Bruce722 Reviews

Trainwreck (2015)

Amy Schumer is just not funny.

[4/10 · 25 December 2015]

Trainwreck is just painful to watch at times. Amu Schumer is NOT a leading lady and it has nothing to do with her looks, which is what feminists will claim. She is, quite frankly, obnoxious. Surprisingly she isn't a bad actress but too often her true personality comes through and, as a protagonist, it destroys much of the film. I think she would be better suited for the obnoxious friend of the main girl. Bill Hader does a solid job but is mostly forgettable. Honestly, the only reason this film is worth watching is for the plethora of celebrity cameos, highlighted by LeBron James. They all play versions of themselves in hilarious skits that fit neatly into the plot. If it wasn't for James, John Cena, Amare Stoudemire, etc. this film would be among the worst comedies I've seen in recent memory.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)

Closed out the franchise well.

[8/10 · 14 December 2015]

While the first part of this two-part final installment was pretty poorly done, the second installment was largely redeeming. Mockingjay - Part 2 gave the series the closure fans long desired and did a great job of delivering the goods people have come to expect from the franchise. Of course, Jennifer Lawrence was once again breathtaking. Her ability to deliver such a wide range of emotions and characters separate her from most of Hollywood. What has made this franchise unique, however, is how the rest of the cast consistently matches her performance, and at times seems to even surpass her. It only took the fourth and final movie but Josh Hutcherson finally felt like Peeta Mellark. His performance in this film will surely be underrated as the franchise will get catalogued with the rest of the teen girl franchises of this generation and that's a shame because he shined. Liam Hemsworth and the rest of the supporting cast also carried their weight. The visuals were also fantastic as the continued "coming to life" of the book was a joy to see. The only real negatives with this particular movie are largely tied to the first one. Because this is essentially the second half of an incredibly long film, it felt lacking in plot development. I also thought the director failed to capture what might be the most critical scene in the entire book series. It was still in the film but it was lost a bit in the chaos. Schindler's List comes to mind in how it was able to convey such strong emotions with such simple visuals. I also feel that a similar cinematic effect should've been used at the end to truly capture Katniss' emotions as that key event unfolded. Overall though, I think this franchise will be best suited for marathoning.

Inside Out (I) (2015)

One of Pixar's best!

[9/10 · 14 December 2015]

Inside Out is one of the best animated films I've ever seen. The creativity that went into this film is yet another example for why the people at Pixar might be the greatest film makers of all-time. The voice acting was incredible, the visuals were flawless, the characters came alive in realistic ways, the plot was interesting and surprisingly moving, and the concept overall was just genius. The only flaw was that it did drag just a bit towards the middle of the film but that's just my opinion. Overall, I think this is a film that adults might actually enjoy even more than children. Honestly, I don't think children will even be able to appreciate much of the film.

The Equalizer (2014)

Decent but failed to live up to its potential.

[6/10 · 24 October 2015]

I had high hopes for this movie and, while it largely lived up to them, I felt there were some glaring flaws that could've easily been avoided, which would've resulted in a superior film. For one, Antoine Fuqua did a mediocre job with the directing role. It almost felt like he had never directed a film in his entire life, found a list of all the cool camera tricks, angles, and cinematic effects, and felt compelled to include each and every one of them. How did this impact the movie? It made it seem as though it lacked any identity whatsoever. Secondly, there is a critical moment in the final major conflict resolution that is just terrible. To avoid spoilers, let's just say that the protagonist that had been established throughout the film makes a decision that he would never make. That, combined with the plot getting a little out of hand, made the last quarter or so of the movie hard to swallow. It wasn't all bad, however, as the rating should reflect. The acting was great and fighting sequences were done incredibly well. The build up and initial character and plot development were fantastic too. Unfortunately this film suffered from having a director who wanted to do everything instead of making a great movie.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Better than expected.

[7/10 · 24 October 2015]

Mad Max: Fury Road was far from a perfect film but it was much more enjoyable than I anticipated. It was exciting, the acting was great, the story (yes, unlike what you've been told there's actually a story) was captivating and, while not really all that original, it felt fresh and unique in how it was told. Overall, this was very entertaining and I look forward to future installments. The negatives were that Charlize Theron has way too large of a role. Even in the trailer and promotional posters, she's clearly the star. Does this hurt the film? Not necessarily but it feels unnecessary. The story should've focused more on Max. We got almost no backstory for his character whatsoever and he maybe speaks a dozen lines. The other element that was a weak point was that some of the scenes were a bit too ridiculous. I expect some of it but not to the extent where you have a guy standing on top of a vehicle traveling at high speeds through the desert while playing an electric guitar with flames coming out of the tip. Yeah, that happens.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Simply amazing!

[10/10 · 15 August 2015]

The Theory of Everything was absolutely captivating. I use that term because I'm having trouble finding another word that does the film justice. Entertaining? Yes, but not in the traditional sense. Enjoyable? Sure, but it didn't leave you filled with joy necessarily. It pulls you in completely for two hours and doesn't let you go. Eddie Redmayne delivered one of the best roles I've seen in recent memory in his portrayal of Stephen Hawking. Not to be forgotten is Felicity Jones, whose genius in playing Jane Hawking is up to the task of matching Redmayne. Those two carry the film and director James Marsh does a brilliant job of harnessing their roles and creating the masterpiece that was this movie. From the acting to the score to the cinematography to the choking feeling you get at times, this movie is a must watch.

The Wedding Ringer (2015)

One of the best comedies of the year.

[9/10 · 26 July 2015]

The Wedding Ringer was hands down one of my favorite comedy movies in years and I honestly didn't expect that at all. From trailers I thought this was going to be the least original comedy possible, merging Hitch and The Weddings Crashers into a cheesy, generic plot. After actually watching the movie, while it does have some of the elements from those films, it feels authentic and original throughout. The cast is all fantastic, with Josh Gad and Kevin Hart not having to carry the film but delivering roles that could've if required. The laughs weren't as abundant as I hoped but the film doesn't rely on them in place of content. The movie is rich with content so it doesn't use cheap laughs as a crutch the way most comedies do. Instead, it builds the humor and then truly delivers incredible comedy when it wants to. The emotions in the movie feel legitimate and the plot and characters develop in a way that makes them seem real... like if you know them and can see this taking place. Bottom line, it's difficult to explain why this movie translates so well. The critics proves once again that they don't understand humor but the actual viewer reviews seem rather positive, which is where I would suggest looking to in determining whether or not to watch the movie. For me, the refreshing take on comedy, where content doesn't take a backseat to laughter but doesn't replace it either, made for a great movie worth watching.

John Wick (2014)

Not much there but it is fun to watch.

[5/10 · 26 July 2015]

If you're asking me if John Wick is entertaining, the answer would be a resounding "yes". The action is fantastic throughout most of the film, the gunplay is some of the best in modern cinema, and the unique elements of the film make for a combination of intrigue and strange humor that make the fairly short movie a joy to watch. If you're asking me if John Wick is a good quality movie, the answer is more of a "meh, not really... but it's not bad." The acting is almost non-existent (seemingly by design to fit Keanu Reeves' style), the plot is about as generic as they come, and the ending is laughable. During the first 90% of the film, they made an effort to be as realistic as possible. That end sequence almost erased all of it. It was still an entertaining movie but I was hoping for more.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Better than expected but not without substantial faults.

[6/10 · 23 July 2015]

Jupiter Ascending was much better than I anticipated. The acting and cast does a solid job, with Eddie Redmayne continuing to establish himself as a premier actor in Hollywood. The effects were adequate, though not necessarily up to par with the best of modern science-fiction/fantasy films. Honestly, the biggest drawbacks of the films were that the "strangeness" of the world presented to you (and the universe itself) doesn't feel sufficiently developed, the plot feels a tad bit cliché, and the plot seems to force the romance element on the audience around the halfway point in the film without every developing it previously. Negatives aside, however, and it was still a fairly enjoyable film with some potential.

Ant-Man (2015)

Great movie!

[8/10 · 23 July 2015]

Ant-Man was actually a really good movie, one of the better movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as of late. Paul Rudd was perfect for the role and the rest of the cast did marvelous (get it?). The movie took a little while to get going and it had one of the same drawbacks that the first Iron-Man had (where the villain can operate his suit with no practice whatsoever even though a large portion of the film is spent with the protagonist learning to control his "powers") but once it got going, the humor, action, and excitement was non-stop. Surprisingly, there was a fair amount of emotion as well, which helped connect the audience to the film. Overall, it's a must see for MCU fans and superhero fans in general but I think casual movie-goers will also appreciate it.

Get Hard (2015)

As usual, the critics are clueless when it comes to comedy movies.

[8/10 · 12 July 2015]

The first 20 minutes of so of the movie are pretty mediocre but they set the stage for the hilarity that ensues in the next hour plus, where Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart are comedic geniuses. They play the same roles they typically do, with Hart being a pint-sized black man with a lot of bark and little bite and Ferrell being the big, lumbering air head who's innocence and ignorance somehow make him endearing and obnoxious at the same time. However, those roles blend together perfectly in this movie as the two have great on-screen chemistry. The supporting cast is also fantastic and this movie is, overall, a really good comedy that most people will likely enjoy.

Ted 2 (2015)

Funny but the plot develops poorly.

[6/10 · 4 July 2015]

Ted 2 does exactly what it set out to do. It delivers a bunch of laughs built primarily on crude, in-your-face humor and it doesn't take itself too seriously. Seth MacFarlane proves once again that he has his finger firmly on the pulse of his target demographic because the theater was in stitches throughout most of the film. That being said, a comedy doesn't have to sacrifice cinema in order to deliver laughs. I think the first movie was a prime example of that, as it was a genuinely good movie in addition to being hilarious. Instead, MacFarlane turns this movie into a live-action version of Family Guy. The plot is choppy and it essentially feels like a series of random skits, pieced together to form the semblance of some over-arcing plot. It was easily worth watching because it was hilarious but I expected a quality film closer to that of the first one.

Jurassic World (2015)

Solid way to reinvigorate this franchise.

[7/10 · 4 July 2015]

Jurassic World was a great way to reinvigorate this film franchise. The first two were incredible but the third film left a sour taste in most people's mouths so this movie had a lot on its plate. If it flopped it would've certainly been the end to this franchise for a long time until years down the road Hollywood gave it the inevitable remake treatment. However, if it succeeded in delivering a quality product that fans would enjoy, the sky was the limit. Well, lucky for us fans, it delivered a really good film. With regards to the cast, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard do a great job as the male and female lead counterparts; Vincent D'Onofrio once again takes the role of the villain and he does so masterfully; Jake Johnson provides great comedic relief throughout the film (maybe too frequently to be honest); to be frank, the only weak part of the cast were the two child leads. In what has become an unfortunate cliché in this franchise, children were given too large of a role and they couldn't deliver the necessary emotions. The first film got lucky there... more often than not, banking a large portion of your film on the capabilities of child actors is a mistake. Thankfully this was not a movie entirely reliant on acting so it wasn't a grave error but trying to emulate the magic of the first definitely hurt the movie a bit. The film also failed to deliver quite the same edge-of-your-seat thriller experience that the first two did. A lot of that had to do with any sense of unknown being eliminated almost immediately. In the first movies, you rarely caught a glimpse of the "villains" (T-Rex or the Raptors) during the build-up of the suspense. This helped create a certain tension that really captured you. This movie doesn't manage to do that at all. Instead, Jurassic World is an action movie that has dinosaurs, humor, and solid acting. Essentially it felt like a 21st century superhero movie but instead of Iron-Man or Captain America it had Velociraptors and an Indominus Rex. The problem is, it shouldn't be that type of movie at all. Nonetheless, the action, the nods to the original film (which was probably my favorite part of the movie), and the dinosaurs devouring people makes this worth the price of entry. Just don't go in expecting it to building on the originals.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Another great MCU experience!

[10/10 · 22 May 2015]

Age of Ultron, like most of the Marvel films, was absolutely fantastic. The combination of action, progression of the already intriguing story arc and character development, special effects, and humor make for a great viewing experience. I thought the additions of the new characters were executed well and Whedon somehow managed once again to give every character their fair share of screen time. There were only really two disappointments I had with the movie at both happened in the very end. The first is that there was zero integration with the Agents of SHIELD television show. I thought that final scene where they're introducing the "new team" would've been the perfect opportunity to at least have a Colson cameo at the minimum. The other scene was when SHIELD came in at the end for support at Falcon was nowhere to be seen. Sorry but that would've been the perfect time to transition him with War Machine and the rest. Those disappointments aside, the only other elements that weren't perfect fall within the suspension of disbelief. Overall, another wonderful installment to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Interstellar (2014)

Great potential but Nolan got in his own way... as usual.

[7/10 · 18 April 2015]

Interstellar is your typical Christopher Nolan film. It has an incredible score that plays throughout essentially the entire movie, beautiful visuals, an interesting and captivating plot, great acting, great character and setting development, a heavy reliance on suspended disbelief, and enormously huge plot holes. Some people don't mind them but I have trouble with plot holes so big that they actively go against what has already been established in the story arc. Forewarning, the following sentences will contain SPOILERS that are as big as the plot holes they discuss. Now I won't get into the details on every single little plot hole and inconsistency because this review would become way too long. I will, however, touch on the two biggest ones, in my opinion, and both have to do with the conclusion of the movie so again, you've been warned. The first is the complete and total fail that is the time paradox proposed in this film, more specifically the 'bootstrap' paradox. This is based on the concept that critical content that the futures hinges on is actually acquired from the future itself. Of course, this theory is a farce but unfortunately many science fiction stories rely on it as its foundation. Theoretical physicists will disagree but they're just manufacturing job security (i.e. they're liars). I won't go into too much detail on the various examples of this paradox in the film but if you see it, it'll be painfully obvious which instances I'm referring to, as they point them out for you. The second fail is the inconsistency of time relativity, as they introduce it in the movie itself. It makes sense throughout most of the film... until the end, when Anne Hathaway somehow doesn't age. Nolan apologists will fabricate arguments to defend this or make excuses, just like they did in Inception, but the reality is that Nolan blew it here. She should've aged 51 years or more just like the rest of the people (outside of Matthew McConaughey, who was sucked into a black hole and of course survived). I mainly focused on the negatives with this review because those few negatives are what held the movie back from a perfect rating. If Nolan would've gotten out of his own way, this could've been one of my favorite science fiction films ever. Unfortunately, it was pushed back to the "really good but not great" category where so many other films reside.

Big Hero 6 (2014)

One of the best animated films ever made!

[10/10 · 22 March 2015]

Big Hero 6 is hands down one of the best animated films I've ever seen and maybe the best non-Pixar film since The Lion King. The realism in the animation, while not losing the charm associated with the genre, is stunning, the humanity and emotion in the film is superior to most live action films you'll see, and the story is fresh and entertaining. It combines humor with sadness with action to make for an exciting viewing experience. They also make you absolutely love Baymax, the big, white, puffy looking marsh mellow robot in all the advertisements. Overall, this movie is suitable for people of all ages, genders, cultural backgrounds, etc. Jump into San Fransokyo and get ready for a great film.

The Expendables 3 (2014)

Worst of the series.

[5/10 · 25 February 2015]

The Expendables 3 is easily the worst of the franchise so far. Sure, it had plenty of historic action heroes and some great nostalgic one-liners (Arnie yelling "get to the choppa" is gold) and it even had a halfway decent plot, albeit not an entirely original one. The fight scenes were a step down from the previous films and the pacing and plot development wasn't as solid, though neither of the first two really delivered on that front to begin with. I suppose my biggest problems with the movie are two key things. The first is that the film's beginning effectively erases the characters that they established in the first two. Wesley Snipes character comes in and basically points out that Jason Statham and the rest of the expendables are newbies compared to him, even though he's only been locked up for 8 years. While this could be considered nitpicking, the first two films made the team out like a group of guys who have been battle tested for years and years together. Well, considering that the first film takes place four years prior to this one, that means the events of the first film take place with the team together for a maximum of four years, and likely less. I'm sorry but that continuity doesn't vibe. The other thing that I didn't care for was the actual newbies that were introduced to breathe new life into the cast. While I think they don't necessarily do a bad job individually, I just don't think they made sound casting decisions. This franchise has been built on action heroes of the past. If you're going to go young, you need to target the actions heroes of the present. Now certainly nobody expects Dwyane Johnson, Chris Pine, Vin Diesel, Mark Wahlberg, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Worthingston, Tom Hardy, Matt Damon, or any of the other megastars of today to sign on. For one, most of them are a little too old to act as "young kids" and simply put, they are stars and don't need this franchise. The money nor wouldn't be right and they likely wouldn't dare touch the films. However, there are other young up-and-comers they could've targeted that would've made better sense, in my opinion, and they could've gotten creative and tried to mirror the megastars of the past. How about using Jason Momoa to take the mantel of the large and physically impressive Arnold Schwarzenegger? He did star in the remake of Conan. They could've even included a joke where Arnie asks him something along the lines of, "are you trying to replace me, or something?" What about Tony Jaa? He is probably the next great Asian martial artist in the style of Jet Li or Jackie Chan. How about bring him in? I actually loved the idea of Ronda Rousey. Her acting chops are better than Gina Carano's and she represents a new age where women might have a chance at becoming legitimate action heroes. Who's the next Jason Statham or Wesley Snipes (action hero with more of a kickboxing flare)? Honestly, it might be Taylor Lautner. The dude is an absolutely insanely talented martial artist. Why not give him a go? As for the guy who effectively replaces Sly, I think Taylor Kitsch is twice the actor Kellen Lutz is, but Lutz did a decent job so I can't complain there. That being said, doesn't a line up of Kitsch, Momoa, Jaa, and Lautner sound better than Lutz, Victor Ortiz, and Glen Powell? I also must point out that I miss Mickey Rourke's character. He has been absent in these last two and I don't get why. Were there fun explosions and gun battles? Certainly. Was there any real substance beyond that though? Not really.

The Expendables 2 (2012)

Good but not as good as the first.

[7/10 · 24 February 2015]

The Expendables 2 has a bunch of explosions, realistic hand-to-hand fight sequences, and guns and gore galore just like the first movie did. However, this sequel did some things better and some things worse. Looking at the good side first, it did actually have a little big better plot development and believe it or not, even more action heroes. Adding Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme to an already loaded cast and then having Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger each get more screen time were all plusses. All of the little inside jokes were absolutely hilarious, as well. The Arnie one-liners, Die Hard references and Chuck Norris jokes were fun little easter eggs for long time action fans. The problem is that this film somehow found a way to have even less character development than the first film, feeling somehow even more shallow. I actually really missed Mickey Rourke's character in this sequel. I thought he added so much to the first film in how he seemed to humanize the cast, especially Stallone's character. I suppose you could argue that Liam Hemsworth's character does that instead but I don't think there should necessarily be a limit on depth. And while those little nods to the 80's were funny, they actually took away from the seriousness of the film. Seeing Rambo, the Terminator, and John McClane all shooting bad guys side-by-side may have seemed awesome but there was simply too much of the over-the-top element in this movie. I felt the first film found the perfect balance between giving each action hero their due while staying true to making a great movie. This film, unfortunately felt like a parody of the first at times, rather than its own movie.

The Expendables (2010)

Very action-packed and entertaining

[9/10 · 24 February 2015]

The Expendables is very action-packed and entertaining. There were some obvious flaws like a lack of substantial character development and a not-so-original plot. However, this movie did have some of the most realistic and intense hand-to-hand fight sequences I've ever seen and who doesn't like big guns and bigger explosions. The fact that they were able to take so many great action heroes and put them all in the same movie without much sacrifice was amazing. Also, I felt that Mickey Rourke's character was so crucial in added depth and layers to what would otherwise have been a fairly shallow film. The self-absorbed movie critics will hate on this movie because "it lacked unique cinematic effects" or whatever clichéd criticism they normally say, but if you want to see an action-packed movie with a full cast of action heroes, you won't regret watching this movie. After all, the whole point of cinema is to entertain isn't it?

Hercules (I) (2014)

Plagued with an identity crisis but still watchable.

[5/10 · 23 February 2015]

Brett Ratner's Hercules film struggles with a bit of an identity crisis. On the one hand, I really like what Ratner tried to do in making the myth and lore of Hercules just that; myth and lore. He made the character simply a fantastic warrior and eventual mercenary who, along with the help of his comrades, played into the living legend in order to acquire jobs and terrify his enemies. I mean, who would want to go toe-to-toe with the mighty Hercules? The problem with the film is that Ratner doesn't leave the fantastical at the door as he should've. On the one hand, he portrays Hercules as a mortal and mocks the existence of hydra, centaurs, and cerberus. On the other hand he includes a psychic who can see visions of the future and he has Dwayne Johnson's Hercules perform superhuman feats that no mere mortal could do. Many of the action and battles sequences also fail here, with Hercules leveling many a foe with a single swing of his club. This identity crisis doesn't ruin the viewing experience completely but it does hinder the film's ability to create serious drama or intrigue. This film ultimately feels a bit shallow and the underutilization of Irina Shayk might be the biggest disappointment of the entire movie. She seemed to get half of the screen time in the trailers but gets maybe 30 seconds of screen time in the actual film. That's called poor representation. Overall, it's a decent watch and one of the better live action Hercules films I've seen but it fails to live up to its potential, largely due to poor direction.

Lucy (I) (2014)

Laughable premise but slightly entertaining nonetheless.

[4/10 · 12 February 2015]

While the premise and concept of this film is absolutely ridiculous, the special effects laughable, and the plot without actual resolution, the movie still finds a way to be at least slightly entertaining. I think that mostly stems from Scarlett Johansson doing a great job with the character and the movie, however outlandish, is actually a little bit interesting. It still isn't worth your time but it isn't a complete waste of time and being under and hour and a half guarantees that if you feel that it is, at least it didn't waste much of it. I do feel that they missed an opportunity to make a great movie though. There is a time between the film starting and Lucy becoming a superhero/magician/Neo that I thought we had a real gem on our hands. Unfortunately they left reality at the door and chose to make a borderline comedy instead.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Good but not as good as the first.

[8/10 · 10 February 2015]

While Star Trek: Into Darkness was still a really good sci-fi film, it unfortunately failed to either live up to or exceed the standard set by the first film in this newly rebooted franchise. The acting by the entire cast, including additions Benedict Cumberbatch and Alice Eve, was fantastic and the special effects continued to be on par with the best in the business. I also thought Abrams did a good job continuing the development of the characters from the first film, making these movies really feel like they connect well. The only negatives with the film, in my opinion, stem from them not branching away from the original series. I didn't love that in the first film but I thought the "alternate universe" concept was an interesting way to stay true to the franchise source material while still allowing the writers a certain level of artistic freedom. That is no longer the case and Abrams' insistent on staying attached at the hip to the original was a weak point for me. While it felt like an interesting concept in the first film, it felt like lazy writing in this one. I really do hope they continue to build this story with more films because I love the universe and the cast but hopefully in future endeavors they leave Leonard Nimoy off of the cast list.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

The worst reboot I've ever seen.

[1/10 · 8 February 2015]

Jonathan Liebesman, Michael Bay, Josh Appelbaum, and anyone else involved in the casting, writing, production, or direction of the film should be beaten with their choice of a sword, a bo staff, sais, and nunchakus. I didn't think it was possible to ruin a franchise more thoroughly and absolutely than they did. Let's start from the beginning, shall we? The concept of the movie was a complete and total failure. From the introduction sequence of the film to the look and origin of the turtles and Splinter to the overall storyline to how April O'Neil's character would be integrated to the absence of other key characters (Casey Jones anyone?) to how the conflict would be established to the decision to show Shredder's face and eliminate part of the mystery behind his character... it was all bad. I would assume that after they had the preliminary blueprint for the film, they would begin the writing process. Oh man, the writing was terrible! The dialogue felt forced and disingenuous and the script made it just about impossible for any cast to save the film. The characters are not developed at all and the plot is developed even less. How about the casting decisions? Megan Fox? Really? What about Megan Fox screams April O'Neil? Nothing, that's what. Why not go for Emma Stone, Amy Adams, Isla Fisher, Emma Stone, Jessica Chastain, Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone, Karen Gillan, or Rachel Nichols to play everyone's favorite redheaded reporter? Any of them could've provided the appropriate overall look for the character and they all would have their own unique spin on the feel. Whether it be sense of humor, acting style, sensuality, etc. What they all have in common is that they all would've been a better choice than Megan Fox. Oh, and did I mention Emma Stone? Because why bother going after the one actress every single TMNT fan wanted to see in the movie when you can land a brunette with too much plastic surgery and not enough acting chops. Yeah, that makes sense. The casting decisions for the turtles was nearly as bad. Outside of Alan Ritchson (Raphael), none of the other turtles even remotely sounded like their characters and the casting of Johnny Knoxville as Leonardo may have been the worst decision of them all. So now we have a mediocre script and cast, maybe the cinematography and special effects will be good, right? Ha! That's funny. No, instead we got a combination of some of the worst shaky cam, cgi, and overall cinematography I've ever seen. Honestly, it feels almost as if some idiot studio exec gave $125 to some bums off of the street and told them to reboot this beloved franchise. Actually, no, I think they would've done a better job.

Fury (2014)

Good WWII movie.

[7/10 · 8 February 2015]

Fury is a good film that depicts an American tank crew towards the closing of World War II. This movie had a lot of hype coming out and I think it largely was able to live up to most of it. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shai LaBeouf, Jon Bernthal, and Michael Pena form a fantastic cast of unique and substantially developed characters. The acting of Pitt and Bernthal especially carry the film. The plot, though lacking much premise beyond the war itself, is also developed really well throughout. There is one particular scene towards the midpoint of the film when they're about to leave a city after capturing it that really stood out and is, in my opinion, one of the best scenes in war movie history. Unfortunately, the movie couldn't carry that emotion throughout the rest of the film. The closing battle sequence was a little too "Hollywood" and didn't vibe with the realism and grit of the rest of the movie. Because of that, many of the character deaths felt unauthentic and didn't deliver the emotion that they should've. Overall, it's still a solid movie but it had potential to be much better.

Sabotage (2014)

Terrible premise ruins the movie.

[5/10 · 28 January 2015]

Sabotage was a movie was so much potential but ultimately failed to live up to that potential because it had a ridiculous premise. ***SPOILERS*** The premise was that this elite, undercover DEA team attempts to steal $10 million from a pile of what appears to be hundreds of millions of dollars. They then blow up the drug cartel's money (as they were apparently instructed to do by the American government) and upon returning to get their $10 million later on, the money is gone. Now here is where the ridiculousness kicks in. The government and the cartel somehow seem to know exactly how much money was taken and interrogate the team for six months trying to get them to admit guilt. I'm sorry but that would be like a swimming pool draining but someone knowing that you took a cup of water out of it beforehand. It's retarded. Now, normally this type of stuff wouldn't cause me to take a movie with fantastic acting, dark and gritty action, and solid character development down to a 5/10 rating. While I thought the plot development was also crap, the premise ultimately hurts the movie because every single dramatic element and moment of suspense and intrigue in the entire movie is built entirely on that faulty premise. It is a damn shame too because this movie had Miami Vice (reboot) potential.