user-543-975655 Reviews

Independence Day (1996)

One Of Emmerich's Best

[9/10 · 5 August 2014]

Roland Emmerich is a somewhat underrated director. Yes, I know he has had a few flops like 10,000 B.C and Godzilla, and even 2012 to some people, but I think Independence Day is one of his best movies. I'm saying that because it is so good all around. For example, the aliens. It's great how the alien ships are so incredibly huge (15+ miles in diameter). In some alien movies the aliens are in tiny ships and they go so fast that you aren't able to follow them. But Emmerich's version of the aliens is huge and slow, so that isn't a problem here. Anyway, the main aspects, as always. First off, the acting. Not the best. Sure, there were people like Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman, and they were pretty good, but some of the people like Miguel and quite a few other small characters it seemed like they had no acting experience whatsoever. None. Zip. But the main characters like Smith, Goldblum, and Pullman made up for it. Mostly. Now the special effects. For a 90's action flick, they were really good. To today's standards, they would not be good at all. But they are amazing for 90's standards. In the 15+ miles across ships, there are so many little lights and openings and such, and that most likely means rooms. So that would mean there are probably 10,000+ rooms, not even counting how many floors there would be. Detail like that is not always something you come by in movies these days. Speaking of the aliens, this movie had some really awesome practical effects for the aliens. That means someone put more than one day of effort into making this, which is always good. The special effects people did a wonderful job in this movie.

And now, the writing. I can't say it was the best ever, and it was kind of cheesy, but I am willing to let that slide. Some of the lines were just not needed at all, and if you got rid of all of them, the movie would be about 5 minutes shorter. Things like "We need to pack up" isn't needed. It's kind of obvious when there's an alien invasion that could wipe out the entire world, it's kind of obvious. And other times, there were supposed to be awesome punchlines, but they come out flat and bland because the actors couldn't execute them. But really, that's the only thing I really don't like about this movie. Fourth, the characters. I didn't think this was a good idea, but I didn't care that much because it all ends up making sense. There were four different families/groups of people. There were the people in Captain Hiller's (Will Smith) family and group of friends, and also Russell Casse's (Randy Quaid), along with President Whitmore's (Bill Pullman), and David Levinson's (Jeff Goldblum). If there were only 3-4 people in each group, I'd be OK with that. But there were at least 5-10 characters in each group, and that's a lot to bother keeping track of. It just takes away from the movie. And for the fifth, the plot. Some of it is original, and some of it isn't at all. The part that isn't original at all is the fact that a bunch of aliens have come to destroy Earth. You see that in about 85% or higher of alien movies. So nothing new there at all. But the part that is original was how Hiller and Levinson (Smith and Goldblum) took down the alien mother ship. I won't tell you exactly how because I don't want to spoil anything, but I will say it involved a lot of awesomeness. And lastly, the cinematography. The way Emmerich decided to display the alien spacecraft coming out of the clouds and pretty much anything that involved the spaceships and the mother-ships was just awesome. There was a definite sense of danger and threat in all of those shots, which was nice as well.

Overall, I really liked Independence Day, because it is a great and enjoyable movie that I would watch again anytime. 9/10. And it sure is a lot better than 10,000 B.C and 2012. Anyway, thanks for reading and check out some of my other reviews. See ya!

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

One Of The Greatest Sequels Ever

[10/10 · 4 August 2014]

Just as it says above, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is possibly, maybe even most likely, the best sequel I have ever seen. From start to finish, I was 100% interested. It is in the top five movies I have ever seen. Anyway, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is one of the rare cases that a sequel is better than the original. Seriously! I loved this movie more than Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Don't get me wrong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a fantastic movie, but somehow Dawn bettered it. Possibly because Matt Reeves is a better director than Rupert Wyatt (sorry Rupert - it's only my opinion, though). Even though Wyatt is a great director, he just isn't even with Matt Reeves. Reeves directed other great movies such as Cloverfield and Let Me In. His way of purveying all of the scenes was great, just like in his other films. OK, so, the general aspects of the movie. The story, first of all. The whole story was so great at following the first film that it was almost as if they were both the same movie, just in two parts. It is very rare to see a fun and interesting story in an Action/Sci-Fi movie these days, because all of the good plots are used up already. However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an original story and stayed fun to watch until the end. The fact that the writers came up with a way to display the apes as a civilization, just fantastic. It made the apes easier to sympathize with. Next, the characters. As with the first movie, there were apes such as Caesar, Maurice, and Koba. The human characters were completely new, and they included the always awesome Gary Oldman as Dreyfus, the great Jason Clarke as Malcolm, and Keri Russell as Ellie. Since the last movie, the motion capture has increased dramatically in quality, which made the apes even more believable, surprisingly. Now, all of the characters were either fun or despicable. Just like in the first movie, the writers and actors worked together to create characters that you really cared about, or hated. In fact, they even did that with the apes, which is awesome. As with Rise of the Planet of the Apes, there were quite a few characters that you could just flat out hate, and that is another thing that should be in a good movie. Now, the acting. The acting in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is just as good as it is Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The acting is actually the only thing that didn't improve at all in Dawn. With stars such as Andy Serkis, Gary Oldman, and Jason Clarke, you would think the acting would improve, but it didn't. Everyone displayed their emotions and said their lines very well, still. Now the visual effects, of course. Rise of the Planet of the Apes had extremely good visual effects throughout the whole entire movie, and so did Dawn, but Dawn had better, because it was made three years after Rise, of course. The detail is so amazing! You can make out the hairs, the facial expressions, the muscles moving, even the difference in skin tone. Rise had great effects, but they were much, much, much better in Dawn. Lastly, the music. The music is catchy and fun to listen to while watching the movie. Michael Giacchino did a wonderful job making it intense and serious. I thought the music helped intensify the action sequences, which included some of the best battle scenes I have ever seen. The battles appear so realistic because the apes are so human that it is almost as if the battle was going on between different countries. The battles were also sad, because a lot of people die. The fights were so intense that I caught myself gripping the arm of my seat a couple times. That doesn't happen a lot for me, so that's saying something. SO, overall, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was an amazing movie, and I was not disappointed at all by it. It might be the best summer movie this year. See ya!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Magnificent

[8/10 · 12 July 2014]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of 2011. Even though it is 2014, I think I can safely say that. It is so entertaining and enjoyable that I could watch it again any time. One of the reasons I like this movie so much is because it is so well put together. Rick Jaffa (writer of Relic, Eye For An Eye, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes) made such an interesting and original plot that I didn't sense "copycat" at all. I was very interested in the story throughout. The dialogue was great and not cheesy at all, as well. Another thing I like about Rise of the Planet of the Apes is that it is so much more serious than 1968's Planet of the Apes with Charlton Heston. There is a much more serious atmosphere in this movie, in my opinion only. If you think vice-versa, fine by me. But throughout the movie I felt a deep compassion for all of the apes (not monkeys, as Franklin says). A compassion for main characters is a thing a lot of movies lack these days. I have seen a lot of movies that make you not care at all for the main characters, especially with horror movies and comedies. But thankfully, that was absent here. In fact, this is one of the very few movies that has made me really sad for the characters. That is extremely rare for me. One reason that is is because the acting is so great. James Franco, for instance. Like always, he did a fantastic job. In his movies like Spiderman and 127 Hours, he did such a great job acting as his character, and he did it again in this movie. Not only James Franco. Every other actor did a wonderful job in this movie except for some of the extras. Tom Felton, for example. He did an absolutely marvelous job being the person in almost every good movie that you absolutely hate, and despise. He also did that in the Harry Potter series. Quite well, I might add. Another thing I like about this movie is that it is so full of detail. You can make out the definition of the apes down to the last hair, even in the action scenes. The actors did a great job interacting with the CGI (meaning pretending it is there during the shoot). I could tell that in some parts they used real apes for the shoot, but I couldn't tell the difference between real and fake in some of the scenes. Yeah, it's that good. Also, the animators put variations into a lot of the apes, so you could tell who was who, which was extremely helpful because there were so many. Not only that, but they used different species in that apes such as orangutans and gorillas, which was nice. To another thing. Rupert Wyatt (director of Subterrain, The Escapist, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, of course) did an amazing job directing this movie, I think. The camera angles throughout were interesting and fun, because a lot of them let you take in the grandeur of the apes, and the movie all together. Another thing as well. To Patrick Doyle, the composer of this movie, kudos. You did a wonderful job. You know how with some music, it is so awesome you get chills down your spine? Yeah, well Doyle did that. Well, some of it did for me. I hope you found this review helpful, and I'll review Dawn of the Planet of the Apes soon for you guys. See ya!

Non-Stop (2014)

"Non-Stop" Thrills

[9/10 · 2 July 2014]

I was wanting to see Non-Stop in theaters for a really long time, but I never got around to seeing it. Eventually I just forgot about it, and after that I saw how it came out on DVD and remembered how much I wanted to see it. I rented it before buying it, to make sure I liked it. I sure as heck did. I was on the edge of my seat for almost the whole movie. This is only because it was so original and fun to watch. One thing that goes along with the originality is the group of text bubbles that appear when a text is sent between Liam Neeson and the killer. Instead of having to look very hard at the screen of the phone and missing some of the text message, you could easily read all of the texts at the fast pace of the movie. Jaume Collet-Serra and the writers did such a good job putting this movie together that the 106 minutes just flew by. One of the main things that makes this a good mystery is that there aren't any flaws. As I looked back several times throughout the movie, I never noticed any goofs. There probably are, but I just didn't notice them. Well, maybe one or two, now that I think about it. But it was still an awesome mystery movie, and is up there with Neeson's other mystery/action movies, such as Taken. Another thing I like about the movie is that the plot is so original. I know I already said the movie was original, but I didn't say the plot was. I have never seen a plot or main idea like the one in Non-Stop. I never knew what to expect because of that, and that also helped the rating for me. There were several other things that kept the movie interesting for me, though. For example, the acting. With stars such as Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, and Scoot McNairy, I had no doubt that the acting was going to be awesome. I was right. The acting is amazing, and the emotions displayed and the lines of the actors came together perfectly. The dialogue was another great thing about this movie, because cheesy lines were completely non- existent. For example, instead of saying "I didn't do it," the character would say something that delved into whether or not they did it, including stuff like evidence and honesty (whether they are being honest or not, if that makes sense). That also made Non-Stop a fun movie. The music was sort of in the background, and you could not hear it that much, but it kind of went along with the rhythm of the story if you listen really closely. Another thing that made this movie awesome is the setting. Being on a plane full of innocent (most of them) passengers, small rooms and fight scenes really made Non-Stop a thrilling movie. In fact, that is another thing that made this movie original; it was on a plane. That is really all I have to say about Non- Stop. I hope you found this review helpful. Check out some of my other reviews. See ya!

Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

Outstanding

[7/10 · 1 July 2014]

First things first. This was overall a good movie. Yes there were some (maybe a lot) of mistakes, but that's okay. I liked the movie for its enjoyability, because it really is a fun movie to watch. I wouldn't say that it is the best Transformers movie to date, I am definitely not saying that, But I really like it. I thought that there were only a couple completely dull moments, and other than those, I was entertained the whole way through. The visual effects were so great and advanced so much since 2011, when Dark of the Moon came out. There were even more moving parts in the Transformers that it would be almost impossible to see all of them. One thing that helps with that though, is something that I talk about a lot in Transformers reviews. The slow motion camera effect. The slow motion has really gotten better as the series progressed. This movie contained the best slow motion of the series, and it really was awesome. Besides that, the acting in this movie was not as good as the first three movies. It was close for some of the characters, but some just couldn't act. For example, Nicola Peltz as Tessa Yeager. She just served as another Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. This means that she is the very pretty face that seems to recur in every Transformers movie. Except Megan and Rosie could act. Now, Nicola did have a lot of good lines, she just didn't execute them very well. Mark Wahlberg, as usual, was a great character in this movie. I did not expect him to do such a good job in this movie, because it was so different compared to his other movie genres. Meaning he doesn't do Sci-Fi movies that much, especially ones that involve giant robots. He was still really good though. He also played the fatherly role very, very well. T.J Miller did an even better job in Transformers: Age of Extinction than he did in Cloverfield, which was very surprising to me. He offered most of the comic relief that was needed, and also did it well. Stanley Tucci is often considered to be the best part of the movie. I disagree. While Tucci is a fantastic actor, I think he and Mark Wahlberg were tied. They both played very believable characters. Those are really all of the main characters. Next, the movie was extremely long. This is the longest of the series, and that's saying something. There were a few scenes that were completely pointless, and could have been done in a much shorter amount of time. 165 minutes (2 hrs 45 min) is an extremely long time to stay in a theater and keep your eyes on a screen. I liked all of the battle scenes and action, but I just wish some of them were shorter. Also, on the positive side again, I liked how this movie was on such a big scale, instead of just focusing on one state and city like the first Transformers mostly did. The Transformers are bigger, the battles are bigger, the ships are bigger, the destruction is bigger. That definitely made up for the pointless scenes in the movie. Anyway, almost nobody denies that the change of Autobots and Decepticons was not completely welcome. However, to my surprise, I didn't mind it that much. It kept the series fresh, and I liked the new Transformers when it was explained why there were there. And finally, the plot. Ehren Kruger and Lorenzo di Bonaventura and other writers always do a great job coming up with new stories and plots and characters and dialogue (which was okay save for maybe, 5-6 very cheesy lines and a few cringe worthy punch lines). The progression of this movie and its plot was fairly slow, and that is probably why the movie is so long. Overall, I liked Transformers: Age of Extinction a lot, and I thought it was a really fun movie to watch, especially in 3D. So, I recommend you go see it whenever you get the chance. Transformers 5 is coming out around 2016, and I will review that, but I will have plenty of reviews in between. Sorry I made the review so long. See ya!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Excellent

[7/10 · 12 June 2014]

Since Transformers: Age of Extinction is coming out in two weeks, I decided to re-watch all of the old Transformers movies. After watching the first movie and reviewing it, I decided to review all of the movies. I really liked this movie, which was surprising because I didn't remember liking it this much. I really enjoyed the 2 1/2 hour movie. It was very long, but I still enjoyed it. Just like the second movie, I felt like some of the scenes were dragged out way too much, which is why I gave it a 7 instead of an 8 or a 9. Just like the second movie, I was happy with the absence of a shaky camera. It made the battles much more enjoyable, and made the movie way better. Even though I gave this movie the same rating as Revenge of the Fallen, I think Revenge of the Fallen was a tiny bit better. It was more pleasant. This movie was so dark that I had a hard time believing that it was a Transformers movie. Don't get me wrong, it was still really good, but it was also very dark. The acting in this movie was once again outstanding, and Shia Labeouf did a great job adapting to his new character. He was still Sam, but his attitude completely changed, and he did a wonderful job. Rosie Huntington-Whitely did a good job filling in for Megan Fox. I thought the movie would've been a little better if Fox was still Sam's girlfriend. Whitely still did a wonderful job, though. Every single person did another wonderful job in this movie with acting. The Transformers really is a good series for acting. The series is also amazing for special effects. Everything looks so great that the battles and the robots and everything else that isn't real looks real. Transformers 1,2,3 and probably 4 are one of the best displays of visual effects I have ever seen. I like how there is always so much detail in all of the Autobots and Decepticons. Their emotions are so easily displayed that you are sympathetic for them when one of them dies (the Autobots, mainly), which really makes them more human, and all of their moving parts go together without a problem, and their transformations are once again awesome. That is another thing I like about this movie. They aren't just regular, stereotypical robots. They are original, and are very realistic. As with the second movie, the setting changed. Well, the final battle of the first film was in New York, and the final battle in Dark of the Moon was in Chicago, which are different cities, but still cities. But the scale of the battle increased at least 20 times. Maybe even more. This made the battles more grandiose, and way more fun to watch. Also, the story thankfully changed again. The introduction of so many new Decepticons was awesome. I was looking for a lot of new Transformers. Ehren Kruger and Michael Bay did such a good job creating some new Transformers that it was almost as if this was a different series. The dialogue was another great thing in this movie. The actors said their lines perfectly, and displayed their emotions perfectly once again. Steve Jablonsky (composer) did a great job once more with this installment of the series, and used Arrival to Earth again as a main theme, which is good. That's all I have to say about Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Thanks for reading. See ya.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Epic

[7/10 · 11 June 2014]

Because Transformers 4: Age of Extinction is coming out in less than a month, I decided to re-watch some of the older Transformers movies. After re-watching the first movie, I decided to review it (feel free to check that review out). Then, I thought it would be good to review all of the Transformers movies, which is why I am reviewing this. The Transformers series really is awesome, and it is one of my Top 5 favorite series. Shia Labeouf and Megan Fox really are a good couple in the movie, and they fit together perfectly, so they were great casting choices. Every other main casting choice was great, such as Josh Duhamel as Lennox, and Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime. Everyone in the movie was great, however, and all played a believable part, and displayed their emotions and delivered their lines without a single problem or malfunction. One problem I had with the first movie was that the camera was extremely shaky during some of the battles. Sure, the recurring slow motion shots helped, but not all the time. There was not a shaky camera in this installment, and that really made me happy. The camera did a lot of cool angles, such as when they rotate around the action, or battles. Which were amazing except for one thing. Sure, the special effects were fantastic, and the battles were extremely entertaining. However, they were only entertaining when there were just 4-5 Transformers and a bunch of people at max. But there were some scenes where there were so many people and Transformers that I could not tell who was who. After you spend half of the battle figuring that out, they are really fun to watch. The special effects in the Transformers movies really are awesome, though. The Autobots and Decepticons look so great that they are even more believable than they would be if they were cheesy. The voice actors are so great in this movie, and all of the voice actors were perfect choices for the Transformers, which made them very fun to watch. The robots such as Mudflap and his twin added a lot of good humor to the film, as well. On to the music. The music was very good, and some of it was taken from the original Transformers, such as a song called Arrival to Earth, by Steve Jablonsky. Jablonsky made such good music for this movie, which is awesome because music is one of the most important parts of a movie. The setting varies greatly from the first movie, which is refreshing so it isn't like we are seeing the same battles again. The only reason I gave this movie only a 7 is because it is so long. Some of the scenes drag out way too much, and there were about five boring parts. The story also differs, which is good. The writers still used some of the objects in the first movie such as Energon and the AllSpark cube. There were new objects and new Transformers in this movie, which made it a lot better, too. That's all I have to say about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Thanks for reading. See ya!

Transformers (2007)

Impressive

[8/10 · 8 June 2014]

Since the new Transformers movie is coming out soon, I thought I would re-watch some of the old ones. I had forgotten how awesome the first Transformers was. I hope Transformers 4: The Age of Extinction is at least AS cool as this movie. Some people rip on this movie because it is too impossible. The only thing I have to say to that is it is not supposed to be realistic. If there is a movie that has giant robots that can transform into cars and planes and trucks and back again, you should automatically know it isn't going to be realistic. But once you get past that, it truly is an awesome movie. The special effects were amazing, considering that the movie was made 7 years ago. The special effects people really did an amazing job on this movie. In fact, they paid so much attention to detail, they even made the Transformers blink, move their teeth, and even breathe, I think. However, because they were robots, it was hard to read their emotions. That doesn't bother me, though. The acting was also great. It was a good idea to have the Transformers have different styles of talking and behaving. In a way that made them seem a little bit more human, and you feel sympathetic for them when one dies or gets hurt or injured. The actual humans in the movie were very believable characters, and you feel for them as well. Everyone in the movie did a very good job, and kept the movie fun to watch. I always look for that in a movie. The story was somewhat taken from the 1984-1987 TV series, but it was still kept original in some ways. I haven't seen the series, so I can't really expound on that. Sorry. Although, the story was kept very entertaining by the writers, and there were only one or two dull moments. Michael Bay did a wonderful job directing this movie, but there was one thing I had a problem with. I don't know if it was his idea or the cinematographer's idea, but the camera was way too shaky in some of the battle scenes. There was too much going on to have a shaky camera like that, and that is the reason I give it an 8/10, because there is way too much of it. But if you are OK with shaky cameras, you will enjoy this movie 100%. Probably. Hopefully. Maybe. You might. Anyway, the dialogue was good, too. There were no bad jokes, no dull speeches, and nothing else of that sort. That's really all I have to say. I hope you found my review helpful, and feel free to check out my other reviews. See ya!

Nosferatu (1922)

A Great Horror Icon

[9/10 · 27 May 2014]

It really makes me sad that a lot of people don't appreciate silent movies these days. People can't really use their imagination anymore, which is a good thing to use when you are watching a silent movie. However, I try my best, and I really enjoyed this movie. It has a really creepy atmosphere, and even though it's more than 90 years old, it still had some creepy camera angles and shots. I can't imagine how creepy this movie was back in 1922, because it still is a little creepy now. Not scary, just creepy. I really liked the music that was playing throughout, because it really enhanced the movie. The whole time the music was playing I was enjoying the movie. Which means I enjoyed the whole movie. Max Schreck did such a good job at being creepy that I completely admire him, even though he's dead. Everyone else in this film did a wonderful job. Even the extras played a believable part. Also, I think the makeup artists did an absolutely wonderful job on the whole entire cast. Count Orlok (Max Schreck) looked really creepy and real. I even thought that was a real person's face until I took a good look at it, and realized that would be impossible for someone to have teeth like that. Also, the costumes are made so well that I believed they were real clothes and not just costumes. Now on to the general aspects of the movie. I really enjoyed the wonderful acting, well, wonderful for the time, and the effort put into playing a believable character really made me happy. The special effects were very rare, but when they did appear, they were very good. I have no idea how they could make things disappear and reappear with the so limited technology of the time. I could tell they used stop-action for some of the door opening effects, or maybe even string, but it was done in such a way that it was enjoyable. The story line was loosely based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, so it was really entertaining, and somewhat original because the makers shifted some stuff around. In fact, the only reason I don't give this a 10 is because it was kind of hard to follow. Now, that is probably because I took a break while I was watching it, but it might not be, so don't dislike this review because I said it was kind of hard to follow. OK. I was trying to figure out why some things happened and why some things did not, but I still understood the movie 100% by the time it was over. Don't judge! I still really loved this movie though, and it really irks me that some people don't take the time for silent movies. That's really all I have to say. So thanks for reading. See ya!

Godzilla (2014)

Revived My Interest In Godzilla

[10/10 · 26 May 2014]

This movie is easily the best Godzilla movie I have ever seen. Gareth Edwards did such a good job at remaking the classic I had a hard time getting up when I had to go to the bathroom. :) I knew as soon as I saw the opening credits that this was going to be an absolutely awesome movie. After seeing the inferior 1998 version that for some reason I watched several times, I was anxiously waiting for a good remake. This 123 minute slice of awesome completely made up for my long time of waiting. There were two things I was looking for that this movie did not have, however. The original theme from 1954 and the original roar. I was not dissatisfied with the new roar, though, and it was so cool it gave me goosebumps the first time I heard it. I did still miss the original music, but I do understand copyright laws. People keep ripping on this awesome movie because it didn't offer anything new. I think it offered some new material, like the look of Godzilla and his roar and the monsters he fights. The makers of the movie changed a lot of the small things about the appearance of Godzilla, but kept the main things. For example, they kept his menacing behavior, his sky scraping height, and his incomprehensible strength. I think Edwards did an awesome job making this movie. He made sure not to completely copy off of Japan's Gojira, but made sure to keep it similar enough so the die-hard Godzilla fans were not unhappy. One of the reasons the 1998 Godzilla was not very successful was because Roland Emmerich completely changed the appearance of the so-called Godzilla to where it just looked like a giant T-Rex. Sort of. But Edwards kept the main shape of Godzilla so that was good. I guess I should actually review the general aspects of the movie. The actors were mostly A+ stars talking B+ dialogue, but it didn't bother me that much at all, because I'm not a huge stickler. Although there were some really good quotes throughout, and that kind of made up for it. The special effects were mind blowing. I'm surprised the budget was still only $160,000,000 with how good the special effects were. With three monsters, I would have expected it to be over $200,000,000 easily. The story was moderately original, and offered some new ideas and some already used ideas. However, if you just want to see a movie on a Saturday night, this will not bother you at all, and you should enjoy the movie as it is. Edwards' directing style is great, and makes you feel like you might be in a nearby helicopter or plane watching all of the action unfold, which is a lot better than just a completely still camera sitting on a bridge. He (Edwards) also did a good job putting in some minor characters to emphasize the importance of people during some of the fight scenes, like a bus driver. Overall, this is a solid installment in the Godzilla franchise, and will be much more successful, remembered, and liked than the 1998 Godzilla ever was. Thanks for reading. See ya!

Gravity (2013)

7 Oscars? That's It?

[10/10 · 8 March 2014]

Sure, 7 Oscars is a lot, but still, only 7? I was on the edge of my seat for the last 2/3 of the movie. I agree with many people in the fact that this the future of cinema. So many films could be inspired off of this one, because it creates so many ideas to build off of, even though I hope that doesn't happen. If you don't like this movie, you need to watch it again. I'm sure you'll like it more if you do so. Think what it would be like, people, if you were floating in space, without any knowledge of whether or not you are going to make it back to Earth. Cuaron (Alfonso) brings that experience to life as realistically as possible while you are just sitting in a seat. This movie had all of the qualities that I (and a lot of other people) look for in a movie in space. Steady camera angles, mind-blowing special effects, breath-taking zero-G environments, brilliantly realistic space shuttles, exhilarating action sequences, and thrilling backgrounds and such. That just covers the special effects. The acting in this movie is unparalleled, and will likely not ever be duplicated. Yeah, it's that good. Bullock and Clooney are so emotionally involved that you feel you are actually with them when you are watching. You might, anyway. They are a dynamic duo in this movie. If there had been anyone else in either role, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as good. There are so many things flying around in this movie that you have to watch it several times to just notice half of it. For that, I can understand why it won best special effects of the year. The movie is not only intense in the sense of action, but it is also very emotionally intense at times, and it can almost bring tears to your eyes if you are sensitive enough. The script is really very clever, because even though for a portion of the film there is only one character, the writers somehow kept a lot of words thrown in there. Sandra Bullock talks to herself a lot, and by doing that, keeps the viewer informed on what is happening. She explains everything she is doing to herself, out loud, and without this, the viewer would have no idea what was happening. The score of this movie does not seem like it would fit with the actual movie, because it is so subtle and not very intense. However, it is one of the most awe-inspiring and inspirational themes I have ever heard. I can understand why it won best original score. It is also spine tingling if you are involved enough, because there are some deeply fantastic vocalizations included. There was a goof I found. At the beginning, it says there is nothing to carry sound. But the whole movie has small sounds thrown here and there outside of the shuttles and in space. Unless the sound waves are bouncing off of the shuttle, and that is what we are hearing. I don't know. It all still sounded really, very cool. The director and writers of this movie are cinema geniuses. That is because they extended a very short story up to 91 minutes (minus the credits, so about 85), and they still didn't make it at all dull. That is a pure stroke of genius in the cinema world. Even the opening scene with the facts about how extreme space is is masterfully crafted. I don't know how, but it is. There is also some humor thrown in on the side of things, which makes the movie even more enjoyable, if that is possible. In conclusion, this is a white-knuckle roller coaster that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end. Thanks for reading this review, especially because I went 1.5 months without writing one. See ya!

Hancock (2008)

Nothing Short Of Awesome

[8/10 · 25 January 2014]

This movie gets criticized sometimes because I bet some people didn't watch the whole thing. I've heard people say that the comedy in this movie is unrealistic. I couldn't disagree more. Hobo drinking a lot. Realistic. Hobo smells like liquor and destroys stuff unintentionally. Not realistic, but still funny. Well, you get the point. I have also heard people criticize this movie because a woman is one of the heroes. Are you derogatory much, people? I am not a woman, I am a dude, but I do think every once in a while you should add woman superheroes into movies to keep things mixed up and fresh. But, that is just what I think. Oh, before I start actually reviewing this movie, if you are watching it with a small kid, which, I don't think you should do, turn off the subtitles and you hear probably 10 less cuss words than you would if you had the them on. Anyway, this movie is very, very good. I think that almost everything was spot-on with what you want in an action or superhero movie, meaning that everything a action/superhero fan would like, like the flying, super strength, or super speed. Well, sort of super speed. In this movie, unlike many others, the superhero doesn't picture his self as a hero, famous, and super hot. The hero pictures himself sort of as an average Joe, if you know what I mean. Just goes to regular houses, doesn't have a larger than superhuman persona (heehee, funny), and just looks like a regular guy. He doesn't have huge, gigantic muscles, he just has muscles. And I think that really enriches the story because it gives you a sense of realism. It also makes the story a tiny bit more believable. It's not believable, really, but I'm sure you know what I mean. The special effects of this movie are also very believable, because most of the scenes don't require a huge amount special effects. Some do, though. This means that a lot of times, there is not tons of effort needed for the special effects people, which have a lot of skill in this field. OK, so I guess it's about time I review the three main aspects of the film, as I call them. They are acting, directing, and the dialogue, as well as music. The acting was pretty much great, except for the fact that sometimes the delivery of punchlines aren't delivered very well. There isn't the much desired "umph" of good punchlines. I guess that goes along with dialogue, too. Other than that, the acting was displayed very well by Theron and Smith, who actually made a good duo. They made a kind of combination that makes sparks, but not romantically. Meaning that they just fit together without the slightest problem. Ray Embrey, played by Jason Bateman, is also a great addition to the movie. He provides some of the comedy of the movie, but not as much as Smith does. He is the soft character of the movie, and keeps the tone of the film light when it is needed. Jae Head, as usual, is a great acting kid, and did a wonderful job in this movie, as he did in The Blind Side. Good movie, by the way. The directing style of this movie is fairly unique, because instead of still cameras and slow panning to the sides, it is fast- paced, and action-y. It also isn't still, but isn't so shaky that it gives you a headache. It's kind of in the middle, where a lot of people like it, including me. That's really all I can say about the directing. The dialogue, now. The dialogue is really good in this movie, and I'm serious. The movie has a sense of realism, and it is enhanced very much by the masterful writing. There isn't a big line with a dude in tights that is said on top of a mountain, which can only work in a select few superhero movies. The writers did a really good job fitting in some of the back story in the movie, that unfolds gradually and smoothly. Which really isn't found that much anymore. Also, the costume isn't super blingy and in your face. It's just a leather suit with some designs on it. I guess I liked the movie a lot more than I would have if it was a normal superhero flick because it gave you a break from all of that in your face stuff. The writers did throw in a lot of unnecessary cursing in there. Honestly, I don't care, but there were about 20 use of the a word combined with hole, that it added about 15 seconds to the movie. All by saying that word. Just thought that was kind of unneeded. It's one of the reasons I gave this only an 8. The writers also made some good quotes for Hancock, which are all said so that they are funny and comedic, instead of serious and unfunny. Which also made the dialogue better. Now the music. The music really didn't stand out that much but there was one scene that used the theme from Sanford & Son that was really funny. Make sure you at least watch to that part. I do recommend this movie to anyone who likes fresh spins on superhero movies. Hope you liked this review, and please read some of my others. See ya guys!

Frozen (I) (2013)

Not A Fan Of Musicals, But This Was Good For One

[6/10 · 24 January 2014]

I wanted to see a movie a few days ago, and my mom did too. So I took her to a theater and she wanted to see Frozen, because she heard from a friend that it was really good. I wanted to see Saving Mr. Banks, but whatever. As I went into the theater, I had a hunch that it was going to be a girlie princess movie. Well, I was right. Except for the exception of maybe 5 scenes, the movie was a complete girl movie. OK, maybe that is a little bit of an exaggeration, but it was fairly girlie. I am a guy, so, you know. I decided that I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, so I kept watching it. I am glad I did. I enjoyed because my mom enjoyed it so much, and because there were a few good laughs. The movie was very good for a princess movie, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Olaf was hilarious, and I loved every scene he was in. So, if you go see the movie and don't like it, wait until Olaf comes in and maybe you will like it a bit more Sometimes, I was thinking that the movie would have been a little better if there wasn't so many songs, because I counted, and there were about 9-11 songs. Some of them catchy, some of them not. If there were only, maybe, 5 songs, that would have made the movie a little better, I think. My mom thought it was good, so I was happy. The acting was superb, and I don't say that lightly. That was one of the reasons I gave this a 6. The movie's sense of humor was a little bit sophisticated at times, and I enjoyed those parts, and sometimes it was just stupid. The humor, I mean. Like I said in the summary, I usually don't like musicals at all, but this was actually pretty good for a musical. I enjoyed about 4 of the songs, and all of the others I didn't think were needed. The story has 2 different sides to it. There is the side that is completely used up already, where a girl falls in love then figures out it was not true and then falls in love with the guy raised in the cold and the mountains who treats her not so good and then eventually they end up falling in love somehow due to something really confusing that could have been simplified. I hope that wasn't a spoiler because you should have seen that coming before you started watching it. Then there is the other side of the story that hasn't been used that has magic powers and a talking snowman and a bunch of other things I can't say without it being a spoiler. Overall I did like this movie, but just not enough to give it higher than a 6. It's pretty much like a movie that you didn't mind seeing, but wouldn't see it again by yourself. If you were to see it with a friend, maybe. I think you would enjoy it a lot more than I did if you musicals, because there is an abundance of music and singing in this movie. Also, I would recommend it if you like fairy princess movies. OK, maybe not FAIRY princess movies, but princess movies. Or animation movies with romance, for that matter. t is most likely targeted to 4-11 year old girls, but there was the exception of some old guys seeing it (old meaning about 30). Another reason I kind of liked this movie is that there was a really tough guy with a leather jacket and boots laughing at all of the jokes really loud. He seemed like he enjoyed the movie. Anyway, I do recommend this movie to you if you like princesses, romance, well, a little bit of it, animation, or you want to take a little kid to watch the movie. Hope you found this review helpful. Read more of my reviews. See ya!

The Abyss (1989)

The Best Deep Sea Adventure I Have Yet Seen

[8/10 · 23 December 2013]

Sorry for the long gap between reviews lately. I just have been busy with school and work. So sorry if it's not that good. So I got The Abyss out of a Walmart $5 movie bin and watched it the next day, which is today, because I had just come from seeing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which is good, by the way, and I will review that later. The Abyss is a triumph for its time, and is great except for a couple things. For one, there is too much swearing. There is s*** and b**** left and right. You don't need that! There is already a good enough dialogue without all of that. Also, the movie is really long. There is about 10 minutes worth of film that you could cut out and not notice its missing. I paused the movie once to go read a book for about 10 minutes. Besides those two things, the movie was very good. James Cameron is just a master of filmmaking, and has had other such masterpieces such as Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Titanic, and Avatar. I have to say this movie is maybe 5th on the James Cameron scale, however I think it deserved a little more than a 62 from critics. Maybe somewhere around 68-72 is where I would put it. The acting in this movie was great all around. Seriously, it was. The people in the film had great fake accents, and moved like they should have, looked like they should have, talked like they should have, and looked scared like they should have. All of them. Congrats to you actors! I've heard some people say that this movie is cheesy. Sure, for this era it is, but this was made 24 years ago! That's like saying King Kong is a backyard film. That movie was made 80 years ago. If you tried to make a movie with the technology they had I'm sure you wouldn't be able to do anything better. Hmph. This movie is actually more realistic than some movies of today. Like any Syfy original movie, or Machete or Snakes on a Plane or Piranha (2010). The movies special effects are like nothing I have ever seen before. It's like they aren't made from a computer, It's not made from stop action, and it's not made from a set or miniatures. It's probably made of all 4, though. Well actually, all 3, because I know it's a set. This is one of the few reviews I actually talk about the poster. The poster on the IMDb page for it, anyway. It's awesome and iconic, and you know what movie it is even if there wasn't a title on it. It is strikingly similar to the Thing, but The Abyss has a surrounding that makes you know they're underwater. Just look up the two, and compare the two people on them. I really don't know what else to say about this movie. Except for the storyline. It really is original, and enjoyable. Sure not for now it isn't original, but back then it was, so I say it is anyway. Where else are you going to find a deep sea oil rig that turned into one of the most epic adventures of the 80's and 90's? Seriously! This is one of the best deep sea movies I have ever seen. Maybe the best, I don't know. Even now, you don't find stuff as good as this. There are many iconic scenes in this movie that help the story, but you'd have to see them for yourself. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone that likes deep sea movies, good movies, and sci-fi movies, or adventure movies. Thanks for reading guys, and I'll have some more reviews up soon.

The Conjuring (2013)

Insta-Classic, Just Add Water

[8/10 · 28 November 2013]

I've been wanting to see The Conjuring for a while now, and I finally got to watch it last night. As usual, James Wan was the master of foreboding. I never knew what was coming, but he delivered the package with this movie. When the Perrons move into the farmhouse of their dreams, Wan does a fantastic job letting you know something bad is going to happen. This movie has what I like to call the Paranormal Activity property. This means that the movie is still really scary, but builds up to something terrifying in the last, say, 30-40 minutes. Remember that. However, the movie is not very original, like Insidious or the Exorcist. Well, technically the Exorcist was only original in the early 70's. But, whatever. The demons in the movie are nothing new, but can still scare the crap out of you if you aren't ready for them. Just expect the average looking demons. However, the interesting style of directing, great acting, great dialogue, and great special effects are the reasons I'm calling this a classic. Not because it is original. There average cliché things like doors shutting or opening, creaking, and stuff moving by itself. This is one of those movies that you know could be turned into a Scary Movie VI or something like that, but you hope doesn't, like me with Scary Movie 4 and War of the Worlds. There are 5 kids in the movie, but their names aren't really said much, so you forget what their names are, really. The truth is, the movie might have been better if there had been less kids. Maybe 3-4. Have you noticed that a lot of times, the people making the movie think adding a really weird name to one of the characters makes the movie more scary? Like Bathsheba in this movie, and Abyzou in the Possession. How do they come up with those? Have you also noticed that when there are footsteps in the house somewhere, they are always super close to each other? Even if they are 6' tall, they walk like penguin steps. Just saying. Even in Paranormal Activity, with the three toed thing walking and showing the steps. There were some decent jump scares, though, and they got me a couple of times. Considering the fact that I am probably one of the youngest movie fans, and I was only scared a couple of times, the shows that the movie isn't very scary. But trust me, it is good. I thought Patrick Wilson was the best acting choice for this movie, though, because he is such a fantastic actor in this genre of film. He is good no matter what role he has in any movie though. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes scary movies, and has taste.

Finding Bigfoot (2011– )

It's Not Half Bad

[7/10 · 10 November 2013]

The show Finding Bigfoot must make the cast a lot of money, because there are ads, even in IMDb, that advertise the fact that a new season is starting or something. In fact, one of those is what compelled me to review this. You can't do that if you don't have a lot of money. The show gets a lot of criticism. For example, it's not a documentary, it's a TV show. And if it's supposed to be a documentary, epic fail. I have a lot of ways to support this show, including the idea of not hearing anything when they hear it. That does not mean there always is something there, but if it is howling, whatever it is, that means the microphones on the camera might not always pick it up. It's probably a bear or a pig or something. The cameras are meant for close up conversations or things not that far away, maybe at a short distance. The idea that just because they are people from the mountains means they are crazy and don't know what they're talking about. There are some that sound like plain horse crap, like it threw a rock and knocked down your tent and came over and looked at you from right above you. But, Patterson was from the mountains, at least lived there for a while, and he caught one of the most famous and irrefutable rolls of film ever. I do however have some ways that I can criticize the show. Matt Moneymaker (sounds made up, right?), is always jumping to the conclusion that whatever was caught in the video shown is a Sasquatch, even if it looks like a guy in a ski jacket. Bobo, real name is James Fay, believes that a lot of times it is a Squatch, but is not nearly as outright as Matt about it. Cliff is calm, is almost never mad, and believes that a lot of videos are Bigfoot, but just say, "I think this is, in fact, a Squatch." Renae, I probably respect her way of thinking the most. She is skeptic, does not always take the videos as a given, and does not immediately jump to the conclusion that everything is Bigfoot related. She is nice about it, though, and does not say stuff like, "I don't believe that for one second." She has tracking, field, and wilderness training, and yet people like Matt seem to know 10x more than her. Well, you don't, Matt! Let's face it, guys, the show is fairly entertaining, and even if you don't believe in Bigfoot, you probably will watch this show if there's nothing else on. And also, I believe that Bigfoot's real, in a sense, but I think that whatever people are seeing is just a misinterpretation of a bear or deer or elk, or something, or maybe they're just plain crazy. However, I think that sometimes if people are seeing something 8-11 feet tall, and are not filing a report about it, it means that they don't think that they're "sighting" will sound sane enough. And one more bit of criticism, when they say they saw one, for ex. there was a shape that ran across the ridge, how come the camera is never rolling and they weren't able to identify it? I don't know. It may not sound like I like this show enough to give it a 7/10, but one of the things I really like about it is the segment of every episode where they go to the town-hall meeting, and you get to hear a lot of the sightings that came from the town's people, and there is a brief reenactment of the sighting, giving you an idea of what was going on. They then pick out the most credible witnesses' stories, and go over to the place that it happened, the witness tells the story, and as he/she is telling it, there is a CG image reenactment of what happened, giving a lot more detail about what happened. They also do night investigations, which are fairly entertaining, and sometimes the crew does actually find footprints or shelters, and that is kind of rare. Another interesting aspect of the show is when one of the crew does a solo investigation, and that they are more likely to find something like that because they are alone, and more vulnerable. But, how do people know so much about Sasquatches, and they've only seen them themselves maybe 5-6 times, and for about 5 seconds each? I'd like to know that myself. I think that a 3.8-4.2 (it changes a lot, so I'm giving a range) is quite a low rating, and maybe it deserves a 5.0 or 6.0, at the least. I enjoy the show, and I'm sure you will too if you are just looking for a fun show to watch. Thanks for reading, and see ya!

The Guilt Trip (2012)

I Think A 50/100 From Critics Is A Good Rating

[5/10 · 9 November 2013]

The commercials for The Guilt Trip really didn't make the movie sound too good. But my mom rented it and brought it over for us to watch, so I watched it. I thought this could be really good, but, unfortunately, it wasn't really anything notable. It was just another road trip movie, and I was disappointed in Seth Rogen's performance compared to his roles in Pineapple Express and the Kung Fu Panda movies. It was an honest film, and I can relate to it because any time my mom talks about anything that involves things I don't want to know about her past, I get really uncomfortable. I relate to it! Anyway, Seth Rogen's acting was pretty much the only good acting in the movie, even though it had Barbara Streisand in it. I was surprised that she was off her game. Other movies like College Road Trip with Martin Lawrence were actually good films about road trips. The story really was a little cheesy, and all over the place, but people who don't really care how bad a movie is would like this one. Also any people who are just looking for a movie night at home with some friends won't think this is all that bad either. But, if you are watching this by yourself, like the geek I am, you probably will not enjoy this movie. t had stars in it, of course Streisand and Rogen, but there was also, who had a small role, Adam Scott from Step Brothers. he really wasn't funny, though, because he was only in the movie for like 5 minutes. At times, however, you really felt bad for the mom, because she was getting yelled at and everything by her son, and at the same time you were kind of happy that she was getting yelled at because she did stuff to deserve it. Really, she did. She was kind of like my mom, because she played games on her phone that were really loud in quiet rooms, and she also wanted to come with whenever I was about to do something important. But sometimes, you have to let her. Anyway, the dialogue was also a little cheesy, because it was written in the format of something like a chick flick, even though it isn't. And sometimes, even the star actors couldn't pull it off, even though they are really good at acting. Like Seth Rogen using good manners. That was my review of The Guilt Trip, I hope you found it helpful, and, see ya!

Impractical Jokers (2011– )

One Of The Only Actually Entertaining Reality TV Shows

[10/10 · 3 November 2013]

I LOVE IT!!! This show, as mentioned above, is one of the only reality TV shows that is actually worth watching. I watch it with my brother all the time. Joe Gatto, known as Joe, Sal Vulcano, known as Sal, James Murray, known as Murr, and Brian Quinn, known as Q, make one of the funniest and creative comedy troupe I have ever seen. The real gist of the show is that you have to do and say what you are told, mostly, and sometimes other stuff, like trying to get people to do stupid things. It's one of these shows that you really don't care if someone loses, but if someone wins, hooray! Who cares if you might have done the stunts if you were two years old? It's even more funny if you are 35 years old and married. Well, some of them are. Anyway, the boys never fail to be hilarious, and them getting along through their lifetime of friendship makes the show even more enjoyable. Trust me, some of these stunts are making you be happy you weren't on the show. At the beginning of the show, it comes out with a warning that says "Warning, this show contains scenes of graphic stupidity among four lifelong friends who compete to embarrass each other. Viewer Discretion is advised." Making you think it's going to be graphic, but it isn't really. Even my dad laughs at it when I make him watch it, telling you it's hilarious. I laugh through all half hour, which is how long the show is. One of the only things I don't like about the show is that sometimes they curse, not a lot, but when they do, it's in a chain. It doesn't take away from the show, though. The scenes where they have to go up to random people and invade their privacy, are just downright hilarious. I hope this show isn't scripted, because that would really take away from the hilarity of the show. I can rave forever on this show, but, I think I summed it up well enough. This is also really short compared to my other reviews. See ya!

Insidious (I) (2010)

I've Seen It 10 Times, It Still Scares Me!

[8/10 · 1 November 2013]

I saw the second Insidious a couple weeks ago, and I thought I would re- watch this one. I am still scared every time! I know what's coming, but it still gets me each time I watch it. Oh, by the way, I reviewed the second one, so you should go check that out. This film is absolutely terrifying, and I think it deserved an *Oscar*. I don't know if it did, but I'll probably check later. The movie was completely awesome the whole way through. It was scary, and realistic. It was funny, at times, and was filled with awesome special effects. Takashi Shimizu, an Asian director, believes that the more special effects you have, the less real the movie looks. I think the same philosophy is applied here, and there is only one moment where they used special effects. That only added to the realness. I thought the acting was awesome, and just like the second, believable. Even little Foster Lambert, who is played by a boy named... I don't know. But he was good. Rose Byrne was good as well, but nothing really outstanding. Patrick Wilson, as always, did such a good job, it's a shame he hasn't been in more horror films. He's been in his fair share, but this is where he really stands out. In this movie, he plays a lovable dad, with humor, compassion. Lin Shaye does a memorable job as Elise Rainier, and one that cannot be replaced by another actress. Barbara Hershey did ab as always wonderful job as Lorraine Lambert. You can probably replace her, but it won't be easy. Even Joseph Bishara, who didn't have one line as the Lipstick-Faced Demon, because he was so agile and strong and scary looking. Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson were the writers and producers, but also made an exceptional duo as Specs and Tucker. They were the only people who kept the movie light when it wasn't scary, which was a good idea. This is one of the only movies that I can watch and be genuinely scared of, unlike Paranormal Activity or Boogeyman. That movie was just terrible. I thought that James Wan's directing style is unique, and weird, but in a completely good way. He uses the instant scene change technique, and also the dread technique, meaning he does more jump scares than a lot of people, and also can kill you in suspense more than anyone else I know about. I was shocked that people 10 years older than me can't sleep after watching this. It is very scary, but I had no problem going to sleep. As I said before, James Wan is a very skillful director, and I want to see more of his movies. He directed Saw I and III, but I don't plan on seeing those any time soon. The story was pretty generic and original at the same time. The generic side is that there are a bunch of ghosts hanging around, and on the original side, the son falls into a coma and a big elaborate process tries to save him. That wasn't a spoiler, was it? Anyway, the music was extremely different, but in a completely good way. It has sense of terror every time it plays, and when it plays, you KNOW something is going to happen. They really are disgusting. Brief recap: Acting-awesome. Effects- awesome. Story-pretty cool. Music-extremely scary. That was my review of Insidious, I think you should go see it, if you like really scary movies, and see ya!

10,000 BC (2008)

Not Worth Watching

[3/10 · 28 October 2013]

Save yourselves! I wanted to see this movie when it came out, because I heard it was really good. I have waited 5 years until now to see this...for absolutely nothing. The cover on some editions says that "10,000 BC rocks; it is an adrenaline rush from start to finish. Bullcrap! Excuse my language. It really got interesting when the credits rolled out. (Dissed!) I'm a fan of Roland Emmerich, but he really disappointed me with this one. I like his other movies like 2012 and Independence Day, a lot, and I thought this movie would keep the streak going. I was utterly mistaken. It was very boring, and not really realistic. It had a cool story, really, it did, but it was ruined by horrible acting. Camilla Belle was shockingly off her game in this film. She did an absolutely wonderful job in other films like When A Stranger Calls. I'm glad though that I like some other Roland Emmerich movies, like Independence Day and 2012, mentioned above. That evened out his performance for me. He was bound to make a bad movie sometime. The acting now. Camilla Belle was really the best in this film in the area of acting. Steven Strait: I don't know if one of his above average performances, and I would hope not, but I have not seen any of his other acting work. Everyone else, really, in general, was about the same amount of acting skill. The graphics were used a lot, and probably not as much as they needed to be. Even when they could easily have used a prop, and make it look realistic, they used graphics and ruined it. They, meaning the VFX team. Really, at some points, they were actually really good, but at other times they were just really, really cheesy. They made up words for stuff that exists in real life, like Mannock, for Mammoth. You'd think that since this takes place in 10,000 BC, the people wouldn't speak absolutely fluent English. I take that back. They should at least have an accent. Like a German or North African Person. Where are they, anyway? One day it's sunny and beautiful day, and warm, the next day, it is super cold and snowing! It makes no sense! Also, if you are going to walk for a month or two, go into the mountains, and fall a bunch, and then get to a desert country, with a bench of stabbing winds and hot sand, you would think that you get tired. But Nooooo! Everyone is in tip-top shape. No scratches or anything, and then they go straight into a battle, and kill a bunch of people. That's nice! That may or may not happen, in the movie. I also think that since most of the really cool characters should be in the movie at least more than once or twice. It makes just sense. The movie was just BAD, and I'm sorry, but if you like it, you have no taste. OHHH! I've got to get to studying soon. I have a big 47 point test tomorrow. See ya!

Skyline (2010)

What's With All The Hate? Come on People!

[7/10 · 26 October 2013]

I decided to see the movie Skyline because some people, meaning a lot, hated it, and some loved the movie. I watched it with my brother and he said he liked it, and so did I. I can't understand all the hate around this movie. I know there were some minor plot holes in it, and some lame acting, and some other things, but those effects were absolutely out of the park. Is the only reason some people don't like this is because the aliens didn't look like they wanted them to? Because Eric Balfour's character is actually cool? I don't know. If you don't like this movie, please don't say my review wasn't helpful. It is my opinion, after all. Anyway, I will say right now that I recommend this movie to anyone who isn't a super stickler about movies, and likes alien surreal disaster movies. It did make me cringe in one scene, though, when _________ dies. Oops! Hahahahahaha! Besides that point, I'm sure you will like this movie if you want to have a night out with your friends. Let me start now with the special effects. They came from the masterminds behind Avatar, Iron Man 2, and 300. That's when you know they're going to be good. One of the great things about this movie is that all of the aliens aren't exactly the same. Movies like Alien and Predator are those kinds of movies where the movie is just a bunch of different aliens, some different, a bunch that are all the same. You don't see that a lot these days. I don't know how people pull off this kind of realness, but let me tell you, in the main alien scenes, they are awesome. However, some parts, but only some, are cheesy. Not many, though. To JeremyJahns on Youtube *little copyright symbol*, your review was really against my opinion of the movie. I know that your review is your opinion, but I just thought I'd say that. To the acting. Not super awesome, but OK. Just like the acting from Dinoshark, another Eric Balfour movie. So not exemplary, like the effects, but it's tolerable, I guess. It's one of the reasons I only give this a 7. It also gets a little "WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY DO THAT", meaning you don't want whatever happens to happen but it still happens anyway. I do agree with some people though, who say that this movie would be a lot cooler if it as like Cloverfield, you know? Hey great party guys! Oh look aliens! Lets make a movie and value my camera over everything else! Ahhhhhh! You know? But anyway. And so what if some of the aliens look like the collectors from Mass Effect (VG 2007)? They're still really awesome! Now the plot. It was really kind of generic, and not really original. It was basically these people were having a party, aliens came, we tried to fight them off, so on and so forth. If it was something like they themselves found a way to fight them off, then it would be a lot more interesting. That's what I have to say about that. That was my review of Skyline, thanks for reading, and see ya later!

2012 (I) (2009)

A Great, But Eventually Drawn Out Movie

[7/10 · 26 October 2013]

The movie 2012 had heaps-of-hype around it, and I finally got to see it after 4 years. My friends who had seen it said it was absolutely fantastic, and since they have pretty much the same taste as me in movies I trusted them. I rented it from my local library's movie section and watched the next day, after watching It. It started kind of slow, with all the bits and pieces, and eventually it just got boring. Soon after, though, the real stuff started happening. Explosions, People dying in horrific ways, buildings falling - all that jazz. For the first 90-100 minutes the movie was enthralling, and that was the beginning/middle, and eventually it just got to a point where it was still good and entertaining, but got kind of old after a while. I was hanging on until I got to the end, though, because I knew with a movie like this, the end must be awesome. I was right. I'm not telling you what it was, though. There were absolutely astonishing visual effects in the beginning/middle of the movie, and they looked oh so very awesome. Nice job, Mr. Emmerich and VFX team! Anyway, there were very few scenes in the beginning/middle/end of the movie that weren't awesome. Except in the end, I got kind of bored because it was long, and drawn out. Was it intense? Yeah! But it was just one of those movies that you really really like, but just want to end about 20 minutes earlier. The end was, hover, a subtle retelling of Noah's Ark, and that's really all I can tell you about this movie's end. There were some real shockers, too, and they will probably leave you in disbelief, if you are interested in the movie. By the way, only a 1 or 2 of my reviews have spoilers in them, so you should go check those out, too. The acting was everything you would want to have in a disaster flick, screaming, yelling, and tears, and everything else. You can really feel the emotions of the characters at times, especially with Harry who has a small role played by Blu Mankuma, a very skilled actor. The end was where the tired wall really hits you. It was good, don't get me wrong, but I really wanted to shave off maybe 15 - 20 minutes of the run time. My apologies if this is a bad review. I'm kind of out of it because I just went jogging, and before that watched a 158 minute movie that I'm reviewing right now. Anyway, I do recommend this movie to you if you like good movies, disaster movies, or are in the mood for some good, old -fashioned explosions. See ya!

It (1990)

I Wouldn't Say Movie Gold, But Maybe Movie Bronze

[7/10 · 26 October 2013]

I know my summary says that this is a movie, but you do know It's actually a mini series? You there, in the back, you don't? Well now you do. Anyway I had a movie night with my family, and we watched It first. However, that was a mistake, only because it took all night watching a mini-series that is a little over 3 hours. Today, the day I'm reviewing this, is when we are going to finish the marathon of movies. (we'll be watching Skyline, Transformers, 10,000 B.C, and 2012). I made the terrible and stupid mistake of accidentally watching the second part first, and the first part second. It did not ruin the mini-series for me completely, only a little bit. Anyway...

The First Part: The first part was probably the best, because it showed what happened to the Lucky Seven as a flashback, which was probably more enjoyable than the present time of the Lucky Seven. I don't know about you but I don't know if they should be called the Lucky Seven because they keep being plagued by this thing, but whatever. I know this came out back in 1990, but it's still pretty cheesy for something like this. However, they pretty much have an excuse for it because, with a clown, things are usually always cheesy. The acting was very good, especially for all of the kid actors. If I didn't know better, I would have thought that they were meant to do this kind of thing. But I guess they are, sort of. Pennywise was pretty scary, but I don't know about scariest thing put on television, like some people think it is. The first part also contained some of the most famous scenes, that you remember for a long time.

The Second Part: The second part starts out pretty slow. You knew it was going to get somewhere, but it takes a while to get there. The adult actors were just as good, if not as good, as the kid actors. They had a little trouble delivering the what could have been great punchlines, but kind of choked almost every time. Don't get me wrong, the second part was still OK, but mostly kind of slow. The effects here were a little better, and it's nice to get some stop action animation every now and again, and this part delivers it. There is a giant _______ that is really cool. OOPS! I did not to that on accident. I don't want to have a spoiler review. I'm kind of running out of things to say about the second part. It was very slow in the beginning, I thought, you did see Pennywise, though, and one part was good in the beginning. All of the other were fairly boring. Really, there isn't much to say about the second part, except it is slow mostly and pretty cheesy.

The reasons I give this a 6 is because there is poor dialogue in quite a few parts. It is very, very long, and you don't often find a movie or 2 part miniseries that is 187-192 minutes long. Don't you think that's a little too long? And it is kind of the same thing over and over. Mike Hanlon giving calls to people, them on their way to Derry, and flashbacks on the way. I have not read the original novel masterpiece yet, but I intend to when I get the time to read 1,138 page book. I gave this a 6, you might give it higher, you might give it lower, but this is my opinion, and not yours. I hope you found this review helpful, and see ya later!

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

It's Just Alright

[6/10 · 18 October 2013]

Just like the first movie, this movie is just alright. At first, I thought this was a sequel, so I was confused for a few minutes, but that's OK. But then I realized that it was a prequel and took place a month to a month and a half before the first. I didn't learn that until I paid attention to the dates. One thing I've learned about this series is that the directors always do a wonderful job at keeping you in extreme suspense. All of the night scenes kill me every time, because I don't know whether something's coming or not. The first one was absolutely one of the most suspenseful horror movies I have ever seen. Not ever, just one of them. The movie is very similar to the first in many ways, both good and bad. In the good ways, it was very, very suspenseful, and pretty realistic for the most part, but in some scenes I could just tell that there was string involved. Anyway, other good ways are that the film was fairly thought provoking, like how it really makes you think about all the stuff that is going on and what you would do if you were in that situation. In the bad ways, however, the movie starts out very boring with no scares. It took a long time to build up, and I was bored throughout the first half hour. Also, It's just a bunch of stereo-types. Like pans dropping, doors closing, and cupboards opening. In fact, that's what some of it is in the first film. However, in the first, there were also a lot of original things, those I cannot tell you, but you can check out my review for the first as well, which was typed right before I made this. Anyway, my dad was watching this with me, and was so bored that he left with about a half hour left and started looking on Craigslist for guitars. I told him the movie builds up, but he didn't listen. My mom watched the first movie with me so I could see how scared she got. She didn't get scared. I watched this one with my dad because he does NOT get scared easily, and wanted to see how he would react to this. He thought it was terrible. Anyway, I was only genuinely frightened maybe once or twice. I'm sorry Paranormal Activity fan people, but I don't think that this is genuine horror, but that is MY opinion, so don't get all mad. If you want to see real horror, go see Insidious, or Insidious 2, but if you just want to have a good movie to watch at a party, go see this. That's all I have to say. The movie was generally alright, but in a nutshell, it wasn't really scary. Hope you found this helpful. See ya!

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Nightmares Not Guaranteed

[6/10 · 12 October 2013]

The movie was just alright. That's it in a nutshell, really. I mean, this is one of those found footage movies that doesn't actually give you a headache while watching it, and also one that is worth watching more than once. But, the movie is just one big haunted house cliché after another. Footsteps, doors closing, sounds in the dark. In fact, you don't even have to watch the movie to know that happens. In fact, if you watch something like Paranormal Witness, you'll get pretty much the same idea there is in this. I actually prefer Paranormal Witness to this, though, because there is more of a variety. Well, it is a TV series though. Anyway, I watched this 2 days ago on FX and was compelled to review it, but I just never really got around to it until now. My mom watched it with me, because I wanted to see how scared she got. She didn't get scared. And if my mom doesn't get scared, then you know the movie isn't that scary. I wasn't that scared either. I believed the hype around this movie, and that was a mistake. I was bored pretty much the whole time. I might be sending you some mixed messages here, but there are good and bad things about this film. Believe the reviews about this movie, because they give an honorable rating to it. The critics are a little off, in my opinion though. Ratings from regular people give it an honorable rating, not the critics. Basically, it's like any other haunted house/possession movie. The girl is always scared and screaming, and the guy is always scared but goes to look at everything. The scary scenes were OK, when there were any. The real scary stuff only happens in the last ____ minutes. OOPS! Guess I can't tell you. What I can't understand is how this movie almost grossed 108 million, and only cost 15 million. That's almost a 93 million profit! That's craziness! Oh well. I'm really running out of things to say, uhhhhh, well, that was my review on Paranormal Activity. BOOP!