14 Reviews
Sort by:
Better than expected.
27 August 2015
It's true. There's some greedy exec sitting behind a big desk saying "we need more Paul Blart, look at those numbers!"


This is self aware dumb comedy at it's finest. I think a lot of critics missed the fact that the writers are fully aware they are writing a stupid Paul Blart movie. I think they actually had fun with this one, and it is where the comedy truly lies. Kevin James plays pathetic to perfection, but then makes you laugh when it counts, not in a sophisticated way but in a fat guy with a moustache on a segway kind of way. The supporting cast of characters were all pretty enjoyable, especially the main villain. That guy was great!

All of the inside mall cop humour actually had me laughing. This is anchor man for mall security. It's secretly fantastic. A guilty pleasure for sure.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you value respectable acting, pass on this one.
1 July 2015
I have 4 personal grades of acting. The first is laughably bad, the second is noticeably bad, the third is natural, and the fourth is noticeably outstanding. Generally, this movie has noticeably bad acting, and above all else, it ruined the movie for me.

I get it, it's a blockbuster action movie. It's not supposed to have Oscar worthy performances. I agree, but would you call the acting in the first, second, possibly even the fourth instalment Oscar worthy? No, the acting in those movies were so natural that you didn't ever say "Wow, that's bad acting". The actors in those movies did their jobs. They played their parts in a way where you didn't question why they were cast. You didn't even think about casting at all because you were in the movie. You were emotionally invested (at least for the first two).

Enter Terminator Genisys. Now, I could break down the flaws in the plot, and of each character in the movie which besides JK Simons and Lee Byung‑hun, there are many, but i'm going to zero my critical laser pointer in on one actor in particular. Can you guess who??? You guessed it...Jai Courney...

Oh. My. Goodness. For the life of me, I can not understand how he managed to impress anyone enough to land the role of Kyle Reese. What were they thinking? In my opinion, he single handedly destroyed this film. Sure the plot was messy and had a few holes, but from beginning to end his acting was amateur at best, even worse than that is the fact that he appears on screen for at least 90% of the film. Now, this point may be personal but I don't find him to be particularly charming or likable at all. He is bland. He's like a poor man's Sam Worthington, who is himself not terribly good. Jai Courtney does not belong in a blockbuster movie. He belongs in a direct to VOD sequel, and i'm sure after reading this review and then seeing the movie, you will agree. To be honest, and I know this is going to anger all of the game of thrones fans, Emilia Clarke, who plays Sarah Conner, wasn't much better. She certainly nailed the look of Sarah, however Her accent clearly got in the way of her natural acting abilities as some of her words were noticeably slurred and others seemed more like she was mumbling them under her breath. On top of that she had to work alongside Jai Courtney which made any attempt at being edgy or emotional even more noticeably unnatural due to his flat counter performance.

I probably should mention Jason Clarke as well, who played the role of John Conner...He was...There. That's about all can say...Although not the terrible actor that Jai Courtney is, he was equally as forgettable. Not likable, or dislikeable, and considering his role in this film, that's the last thing he should have been!

Last but certainly not least, there is Arnold. The Terminator. He pretty much knocked it out of the park, with my only real complaint being 5-10 too many jokes. At times I could not tell if he was a T- 800, or a stand up comedian. I'm sure it wasn't his fault, but I really do wish they would have made him a little more serious.

As far as the actual plot and pace of the movie is concerned, all I will say is this. They did not do enough ground work to get the audience to really care. As bad as the acting was, even if it had been great the movie itself wouldn't have been because it was all recycled. It was much closer to a Michael Bay film, than a James Cameron film. Too much action and not enough compelling story.

Confusing plot aside (Please see other reviews about that), this movie is missing two things which are essential and that not even dozens of nods to the original could have replaced. It's missing that feeling of real life dread and horror which the first two had, and even more than that, it's missing the likable characters which make a movie memorable, enjoyable and believable. I was not emotionally invested in pretty much any of it and was fairly disappointed overall.
13 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Does not capture the magic of the original...In any way.
24 December 2014
Let me start by saying that I loved Dumb and Dumber, and stupid comedy is kind of my thing. Having said that, it pains me to say it, but sometimes as comedic minds age, they lose their "stuff", and what was once funny to everyone is now probably only funny to them. I'm not entirely sure if it's Carrey, or the Ferrely brothers fault entirely but I though the comedy was very bad in this film. A real disappointment. Almost all of the jokes from start to finish felt poorly timed, overly exaggerated and to be honest crossed the borderline from funny to embarrassingly bad very quickly. The same joke that wasn't funny the first time, was used three more times. It didn't feel much at all like the original. I found myself cringing as it became apparent that this was not the same Jim Carrey I was accustomed to seeing. He looked old, and was not nearly as animated or sharp as his roles in the past. He seemed to not only be trying too hard to be funny, but the dialogue didn't suit him. As i'd mentioned earlier i'm not sure if Carrey or the Farrely brothers are to blame for that, but overall the writing was terrible so i'm going to assume it's the fault of the writers. On top of that, the editing was not done well either. There were plenty of scene's which should have either been cut entirely or timed differently. I don't really have very much to say about Jeff Daniels. He played his role decently, and overall I felt he did a better job at preserving the character of Harry, than Jim did of Lloyd. The funniest character in the entire film was played by Rob Riggle. Yes...Rob Riggle stole the show.

Overall, it was very disappointing. Not because it was a bad dumb and dumber movie, but because Carrey, and the entire team behind this film felt so off and so out of touch that I wonder if they will ever make another good comedy ever again. Perhaps this marks the very end of an era for this brand of comedy.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Generic and bland, but not terrible
21 October 2014
Thor: The Dark World follows the same formula as all the other big budget block buster franchise sequels. More action, more explosions, more drama, also, more "grey". What is it with all the new adventure movies and extremely bland colors?

The original Thor managed to keep me interested and excited throughout the entire film, but this time I really didn't find myself having very much concern for any of the characters. Now, I know the plot is important, but It's hard to care about a plot when you don't care if the characters live or die. I found I was bored, and completely uninterested in the usual banter between Thor, Loki and Odin. It's become very dull and predictable. I also never really found myself rooting for anyone, unlike the first film where I found myself rooting for multiple characters.

Whatever made the chemistry work in Thor seems to be almost lost in the sequel. The pacing was slow in all the wrong places, and the dialogue in my opinion went from acceptable to corny with nothing in between. All of the comic relief was terrible and did not work. The Chemistry between Thor and Jane lacked sincerity, and Darcy's character actually made me roll my eyes on several occasions. She's pretty much the Jar Jar Binks of this franchise...Just there so the kids can have a character to relate to.

What was good about the film? Clearly a lot of effort was put into the visual effects and action sequences, I guess that's worth noting and the plot itself is not bad either. Basically, it's your run of the mill action sequel. Not terrible, but not great either. Just bland.

In conclusion, although this is not a great film, it's watchable and if you're someone following the Marvel Universe, it's kind of a must watch as some major events take place.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A pleasure to watch
14 May 2013
Everything about this movie is beautiful. It's nostalgic. It's got character.

I'm not at all going to go into detail about the story, or the actors. What caught my attention was the emotional place I went to personally just looking at all the amazing set designs.

The lighting, the wind and the rain at just the right moments. The plants, and the furnishings. The way chic house music was melded with old-school swing to give everyone a taste of what it was like feel modern in that time period. That was genius.

Overall it was a tad long, but I still really enjoyed it, and left feeling like I remembered an old life I once lived.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Highly Entertaining
17 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
How much you enjoy this film is highly dependent on how important authenticity is to your experience.

Personally I came in expecting nothing, having seen the original superman movies when I was a child. I'll also add that I have never even seen an episode of smallville.

If you like characters, If you like great special effects, and if you like the feel of a nice polished movie, it's fantastic.

However, if you like elaborate intricate genius plots which are flawless and, where superman is depicted exactly how he should be based on both the comic, and the original movie, YOU WILL HATE THIS MOVIE. You will be left feeling cheated, and like everyone involved offended you, and owes you a personal apology and your money back. You will feel the need to yell at the screen, and tell people "worst movie ever omg". If you're one of "those people" don't bother with it. Just stick to the comic books. There are plot holes which will destroy your soul.

Fortunately for people like me, we're in it to see superman do things that only superman can do, fighting evil villains which we dislike. Spacey does a decent job at that. He is ruthless, and dis-likable. Also to see the man of steel performing miracles. Routh is a very believable superman. He does a great job! I feel badly for him that others maybe don't see it that way. I'm not sure who could have done a better job though, in my opinion he was cast perfectly.

As for the rest of the characters...They are kind of in the background but that's OK with me. The movie is called SUPERMAN returns after all. It's about Superman.

Bottom line. If you're all grown up, and are looking for something sophisticated, don't bother. If kid in you is still going strong, you will definitely enjoy it. And if you're finding it hard to believe all the negative reviews because you really enjoyed it. You're not alone!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Thundercats (2011–2012)
Season 1 was great!
2 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit, at first the animation seemed a little too current for Thundercats. Once I got over it, the show really grew on me.

The slow introduction of the original characters, and the deep, evolving storyline kept me hooked until the last episode. There's much more continuity than the original series, and to be honest, when stacked up against the original this one is actually more interesting to watch.

I was looking forward to seeing Lion-O grow into a Mature, wise leader but it looks like the show might be cancelled after season 1.

Unfortunately the animation is not quite abstract enough for today's youth as the heads of the characters don't look like squares, or weird triangles, and the bodies are not made of weird shapes. That's really too bad because I saw a lot of potential for this series.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Master (2012)
Not for me
29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone is looking for something different in a movie. Some people are blown away by performances, while others snicker at them. Some people relate to characters that others don't. Some people see art in subtle profound breakthroughs while others are left thinking "get to the point already!" I am the latter. This movie is long, very long. It's slow because it never really builds momentum. I always say if I wanted to be bored i'd just stare at a wall, and this movie is like staring at a wall. When you stare at a wall you're left with thoughts about life. It's not really the movie that bothers me as much as all of the people who seem to be really impressed by it.

A perverted drunk who discovered and realized nothing, an egotistical cult leader who shared nothing meaningful with anyone, and a bunch of characters along the way that didn't entertain is what I saw. I have no idea what everyone sees in this movie, aside from people who have never entertained the notion of eternal life. I can see how for a lot of people that in and of itself could be ground breaking. I could see how people could either admire or relate to the struggles of these people, but I personally didn't find it entertaining or particularly thought provoking.

I'm a spiritual person, I believe in reincarnation, eternal consciousness, and the afterlife, or beforelife if you will. None of the tough questions about existence were answered in this movie. He mentions how we're trapped, and there's a battle that's a billion years in the making, yet none of the details or reasons for any of it were discussed or resolved. What a cop out. He touches on how we're not animals yet we see him act like an animal any time he's angry...was that the point? How profound. No mention of god, no mention of Adam of who he's referring to when he talks about man needing to return to his perfect original form. That Idea came from Kebbalah, and is the fundamental belief. Sure it opens our minds, but where's lesson?

Overall this film was artsy fartsy, long, and in my opinion unoriginal.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1408 (2007)
One of my favorite horror films
29 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
After watching it for the 6th time I had to write a review.

1408 is one of those great popcorn, and comfy couch horror movies. Not enough credit goes to the sound guys for this one. Something about the way they used the volume levels, and effects works really well in this film. Great sound, also "we've only just begun" by the carpenters will never sound cheesy again, but more creepy. The theme music is also quite sinister.

One of the best things about this movie is the fact that you get a very good idea of who Mike Enslin is. Watching him go from cynical sceptic, to firm believer begging for mercy is very entertaining and well done. And of course the dialogue between Gerald Olin, and Mike Enslin set the tone perfectly. The twists also work well even after the 6th time because you begin to imagine how terrible that scenario might be in reality.

Of the two endings i'm a fan of the original theatrical ending because it doesn't leave you feeling terrible. Happy endings are essential in a good horror movie I feel.

If you're looking for a horror movie that will keep you entertained, and leave you feeling chills (theatrical ending only) at the end this is a great choice.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent movie, wrong Freddy
25 September 2012
What made Freddy an Icon was his character. Sure the makeup was cool, and the knives, and fedora along with the red and green stripe shirt were cool too but who would have guessed those extras would be so insignificant with the wrong actor behind them. If nothing else this movie proves just how great Robert England played the role. Then again with that makeup job who knows if even England could have pulled it off.

The acting in this movie was decent, and the script was decent as well. I feel with the right Freddy/makeup this movie would have been a Nightmare to remember.

Hopefully these guys will get it right the next time round. With Freddy, more is more, and less is less.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Disappointed fan - may contain spoilers
25 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
First, I'll start by saying if you're expecting A traditional NMOES feel, or Friday the 13th feel it's not there. A lot of the elements are there, but it just doesn't feel right.

Second, the casting for the most part was done poorly. It's one thing when the actors are not A list, I actually like not knowing all the actors, it's another entirely when they are downright unlikable, and often annoying. The kind of acting that makes you cringe because it's borderline embarrassing. Not that the script helped or anything because the dialog would be hard for anyone to pull off.

Third, the movie should have been called "A Nightmare on Crystal Lake" and the entire story should have been about Freddy and Jason accidentally stumbling upon each other. The concept of Freddy using Jason just in general is really amateur, and silly, and Freddy VS Jason sounds like a bad video game title.

Fourth, Freddy narration was a STUPID idea and ruined Freddy for me in this movie. Who the heck is he talking to? The audience? so he knows he's in a movie? Is he talking to a guy writing his biography? Is he talking to himself? I mean I might be over reacting but come on! Freddy himself explaining the plot of the movie before the movie? Bad form.

I could go on about this movie...

Overall it feels like a direct to DVD on a tight budget. However, as a fan of the horror genre I can appreciate a totally cheesy movie from time to time which is why I gave it a 3 rather than 1, plus I could never give Robert Englund playing freddy a 1.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scrooged (1988)
A very enjoyable film
25 December 2009
This movie is fantastic. Although the supporting cast is great, every single other actor is completely out shined by Murrays brilliance. To me it's kind of a shame that he's been recognized mostly for his work with Wes Anderson. Although he brings a certain flavour to all of the Wes films you never quite find yourself begging for more Bill as you would after this picture, or What about bob. This movie made me think about all of the roles Murray either should have been cast as, or roles he should have taken. I couldn't help but think that he may have made a better American Psycho than Christian Bale, and I'm a huge Bale/Bateman fan. Bottom line, the humour is anything but cheesy, and you may find yourself laughing at your TV with no one around because Bill is genuinely funny in this role.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is...
24 April 2008
A movie you can watch when you want lots of interesting characters, scenery, and complete nonsense everywhere you look. This movie was never intended to be an intellectual masterpiece...it was made to make people laugh, and to entertain. On many levels its very similar to movies like Scary movie, and the burbs...which have decent ratings. I just don't understand the average person these days, and what they seem to like about anything. Movies like traffic get 10's, and movies like this get 3.5's...traffic was a total bore fest, and this movie kept me entertained. Before everyone starts thinking "this guy is out to lunch" Keep in mind that one of my favorite movies of all time is Brazil..a movie which got amazing reviews, and in my opinion is equally as unsettling.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't believe anything you read about this film
19 April 2008
Years down the road new generations will watch this film, and wonder what the critics were thinking. Being one of my personal favorites I find the majority of the reviews on this movie hard to stomach.

On just about every level there's something good about this film. I guess if you only pay attention the plot of the movie, there's not much there to really think about. A reporter goes to Vegas to cover a bike race...But on this rare occasion it actually doesn't matter.

The casting is amazing, there are characters everywhere you look. There is an atmosphere in this film that I've never seen anywhere else, and I have seen many films. Great music...This is a thoroughly entertaining picture. Not to mention it's hilarious. It's just too bad there aren't more like it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this