they do for the movie, but there simply isn't enough meat in the script for the cast to work on. I swear, 90% of this movie feels like its nothing but watching people doing random, simple tasks in absolute silence. Is there an artistic backdrop concept to the movie that Im missing? Maybe, but if that's the case, they did a pretty poor job in gaining the attention of the outsider viewer such as myself. And then, there is the biggest gripe about the movie...the music....WHAT...THE...HELL? I have no idea why they figured that the background soundtrack to a movie about Marie Antoinette should be upbeat pop, but it sticks out like a sore thumb in this movie. Again, not sure if it was an artsy decision, but if that's the case, it was a poor one. However, the good news about the movie is that they went through far too much trouble of focusing on the look and feel of the movie...and it actually succeeds there. The movie looks beautiful, and really does capture the timely feel that Antoinette herself actually lived through, and that really can be appreciated. All in all, I can respect the fact that this movie is a chick flick, but I sorta see it as the 'Avatar' of chick flicks: all flash and no substance. There are worse biographical movies in the world, but compared to others such as 'The King's Speech' 'Capote' and my personal favorite biographical movie, 'Chaplin', there are so many better ones out there as well. I give 'Marie Antoniette' 2 out of 5 stars.