Bibleman_Adventures12 Reviews

Jeepers Creepers III (2017)

A serious contender for worst film of the year.

[1/10 · 26 September 2017]

Oh man, where do I even begin?

I've been waiting for Jeepers Creepers 3 since elementary school. When the day was finally announced last month, I couldn't contain my excitement...well, I could, simply because Jeepers Creepers had worn off a bit. I had realized that the first film, though good in certain aspects, was an overall flawed film, and that the second film was an outright piece of garbage. I predicted that this film would be bad, but oh man, I never could've guessed it would be as awful as it turned out to be. JC3 makes JC2 look good. There's so much wrong with this movie that I'm not even sure where to start.

First, let's start off with the plot, or lack thereof. There are several stories Jeepers Creepers 3 could've told, but it's like they didn't know which one to choose, so they just made a film with no plot at all. JC3 takes place in between 1 and 2, which is a baffling decision since that story didn't need to be told and it ruins the continuity of the JC timeline. The film revolves around, like, 9 characters and I don't even know which character would count as the "main" character because nobody gets adequate enough screen time. We have Officer Tubbs from the end of the first movie, a character so minor in the original that it really makes you wonder why Salva would write him a lead role. Then we have the team of Creeper Hunters led by Stan Shaw. We also have some dementia-stricken old lady, her teenage daughter, the country hunk that's crushing on her, a group of punk teenage bikers, and the Creeper himself. They all have notable screen time but most of them are totally pointless and some don't even have resolutions of concussions to their characters. Notice how out of all of these characters, I never mentioned Trisha? Despite Gina Phillips's on-poster credit, she is not in the movie at all and instead has a 15 second cameo at the very, very tail end of the movie. The film constantly flip-flops back and forth between all of these characters at the most inconvenient times, and by the time the story has come back around to a set of characters, we've already forgotten what's going on with them because the story has packed so much into a 5 minute span, yet so little at the same time.

The errors in the plot continue as, well, there is no plot. Pacing is something that seems totally oblivious to Salva and company, as the film had no distinguishable act structure of any kind. The film still felt like it was in it's 1st act at the hour mark, and I'm honestly not even sure what the climax was supposed to be, if the film even had a climax to begin with! We're just watching the film and suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the screen turns black and the credits begin to roll. Tonal shifts are aggressive in this film, as one minute it's an episode of Degrassi, then it's John Carpenter's Vampires, then it's Evil Dead 2, and then it's American Horror Story. None of it matches and it feels like 3 or 4 random scripts were cobbled together without any editing. There are some moments the feel like Salva was trying to make a borderline comedy, but it's unclear mostly due to our next point...

Next is the production. Salva is a great cinematic director and the first two movies are filled with gorgeous shots and atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a blade. I suppose Salva got lazy with JC3 because this movie feels like it was made for TV. The film is laden with abysmal CGI, some of the worst I've ever seen in a theatrical release. The CGI in the original film looked better, and that came out in 2001. The editing and lighting are often so awful that you can't even tell what's happening; there is one instance where a biker is snatched, or something, by the Creeper, but it's so quick and shot so poorly you can't even tell what happens. An audience member behind me said "what just happened?" and I was glad I wasn't the only one. The production actually reaches "so bad it's hilarious" status on several occasions, including a slow-mo scene with the Creeper that was so over-the-top that it had the theater erupting in laughter. Trust me, it wasn't the only serious scene where the audience laughed hard at something meant to be serious.

Even The Creeper himself is ruined. One of the most intimidating horror villains of the modern horror age has been reduced to a slightly irritated staggering drunk. Whoever decided to give him that bright red T shirt should be fired, as it looks severely out of place on him. Oh, and we STILL don't know his origins. By this point, being teased on his history comes off as a cheap gimmick, like even Salva has no idea what to do about his backstory.

So there you have it. JC3 is possibly 2017's worst film so far. Too many main characters, an unfocused story with no conclusion, too much plot yet somehow not enough plot, absent pacing, a nonthreatening and goofy looking villain, Syfy channel levels of production, some of the worst CGI ever, and a massive kick in the groin towards the JC fan-base. I used to wonder why this film was denied a worldwide theatrical release, thinking Salva's history may be the culprit. I've now realized that the more likely reason is that the producers saw how awful this film was and couldn't bear to release this on the big screen. It's most definitely a home release, and that's where it should've gone. Judging by how hard my theater laughed at every scene, I doubt I'm the only one who holds these opinions.

Tornado! (1996 TV Movie)

You know it's bad if not even Bruce Campbell and Ernie Hudson can save it.

[3/10 · 9 June 2017]

Tornado!...

...you know, I really hate it when movie names have exclamation points in the titles. Like, what's the point? To add emphasis, to make it pop more? Is the audience member reading the VHS cover supposed to shout it in order to pronounce it properly? No, it's not pronounced "tornado", it's "TORNADO!!!", at the top of your lungs. Though, I think the proper reason as to why an exclamation point is in the title is to symbolize the shock of a tornado finally appearing in this film. You're sitting through this plaintive film that slithers at a snails pace, and you're sitting on the couch with your shirt off playing Angry Birds because there's absolutely nothing remotely interesting occurring on screen, and FINALLY a tornado shows up. So, it's like "hey, a Tornado!" because it's such a shock that a tornado finally appears in a film called Tornado!. Exclamation point, period? How do I write that? "!." or just "!" since it's the end of the sentence? See, it's just stupid.

Tornado(!) is a 1996 TV movie meant to blatantly cash in and rip off Twister, which came out two weeks before this film premiered. It happens to actually star some notable people, like Bruce Campbell, Ernie Hudson, and LQ Jones, among others. There have been some internet testimonies of people claiming this film actually played in some theaters, but it's never officially been confirmed and I dread anyone who paid money to watch this on the big screen. For people who hated Twister, I dare you to watch Tornado!. Its biggest flaw is that it's dull. So, so dull. Every time you think a tornado is about to appear, it just cuts to black and opens up to the next day. You're sitting at the edge of your seat, finally relieved that something is about to happen...and then it just cuts to somewhere else. It's basically the proto-Godzilla (2014) about 20 years earlier. In all actuality, there's only about 10 seconds of on-screen tornado action occurring in this film, and most of it can be seen in the trailer. For the remaining 89 minutes and 50 seconds, it's nothing but bad dialog and people doing nothing. It gets excruciating and torturous within 30 minutes. Even when the tornado is right in front of our characters, the camera doesn't pan around to let the audience see it; we just hear sounds of destruction and our casts' shocked expressions. I understand that the film is low budget, but filmmakers need to understand that they can't tease an audience with something they don't have the money to afford showing. Not even legendary coolmeisters like Bruce Campbell and Ernie Hudson can sweettalk this film to make it more bearable. Instead, they too just sit around waiting for a tornado to appear. Not surprisingly, the most interesting sequence is the one moment where we actually see the tornado as it wrecks havoc on a small town.

I hear people all the time exclaiming how Twister is such an awful film, and it really makes me wish they'd see this. Watching Twister after this will make the latter seem like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Twister may be dumb, but at least it's fun and spends about 90% of its runtime with cool tornado-related action sequences, and at least the characters do more than just talk about boring stuff. Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt's writing may get annoying, but at least they actually do stuff. Wanna see Bruce Campbell get a haircut? Wanna see Ernie Hudson watch TV? Wanna see Bruce Campbell driving while nothing is happening? Wanna sit around for 90 minutes waiting for a Tornado to appear? Well, Tornado! may be the film for you. The sad thing is that Tornado! isn't even the worst tornado film. Atomic Twister, Nature Unleashed: Tornado, Storm Cell, Storm Chasers: Revenge Of The Twisters, and Devil Winds are all much worse than Tornado!, and that's extremely unsettling because this is a bad, bad movie.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Such a nothing movie

[4/10 · 23 May 2017]

Alien: Covenant is by no means horrible. The biggest problem is that film is so "bleh", but it's strange kind of "bleh". A day later, however, it's impact on me is very strange, a combination of being completely forgettable and me not being able to stop thinking about it. Isn't that an oxymoron?

I had no understanding of the pacing throughout the film. The runtime said it was 123 minutes long, yet I honestly felt as if it were far shorter, mostly because the pacing was so lost and confused. The characters are all complete morons, more so than Prometheus. People just touch random stuff on an alien planet that they nothing about and has supposedly never been discovered. Five minutes in and after discovering mysterious wheat plants, they still assume the planet is uninhabited and even make plans to permanently move there. A guy even does the cliché "I gotta take a whiz" thing where he goes off by himself to urinate only for something to happen to him. Characters are constantly tripping on their own feet, dropping or leaving behind weapons for no reason, and always believing the most suspicious people's lies. The directing is also very mediocre, almost as if a tired 80-year-old man was at the helm -- oh wait. Ridley Scott is a great director, but it's like he just didn't care. Scenes are shot okay enough, but not on the same level as a veteran director like Scott. So many scenes are missing the 'oomph' that would make them really interesting.

Sure, it has xenomorphs. Sure, it has gore (and really good gore, too). Sure, it answers questions asked by Prometheus. But, I mean, so what? What about the story? What about the character? What about the script? But, at the same time, nothing about this film is too bad. The effects, set design, and cinematography are all marvelous, and this entry really adds a lot more mystery to the franchise than Prometheus does. Everything just sorta sits right in the middle. It's nice to see the xenomorph kill some people on the big screen, but the people being killed are all unlikable cardboard-cutout morons. I'll support one more Alien prequel film, but Scott has suggested this being the first of a set of four films. Really? Just let it die, Scott!

The Bracelet of Bordeaux (2007)

My hometown's only studio production turns out to be one of the worst movies ever made

[1/10 · 30 March 2017]

I'm from the community of The Woodlands, Texas, an affluent suburb about 30 miles north of Houston. As a film nerd, I was always excited to see the only "major" motion picture movie to be filmed in my town, that being The Bracelet Of Bordeaux. I remember when it came out, many of my middle school friends were talking about being in the background, or that their houses or streets could be seen in the distance. After over a decade of curiosity, I finally tracked down the only production from my hometown...and it's sadly not only a bad movie, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Not a single solitary aspect of this film is good. I suppose the two young child protagonists are passable, but that's about it. The production quality looks like an effortless middle school project made by two slackers, like it was filmed on a $50 Flip camera bought at Walmart. Youtube videos look better than this. The villains are over the top and completely pointless with no real motives beyond just being poorly written villains (the Italian mob teaming with generic metalhead punks? What?). The script is horrible, the jokes are cringeworthy, and everything else I haven't mentioned yet is just abysmal. On top of everything, it's just excruciatingly boring. It became a chore to watch this film after just 10 minutes. There's also a two minute long dog fart battle...I don't think I need to explain why that's a bad thing.

It becomes so bad that it stops being funny, and instead becomes a trance-inducing film coma of swirling chaos, something not even the worst shrooms could give. I mostly blame the horrendous grainy home-camera cinematography, but the terrible writing, acting, and humor all blend together to create a pool of depression, like an everflowing stream of hallucinogenic fluff.

Not to mention all the Texas stereotypes. I'm sure most northerners or foreigners don't know this, but most Texans don't wear the cliché cowboy hat and boots, especially in modern upper class community like The Woodlands, where the official community uniform might as well be Vineyard Vines or Hollister. Most Woodlanders would laugh at the sight of a cowboy hat. As you'd expect, every other male character in this film wears a giant cowboy hat and boots with spurs, spewing out cliché slang like "HOWDY Y'ALL?" and "WHAT IN TARNATION!" You'd think that, because the movie was filmed in Texas, they'd see that nobody actually dressed or talked like that. The only thing missing is a shootout at high noon and a brawl in the saloon. At least it doesn't take place in the desert.

So everything is terrible, right? Well, we still haven't discussed the worst part of the movie: the production itself. The film was made by Frank Eakin, who, according to people I've interviewed and reports I've read online, claimed to be a big Hollywood hotshot and would "make The Woodlands the next Hollywood". He claimed the film would be a massive budget fantasy film on the same scale as The Chronicles Of Narnia, and because of that, said that all extras had to pay $250 for the blessing of being in a major blockbuster. After filming wrapped, Eakin and crew fled town and gave no updates on the film for 3 years, making the town believe that they had been scammed. Finally, after 3 years of locals raging about their wasted money, the film suddenly appeared out of nowhere, not in theaters, but in local video shops. Instead of the massive scale blockbuster they were promised, they received a crappy low budget home video with terrible effects, awful jokes, and wasted community effort. On top of that, many of the kids who paid $250 to appear in the film had their scenes cut entirely and appear nowhere in the deleted scenes or extras. However, it doesn't end there. When parents went to IMDb to vent their frustrations, they found that their comments and reviews were flagged and deleted, and were replaced by several clearly fake reviews praising the film and, in particular, gloating about how amazing and talented Frank Eakin is. Go and read them for yourself and see if you think they're real or not. If this review mysteriously gets deleted, you'll know the truth.

So, what's the lesson here? Don't lie to a community about making a horrible passion project, because your film may end up being one of the worst films ever made. The Woodlands is a beautiful community with a plethora of interesting things and it deserves much better than a movie about magical farting dogs.

Space Buddies (2009 Video)

Way too serious and way too BORING

[12 November 2016]

I watched this film as a joke with my girlfriend, as both of us were looking for something really awful to laugh at. Sadly, the movie wasn't that funny and really wasn't that poorly made either. Now, that certainly isn't a bad thing, and I would've been very happy had the film been good. Unfortunately, the film's biggest problem comes from the fact that it's way too boring and serious for its own good.

Now, sure, the film is about a gang of token puppers that get lost in space, and there are the occasional fart jokes (the "fat" dog gets most of the abuse here), as well as a few puns (they say the phrase "one small step for dog, one giant leap for dogkind" at least five times), but other than that, the humor is almost non-existent. The script almost feels like it was written for adults staring adults, but someone decided to change it to a G- rated talking dog movie at the last minute, forgetting to remove all the long and boring science talk scenes. Trust me, there are a lot of long science talks sequences. Every time we cut back to the humans on earth, there's always a large spiel of exposition explaining the scientifics behind what's going on in space. Kids don't care about scientific details or the true-to-life accuracy of the facts, they want to see silly puppies doing silly things. And even when they cut back to the dogs, it's mostly serious dialog discussing their situation. Sound exciting to your kid? Probably not. The film is also unnecessarily cruel to a Russian who gets abandoned in space and tries to get revenge on the puppies after they nearly blow him up in a fiery explosion. Seriously.

That's about it. Also, the rapping wigger dog is probably the most annoying character in the history of cinema, and I do not approve.

Tremors 5: Bloodlines (2015 Video)

Wait...fans and critics actually LIKED this one? What did I miss?

[2/10 · 1 November 2016]

I have this strange fixation on the Tremors franchise, probably one that's unhealthy. Regardless, the original film is easily in my top 5 and I could ramble for eons about its hidden genius. Its sequel, Tremors 2: Aftershocks, is surprisingly very good for a home media release, and it probably sits in my top 50 favorite films. Tremors 3 and 4 aren't as near as good as the first two and have a ton of problems, but they still have a certain charm to them: cool effects, funny dialog, great action, and Burt Gummer, who is an unsung B-movie badass hero. I've been awaiting a 5th film for years, and I figured it wouldn't happen...

...until I read an article in early 2015, stating Tremors 5 had gone into surprise filming in South Africa. My heart pounded out of my chest, my trembling hands nearly dropped my phone. I was a 1st grader (about 7 years old) when Tremors 4 came out, and now I was about to enter college. Was this film finally happening, with Michael Gross and all? I thought it was too good to be true, maybe a hoax or joke article. Sure enough, it's real, and so is my excitement.

Then I see the director: Don Michael Paul, one of the cheapest, laziest, and overall worst modern film directors currently working. Maybe he's a nice guy, seems like it, but he is one of the worst directors I can think of. My heart stopped pounding. The guy who directed celebrated classics like Who's Your Caddy? and Jarhead 2 is now directing one of my bucket list sequels.

Months past and I finally saw it after it came out. I read a lot of reviews saying it was rather good, including my local paper that called it "by far the best Tremors sequel...almost as good as the original" and after just 30 seconds of watching the film I could tell you that those claims are very misguided. Fans of the original franchise liked this terrible, soulless, nonchalant cash-grab of a sequel? The same fans who were even critical towards Tremors 3 and 4 are now celebratory about Tremors 5?

So much is wrong with this trainwreck. First, the monster designs are completely different, and for zero purpose. I actually think they are pretty cool on their own, but this is not a remake or a reboot, and none of the characters seem to notice anything different. Why change the designs of the monsters in a sequel, thus breaking continuity? It'd be like if they made Gremlins 3, but the gremlins are now pink, furry, and have eight legs, and then the characters never asked why they looked different. Failed comedian Jaimie Kennedy plays Burt Gummer's sidekick, though I feel as if his role were originally written for Pauly Shore or Rob Schneider. He's about as irritating as you'd think: memes, pop culture references, shouting and overreacting about everything, completely stupid and makes situations worse, extremely annoying and pointless. "Hey, he mentioned Breaking Bad and then said 'YOLO'! That's funny because..." Someone remind me how many times the original franchise had to mention pop culture to stay relevant? None is the correct answer. Not surprising, the terrible direction is terrible. The film is so flat and uninteresting, with NO cool angles or engaging shots. The film could've been much, much better had the director known anything about making a cool-looking movie, or had he even cared (which I'm assuming he didn't). Everything is so unremarkable, like they just pointed the camera from the most static and basic angle and pressed record. How do people like this even get work, where idealistic college graduates are scooping gum off of diner tables just to make a living? There is only one scene in this entire film where the directing is slightly interesting, and it's like another person took over.

More than anything else, this sequel is absolutely soulless and void of creativity. It feels nothing like any of the other films in the franchise, obviously because this is the first film in the franchise to be helmed by different people. Burt Gummer has gone from sarcastic but no-nonsense survivalist to bipolar drill instructor who shouts psuedo-military jargon every other line. He even rather heartlessly lets an innocent person get crushed by a dead monster with zero remorse, which is the exact opposite of who he was in the previous installments! The lovable and charismatic side characters have always been a trait of the sequels until now, where everyone is bland and boring. Tell me a single name of any of these characters. Awesome music has also been a distinguishing element of all Tremors until now, where the creators decided to use stock orchestras and even more stock royalty-free rock music. The story is boring and just zig-zags all over the place with very little cohesion, and the way they kill the final graboid in this movie not only makes the final kill in Tremors 4 seem plausible, but it should make every Tremors fan snap the DVD in half. I guess fans thought African voodoo magic causing a lighting bolt to strike and explode a graboid just as it was leaping mid-jump out of the air fit in totally fine with the franchise's theme? Nonsense.

How did fans like this movie again?

It's a sickening world to know this film could've been much better had only a few things been changed. I think what made the other films work, even Tremors 3 which is not a good movie, is that the people who made them cared about Tremors. Don Michael Paul and his crew clearly do not care about Tremors in the slightest, as Paul even said in the commentary track that he had never seen a Tremors film until Michael Gross forced him to watch the original after filming had been completed. What a hack, and what a terrible film. To prove even further than they did not give a flying fart about this film, there's a line that mentions graboids never have been seen "in the southern hemisphere" when Tremors 3 freaking opens with monsters in Argentina! Did they not even WATCH the sequels? Anyone who thinks this atrocious mess of cinema is the best sequel since the first is absolutely bonkers, and anyone who says this is the first sequel to "capture the feel of the first" is even more insane, because I don't recall Tremors having pop culture references, a meandering non-flowing plot, boring characters, and voodoo lighting in it.

Also, the film has some sort of fixation on pee. Gummer drinks pee, a character wets his pants, a girl mentions having to pee, a dude pees on a rock, a guy dies while peeing, and a lion pees on Gummer's face. Do the writers have a urine fetish? If so, maybe they should explore that and stay away from the Tremors franchise.

Cabin Fever (2016)

Why?

[1/10 · 23 July 2016]

I don't even want to waste my time on this horrendous collection of digital pixelation, but yet here I am on this site writing a stupid review on it. Whatever. I'm a fan of the original movie; I love the dark sense of humor it has, the high amounts of raised palms and "wtf?"'s thrown about while watching the movie. I love the low budget feel of it, as it gives aspiring filmmakers like myself a sense of hope, as if saying "hey, I can do this!" It's undeniably stupid and I completely understand why many despise it, but for morons like me, entertaining isn't a good enough word to describe it.

Sorry if this review is poorly written. I just simply don't care when it comes to this movie. Hey, kinda like the makers of this movie! Maybe I should be hired to write the next Cabin Fever remake.

So just 13 years after its release and not even one full year after the release of its latest sequel, some producers thought it'd be a timely idea to remake Cabin Fever. Now even though I enjoy the original, there certainly are a plethora of flaws abound, and a remake could freshen things up. Raise the budget, do some things the original couldn't, hire better actors, better filming equipment, raise the atmosphere, etc. Sadly, and actually quite shockingly, none of that is done here in even the slightest. The actors are bland and forgettable with little to zero distinguishable personalities, whereas the actors in the original looked and acted different. You had the jock, the fat one, the shy nerd, the girl next door, and the slut. Here, you have basic person 1, 2, 3, 4, and gamer nerd. The side characters also work poorly here. The original had basically every variation of redneck and it worked perfectly, while this one has some 30-year-old who looks like the director's cousin, and a fat guy. The budget here is $20 million, whereas the budget in the original was just over $500,000. Don't you think the $20 million version would have the better actors and effects? Sadly, this is incorrect, as the only thing to show the 20 mil is the gloomy forest cinematography. Even the vehicle in this movie, some generic Jeep Grand Cherokee, feels like one of the cast members decided to use their moms car, instead of the original which used a rare 1970's Chevy Blazer Silverado. Don't you think the new, more expensive version would have the vintage vehicle and not the SUV that you could buy from an independent dealer for a few grand?

Other changes are beyond confusing, especially ridiculous changes that aren't even necessary. In the original, Burt accidentally shoots a hermit because he is hunting and mistakes him for an animal; perhaps a bit far fetched, but plausible. Here, Burt is fantasizing in playing a real life Call Of Duty mission, gets a bit too carried away, and accidentally shoots a hermit. Perhaps this could work if he were either eight years old or schizophrenic, but for a normally functioning human to do this is mind boggling on the writers part. The director also thought a random fully automatic Carbine machine gun would be more realistic than a normal hunting rifle from the original, a change that makes absolutely zero sense. The opening scene where a hermit discovers that his dog companion is dead was suspenseful and creepy in the original, where the man slowly realizes his dog is not only dead, but completely mutilated. Here, the hermit walks into the frame with a boring pan shot, his dog literally falls apart like it's made of Lego's, and the hermit falls to his knees like a character from an awful Mexican soap opera and cries "NOOOOOO!" to the heavens, all within 15 seconds, giving us no time to feel the suspense. Speaking of the dog, we learn here that its name was Pancakes, meaning the deranged karate kid had mistaken Burt for the hermits dog...? Was that the intention?

One of the big selling points of the films advertising was that the characters all had different rewritten deaths, so that'll automatically make us want to see it, right? Well, even that is wrong. All of the characters die in literally the exact same ways, with maybe one or two things changed. For example: one person dies by getting bludgeoned to death in the original, while here, they pour gasoline on her, and THEN she gets bludgeoned. Big difference, as you can see. Another character dies by getting ripped apart by a rabid dog in the original, while here, she shouts at the dog and THEN gets ripped apart by the rabid dog. What the point of even trying to exploit these "different death scenes" when there is nothing even remotely differently about them? The one thing you could've changed from this film for an actual reason and purpose, and you didn't? Whatever, who cares.

This is the worst film of 2016 I've seen thus far, and is also probably the worst remake I've ever viewed. Why was this even made? Seriously, why? Cabin Fever 4 is still in pre- production as I'm writing this, so obviously the franchise isn't dead. Maybe Eli Roth is planning to remake all of his movies but with bigger budgets, worse/more bland characters, and only the stupid and unimportant stuff changed. Who knows, who cares. I get that people hate the original, but there is no way people could like this more, even the most dedicated of Cabin Fever haters will like the original more than this rubbish. This thing only played for a week in all Houston cinemas, and it's no surprise why. There are hundreds of more things wrong with this movie, so much more that I could probably kill an entire forest from printing it onto paper, but who cares. Obviously, the creators of this film didn't.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

I didn't enjoy this movie...am I sexist?

[3/10 · 15 July 2016]

I'm a casual fan of the original 80's film so I wasn't foaming excess saliva at the mouth for a new movie or anything. But then, I see the trailers; awful CGI, dated pop cultural humor, horny mom jokes, prat falls, and even an "aw hell naw" spoken from a sassy black character. I kindly removed my spectacles and said with a sombre tone "With God as my witness, this is abysmal".

And then I went to see it because I felt like it. Though it wasn't as awful as I thought it would be, it still was quite awful. Bad jokes, too many obvious nods to the original (yes, we've seen the original, what's your point?), annoying characters, video game CGI, mediocre directing, and a lackluster story. I also found Chris Hemsworth as the dorky sidekick to be ungodly irritating, and every joke where someone fawns over him graces me with much disdain. While there were some decent jokes and I found the climax to be genuinely enthralling, I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. It's a lackluster experience overall, and I don't think it's worth paying green for tickets.

But I go online to express my feelings on this movie, and I'm met with shocking criticism. "You didn't like it because you're sexist" "You thought it sucked because you hate women" "You'd probably enjoy it if it stared men" and then I asked myself...is this true? I've been married for three years and we had previously been dating since my freshman year of high school, and she's my best friend in the whole wide world....but now that I hate this movie, should I divorce her? We have a daughter on the way, should we see a medical clinic about that? Should I distance myself from all of my female coworkers? What about my mom? *gasp* What about my grandma? But my wife disliked the movie too for mostly similar reasons, does that mean she's a self- hating misogynist? So many questions, so little time! I've always seen women as my equal, but clearly, the reasons of disapproval must link to the fact that women star in it.

Because of my recent enlightenment, I've written a new review: Boobs aren't funny. Boobs are boring. Boobs are for morons. What guy even likes boobs to begin with? I've never met a single guy who enjoys boobs. When's the last time you heard a guy say "I'd like to see pair of big boobs"? Never, because no guy thinks that way. Don't even get me started on butts, because guys hate those too. The best part about the movie was that MAN Chris Hemsworth, because he didn't have boobs or butts. I don't even see the corny jokes in this movie, nor did I see the poor CGI or obnoxious fan-pandering references to the original, I just saw boobs and occasionally I saw butts. Therefore, I give this movie a -1000/10 star rating. Worst movie ever.

For people, big names like Dane Cook, to call me sexist and misogynistic because I dislike a movie that happens to star women is absurd. I suppose if I disliked A Haunted House, it's automatically because I'm a racist? I suppose if it I dislike World Trade Center, it's automatically because I'm a conspiring liberal? Why thank you for enlightening me, internet. Now I know the truth!