Change Your Image
tristandetwiler
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Tomorrowland (2015)
Do not listen to all the idiots who call this film a snooze-fest.
I don't get what modern movie-goers problems are. It seems nobody has any suspension of disbelief or patience when watching a movie. It's the same thing that happened with Godzilla (2014) where people complained we didn't see enough of Godzilla himself. Hasn't anyone from this generation heard of build-up or the idea of holding back? Of course not, because we've all been over showered with non-stop exposure to that kind of content with over the top action cheese fests like The Avengers. People need to realize that less is more. I've been going around online after seeing Tomorrowland (2015) and reading reviews. To be honest, I'm shocked at some of these people's reactions. As of Saturday May 23rd, the film holds a 49% on rottentomatoes, which to me, is pitiful. Now, with the case of Tomorrowland and what people should realize, it's not all about the world of Tomorrowland itself, but instead, the idea of Tomorrowland. *SPOILER* The pin that she receives is not actually a gateway to the land of tomorrow, but instead, turns out to be a teaser or commercial for Tomorrowland. The creators send out the pins to creative and imaginative people as invitations, asking them if they want to go to help evolve the world of tomorrow. The moral of the story is one that's actually true and very important, not preachy as some overly-sensitive people are making it out to be. It's telling people to go ahead and create what you want to see rather than just waiting around from someone else to do it. Who knows? You may be extremely talented in that area. You'll never know until you try. It's up to us to create the world of tomorrow and that's what the movie is more or less about. Besides that, it's a very well-paced action film with amazing performances from George Clooney and Britt Robertson. It's constantly moving around from location to location as more and more information about Tomorrowland is revealed. It's a tightly and perfectly executed script that doesn't reveal too much all at once, or drags out information for too long. The timing is perfect, the acting is superb, the visuals are impressive, and the idea is captivating and one that a lot of people should follow. So, in short, please do not listen to those online complaining about it being a boring film or anything like that. Just keep in mind the movie isn't really all about Tomorrowland, but the idea of it and how we can get there. It's there for a few minutes, but it's just a teaser. Go check it out!~
Titanic (1997)
Nothing on Earth Could come Between them. What kind of stupid Promotional Tagline is that?
Short one this time... might happen with movies that aren't on my Top 30 Favorite Movies of all Time List.
Plot:
If you want a historical representation of the Titanic story, just go watch A Night to Remember. The whole movie centers around a fictitious love story used to give the movie it's core appeal. It's whats used to connect the audience to the historical event. However, the story has gone beyond that. It's amazing to hear how modern teenagers and stupid children didn't know the Titanic was a real ship.
Characters:
Card-board cut out representations of real people on the Titanic and 2-D Personality characters (Fictional) thrown in for drama. I think Jack is the most bland character ever written in a motion picture. Cal Hockley is the star of the movie. Yes, he's the hero of the film. I was rooting for him, not the bizarre couple who acted like a#%holes.
Visuals:
Where the film shines easily. James Cameron labored to make the movie as historically accurate as possible. It's actually mind-blowing how complex and faithful the sets are to the real ship. The dresses, suits, attire, and objects used in the movie are key perfect for a period piece. The effects of the ship sinking are also very nice. The fact he used a real set and not Computer Generated Images is a good enough reason, but it looks great in the final picture.
Sound:
The score by James Horner is also very nice. It's a great mix of triumph, sadness, happiness, tragedy, and hope. The different tracks sound right for the situation. Some musical tracks that are used, for example, in the beginning of the movie, are interjected later into the movie to give the score a mix of, again, happiness and tragedy.
Enjoyment:
The movie had sell-out crowds for a year... it made over one billion dollars and was, at the time, the most successful film ever made. What else can I say? It was pretty great!
The Iron Giant (1999)
This was originally my favorite movie of all time.
Plot:
The entire set-up of being placed in the 1950's was a work of genius. They didn't go for the stereotypical look, but actually tried to make accurate without shoving it in your face. I'll talk more about this in the visuals. The plot starts with a giant robot crash landing onto earth. His origins are unknown and aren't important to the movie, which is fine by me. He encounters a boy named Hogarth Hughes. They become friends over-time and soon go through challenges that are caused by paranoia and military suspicion. It's great stuff (And it all makes sense).
Characters:
Hogarth is a very likable and funny pre-teen that has a unique personality. He's described soulfully through dialogue and not directly to the audience. We find out, just as a side trait, that he keeps pets that he finds out in the wild. In the diner his mother works in, they have a minor but funny conversation about the previous pets he's brought in. Speaking of which, his voice and tone he keeps the whole film work nicely; his outbursts aren't whiny, annoying, or irritating. I can't think of another child character in a movie done as well as Hogarth. He's also very clever when it comes to finding ways around obstacles. It's a little hard to describe without going on forever, but his actions, motivations, and lines spoken are... well, just great.
The Giant is a character in itself. He's come down to earth for... some mission. But due to a bump on his head, he has amnesia. So, Hogarth takes the chance to teach him and make the robot good-natured. It's a delightful story between the two characters. I wouldn't have minded if there was no action in the movie and just focused on those two. Vin Diesel is great as the Iron Giant, just saying.
Oh, and the side-character Dean is the highlight of the movie... I guess?
Visuals:
As I already stated, the 50's look of this environment is fantastic. There's a scene that takes place after the Giant and Hogarth encounter for the first time where Hogarth is in a classroom. He's busy drawing the Giant in his notebook and arguing with other students. In the background playing on a projector is an Atomic Holocaust Safety Video. Considering it's the 1950's during the Cold War and after World War II, this is a great subtle throw-back to the time period. The people in the diner I already talked about are dressed perfectly for the period. Dean, for some reason, looks like a Greaser, while all the waitresses and waiters wear the correct attire. In a later scene, Hogarth is watching a Black & White Science-fiction horror film (Involving Brains) and eating Twinkies. What's cool is the packaging on the Twinkies is made to look old-school; it's great.
Sound:
Much like how the sounds the Speeder-bikes from Star Wars made lingered in my minds (And I'm sure a lot of other peoples' minds), the footstep sounds the Giant creates are so memorable. I don't know what it is about them, but I can never get them out of my head. It's part of my collective memory now. The voice of the giant is also memorable. I don't know if it's because of Vin Diesel or the editing process, but the robotic voice the Giant gives is something that might give you an eargasm. It's just absolutely crazy how cool his voice sounds.
Of course, the one of the bigger reasons this criteria gets a five star is the musical soundtrack. It's one of the best scores I've ever heard. Right up there with some of John Williams' work. I'm not kidding.
Enjoyment:
Every time I went to my neighbors' house to be babysat, I watched this movie. I must've watched this film over thirty times. I've honestly lost track, and yet, it still doesn't get old. I loved this film as a kid and I love it now. I can't say much else but, GO WATCH IT!
Cars (2006)
The movie will drive you in circles the first time. But does it hold up?
Plot:
It's a standard "show-off man learns to appreciate the back-town life" story. Lightning McQueen, who didn't like "Rusty old Cars" before, meets up in a town called Radiator Springs. He befriends all the people over time.
Characters:
The only likable character is, honestly, Doc Hudson (The '51 Hudson Hornet Vehicle). At least he has an interesting and historically accurate back-story. Lightning McQueen, I admit, does become likable half-way towards the end of the movie. At first, it's really hard to care about it. But, then again, that's the point of the story.
Visuals:
The details in the CGI is astounding. The amount of work put into this animated feature must have of been staggering. They go as for as putting the rubber pellets on the race track like Real Racing Vehicles leave. The put immense detail into these environments. On a 1080p HD Screen with a Blu-ray Player, your mind will be driven away with awesomeness.
Enjoyment:
It's very fun to watch; especially for a second viewing. Much like the Twilight Saga Movies, the secondary characters are far better than the main cast.
Rewatchability:
Even though I said it's fun for a second viewing, that's about it. It's fun to go back and watch the character arcs one more time and, this time while watching it, just focus on the scenery.
I say GO WATCH IT!
Jurassic Park (1993)
Welcome to Jurassic Park... Best... Line... Ever!
Plot:
Just a quick note, the book and film are almost nothing alike. But it doesn't matter! This movie is a masterpiece! Dinosaurs are brought back by using DNA found fossilized THAT is used to create Dinosaurs. Much like with the modern film Avatar, it's not so much about the plot, it's about the experience of being in this world.
Characters:
Jeff Goldblum is the star. He's the only one in the movie who has a brain or common sense. In fact, some, if not all, famous lines from this movie come from this character. Ian Malcom is a scientist (Rockstar according to John Hammond) and is the ONLY one who finds this whole phenomenon to be a mistake and a giant spit in the face of god and nature.
Visuals:
The dinosaurs and visuals are groundbreaking. It's the first time CGI was used extensively to create full objects that interact with the natural objects or characters. Animatronics are still used, courtesy of Stan Winston studios, and are incredi-amazing. Ah-Ah-Amazing...
Sound:
The musical score from John Williams steals the show. Even without seeing the visuals, just hearing the music sends me back to this world.
Enjoyment:
They really should remake Jurassic Park instead of making of fourth movie. Why make ANOTHER?!
Friday the 13th (2009)
You'd think it would be great to see it on Friday the 13th, but the movie is just pathetic...
Plot:
The opening is the only scene you should watch. A bunch'o idiots go into Camp Lake forest and get butchered... about seven people are killed before the title screen comes up. That's the highlight of the movie. Ummm... a couple mating is murdered right in their hot moment... ummm... I like the Water Boating scene... ummm...
Characters:
All of the characters are idiots. Either they're druggies, sluts, dickheads, wimps, jackasses, or fuckwads. The total jerk of the film (I already forgot his name) is, for some reason, the one who gets the hot girl ass, not any of the people who are smart and do what it takes to survive. Well, lucky for us, he does get what he deserves in the end.
All of the characters are stereotypes. There's the heroic teenage girl who's going to save the day and save herself. There's the slut who's there for a sex scene. There's the jerk and the other throw-away characters simply there for death scenes (Which they aren't bad, by the way).
And of course, there's Jason Vorhees. They try to add some depth to the killer's character, but, who the hell cares? Do you think any person came to this movie for plot and character development?
Visuals:
Besides having that standard modern look, the blood looks o.k ... I guess... the sex scene is hot... I guess... the... ummm... What can I say?
Sound:
Ummm... there was a soundtrack? ...
Rewatchability:
Ummm... why did I watch this? Oh yeah... gore and nudity. Isn't that why 99.9% of people watch these movies. They're low budget exploitation movies. Which, if that was what the movie was going for, I can accept that. The only problem is, it doesn't come out and say that. Movies like Grindhouse (Death Proof and Planet Terror) are aware they're making shitty movies on purpose. This is a movie with the name Friday THE 13th. And it's a cheap movie with terrible characters, no plot, sub-pair visuals, unrecognizable music, and no rewatchability. Don't pop this movie into you're player, hell, don't watch it, hell, don't look at it, hell, forget about it.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
1, 2, Freddy's Coming for you... 3, 4, this remake isn't bad...
This is one of the best remakes I've ever seen. If someone asked me to give an example of a good one, I'd immediately think of this.
Plot:
I'm sure you've all heard the story of Freddy Krueger. If you want the full back-story, go see my Original Nightmare on Elm Street Overlook. Surprisingly, this film isn't just able to retell the story again in a unique way, but is actually able to ADD to the story and characters... successfully! The movie goes into more detail about the science of dreams and how it's possible to see Freddy or unknown entities in your dreams. After 72 hours of being awake, you will begin to experience micro-naps, which means you're dreaming and you don't know it, even if you are awake. This new TRUE fact led to some great sequences in the movie. The Grocery Store sequence where Nancy is crawling away from Freddy is one of the best scenes in any horror movie. I won't give it away, but you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.
Characters:
Unfortunately, not MUCH is added to the characters, but they are still likable. I really appreciate that they didn't kill off the character Glenn this time. He does have his moments of being a bad-ass in this movie, which is why you grow to like him. He's funny, smart, a little awkward, and nice. Just to note, he is very different from the Glenn in the original movie. Nancy is too. She's just a curious, cautious, friendly, practical, and exuberant teenage girl. Apparently she likes to paint around this time, and this leads to her discovery of Freddy. After having a dream that introduces Freddy to her, she paints of picture of him, which reveals that all the teenagers are having the same dream. It's basically the same story, but told very differently.
Visuals:
I mentioned that the effects in the classic movie are now cheesy; well, as you can guess, the effects are far better in the new movie. They're are damn good; there is too many list: The fire effects on Freddy after running out the building, the new make-up effects for Burnt Freddy, the supernatural effects, and blood. A lot of people complain that the new make-up for Freddy Krueger looks... bad. Some say it looks like a melted alien and others say he looks like they got pizza ironed onto their face. I disagree with both of these claims. This new look really does resemble a burn victim; sure, it's a LITTLE exaggerated, but so is the idea that people can be killed in their dreams.
Sound:
There wasn't really anything memorable about the music. The only thing that stood out, was the main theme of course.
Rewatchability:
It's a very entertaining movie. I would recommend it for a showing. Interestingly enough, there's apparently different and deleted sequences that were supposed to be in the movie; like over twenty minutes worth. And they were all filmed! Why were they cut?
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
The cult classic of Horror movies and Johnny Depps' first movie...
Plot:
You all know the drill, I'm sure. Freddy Krueger was murdered in an incident where the parents of Elm Street turned on him. Now, he's back or resurrected in the dreams of the children of the parents. The children are now teenagers and are being haunted by the knived-crusader. If you are killed in the dream, you die in real life. Now since this is the first movie, it's safe to say this original idea is brilliant. I've never heard of something some random, yet so awesome in my life. The concept is great, but the only thing that holds this movie up is the characters. The deaths are a little cheesy today, but they're still fun to watch. The point of the film is to see the characters survive. It's much more thrilling to see Nancy or Glenn running away from Freddy, rather than being killed by him.
Characters:
Freddy is a pure joker. He kills kids and he loves it. He knows he can get away with it and can do anything he wants in the dream, so why not have fun with it? He makes jokes and uses situations to make puns and grim humor. That's what makes this movie so awesome: seeing Robert Englund as Freddy. He's the perfect fit for the killer and does a great job being the murdering jokester. Heck, in the sixth film, he kill off one of the teenagers by using a video game console and a Power Glove from the NES. It's all about having fun at the kids' expense... meaning death. Well, I went off on a large tangent, so let's talk about the other kids. Nancy is a strong-headed and independent lady who is currently enrolled in High School on Elm Street. She's experiencing the dreams too and her life is affected by them. By the climax of the film, she does something awesome and unbelievable to stop it, but I won't spoil it. She knows what to do to not get killed, unlike some of the other kids, but still looks out for them, especially her boyfriend, Glenn. Glenn is played by newcomer Johnny Depp, from Pirates of the Caribbean and so many other damn movies now. The man is a funny, strong, caring, but a little careless all at the same time. He's a nice character that doesn't have too much depth, but works for the story.
Visuals:
They're obviously outdated, but they're still fun to look at. The stretched arms of Freddy nowadays look so damn fake it isn't funny, but don't focus on that. Think about the other things they had to do. Have you seen the film before? Remember when Freddy starts running towards Tina at night on the street? Well, there's a wide shot of him running and the camera pans as Tina runs past the camera and then the camera stops to show Freddy teleported to right in front of her. Well, the man running in the wide shot was a double and Robert Englund was standing there the whole time. It's movie-making like this that makes me appreciate how the movie was made, rather than if they look one hundred percent realistic.
Sound:
The main theme song and soundtrack have become a staple in pop culture. Almost everyone on this planet, I guarantee you, can start singing along to: "1, 2, Freddy's Coming for you... 3, 4, Better lock your doors... 5, 6, Grab your crucifix... 7, 8, Gonna stay up late... 9, 10, Never sleep again." They even did a new rendition of this song for the 2010 remake.
Rewatchability:
It's a fun horror movie, especially if you've never seen it before. At LEAST see it once. It's worth your time. And, if you DO have time, go see the third movie. (The second movie has nothing to do with the first movie)
Mama (2013)
Another sick film from the man that made Pan's Labyrinth... noa we have Mama...
Plot:
What a f#$%ed up story. A man tries to kill a little girl in the first ten minutes? And then the most head-shaking and rage-inducing twist ending happens? These are the works of Guillermo Del Toro.
Characters:
Just like from Spider-Man 3, one of the male leads is introduced and then knocked out for the whole movie. And then the leading lady, I already forgot her name, is a douche to the children. She has tattoos, she smokes, and doesn't seem to be a responsible guardian or mother figure.
Visuals:
The only redeeming part of the movie. Some of the creepy scares worked and others just helped roll my eyes.
Sound:
There was sound? I forgot there was music in this movie. It was so subtle you can't even tell it's there...
Enjoyment:
I wanted my time and money back after watching it. I don't know what else to say about this waste of a time.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
If Adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones...
Eh, that's partially true. There are some annoying aspects. Kate Capshaw's character, Willie, can get really annoying at some points. There's a whole scene dedicated to her freaking out about animals in the jungle... it's incredibly stupid. It seems as if her character has little to no purpose in the story. Really, you could have left her in Shanghai at the beginning of the movie and I bet the movie would actually be a little better. But, putting that aside, it is a very enjoyable movie. Seeing Indy back going on another classic adventure is great fun (The Mine Cart Chase Sequence is one of the best action scenes ever filmed). I still say check it out for some great fun.
Sinister (2012)
Best Horror Movie Ever Made. Period.
Plot: A family has just moved into the home of a recent crime scene. The husband, who is an author, plans on getting an idea for his new novel. What he does get are actually five Super 8 mm film reels showing families being murdered. In each case, there was the involvement of an unknown entity called Bughuul, or as called by the children "Mr. Boogie". The whole idea is that Bughuul is a Pagan Devil who lives in drawings, images, video, etc. He can only be brought out through those images. And that's the point of the these film negatives: to keep him alive... but why? Bughuul apparently feeds off of children. Children are especially vulnerable. That's why in every murder case in the movie, one of the children was missing.
I am getting ahead of myself, but the plot was set-up perfectly, it doesn't go too fast, and it doesn't go too slow. It's at just the right pace, introducing character traits and motivations. As the writer keeps going on delving into these murder mysteries, you can slowly see his personality change. It's not a major aspect of the film, but it is noticeable.
I should note that the Film reel footage is treated like those Find the Hidden Object images; you know, there ones where you have to go back and look at them closely to notice the thing in the picture that makes it stand out. That's what happens in these recordings... Characters:
Ethan Hawke plays an author who is on the verge of getting an idea for his new novel. He moves into the home of a recent crime scene to get more insight on the case. He's a very purpose-driven character; he wants to do all that he can to do it right. He spend hours getting as much information as he can about these 8mm Film reels he finds. His wife is the standard house wife and mother figure, but she does have her moments of being open and seeming caring about her husband's work. The children or more or less throw-aways, except for... wait, what am I saying? They're BOTH important to the plot. One of them is the false-prediction trigger and the other is... eh, I won't give it away.
Visuals:
Again, very disturbing imagery in this movie. The deaths these families encounter is stuff you would never want to have to face. The creature featured in the movie is also very disturbing. Bughuul, or Mr. Boogie, is one of the freakiest designs for any horror character I've ever seen. He is literally the stuff of nightmares. The point is, they did an amazing job with the make-up. Some of the best I've ever seen in any movie.
Sound:
The music is very eerie and sets the tone for the scenes well. When the 8mm Camera is panning around a sickening scene, the music has a very disturbing or even haunted feeling. This is also enhanced by good use of sound effects. I won't spoil anything for you, but I'll just say... half the movie is the audio.
Rewatchability:
This is the best horror movie I've ever seen. I luckily got to see it at midnight in the theater... and man-o-man was it scary. I couldn't walk outside my house for a couple days without being very cautious and look about everywhere. I'd say buy it on Blu-ray or DVD. This is a must-see for any movie or horror movie fanatic.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
That Man in the Hat is Back...
This last installment in the Indiana Jones Trilogy is... eh, where the series should've ended. This great adventure is just as good, if not better than Raiders of the Lost Ark. This time, the creators bring in Indy's father, played by Sean Connery, which is how to movie gets it's heart. The best moments of this picture are all about the father and son bonding in the face a danger. The sequence in which they are tied up in the castle while it burns to the ground, is one of the most suspenseful yet hilarious scenes in a movie.
Of course, I have to mention it, that it's no coincidence that the first James Bond was played by Sean Connery. Besides those other classic films mention in my Raiders Review, the James Bond films were the true predecessors to Indiana Jones. Sean Connery was always Steven Spielberg's first choice to play Indiana Jones's dad, as an inside joke to say that James Bond is the father of Indiana Jones. If that had failed, Gregory Peck and Jon Pertwee were back-up choices for the role. With that aside, Bond would always find himself in a ridiculous situation where no human being could possibly escape alive. It's all about setting a trap and seeing how the hero escapes.
It's interesting to hear how when George Lucas met with Steven Spielberg to discuss a third Indiana Jones movie, he wanted to have it set in a haunted mansion. Spielberg had just finished Poltergeist and decided that he wanted to do something different. Lucas then came up with the idea of the Holy Grail and Spielberg added the whole father & son story. Lots of fascinating trivia exists about how the script was developed; Harrison Ford cut his chin in a car accident in Northern California when he was about 20. In the movie, this cut is explained by young Indiana Jones cutting his chin with a whip.
Now... you're probably wondering what I thought of the actual film. Well, to simply put, it's great fun adventure film, just like the other two movies, but is enhanced by the all the father and son interactions. One of the more famous names in the business is what Henry Jones would call Indiana Jones: "Junior!" and the response from Indy: "Don't call me Junior!"
I could go on and on, but seriously, just go watch. It really is a great movie that gives a little background about Indy near the start of the movie, it brings the curtain down on the franchise with a great sunset shot, and, best of all, has incredible action scenes. What are you still doing here reading this? Go watch it!
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
(Insert Poster Quote Here) 'Cause this movie didn't have one, right?
... *SIGH* What in the f$@k went wrong? How'd we go from one of the best action films ever made to one of the most disappointing films ever produced? To fully understand that, I think we really need to delve down and analyze some of the basic aspects. I'm not going to go in extreme detail, I mean, if you want that, go watch RedLetterMedia. First, I'll lay down the facts and then give my opinion on the matter.
The most obvious question is, why was this movie made? Simple: Money. I mean, that's why any movie is made, but here, just like the plot, the movie just feels forced. It's been over 21 years since the last movie for... well, a reason. Steven Spielberg never wanted to make this movie. What's hilarious is at the beginning of the "Making of" Documentary, Steven opens by saying there was a reason he put the Sunset shot at the end of The Last Crusade. Because it kind of brought the curtain down on the franchise; it was time for Lucas and Spielberg to mature on to make different movies. So for George to come back and randomly suggest to make another Indiana Jones film just shows how much of a terrible filmmaker he's become. The only to recognizable movies he's ever made were American Graffiti and Star Wars. That's it. What else do you know him for? Indiana Jones? No. Steven Spielberg directed those movies, not Lucas. Heck, George Lucas didn't even direct the 5th and 6th Star Wars films, so he can't really be credited for directing those.
Okay, look, this whole review isn't here to bash George. It's just a good example of why this movie is very humiliating. It's funny to hear that the original titles for this movie were "Attack of the Giant Ants", "and the Saucer Men", and so on. What was this man thinking? Just to quickly note for those who didn't already know, George wanted the third Indiana Jones movie to be in a Haunted Castle... yeah. That's right. A Haunted house movie with Indiana Jones is probably one of the weirdest ideas ever. Why not having him search for other artifacts across the world? He could search for, possibly, a secret involving the Incas (Sound familiar?). The point is, he shouldn't be the one writing these movies. Spielberg has clearly shown he knows what he's doing with his other movies, whether he wrote them or not.
Moving on, one major problem that a lot of people touch is: Is Harrison Ford too old to be Indiana Jones? My answer to this question is: ...Ehhw'weeelll'yyeah. Um, yes, he is. Harrison Ford was about 70 when he made this movie, which, come on, is not the right age for this kind of role. Indiana Jones was great as a young, adventurous, and likable hero. Sure, you have the actor here, but does that mean the character is still likable? To fix this problem, a friend and I bounced around ideas that Lucas should have used when throwing out the concept for this movie. An idea we both liked was having a new actor come in to play the adventurous man who's going to be the center of the movie. It would be perfectly fine if he was Indy's son, of course, and we suggested that Old Indiana Jones is only in the movie for a few short scenes. We could have the new actor come into a library where Indy is, have a short conversation, and that be it. The point of these movies is to have an adventure. If you ever watched any of those classic adventure films in the early days of cinema, then tell me, when you watched those movies, sure, you saw different actors, but you saw or envisioned the same character, right? It doesn't matter in this kind of movie who plays the hero; just who does it and if they do it right.
This was not done right, but holy damn, I hadn't even talked about the plot yet. Y'Well, I ain't going to. All I can say is the entire plot is explored and explained in the first ten minutes. That's what makes the movie so boring. There were a lot of scenes I forget about until I watched the film again to remind myself. Most of them pointless scenes that just gave some of the characters stuff to do (Which is never good in any kind of movie). There a lots of comical effects that made people, me especially, roll my eyes. A lot of the grit from the other films is missing in this movie, meaning there's no heavy violence present in the movie. It lacks the excitement and thrills the other movies had, partially due to the cheap Video Game Visuals and the predictable scene set-ups. It's pathetic. I've seen B-Movies made better than this crappy garbage. ...
Which perfectly sums up this movie, Why was the concept picked and why was this movie made? I want a bigger reason than money... my guess is that George Lucas has no more Original ideas and just wants to keep making money off ideas he helped make about 30 years ago. Did you know he directed no movies between Star Wars and Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace? Yeah, that was it... Ugh, I just won't understand him. I won't.
Let's just hope the 5th one won't be as bad... I doubt it...
Rio (2011)
The exotic locations of the film are enough to get me to watch a demo reel, but the script and dialogue are far from coherent.
Giving it a second chance, I really wanted to love this movie.
From now on, I'm going to try a different format of reviewing. I'll see how it goes.
Plot:
It's a forced romance story. Haven't seen this a million times, right? Oh, and a cliché villain with no character is thrown in to give the movie drama.
Characters:
The main characters are really likable, especially Linda. Blu and Jewel's relationship shows a standard forced love story, but I suppose it works for the plot. Other than that, the rest of the characters are terrible. The villains are completely obvious and stereotypical. They have no unique personality... or anything. It's actually hard for me to describe how they acted. I even forgot their names.
Visuals:
The visuals are what make the movie. The beautiful scenery of Rio de Janeiro is what gives the movie it's core appeal. That's what my family was talking about when we left the theater. Just like how Disney's The Lion King was a break-through in hand-drawn animation, this film is how all animated CGI films should look. Simple as that.
Enjoyment:
It was really hard getting around the cringe-inducing dialogue and terrible secondary-characters, but if you can get past it, it is rather enjoyable. The side-characters are pretty much what really killed it for me. If they were different or not in the movie at all, this film would get another star rate from me.
Rewatchability:
This is one of those animated movies you see on Netflix and just skip past it to see what else is available. It's only good to see if you want to say you saw it. Just go to the real Rio de Janeiro to see the movie in 3-D.
The Smurfs (2011)
I'm not intentionally being harsh on it. This film will make you blue in the face...
Let's give the review system another try, right?
Plot:
There was a plot? Oh yeah, it's to help get the smurfs back to their world. I guess simple 'nough.
Characters:
The human characters are better than The Smurfs themselves. That's kind of sad, really. I actually cared more about the human characters, whose actors were giving half-assed performances, more than the cute blue people. That's how annoying the writers made these cartoon creatures.
Visuals:
Cheap CGI and Product Placement EVERYWHERE. I actually lost count just a few minutes after the movie started. I don't think there was one shot without a piece of advertising. (Sony, M&M's, Blu-ray, McDonalds, Rock Band, Yamaha, and more)
Enjoyment:
Nothing but eye-rolling, face-palming, and groaning jokes. It is pure cheap entertainment. It would entertain a toddler for a few minutes before they ask you to turn it off.
Rewatchability:
If I ever see this film again ANYWHERE, It's just going to put me in a sour mood. I don't even recommend a first time viewing.
Sorry if this review was short, but this film was just awful.
The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (2004)
Who lives in a Pineapple under the Sea? SpongeBob Squarepants!
In the most remote location on Earth, thousands of feet below the surface... the unthinkable has happened.
Plot:
Very well thought-out plot. The idea is just genius. Plankton, being the smart, yet careless, sea creature he is, finds a new plan to get the Krabby Patty Formula (Burger Recipe) from his enemy, Mr. Krabs. He steals the ruler of the seas' crown, King Neptune, and frames Mr. Krabs for it. With Mr. Krabs out of the way, Plankton can steal the recipe and use it to boost his restaurant's success. All the while, SpongeBob wants to be promoted to a hire position at Mr. Krabs' restaurant. His plans are interrupted when all this crime occurs; The crown was actually sold off to a place called Shell City. So, Spongebob and his best friend, Patrick Star, voyage to get it back. The entire movie is a kid's adventure film. It reminds me of a film like Disney's Toy Story, where there's content for everybody to enjoy. Steven Hillenberg really does know how to write a script that a large audience will appeal to.
Characters:
Lovable characters, except for King Neptune. He was just too fierce to begin with. Even as a kid, I never understood King Neptune. All I can say about him is: He's bald.
Visuals:
The animation is still nice today. Better than modern-cartoons that you'd see on Television. Sad to say, but this is one of the nicest looking hand-drawn films out there besides some of the Disney films.
Enjoyment:
It's a very, very fun movie. Not one scene leaves waiting for the next set-up to come into play. Everything that happens is either important to the plot or works to add drama to the story. I actually gets sad a some points.
Rewatchability:
I liked this movie so much, I saw it twice in the theater and bought the video game adaptation. It's great to watch again and again. It's genius plot and funny characters make for a great experience each time.
Back to the Future (1985)
We're sending you Back to the Future! This is my second favorite film of all time.
Plot:
Where the film shines. The opening scene is presented perfectly. It sets up flawlessly the central theme of time and space. There's even a small bit of foreshadowing with the image of a man hanging onto one of the clocks. A person hanging onto time, as most people describe it. The hint of the stolen plutonium is nicely presented with News Reel and then the reveal of the actual crate under the bed. It's great story-telling that doesn't use any dialogue, and there's a lot of it in this movie. There are SO many minor details that make perfect sense in the context of the story. Mart Mcfly, played by Michael J. Fox, goes back in time to the year 1955. He lands in a farmland that was owned by the man "Peabody". It was all replaced by the year 1985 and turned into the "Twin Pines Mall". Of course, Marty goes back to the past and knocks down one of the two Pine Tress Peabody had set up. Marty goes back to the present by the end of the film, and the mall's sign now says "Lone Pine Mall". None of this is explored through dialogue, but just through actions. It all makes sense. There's lots of people I know that never knew some of the information that Robert Zemeckis cleverly implements into this picture. The License plate on the back of the Delorean Time Machine reads "OUTATIME". Clever, right?
Characters:
"I can't believe you would loan me a car, without telling me it had a blindspot, OK? I coulda' been killed! I also want to know about this! I spilled beer all over my shirt, who's gonna' pay for my cleaning bill?" This is main villain's first scene. The character is named Biff Tannen, played by Thomas Wilson, and it's possibly the best introduction to any character in any movie. Biff is talking to Marty's father, George Mcfly, about his car that Biff accidentally totaled. It's not spoon-feeding the audience that Biff is a villain, but just from what he says delivers the same message. It's so clever, that words can hardly describe it. Speaking of George Mcfly, whose played by Crispin Glover, his character is portrayed brilliantly. Crispin's charismatic enigma truly shows how much of a genius he is. I can't even imagine any other person who could take Crispin's place. The worried and timid attitude that the character has is shown powerfully from Crispin through frail and prissy acting. The best line in the whole film is from George Mcfly when he's acting up the nerve to talk to Lorraine. In the diner and walks to the counter, "Give me a milk. Chocolate." Grabs the sliding glass, drinks it, then slams it down. You just have to see it for yourself.
Visuals:
The composite shots are so obvious, but that's what characterizes 80's action and science fiction films. It works great! I'd rather have these effects over CGI just because they're natural visual effects. The added flames and sparks added to the DMC Delorean when it's time traveling has become a staple of pop culture. It's just a shame that the set the final scene was filmed on accidentally burned down years later... TWICE.
Enjoyment:
I could pop this in any moment of any hour of any day, and it would not lose a single ounce of its charm. It's truly a masterpiece; one of the best movies ever made. The dialogue and conversations alone make it worth it.
Rewatchability:
Let me tell you, it was a real treat getting to see this movie on the big screen TWICE. Once for the AMC Exclusive Release and the Cinemark Re-Release. If you haven't seen this film, then get your head checked. This movie is one of the best films ever created. Every single little aspect about it is awesome.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
The Return of the Great Adventure
Being one of the first true adventure films to come out in years, Raiders of the Lost Ark is able to not only redefine the action genre as a whole, but be so well made that no film since it's release has been able to top it. When they stated on the poster that this movie was the return of the great adventure, they weren't kidding. What a lot of people aren't aware of is that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas created the Indiana Jones movies as a tribute to the classic adventure films and old film serials that came out during the Great Depression and World War II. Such films that were payed tribute to (or ripped off) were "Secret of the Incas", "The Treasure of Sierra Madre", "China", and "Gunga Din". In that regard, it not only does that job, but delivers a timeless movie. I could pop this movie in any day and enjoy it. It never gets old. These movies are about treasure hunting, exotic locations, and great action set pieces. Everything flows perfectly from scene to scene. There's just a perfect balance of drama, humor, action, and romance. It works on every level--
If you're able to let back and not be critical, this is a great experience that will take you back to the past. It's well worth your time and once you see it, you won't get enough of it.
PS: Check out those other classic movies. They're fun to watch too.