Lando_Hass Reviews

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Solid take on Freddy Krueger.

[8/10 · 29 April 2010]

I grew up as a kid watching all the Freddy movies. I thought Freddy was a whole lot cooler than Santa Claus, and I thought he was a lot more interesting. They all have a special place in my heart.

As the series went along, Freddy became less scary. He wasn't scary like he was in the first two movies. He went from being a very scary, very mean guy to just being a scary clown, with more emphasis on the clown aspect. Then he was scary again in New Nightmare. And then he was somewhere in between in Freddy vs. Jason. Either way, Englund was in top form in every single incarnation. So of course, the first thing on everyone's mind is how in the hell will Jackie Earle Haley top what Englund has created. I asked myself that. I had hoped in the back of my mind that Jackie would do for Freddy what Heath Ledger did for The Joker. After watching this, and liking Jackie, I came to the conclusion that nobody, no matter how good of an actor, will ever top Robert Englund. Ever. Heath Ledger didn't top Jack Nicholson as the Joker because Heath Ledger simply was THE Joker. In a sense, the role of Freddy is like the Joker; it goes from simply trying to top an actor to just giving up and realizing that the original actor can't be topped, in which case, you simply have to make it different and make it your own. Which is probably what Haley did. It's like if someone were to try and top Ledger's Joker: It wouldn't be possible, so they just do the next best thing: Make the character their own and give their own awesome take on it; it might not live up to the original, but it can still be a good performance. Simply put, Robert Englund IS Freddy, and the only thing another actor can do is simply give a different interpretation and make it a good alternative.

I really liked Haley's take on Freddy Krueger, and in all, I really liked this take on Elm Street in general. In comparison to the other movies, this one seems to have more weight, it seems much meatier. It makes you think about things a lot more than the old movies did. They do this by giving Freddy a human side, a back story. I'm sure people are all angry reading this, thinking, "Humanizing Freddy, what the hell, what a disgrace, blah blah blah LOL!" He's not humanized in a cheap crappy way. Nothing about the character is really changed, he's just explored more than he was in other movies. It's not like Rob Zombie's crappy Halloween movies where they show Michael as a child and therefore kill off whatever mystique Myers had and shed light on what he was like. The difference is that knowing Michael was human didn't change anything, it was unnecessary. He was a different villain. Freddy, on the other hand, is a person, he's human. His motivations, his thought process, everything about him that is pure evil is taken up another notch and is made a little more disturbing because you know that he is a man, a very, very evil man.

This remake was really interesting to me because they made Freddy a really ambiguous character. Throughout the movie, you're left wondering whether or not he's actually guilty of harming the children. During the first half, it seems very likely that he was wrongly accused, and during that same half, you're left thinking that all of his killing might just be because he's legitimately angry and getting revenge on the kids that got him killed. Even though he's an awful person already, you're still left thinking that maybe he was a good guy. He certainly seemed like a really good guy in the flashbacks. This ambiguity added an extra dynamic to the movie that the original didn't have.

Now when you finally realize that Freddy WAS a really bad man, that he really is sick enough to hurt children and then wanna kill them because they simply told the truth about him, it makes the movie, and Freddy himself, much more interesting and a little creepier. When you're watching the flashbacks, you're left thinking that he might've been a good guy, but when you realize that he never was, you're forced to realize that this seemingly good hearted guy was a very mean, very awful and evil psychopath underneath it all. When you realize that he's relishing and enjoying killing all these kids (now grownup) just because they told on him, it makes him a lot creepier and just completely different in comparison to the old movies.

All the actors weren't really that terrible. Kyle Gallner is pretty cool and he's pretty awesome in most of the movies he's in. Thomas Dekker was pretty good, I liked Rooney Mara as Nancy and Clancy Brown is always awesome in anything he's in. I liked all the actors. Of course people will complain that they're too "pretty" and "modern looking," but really, all the people in the original were considered pretty and modern looking back then too. And also, people seem to forget that the original movie didn't have the best acting either (Englund was awesome though).

Overall, I really liked the movie. It could have EASILY turned out terrible. It's much better than the crappy sequels, and it's a new take on Freddy, and I really liked it. It doesn't tarnish the original, it doesn't try to imply that the original was crap, it's just a new take. I love how people condemn the idea of this but wouldn't object to a bad sequel. But that's just me. Go to the theater and judge for yourself. This is just my take, my opinion.

Score: 8 ½ out of 10.

Mirrors (I) (2008)

First half: Great. Second half: The opposite.

[5/10 · 14 August 2008]

Let me start off by saying: I was stoked about seeing Mirrors. I liked High Tension, and I loved Hills Have Eyes. Both were awesome, awesome movies....especially Hills Have Eyes. So of course, again, I was stoked to watch Mirrors, because it sounded interesting, it looked scary, and the guy who made to great horror movies made it. What happened when I finished Mirrors, you ask? I was left disappointed as hell. Very, very disappointed. Which sucks because it started off so scary and so interesting.

Kiefer Sutherland plays Ben, a down and out ex-cop who's battling an alcohol problem and the stigma of killing a man while in the line of duty. While waiting to be reinstated into the police force, he takes a job as a night watchmen at an old, burned down, creepy-ass shopping mall. Of course, once there, he notices insanely scary and creepy things going on inside, particularly with the mirrors inside. He starts seeing disturbing things in the mirrors: People burning alive, grotesque people lying on the floors, crying for help, things of that nature. Since Ben is so unstable, we're not sure what's going on, at least I wasn't. I wasn't sure if all this scary stuff was in his head, or if there was a genuine explanation for all of it. Well, I was wishing that the former was true, because that would've made the movie that much scarier and that much edgier. Instead, the latter was true.

The movie has some really, really scary parts....all of it is scary until they explain why everything's happening. Then you're just left there thinking, "Well, that's not that scary anymore." There's some really crazy gore effects, especially the opening scene and the scene with Amy Smart. These parts, especially the Amy Smart scene, will make you cringe just a little bit.

But after the first half, the half filled with mystery, intrigue, and scary, horrific moments, the movies take a turn down dumbass-idea boulevard:

SPOILER Ready for this? The reason for the all the strange happenings in the movie, i.e., in the mirrors, is because of.....ready?......demonic forces. No psychological reasons, which would've been cool and interesting, but because of stupid demonic forces that lived in the mirrors. Even if they didn't go down the psychological route, they could've at least handled it better and made it interesting instead of just saying, "Bad s*** lives in the mirrors. Jack Bauer's gonna take care of it." When his wife starts believing him and when you know for sure he isn't just crazy and broken, that's when all the interest is sucked away.

Everyone does a pretty good job with their roles, but since the movie doesn't get any deeper than "Bad stuff lives in the mirrors," there's not much to do with these characters, especially Ben, who's a pretty broken and messed up guy. But as the second half comes along, you forget that he's a recovering alcoholic with a pill problem who may or may not be completely insane. When there's no more doubt about his state-of-mind and sanity, the movie loses it's punch and mystery, at least I thought so.

SOME MORE SPOILERS The movie takes a turn for the absolutely ridiculous when all the demonic forces in the mirrors manifest themselves in an old nun. She pretty much turns into a freakin' licker from the Resident Evil games. She starts crawling up walls, jumping off walls, and gets into a physical brawl with Kiefer Sutherland as he tries to shoot her. She throws him through a freakin' brick wall, and he throws her like six feet away from him. I was just thinking to myself, "What the hell am I watching? Is it still the same movie?" This part was so stupid it pretty much ruined the rest of the movie. My God. It was so stupid.

I personally thought they could've done much more with the story instead of just saying "Bad things live in the mirrors." It started out scary, suspenseful, and frightening, but then just ends up being corny and stupid. The only thing that made the last half somewhat tolerable was the last few minutes, which was a little shocking and cool. Loved the ending.

But again, don't take this review as a definitive view on the movie. Go watch it for yourself and you might end up liking it very much. I didn't, even though I really, really wanted to.

Score: 5 out of 10.

Deception (2008)

Pretty much exactly what you would expect

[7/10 · 24 April 2008]

I just watched Deception, and again, I really wasn't expecting that much from it. In fact, I really wasn't expecting anything in particular; I had absolutely no expectations for this movie. I didn't think it looked terrible, good, or average. I just thought it'd be worth a watch. And, overall, I thought it was worth a watch, but not much else. It's a good movie to see if you're bored one night and decide to just see whatever.

One reason I was kind of intrigued by it was because I had this weird feeling that it might be an interesting movie kind of like The Prestige, even though the only connection these movies have is that they both star Hugh Jackman, and they both involve Hugh Jackman and another guy going up against each other. Obviously, it's nothing like that, but whatever. I figured the movie would at least be really thrilling and I thought it would have some really unpredictable twists and turns along the way. Honestly though, there's not really a single thing in this movie thats surprising. Not once did I say to myself as I was watching it, "Wow, I didn't expect that." Because I pretty much did expect everything. That's not to say it's a bad movie. It's pretty entertaining, but it's just not as good as it could have been.

Ewan McGregor plays kind of a nerdy, shy accountant who one night meets Hugh Jackman's character (Wyatt Bose), a suave, kind of wild Wall Street-type guy who's pretty much the complete opposite of McGregor. Through a series of events, McGregor's character ends up with Jackman's cellphone, and he receives a call from a woman who asks him if he's free for the night. He meets the woman, and through another series of events, he gets caught up in this sex club where he calls random women in Bose's phone, getting together with them to screw them. The rule is that there's not supposed to really be any conversation, not getting-to-know-each other, and they're not supposed to know each other's names. They just get together for one reason only: To screw each other.

Of course, Bose is not who he seems to be. There's something about him, and you already know that right off the bat. Eventually, McGregor's character meets up with a woman (her name's never given, it just starts with an S) that he falls in love with and cares for. Of course, things start to unravel, and Bose reveals that there's more to him than what he puts out.

The sad thing is that you know what every character is going to do. You know what twists the movie is going to take, and you pretty much know how it's going to end. You know every step the movie's going to take, and because of that, it's not exactly thrilling or suspenseful. Bose's motive for doing what he's doing isn't predictable, but it just leaves you with a feeling of "That's it?" You expect there to be much more to the story and to Bose's motives, but there really isn't. It's like, it's not horrible, it's not good, it just leaves you thinking, "That's alright, but that's it?"

Of course, the movie's full of sex...which means it's full of nudity. A bunch of gorgeous, hot women get naked for the camera, and it's pretty damn sexy. Just thought I'd point that out.

The movie was entertaining, and it was made pretty well, but it could've been a lot cooler. It was really well made, the actors were good, Hugh Jackman's character was the villain, but he was really likable, they could've made it more suspenseful and they could've put some better twists in there, but whatever. I enjoyed it enough. But you're pretty much gonna see every single twist and turn a mile away if you go see it. Regardless of that, it's still a nice, solid movie. But eh. Go judge for yourself.

Score: 7 out of 10.

The Ruins (2008)

Pretty cool.....I guess.....

[7/10 · 3 April 2008]

I just screened The Ruins and didn't think much of it beforehand. I thought it looked cool, but didn't really expect anything bad or good. All in all, it was better than most movies of it's kind, and could've easily been worse, but could've been just a little bit better too.

Of course, it's about a group of young people that, by chance, find their way into the old ruins of some old Mayan pyramid thing. When they get there, they're ambushed by the (Mayan?) locals, and pretty much held at the pyramid/ruins against their will. The locals won't let them leave, and stakeout the outside of the ruins with guns and arrows and all that cool stuff. So, really, what's one to do in such a freaky, crazy situation? There's not much to do other than survive, which is what these people struggle to do throughout the movie. Not only do they have to worry about surviving from hunger or dehydration (five people have only ONE bottle of water to ration, plus a a tiny bit of food), but they also have to worry about not only the crazy ass killer vines/foliage that inhabit these ruins, but they also have to worry about staying sane.

Everything that can go wrong pretty much does. The worst things happen to these people. Really. I was watching and every few minutes, I just said, "Wow, that's a bitch. That sucks." Not only do they have to worry about freaky killer vines, they also have to worry about themselves, because one of them starts to go insane and one of them is seriously injured.

I know what you're thinking. The whole notion of killer plants/vines sounds completely stupid. I thought so, too. How was this going to be scary or even kind of freaky? Personally, I thought they handled it pretty damn well. What could've ended up being ridiculous and stupid ended up being kind of freaky. It's not really the vines/plants themselves that are scary, it's just the idea of what they are and what they do to these people that's kind of scary. The scenes inside the pyramid, where it's just wall to wall of this scary crap, was a little creepy because they were everywhere and it was overwhelming and claustrophobic at the same time. The scenes inside the actual pyramid are scary because it's so dark and it's such a confined space that these vines actually were kind of freaky because they were pretty much wall-to-wall. It was an abyss filled with these plants, that mimicked the noises around them, making them that much more creepy.

Of course, the movie's filled with blood. Lots of it. The violence is great because most of it didn't come from the vines like you'd expect; most of the crazy crap was a result of the characters; the presence of the vines just made things worse and nastier. None of the gore is there to really shock you, it's just there, it just makes you cringe instead of yell in excitement, like most movies of it's kind. There's a really nasty scene involving a guy, legs, a hunting knife, a rock, and a hot pan...and it's nasty....

The only thing I was missing from the movie was that it didn't really pack much of a punch. It was just there, there wasn't that much to it. A lot of what happens is sad and effective, especially how a lot of these characters get screwed over, but I would've preferred if there was just more to it. I thought it would've been better if the movie was just an all-out downer, even though nothing really positive ever happens. The characters act like you'd expect, too. They go through every decision rationally and logically, and opt not to do things that they know will get them killed. They react just as you'd expect someone to react in a situation like this.

It's a cool movie because it doesn't take the easy way out like most horror movies do. Bad things happen to characters that you like, even though you kind of hate to see it, because all these characters are pretty likable and interesting. I thought the ending could've packed more punch, because it ended up being too bland for my taste, but that's just me. Even though some unexpected stuff happens, it still could've used some more punch. But eh. Who cares?

This was a pretty cool movie. Could've been a little better, but could've ended up a lot worse, too. Pretty damn entertaining, and some pretty crazy violence.

Score: 8

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

What a Predator/Alien movie should feel like. Strauss Brothers did an amazing job

[10/10 · 23 December 2007]

I work at a movie theater, so I had the awesome pleasure of getting to dry run this movie (that's projection lingo for "watch movie early"). I just saw this, and let me tell you.....it's Bad-Ass, with a capital B and A, if you didn't notice. Let me explain why this sequel is roughly a jillion times better than the first movie...

Now, anyone who knows about this movie is already familiar with AvP 1. That was directed by Paul Anderson, a man who's been raping franchises for a while now. The movie was rated PG-13, which should already tell you how good it's gonna be (who rates an Alien/Predator movie PG-*******-13?). Turns out, the movie was complete garbage. It looked good, but it sucked for a few reasons: The Predators weren't BAMFs. Two got killed way early, and the last one standing just didn't take care of business like a bad-ass. He had to team up with a human in order to defeat the aliens. Come on now. Second, it was cheesy as hell (thanks to Paul Anderson). The human characters sucked, and overall, it lacked the feel of a Predator and Alien movie. Last....it was rated PG-13, and had little to no blood. It's Predator and Alien! How could it be PG-13? Long story short, it sucked.

Now, we have AvP: Requiem, and Anderson had ZERO to do with it, so that's an early indication it won't be a stinking pile of ass. It was directed by The Brothers Strauss, who directed a whole bunch of cool music videos. These two not only made a movie that looks amazing visually, but they made a movie that felt exactly like a Predator and Alien movie should feel like: Thrilling, bloody, gory, and absolutely HARDCORE. I'm not kidding. Just when you think this movie goes too far, it goes even further, and you're just sitting there, thinking, "Wow, that's bad-ass."

The one difference everyone will notice is that it's rated R, and for good reason. This movie pulls out no stops when it comes to savage and brutal, bad-ass violence. In the first ten minutes, a guy hunting in the forest with his 8 year old boy gets his arm melted off, and he and his son get impregnated by a couple of face-huggers. A few minutes later, they both come to, and guess what? Both their chests burst in bloody goodness. The movie sets the tone within the first ten minutes. I mean, my God, they kill an 8 year old kid in the first ten minutes. That's how you know this movie will be bad-ass and balls-to-the-wall violent.

Unlike the first one, this movie actually has interesting characters that you kind of enjoy watching and listening to. They have personality, and you actually don't really want most of them to die (even though it's beyond bad-ass when they are killed).

The story revolves around the Predator ship from part 1 crash landing on earth, with an alien/predator hybrid in it. They send a lone Predator to earth to "clean up" the mess, and let me tell you, this Predator is a complete bad-ass. If Chuck Norris had dreads, a helmet, and mandibles, he'd be this predator. No joke. This Predator goes around the small town, and hunts down the aliens, killing them off one by one in some amazingly bad-ass scenes. Caught right in the middle of this chaos are the humans, but unlike in AvP, this Predator shows no mercy towards anyone. He doesn't team up with a human, he doesn't cooperate, he goes in, cleans up, kills aliens, and if a human gets in his way, he eviscerates them. The stars of the show are obviously the Predator and Aliens, so whenever a human is on screen and they start fighting, naturally, you're just waiting for the Predator to come back and start killing. But either way, who cares. It's bad-ass.

The action scenes are thrilling, to say the least. Every single action scene in the movie has at least one "HOLY ****!" moment, and the movie is filled with scenes that make you just say, "That's just ****ing insane." For instance, SPOILERS HERE, in the movie, they kill an 8 year old kid, like 30 newborn babies in a hospital (although it's not shown on screen, you know what the hell happened), and an unborn baby while it's in it's mother's belly. I am not kidding. This movie doesn't take the easy way out with characters or events. Characters that you don't expect to live die, and what they do to prevent the alien threat from spreading outside the town is pretty surprising and crazy. This movie is ****ing hardcore and brutal.

The end fight with the Predator and Predalien is awesome. The fights with the Predator and Aliens are absolutely amazing, especially the hospital fight where he takes on like 5 of them. The end of this fight is nicely capped off with an unexpected "HOLY ****!!!" moment. You'll jump the **** out of your seat smiling when you see what happens to one of the human characters at the end of this fight.

If you hated the first one, you'll love this one. If you loved the first one, you'll love this one. It amps up the action, gore, blood, thrills, and just sheer bad-assness by a million. The Brothers Strauss did an amazing job with this movie, not only visually, but pretty much on every scale possible. When you watch this, you feel like you're watching the original Predator again. All it needed was an Arnold cameo, and it'd be set.

This comes out on Christmas. I'm sure Jesus will be happy to get a bad-ass present like this one.

Score: 10 out of 10. It's that awesome.

World Trade Center (2006)

....wow.....what a piece of crap......

[4/10 · 21 August 2006]

I'd like to talk to you all about a movie. A movie that I saw recently called World Trade Center. What's it about, you might ask if you're an idiot. But, if you don't know, it's about the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, and about two Port Authority officers that went inside one of the crumbling buildings and got trapped under the rubble. Now, a movie with this kind of story and the fact that it's based on a sad story will tell you one thing: You might have to bring along a few boxes of Kleenex into the theater. I thought that I was gonna need a little of the tissue when I saw this. But bruh, let me tell you…the only tissue I needed was the tissue for my ass after I s*** myself because of how crappy this movie was. Not kidding.

Now, of course, the movie's story is pretty damn good. The attacks were pretty harsh and sad, and you'd expect that if a movie was made about those horrible events, you'd feel like you got roundhouse kicked in the face so hard that you just have to cry. NOPE. How can a movie with such a powerful story not be sad and touching? With my bad-ass wisdom, I'll tell you how: The movie is so damn pretentious and it tries so damn hard to make you cry that it fails. Even though I'm so ridiculously manly, I like watching a movie that brings on a few tears from time to time, and I expected my eyes to have horrible, water-diarrhea. The exact opposite, bruh, the exact opposite happened. First off, the trailer was more touching than the movie. It was more powerful. The movie itself was close to two and a half hours of nothing. When a character died, even though it's upsetting because it actually happened, you don't feel anything when you're watching it. The movie makes almost no effort to add subtlety to any moments that would normally make you cry. Instead, it's so damn pretentious that it almost forces you to disregard the crappy movie-making and crappy script and just accept what's going on and shed a few tears. Oliver Stone might as well have just walked on-camera, and asked us to cry. Sorry, bruh, but I like my tears to come out naturally, not to be forced out.

It's almost like people feel obligated to act like they're moved by this movie. They watch it, and when they walk out they praise it just for the sake of praising it. They say to themselves, "Wow. What a tour de force, guys." They like it before they even see it. The story of these two officers is pretty moving, but this movie just doesn't make you feel anything other than complete ri-godd**n-diculous boredom. I mean, when you're watching a movie about such a horrible tragedy, and you're not moved or crying, you know they did something wrong.

Of course, people are gonna make comparisons to United 93. I haven't seen that, but I do know that it's an insanely sad movie, and that it isn't full of itself. It might be on a tiny budget, but that's what separates it from this pile. Another thing about this movie was that the cast was too recognizable, whereas in United 93, everyone was an unknown. Now, these actors were cool and everything, but when you're watching this and saying to yourself, "Damn, isn't that cop the bad guy from Blade?", you know something's a little amiss. It takes you completely out of the movie. Any other movie is fine, but with such a true story it's not cool to have big name stars that are easily recognizable.

Now, I know I'm one of the few people that hated this movie. Of course, morons are gonna read this and say, "Ha, well, I guess you have no respect for America or for all those people that died on that day! Why don't you just praise the terrorists?!" Nope. Not true, bruh. I have the most respect for the people that died. What I don't like is crappy movies made off of those stories that fail to be moving, touching, or tear-inducing, which they very well should be. That's what I hate, bruh, that's what I hate.

Score: 4.

Let me summarize how I felt about this movie: This movie is like when you're about to go to sleep at night after a hard day's work. You think, "Damn, bruh, this is gonna be a good ass sleep." Let me remind you, sleep is the movie right now. You go to sleep, and then you wake up in the middle of the night with a gut-wrenching stomach ache because you have to take a massive, colossal crap. Boom. The great sleep you thought you were gonna have is now crap. That's how I felt about this movie. I thought I was gonna experience something great and moving, but instead, it got derailed by, yes, you guessed it, bruh, CRAP. You all know what I'm talking about.

Silent Hill (2006)

This movie's story is like diarrhea....it's messy, unpleasant to go through, and all over the place

[2/10 · 21 April 2006]

Let me tell you a little story about today: I usually go for a workout in the morning everyday. Not today. Why? Because I wanted to see Silent Hill before I had to actually go to work, because I wouldn't be able to work out and see Silent Hill and have enough time to get to work. I saw Silent Hill today, I saw it because I wanted to be the first of all the people I know to see it. I went in expecting nothing so that most likely I'd be wowed by anything given such low expectations. Well, let me tell you, bruh, I never went to see a movie at the theater, expect crap, and get exactly that: Crap. That's what Silent Hill is.

Before I went to the theater, I read Ebert's review about how it made no sense. I was like, "Nah, his mind power isn't as bad-ass as mine, I'll understand it." I was wrong. Even mind power as bad-ass as mine couldn't understand what the hell was going on in this pile. Let me explain:

The story is based off of the game, the first one, and it does that well. The movie looks bad-ass, the monsters are cool, and it had the perfect atmosphere. What did Roger Avery and Critophe Gans do with all that? Well, Avery wrote one crappy-ass script that made the absolute littlest amount of sense possible. Let me explain:

Spoilers!

In the end, we are told that Sharon is a manifestation of a little girl that was killed in Silent Hill thirty years earlier. Sharon is a manifestation of the girl's good side, and the evil girl in Silent Hill (the one that looks exactly like her) is the evil manifestation. Okay, but here's where I'm confused: How can a manifestation of someone live in a fully functional reality, and how could this manifestation be brought into this reality by an evil manifestation? Now, I'd forgive these things if all this took place in an alternate world, but it doesn't, some of these things happen on EARTH. How? Guess ol' Roger Avery forgot to mention that.

The movie also runs at two damn hours. After first, I was like, "Damn, two hours, that's great!" Then I noticed that the movie sucked, which meant two hours of CRAP. The movie is so damn incoherent and all over the place that you don't know what the hell's going on at all. Why are the daughter and mom in Silent Hill? What purpose do they serve there other than to show off the cool monsters? WHAT?!

The movie is also repetitive as holy hell. Let me explain: It's daylight. Emergency horn thing goes off. Cool monsters come. Gets dark. Horn goes off. Daylight comes back. Repeat. That's basically it. While the movie looks cool as hell, it never stops and explains what could be a complex and cool plot. Instead, it just has a plot, and scenes that are more confusing than the one that came before it. What's worse is that none of these scenes explain ANYTHING AT ALL.

People can give their interpretations and THEIR explanations, but the movie itself did not explain jack. If this were a truly good movie, it'd explain what happened within it's run time, while still letting viewers give their own interpretation. That's what Jacob's Ladder did.

Cristophe Gans also said that this is a part of a saga, which is why it made no sense. Come on, bruh, that's no excuse to skimp on a movie's story structure and story development. It's just cheap and it says how clever-less you and the writer are.

The movie also wasn't scary AT ALL. The games were scary as hell.

I should bring this up for fun, too: Roger Avery says that former friend Quentin Tarantino stole all his ideas and took credit for them. After seeing Tarantino's work and Avery's, I highly, highly doubt that Tarantino would steal from a guy who wrote this incoherent, messy, diarrhea-like turd. I hope Avery's reading this part. Now, the movie looks good and follows the game, something most adaptations don't do, but it still sucked. Silent Hill 2 would have made a better movie, just so long as it was handled by a more skilled writer.

This movie...is like diarrhea. It's unpleasant to look at, it's messy, and like diarrhea, it's all over the place. That pretty much sums up the movie and it's incoherent story.

Score: 2 out of 10.

Sorry, bruh, but this movie sucked. Go watch Doom. I'm expecting the following above this review: "0 out of 10,000 people found this review helpful." Why? Because those that like this movie don't want to admit it makes no sense whatsoever. My God, how hard is it to make a decent video game-to-movie adaptation? It works for books and comics.

Doom (2005)

There's blood, gore, guns, action, explosions, chainsaws, what more could you ask for? WHAT MORE?!?!

[10/10 · 22 October 2005]

This movie, Doom, is based off a the video game of the same name. Most of it's story is taken from Doom 3. Now, I didn't like Doom 3 because it was a boring, repetitive, and mediocre piece of rotten Caesar salad with ranch dressing and a dash of parmesan cheese. It was mediocre. Now, this movie, is basically based off of Doom 3, and let me tell you, bruh, it's probably the most bad-ass video game adaptation I've ever seen. You have everything you need in an action/horror movie: Blood (there's lot's of it), gore (lot's of it), guns (lot's of em'), disgusting monsters (lot's of em'), explosions, fight scenes, and a really Big F****** Gun that'll make you mess yourself if you got shot by it.

The movie is about a group of soldiers who are taken to this weird facility because something's gone terribly wrong. When they get there, they find everyone there, but they're all crazy monsters. So, what are soldiers to do in this situation? That's right. Shoot and blow s*** up as much as you can…and that's what they do in this movie.

Now, The Rock isn't really a main character, but he might as well be since he's the most noticeable. He plays Sarge, the leader of the group of soldiers, and as the movie goes along, he starts to get crazy and psychotic, which is a huge surprise since it's The Rock. Luckily, he's armed with the BFG (Big F****** Gun), but sadly, he only shoots it about five times. Instead, he shoot have shot it about a thousand. What did disappoint me is that he barely shot any monsters with it. Instead, all the monsters are killed by these machine guns, and that's cool, but seriously, there needed to be more weapon variety. I wanna see monsters getting killed by a whole plethora of different weapons.

One thing they changed from the game is this: The monsters aren't from Hell like in the game, instead, they're caused by this virus thing, which is cool, because they still get shot up, but having the monsters come from hell would have a bit cooler. But it's forgiven.

The movie follows the game's main storyline pretty well, and, get this, it even has a bad-ass first-person perspective scene, where the main character, John Grimm, grabs a gun, and shoots every damn thing in sight, all in first person perspective, just like in the game. I thought that the first person thing would be throughout the movie, but it's only in the end, and when it happens, you feel like you're watching the first game just with really good graphics. Believe it, b****es, believe it.

In one scene, one of the soldiers is going head to head with one of the huge monsters in a holding cell that has electrified walls. He has no guns, so get this, he kicks the s*** out of the monster with his bare hands and a computer monitor with a thick wire sticking out the back. He swings this monitor by the wire and slams it against that damn monster. Of course, it doesn't hurt it, but this fight is so ridiculously bad-ass you'll wonder if you just died in the theater and are just watching a movie in heaven. I don't wanna spoil the end of this fight, it's so kick-ass I'd be DOOMED if I spoiled it...you get it?

One last thing: There's even a damn chainsaw in the movie. A CHAINSAW! That's all I have to say about that.

The only few beefs I had with this movie were this: Not enough action. Even though there's a lot, they could have cut down on the talking and amped up the action. Second, even though I complain about this in every single movie, this movie seriously needed some Gwar tunes. Honestly, when you're shooting the s*** out of ugly demon monsters, the only tunes that come to mind are, you guessed it, Gwar tunes. This movie seriously needed some. If it did, I swear to almighty God, I would have s*** my pants right there in the theater.

Score: 9 ½ out of 10.

Saw (2004)

If the ending were a hamburger....bruh, it'd be the best, most intense damn hamburger imaginable.....

[8/10 · 17 October 2005]

About a year ago, I gave a my two cents on Saw when it first came out. Back then, I was being to critical towards it, and really stuck up about it. After watching it over about four times, I finally enjoyed it, and realized that there was some bad-assness in this movie. Now, I bring to you a better review, a bad-ass review, a review so good that my previous review is in this review's morning craps!!

Like I said, back then I didn't like this movie because I was looking too hard. I was expecting a deep movie with sharp plausibility. Then, as I watched this over, I realized, why the hell does this movie need it anyways? It's got a good story, a bad-ass ending, and lots of grungy violence. What more could you ask for, WHAT MORE?!

The story is this: Two men, Adam and Lawrence, wake up in a dirty, broken down bathroom, chained to the walls. In the middle of the room is a dead guy. In the dead guys hands are a tape recorder and a gun. The stench in the air…..is misery, bruh. Lawrence is told that if he doesn't get out before 6 in the morning, his family will be killed. Adam doesn't have much to lose, except most likely his life. They don't really do much in the time they're given. They find a bunch of clues, they're called on a cell phone and threatened, and also, they're given a hacksaw. The only way to get out is to cut through their feet. Now, if I'm wrong, which I'm not, is that a good story or is that a good story? It turns out, a crazy bastard named Jigsaw is behind this. He kidnaps people, puts them in dangerous situations, and finds ways for them to kill themselves.

The acting isn't what you would call that great, but there's a legitimate reason: The actors didn't really have any rehearsals because the budget was so low, so it's forgiven. But, as the movie goes on, the acting gets better, especially in the parts that need good acting.

Now, Saw doesn't really have any scary moments, even though it should. But I figure, if the movie's entertaining, who cares? There's nothing really scary in this movie, but does that mean it isn't intense? No, it doesn't. There's only a few intense scenes in the movie: One involving a dude in his underwear tying to get out of a barbed wire maze thing, and the ending. My God, the ending. The ending is kind of like a slap in the face to the audience, but who cares? You absolutely do not expect to see what you're gonna see. When you see what you see at the very end, you're seriously wondering, "What the F, bruh?! How's that happening?!" The ending is so damn intense, you'll wonder how on Earth you can take it.

Even though there's some stupid dialogue and setups, the movie still does what it wants to: It entertains. It's not scary, but it has some intense moments, and it's grungier than something that's really grungy. Obviously, these people had fun making it, and it was an overall cool movie. Don't look for something deep when you watch it, either.

This is a cool movie. Hopefully, part 2 will be just as cool. Also, some Gwar tunes would have been good, but unnecessary, so don't hate it for not having any.

Score: 8 out of 10.

The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior (2005 Video)

Yes, like this bad-ass DVD states, The Warrior is crazier than a crazy straw...and that's pretty crazy.

[8/10 · 13 October 2005]

Yes, bruh, The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior is a DVD that has a bunch of interviews from wrestlers, commentators, and WWF employees. At first, when I was a lad back in the 90's, The Ultimate Warrior was, to me, one of the most bad-ass wrestlers out there. He had the ass-kicking entrance music, the cool face paint, and entrance of a coke head who just drank 8 and a half cups of coffee. This guy was bad-ass. His character was bad-ass. But back then, I never paid attention to his wrestling ability, which turns out to be pretty crappy, and this DVD showcases some of his worst matches. This DVD also showcases his hilariously weird interviews, and lots of wrestlers (and Vinny McMahon) explain his personality and what it was like working with a crazy person who had a cool gimmick and cool entrance music. I must say, bruh, this DVD is awesome. It chronicles Warrior's start with Sting, his rise to bad-assery, and his fall to crazy racist moron (it doesn't actually mention that, though). This DVD has it all.

At first, you watch this and expect all the interviewees to trash him nonstop. No, people, that's NOT THAT CASE! AHHH! Instead, they actually praise him, but subtly bash him. Then, after about the first quarter of the DVD, after they show his win over Hulk Hogan, then that's where it all goes down. They show a bunch of his backstage interviews, which are some of the funniest things you'll ever see. Seriously, if you're ever constipated, watch these interviews, you'll mess yourself laughing. In those interviews, Warrior just strings together a bunch of words and stories that have something to do with the matches he's talking about. In these interviews, whenever he speaks of another wrestler or an upcoming match, he basically tells a complex premise for a book or a movie.

They also talk about his lack of in-ring ability, and fans of the Ultimate Warrior will say, "Oh, well Vince is just mad because Warrior sued them and won!" That may be true, but that doesn't change the face that this DVD shows some truly bad wrestling on Warrior's part. His timing is off, the moves look sloppy and unconvincing, and his specials look like they wouldn't even hurt an ant. Warrior wasn't horrible, but he definitely wasn't very good. His match in WCW with Hulk Hogan was hilarious, too.

Lot's of fans of the Warrior argue that Vince just threw this DVD together because he was mad that Warrior sued them and won the rights to the name The Ultimate Warrior. That's probably true, Vince was probably mad, but that doesn't change the fact that today, Warrior is a crazy, loony racist moron, and probably was so back then. It also doesn't change the fact that Warrior wasn't much of a wrestler, either.

I should also mention that Warrior changed his name, legally, from Jim Hellwig to just Warrior. Now, obviously, if someone were to do this, something has to be wrong up in the cranium. I have to admit, this guy was a bad-ass character, but as a wrestler and as a person? Well, he's not that great of a wrestler, and as a person, he's a racist. When he was in WWF, he did whatever he wanted (like coming out to the ring in a baseball cap), and when he wrestled, he messed up moves without considering his opponents safety. I know a Warrior fan is reading this and saying, "No, I disagree," but if you watch these matches you can tell.

This DVD's pretty cool overall, but it needed to be a little longer. Warrior's interviews are hilarious, and hearing other wrestler's opinions of him is pretty interesting. It's hard to believe that such a bad-ass character was a racist, egotistical idiot.

Now, I'm going to summarize Warrior's career of sorts in the style of The Warrior: Now...when the molten steel and lava letters pour out of this keyboard as I punch each ambiguous letter key onto the computer screens of the legends of Cold Cutter Bay....you....readers....will be forced to confront your innermost demons....you will have to GRAB THEIR SWORDS!!!....from their COLD DEAD HANDS!!....you hold that sword up to your face...you take that sword....you read this review of awsomeness...which was written by Lando_Hass....then...you understand that the seemingly placid Jim Hellwig...had been morphed and MUTATED into something else....it's because of the winnings....and the TRIUMPHS that he had grasped and pulled from oblivion, and out into the open...after rising to the top, that he had eventually had to go somewhere that was contrary to UP....which was down....from there, after years in the black oblivion of the abyss....he rose to the middle of the abyss...which was a product of Ted of Turner...ultimately it was WCW....from there, he felt that the middle of oblivion did not meet his ultimate standards....from there, he sunk deeper...deeper, deeper...deeper into the even more oblivious abyss of the oblivion...now, he remains in the packed college rooms, spouting racist remarks and making the least bit of sense...and this DVD had been released from the ruler of W to W to E....to truly reveal the nature of the beast that is THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR!!!!!!! LA-LA-LA-LA-AHHHHHHH!!!

Score: 8 out of 10.

Jackhammer (2004)

I smell an Oscar! Oh wait, that's the stench of crap coming from this movie....

[1/10 · 6 October 2005]

Yes, people, the summary above is true. If you took a crap and it came out disc shaped and you put it in your DVD player, you'd have The Jackhammer Massacre. I'm not kidding in the least, bruh. This movie is one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever seen, and I like a lot of crap movies. I don't like to bash movies because it makes me look like an idiot who probably couldn't make a better movie if my life depended on it, but I could film myself sleeping for two hours and it'd be more entertaining (and plausible) than this turd.

Let me start off by commenting on the acting by giving a witty analogy: If someone told you to eat a burger filled with cat turds and then act as if you enjoy it, you'd eat it, and try to act like you enjoy it. Of course, you're acting would be horrible, but in comparison to this, it'd be more believable than anything you'd see in here. The movie is about a junkie, so naturally, the guy should be able to look like a junkie. Instead, it looks like the director messed up his clothes and told him to act like he drank about a dozen cups of coffee. Because that's what it looks like, it looks like the main actor is perked on coffee.

The story. Let me tell you something witty and funny. The writer of this movie probably wrote this movie on a typewriter. If he did, which I like to believe, I commonly refer to the typewriters which bad movies are written from to be TRIPEwriters, HA-HA! Okay, back to the story. The story is about a man, named Jack (I smell irony and witty writing with that name!), who has a good job, a cool car, and lots of money. But, underneath the high paying job and cool car, Jack has an addiction…an addiction to DRUGS! One day, he and his buddy go to a rundown part of town to get high (this also happens literally five minutes into the movie; I guess these movie makers never heard of CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!). They do get high, but Jack's friend overdoses and dies. Jack, being a narcissistic idiot, lets him die on the road. Then suddenly, from that one bad experience, he loses everything. Mind you, we never see him lose everything, we just assume that he has because again, he's wearing dirty clothes. But whatever. Now, after his downfall, he works as a security guard in a garage, and is still a junkie. He owes some bad people some money, so here's what they do: They go to him, kick the ever loving s*** out of him, and pull out a syringe of some kind of drug that's supposed to kill him. Now, even though this stuff if supposed to kill him (and was probably supposed to kill everyone they shot it into), one of the thugs says that he's heard some 'bad' stuff about the drug, that it can make you really strong. Yes, this makes sense. A drug that's been made to kill people has supposedly made people strong, even though it's made to kill them. How did the people who were injected even alive to exhibit these super powers if the drug's made to kill them? Exactly. Because this movie sucks. Jack is injected, he gets ridiculously powerful, and starts to kill everyone with a jackhammer. I smell an Oscar! Oh, wait, no, I smell a crap story, my bad.

Someone who likes this movie can argue, "Well, this movie is supposed to show the horror of drugs, are you stupid, LOL(!)" I would have to agree with this statement. As much as I hate this movie, I do agree that it shows what comes from drug use. It's obvious that the people who made this were on some kind of drugs, and made this piece of misery. Now kids, if you're reading, when you do drugs, you make stupid movies like this, so don't do drugs!

That's my two awesome cents on this movie. This movie's stupid, boring, and stupid. For a movie that's supposed to discourage drug use, it sure does make you wanna take something afterwards to forget that you ever saw it.

Score: 1 out of 10.

Wait, I take that back.

0 out of 10.

Sin City (2005)

If you looked up the term "bad-ass" in the dictionary, you'd see a Sin City poster right next to it....

[10/10 · 11 July 2005]

I saw Sin City back when it came out on April 1st. It was a nice day. Birds were chirping, children skipping in the streets, old people sipping tea and reading the newspaper in their rocking chairs, and everyone had a smile on their face….but who gives a crap if that really happened? I sure as hell wouldn't, because on April 1st, Sin City came out, and as far as I was concerned, nothing else mattered. That's right, peoples. This movie rules so much ass, that if you saw it one day, and when you came home, you found out that a bomb of s*** landed on your house, you wouldn't care one bit….because you saw the orgasm-inducing Sin City.

Let me start first with bad-ass aspect number 1: The look. Just by watching pieces of the trailer, you can already tell that this movie will basically make your eyes orgasm. Instead of having a basic color scheme like every other movie these days, this movie is all black and white with little splashes of color here and there. This is probably the coolest looking movie on Earth. It eats every other movie for breakfast and s***s it out an hour later.

Bad-ass aspect number 2: The characters. The characters in this movie are so cool that you'll almost feel bad because people in real life can't pull of what some of these characters do. Example: (spoiler, for anyone who cares) Marv (Mickey Rourke) is in and electric chair. While the Priest is babbling on, he tells him something like "I haven't got all night." They pull the switch, he's gets electrocuted, then they stop the voltage. Bleeding from the mouth, he raises his head, and says, "Is that all you got, you pansies?" Then they electrocute him again! This character is so bad-ass that it took not one but TWO tries to finally kill him. Elijah Wood stars as Kevin, a messed up, psychotic religious dude who never talks, and never changes his facial expression. The fight between him and Marv kicks-ass, plain and simple. Nick Stahl plays as Yellow Bastard, a guy who looked normal once, but after getting a couple bullets in his package and various other places, he turns yellow because of the treatments he receives. This character stands out in the movie because he's yellow. That's all you need to know. He's weird lookin', he's crazy, and the fate of his character is brutal and harsh, which brings me to my next point:

Bad-ass aspect number 3: The relentless violence. Everywhere you look in this movie, blood, gore, bones, decapitations, explosions, everything you could want in an action movie. The characters often beat one another to death, sometimes with weapons, sometimes with guns, and sometimes with their bare hands. This might offend some people, but who cares? This is movie violence at it's absolute sickest and best. I know what's going on. I know that if you haven't seen this movie yet, and you're somehow still reading this, you're asking, "But dude, everything you've explained is so bad-ass as it is. How the hell can it get any better? It's not possible." It's possible. The fun doesn't stop at the violence, which brings me to my next point…

Bad-ass aspect number 4: Hot actresses. This movie is full of them. Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Rosario Dawson, Jamie King, Alexis Bledel, the list goes on. Never before have I seen a movie look absolutely cool, have kick-ass characters, relentless violence and nonstop action, and a horde of hot women. You can't watch this and think it's bad. It's just not possible.

Sin City is one of the most bad-ass movies of this year. Believe me. All of your senses will have gushing orgasms, especially your eyes. It's so bad-ass, it doesn't even need any Gwar tunes, and readers, a movie has to be really bad-ass to not need any Gwar tunes.

Score: 10

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Go see Los Quattros Fantastico!!

[10/10 · 10 July 2005]

I've heard a lot of crap being given to this movie. I've heard people say the following: "Oh, dude, in the spectrum of the most recent philosophical comic books films, this movie strives to be a contender against Batman Begins or the brilliantly crafted Spider-Man." I exaggerated a bit there, but you know this is what a bunch of people say in order to act like they don't enjoy relentless bad-ass action. Since when did a comic book movie HAVE to be about people who get powers and then get negatively affect by them? Is it such a stretch of the imagination that maybe if someone did get bad-ass super powers they wouldn't act like it's such a bad thing? Suddenly, every comic book movie has to be a deep drama about the human emotions. It's good sometimes when a comic book movie is deep, but come on, lets just blow s*** up. That's what Fantastic Four does. They blow s*** up, and it's damn entertaining.

Everyone already knows the story of the Fantastic Four, so who needs an explanation? The story is that while in space, five people get exposed to radiation or something, and they get cool superpowers. Ben Grimm turns into this weird, bulky rock-man. Johnny Storm can make fire, his sister Sue Storm can go invisible, Reed Richards can stretch any part of his body, and Victor Von Doom (a pretty bad-ass name right there) turns into metal and can control electricity. Von Doom wants to kill a lot of people, it's up to them to stop them, and you know the rest.

The movie is loaded with action. Cool, CGI filled action that'll make you crap your pants because of how cool it is. The movie starts off slow because they don't have any powers, but after the first 20 or so minutes, they get their powers, and that's when the movie gets bad-ass. There's one cool scene where Ben Grimm, The Thing, jumps in front of a semi and it crashed right into him. He stands there, completely still, while the semi truck is smashed up like a weak piece of paper! I thought to myself, very intensely I should add, "My God…how can this get any cooler?" Then, stopping that semi triggers off a massive car pileup. A fire truck comes storming through, but loses control and comes close to falling off the bridge. The rest of the Fantastic Four appear, and each one of them saves someone. There's explosions everywhere, The Thing grabs the fire truck and pulls it back on the bridge, cars are flying everywhere, and my God. When I was watching this, it felt like I got roundhouse kicked in the face by a foot that had an orgasm on it. It was bad-ass.

You think it stops there? Hell no! After taking a needed break from the bad-ass action for a little bit, we get some character development and some comedy. The comedy was good, but when I saw this, the theater was packed with little kids who would watch the joke, laugh, and then verbally express the joke to themselves, so that kind of killed some of the comedy for me.

The movie doesn't really have what you would call "Good acting" from everybody. Jessica Alba can't act very good in here, but she's probably one of the hottest women on the planet, so who cares about acting? Michael Chiklis is cool as The Thing, Iaon Gruffudd's character isn't really cool, Chris Evans is cool as the Human Torch, and Julian McMahon is bad-ass as Dr. Doom.

The movie is loaded with CG. I've heard people complain, "The CG is cartoonist, at best, and it doesn't look very good." Forget what those people say, these special effects are cool. Cartoonish? It's a movie based off of a comic book, who gives a rat's ass if it's cartoonish looking? If it looks good in the movie, don't complain.

The movie comes to an end with a long, kick-ass climactic battle between the Fantastic Four and Dr. Doom. This battle is so bad-ass, I don't even want to describe it. Spoiling it would be a shame. All you need to know is that after watching the final battle, you'll feel like you need a cigarette.

This movie's cool. Batman Begins was one of the most bad-ass movies of this year, but if you want something that's not very serious and just cool and entertaining, watch this. The only thing it needed was, yes, you guessed it, GWAR tunes. Either way, though, it's bad-ass. The action is unrelenting, and the characters are cool. Who gives a damn about serious emotions anyway? Score: 10

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Watch the first 40 minutes or so, then turn it off and do something more effective....like going to the bathroom.

[5/10 · 8 July 2005]

Full Metal Jacket. This title sounds cool. It sounds pretty bad-ass already. This movie had a reputation….and that reputation….stated that this movie was bad-ass and effective. It turns out, those people who said this movie was effective forgot to mention how utterly boring that last half was. I've taken craps that affected me more than the second half of this movie, honest to god.

The movie details some Army recruits through boot camp and the Vietnam War. The movie starts out in the boot camp process, where we're introduced to the characters. It's too bad that only two of those characters stand out: Private Gomer Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) and Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). Ermey is effective as the drill sergeant who terrorizes, insults, and tortures these people during boot camp. D'Onofrio plays Leonard Lawrence, nicknamed Gomer Pyle, an overweight, underachiever who gets attacked and insulted nonstop….until he can take no more! It's no surprise, folks, that you probably only know the name of these two characters, seeing as how you barely get to know the rest after these two exit the movie. These two characters make for one effective first 35 or so minutes. Unlike the rest of the movie, you actually feel an emotion other than boredom. You feel sorrow for Pyle because he's being tortured, and you want Ermey to desperately stay throughout the movie because he's the only person (next to D'Onofrio) that make the movie worth watching. I mean, come on, Shelley, come on. This movie builds up so much energy and some strong emotions in the first 35 minutes, so then what the hell went wrong after that? I'll tell you what, someone else stepped in and started adding touches to the script…..probably.

After this first 35 minutes, and after Ermey and D'Onofrio leave the movie for reasons I won't say exactly, but I will tell you that it involves Gomer Pyle and Hartman getting a special airline ticket…..TO DEATH! Well, let me get back to telling you about the separate movie that follows the first 35 minutes of this one: We are now watching a bunch of Army recruits in Vietnam, and the story of this movie is that they are supposedly "Dehumanized" by the war. If dehumanizing means putting in needless (and bad) music cues, and absolute boredom during the war scenes that are SUPPOSED to be effective, than yes, I guess you can say that these people are dehumanized. Come on, Shelley. I read that plot outline, expecting to truly see an effective movie about people dehumanized by war. I thought I was gonna see a truly dark movie that depicted dehumanized people. Nope. When you're in the middle of a war scene, and for no reason, you put in a music cue (terrible uppity-ass songs), that kind of destroys any chance of the movie making you feel any emotions other than complete awe because of how ridiculous what you're seeing is. Seriously, when Army recruits are spouting stupid cocky lines in the middle of a damn war, that really doesn't give you the feeling that they've been dehumanized, and when you put in subtle jokes during war scenes, that's just ridiculous. I expected to feel sorry and depressed as I watched this movie.

I should also add that none of these characters are interesting. They're just stupid, and when they get shot, you feel absolutely nothing for them, even when you should be. Honest to God, whenever one of these characters got killed, I was a little bit happier because I knew the movie was coming to an end. You almost forget that you saw such a great 35 minutes in a movie that's this crappy and BORING AS HELL.

I don't understand it. I can't understand how everyone loves this movie. I can guarantee, someone's reading this, and saying, "Well hey, the reason why you don't feel any emotion during the last half is because none of the soldiers are feeling emotions, are you stupid, LOLLOLLOLlOL!!!" Yeah sure. That's the reason why this last half was so boring and why there was so little character development. I'm expecting to see the following above this review: 0 out of 99 people found this comment useful, because apparently, if you don't like a Kubrick movie, and you don't like this one, you're an idiot and you have "No understanding of the genius of this FILM or FILM in general."

It's hard to believe that this movie started out so good and ended up so bad. That just goes to show you, only two characters truly can make a movie good. If it weren't for the first half in the boot camp, and the bad-ass song "Paint it Black" during the end credits, I'd hate this movie completely. Go watch Saving Private Ryan. At least you'll feel an emotion other than complete boredom. Or better yet, go watch the first 35 or so minutes of this, turn off the movie, and go take a crap. I guarantee, that first 35 minutes and that crap will be more effective than the entire last half of this movie. I've said it before somewhere, and I'll say it again: COMEDIC OVERTONES DO NOT BELONG IN A WAR MOVIE.

This movie's like a hamburger. The first parts are good, but the middle and last parts are terrible. That doesn't make any sense, but I don't care.

Score: 5

UPDATE: Now, the counter reads: 2 out of 6 people found the comment blah blah. Two people have an opinion as bad-ass as mine, but four don't.

Super Size Me (2004)

Not to be mean, but a little advice to the girls who sued: Try exercising instead of suing someone for your own supidity.

[7/10 · 2 July 2005]

One day, Morgan Spurlock came up with a crazy ass idea for a documentary that hadn't been done before: The two prime aspects of the movie was a leading fast food chain, and him, the director, eating from that fast food chain for 30 days straight. It's a good idea, it hadn't been done before.

The movie basically tracks Spurlock's progress with his McDonalds diet, while at the same time, forms some opinions on the subject that's brought up: Is it your fault if you let yourself get fat? It's interesting to see this dude stuff himself full of nothing but McDonalds for 30 days and gaining something like 25 pounds while interviewing people who have different opinions on the subject.

The movie brings to attention two fat girls who sued McDonalds for, get this….it's comin'…..making them fat. Now, I heard about this when it occurred, and I thought it was the biggest load of bull**** I've ever heard. These two girls stuffed themselves with McDonalds food, and decided, "Hey, we got fat because we didn't exercise and we don't have any personal responsibility, lets sue McDonalds!" This is ridiculous. Spurlock never really says whether or not he agrees with these two morons, but I get he feeling that he kind of does. The two girl's case were thrown out, because they were unable to prove that McDonalds is what got them fat (it obviously did). Spurlock, in the end, says that he was able to prove that he got fat from McDonalds, so it sounds like he's agreeing with those two girls. But these two girls knew that practically everything on the McDonalds menu was unhealthy for them, and if they're so stupid as to eat nonstop without taking notice of their obvious weight gain, they don't deserve one damn penny. Spurlock argues that what he did was practically proof that McDonalds does make people fat, but who didn't know that? Spurlock can't argue that it was McDonalds fault that those two girls got fat, because they ate McDonalds knowing that it was unhealthy, and knowing that they were gradually gaining weight. You don't just go into McDonalds, eat a burger, and then gain over a hundred pounds. They went there on a consistent basis, ate food, gradually gained weight, and then when they got too fat, they finally stopped, and then decided to sue McDonalds. This is stupid. Even if they did manage to prove that McDonalds was the reason for their obesity, who didn't already know that? The point is that these two morons went into McDonalds a bunch of times, PAID for food, and ate it until they ballooned to over 200 pounds, without doing any kind of significant physical activity to keep the weight down. So, so far, I don't agree with Mr. Spurlock in his belief that these two girls should have won their suit because they were too stupid to realize that their belly was starting to hang over the edge of their pants.

But, with that aside, Spurlock has created a McDonalds only diet, meaning that everything he eats has to come from McDonalds and nowhere else. During these 30 days, he gains an ass load of weight, he destroys his liver, he destroys his sex life, and so on. Spurlock stuffs himself full of McDonalds food. In the first day of his diet, he eats like a few double hamburgers or something, supersize fries, supersize soda, some water, and I think that's it. Before finishing his second or third burger, he pukes it all back up because he ate more than he could handle.

Sometime in the movie, he visits a school where they serve the kids chips, soda, fresh pizza, and all kinds of other cool stuff (the food at my schools were never that bad-ass). First off: Who the hell decided to be giving kids all of this unhealthy crap in school while basically cutting down on physical education? These foods are all good and cool, but little kids never take the time to consider exercising, so why the hell are schools selling Ruffles and French Fries? These foods are great, but if you're gonna eat it, and not exercise, and then complain because your weight sky rockets, don't even bother putting that stuff in your mouth.

The movie is interesting, but it tells us nothing new. Who the hell didn't know that McDonalds and all other fast food is unhealthy for you, especially if you don't exercise? I love fast food. Fast food is some of the most bad-ass food there is. I eat it, but I make sure to exercise so my weight doesn't spin out of control. It's all about your own responsibility. If you take the time to go to a fast food place, order the entire menu, pay for it, sit down and eat the entire thing, and not notice your obvious weight gain, then you're an idiot. Those two girls are idiots. Instead of wasting time filing a lawsuit, they could have done something else: Yes, you guessed it, bruh, exercise. But nope. These two girls were too lazy, and they figured a fat, senseless lawsuit would work better. Luckily, the judge was smart enough to toss the case out. The minute you order from McDonalds or any other fast food place should completely negate any incentive for a lawsuit. Luckily, it's illegal to sue someone else for your own stupidity.

The movie's interesting and entertaining, but I don't agree with Spurlock that it's the fast food place's fault that people get fat. The blame should be placed right on the head of whoever is eating their food. What's next, an obese teen will sue Safeway because they got fat from one of the Safeway brand hams?

Score: 7

Another thing: The Super Size option was cool. Now I have to get a large fries because of this movie.

Land of the Dead (2005)

What the Resident Evil movies SHOULD have been like

[10/10 · 24 June 2005]

It's been a long while since George Romero released a movie in theaters. A long a** while. The last movie he made, Bruiser, wasn't exactly what you'd call very "good", but who cares? The guy was supposed to make the Resident Evil movie back in the day before Paul Anderson got the job. His script was rejected, and the monkeys who rejected it got Paul Anderson to do the Resident Evil movies, where he turned the first one into an OK horror/action movie, and turned the second movie into a complete piece of crap. Anderson's movies had no almost no relation to the games, and the movies weren't even that bloody. But, luckily, after last year's bad-a** Dawn of the Dead remake, they let Romero make another Dead movie of his own (it was about d**n time). And here it is. Land of the Dead. One truly bad-a** movie.

The recent trend in movies is to make them all PG-13 so little b***tards can go see them, jump up and down on the seats, and complain nonstop. EH-EH!! Not in this movie. There's gore up the a**, it's wall to wall blood and guts throughout. And what's riding in the front seat with the guts? One of the things that every movie needs: Bullets. You can't have blood and gore without bullets, and this movie has lots of em'. But wait! There's more! The movie has zombies. You put bullets, blood, gore, and zombies together, you have one bad-a** movie.

The story for this installment is this: The living dead have basically taken over the world, but a bunch of people have secluded themselves behind the walls of a fortified city, where it's divided two ways: Rich people, and people who aren't rich. Obviously, this might be a social commentary on something, but who cares, right? The whole point of this movie is to show off the cool zombies, the guns, and the blood, and it does just that.

I'll admit, I'm not too much of a fan of Day and Dawn, and I was doubting this. I thought George Romero wouldn't be able to make a modern horror movie these days, but I was wrong. This movie was entertaining, and luckily, unlike the Resident Evil movies, the action doesn't outweigh the horror, it was a perfect hybrid in here. Usually, I complain when a movie doesn't have any good Gwar tunes, but honestly, this movie didn't need any. It's that d**n good.

Go see this movie. Maybe if it makes enough money, the same morons who rejected Romero for Resident Evil will finally pull their heads out of their a**es, fire Paul Anderson, and get Romero to make the third movie. Land of the Dead is bad-a**. It's got cool characters, nonstop gore and violence and shooting, and cool makeup. It's so good, you won't even care that it doesn't have Gwar tunes in it.

Score: 10 out of 10.

Alone in the Dark (2005)

Uwe Boll strikes again, and it's even funnier than the last time!

[8/10 · 28 May 2005]

Uwe Boll's name is synonymous with the words "hack", "moron", "incompetent director", "horrible," the list goes on and on. His American theatrical movies have been this, and House of the Dead, another video game based movie. House of the Dead was universally panned, so naturally, this was too. But I have to admit, Uwe Boll's movies are a pile of garbage that smells and tastes like deep fried chicken: It's garbage, but it's good at the same time.

Alone in the Dark stars Christian Slater as Edward Carnby, a guy who's a paranormal investigator. His girlfriend is played by Tara Reid, and get this....wait, wait for it....she's an archaeologist. I mean, already anybody who reads that Tara was cast as an archaeologist has to give the director some credit for making such a weird, crazy casting decision. But, from what I could decipher from it's odd nonsensical plot, they both have to like....I don't even really know what they have to do. I do know that they have a key that opens something evil, there's a bullet-proof monster that attacks in the dark, there's a huge division of paranormal investigators (I didn't know they had those in real life!), and a crazy old guy who wants to, yes, you guessed it, conquer the world with these monsters. Sounds weird, doesn't it? Yes, it is....and it makes for one stupid, hilarious, entertaining movie.

Getting into the acting for Alone in the Dark would be the same as trying to explain why a fish would die if it were taken out of water: Completely pointless, because we all know what happens. So, the acting is horrible. But it's so horrible, it's hilarious. The only movie I remember Christian Slater being in, at least one that I've seen, is Broken Arrow. That movie was pretty cool, and I didn't care for the acting. He doesn't do a bad job with the material he's given in here, but Tara Reid as an archaeologist….now that's something to see. She looks so out of place as her character, and she looks like she has no idea what she's talking about, and that just makes the movie so much better and so much funnier. Stephen Dorff has done some good acting jobs in the past: Deuces Wild was pretty cool, Blade was the most awesome movie ever made, but Cold Creek Manor, like Alone in the Dark, was funny and horrible, but somehow good because of that. But whatever. In here, he plays an agent and ex-friend of Carnby, and at one point in the movie (near the end), Dorff's character learns something that makes him angry. So, in one of the funniest parts of the movie, Dorff gets angry, yells, and kicks over a table. I quietly laughed. I'm not sure if it was because it was so laughably ridiculous, or because it was too intense for my feeble mind to comprehend. I'm gonna go with the latter.

Now, I've basically been bashing the movie, so I'm guessing, you, the reader, are probably asking the computer screen, "Dude, why did you give it an 8 if you're bashing it?" I'll tell you why: The movie has one cool scene where the agents are shooting the monster in the dark, and the room is lit up by all the gun flashes or whatever, and you could see the monster for just a split second. Now, this scene is cool, but the rock music they play during it is what I'm not too fond of. It's some weird song I've never heard of, so naturally, I'm thinking, "This scene would be cool if there was some Gwar music in the background." But it's forgiven. The scene was cool and entertaining. The other action scenes are entertaining as well, but really, it's a team effort in a sense. The action scenes combined with the movie's horridness really make it a true piece of entertainment.

This movie is entertaining, just because it's so bad and funny. I enjoyed House of the Dead, but House of the Dead had something that this movie really didn't: More gratuitous nudity, and more blood. Alone has some blood, but not much, but sadly, it has no gratuitous nudity, so I have to take a point or two away.

I can't wait for Uwe's next movie, Bloodrayne. I hope this guy keeps making movies, because they just keep getting stupider and stupider, and more entertaining. Plus, seeing how mad people get over these movies is absolutely priceless. His movies are entertaining, but Alone in the Dark was missing just a few things: Gratuitous nudity, blood and gore, and some Gwar tunes, and for missing those, I have to deduct a few points. In Bloodrayne, it's already said that there's lesbians and nudity in it, and naturally, there's gonna be blood. Hopefully in that movie, they put in some Gwar tracks. But until then, I can only hope...

Score: 8 out of 10! No joke!

Never Die Alone (2004)

A very dark, and very underrated charater study of a monstrous person

[10/10 · 15 July 2004]

Never Die Alone opens up with a scene that full blown gives away a pivotal event in the film, where we see the main character, King David, lying in a casket, eyes closed, hands on his chest. It's no big secret that he's dead, to me, this movie isn't about the events, but simply about the story and the characters, and that's really all that matters. What I like first about this movie is that it has the power to make the audience not care if the ending is revealed, or if any other event is told before it happens. I don't think this movie is about the ending, but it's simply about King David and his monstrous nature/personality.

Again, the movie opens up with King David in a casket, obviously dead. He gives a narration, and talks about reincarnation and how some say that when you die in one life, you'll pay back for your mistakes in the next one. Immediately, one can wonder why this man would mention this.

King David comes back to his hometown to make amends with a drug dealer that he stole from. This drug dealer is Moon. David offers to give back the 15 thousand he stole in drugs, plus another fifteen thousand for interest. Moon sends two of his boys, Blue and Mike, to make the pickup. During the scene in which Moon tells the two to meet up with David, Mike's reaction sparks up some question, because he gets noticeably angry. We the audience question the history that David and Mike, and ask what the deal is between them. The pickup goes wrong, and King David ends up getting stabbed in the process, right across from a bar. In the bar across the street is aspiring reporter, Paul, a man who hangs out in ghetto areas to gather up information on his novel. David comes to the aid of David, and drives him to the hospital. During this beginning scene, we actually start to feel sympathy for King David, as he pleads to Paul to `Not let him die alone.' This line is somewhat sad, but at this point we have no idea what kind of person David is. David of course dies, and hands over practically everything he has to Paul, probably because he was caring enough to bring him to the hospital and not let him die in the gutters. Among the things Paul gets from David are jewelry, money, and a nice car. Paul eventually finds a collection of audio cassettes, each one an audio diary chronicling the last ten years of David's monstrous life. Then the real story begins.

Through these audio tapes, we realize that David probably never wanted redemption and had no apology for the monstrous acts he's done. We at first feel sorry for his character, and not want him to die, but as the movie chronicles the last ten years, all of that care and sympathy that we had the character disappears as we see King David for who he really is: A monstrous man who has no compassion for anyone. King David charms women, gets to know them, then hooks them on cocaine, THEN switches them to heroin without them knowing, so that they have an unwanted dependence on him. King David is an unapologetic man, who seems to purely like the suffering of others. He single-handedly destroys these women's lives without remorse. He is able to look back on these events and tell them as if he were proud about them. This is his character. Unlike most drug movies, the character isn't sugarcoated, the character isn't sold as a cold blooded killer who still feels remorse for some people. The King David character is the complete opposite. He is written truthfully, without trying to hold back the grim events in his life.

DMX has made a few films in the past, the two most recent (I'm pretty sure) are Exit Wounds, and Cradle 2 The Grave, both mindless action films for the genre fans. Those two movies were there to simply make money, and to entertain people with fights and explosions. I liked those two movies, but I don't those movies were able to expand DMX's acting talents because of what kinds of movies they are. Never Die Alone brings out the performance in DMX that most people probably didn't even know existed. Unlike in Cradle 2 The Grave and Exit Wounds, DMX is able to give his character depth, and is able to define him in ways that most actors cant do. He is able define his character in the most monstrous way possible, and even though this character is monstrous and evil in the movie, DMX cloaks this evil vindictive side, and is able to appear normal, and I think this is the dynamic force of the character, he knows he's evil, he knows he's a horrible person, but he acts as if it's all just an everyday activity to ruin people's lives, and DMX pulls this characteristic off amazingly well. He wrecks people's lives, and he does it with so much ease and so little care, and DMX really brings this character trait to the surface.

David Arquette plays an aspiring reporter, who, like I mentioned earlier, finds King David's audio diaries and discovers the truth about the man he just met. Arquette's character isn't onscreen very much, and he only interacts a few times with other people, with the exception of King David. His character isn't really developed, but he's one of those film characters where he can be developed and presented with only a few sentences. What we can learn about this character is that he simply is willing to go where most people wouldn't dare to go, and he never intends harm to anyone else. The character is simply there to be the good hearted person who doesn't enforce any kind of hate or violence. He's the modern character of the movie, the everyday person. His character is drawn into the complex character of King David. Before he listens to the cassettes, he obviously doesn't know who King David is, but he probably thinks that David isn't that bad of a person, just like the audience. But as he listens to the tapes and hears the monstrous things he's done, we cant really tell what he thinks about the guy afterwards. We don't know whether he still feels some kind of remorse for him, or if he feels that he deserved to die. There might still be some remorse left in Arquette's character, but the movie doesn't really emphasize whether that care and remorse was diminished after he listened to the tapes. Each time this character was onscreen, I sat there wanting the movie to go back to King David's `adventure', mainly because Arquette's character wasn't interesting, and the movie tended to slow down every time they showed him. However, regardless of that problem, it doesn't hurt the movie that much, but I think it could have been fixed in some way.

The nature of this movie is dark and grim, so of course, the movie's setting has to be dark and grim, and it is. The lighting effects obviously reflect the movie's nature, and maybe even it's main character. The locations are perfectly fitting for the dark and depressing tone that the movie tries to set, and the lighting most of the time is perfect, because it maintains a depressing look that has lots of style. Whether or not the movie's look was done just for the sake of looking good, of if it was done to reflect the characters and situations, either way, it was very stylistic.

With DMX's name printed above the title, and with DMX on the front cover with two handguns at hand, most people will think this movie is another mindless action film in the tradition of Exit Wounds and Cradle 2 The Grave. I thought that it was an action film at first, but I had no idea that it was a serious movie dealing with serious characters and serious situations. Never Die Alone is a smart, taught, dark, and stylistic low budget drama that'll either disgust audiences or serve them a dark drama that takes you into the monstrous world of a vicious drug pusher, either way, the audience will despise it for the first reason, and maybe love it for the latter reason. I liked it for the latter.

Score: 9 ½ out of 10.

Very underrated dark drama that deserves some more recognition. Easily one of the best films of 2004.

The Iceman Confesses: Secrets of a Mafia Hitman (2001 TV Movie)

Richard Kuklinski doesn't hold back any details in this grim, but somehow interesting documentary that draws you in despite it's nature

[9/10 · 9 July 2004]

This `biography' of sorts details some of the murders committed by notorious hitman Richard Kuklisnski, who reportedly killed over 100 people. This documentary, featuring interviews with Kuklinski himself, displays all the murders just as they happened. These events are told by Kuklinski, who gives his own personal perspective on what he did, and gives his feelings on what he did. It aired on the HBO channel I believe, and I caught it last night. From the description, it somehow drew me in, I asked myself the question `How could someone kill over 100 people?' Before I even watched this documentary, I had never even heard of Richard Kuklinski, and had no idea as to who he was. I expected this guy to be a nut case, unaware of the difference between reality and fiction. I expected him to look like a monster. But, the documentary started. What was scary in a sense about this man was the fact that he didn't look like a monster, or a freak. Like most killers, he looked completely normal on the outside, the last person you'd expect to carry out a murder.

The documentary opens up with an interview with Kuklinski, where he states that if he's mad at you, he'll kill you, and that you'll never get away from him unless you shot him or killed him. He also went on to say `If you didn't kill me, you're stupid.' Through most of the interviews, Kuklinksi never bothers to hold back any facts, and is never hesitant to give any away. He states at one point, he has nothing to lose. I suppose this is most likely why he is so cooperative.

Kuklinksi tells how each murder was carried out, how he did it, and why he did it. He was a contract killer, so obviously his motivation was money. I also believe that he simply loved doing what he did. At one point, Kuklinksi even says that he killed a man with a crossbow simply because he wanted to test the weapon out. The kill wasn't a case of money, it wasn't a personal vendetta, he wanted to `test out his weapon.'

Kuklinksi never holds anything back. He tells all of his crimes in grim detail, and he shows no remorse. He tells the interviewer the stories of his murders as if he were giving her some normal tips on life. Often times, Kuklinksi would even make jokes when he was asked if he ever felt remorse for killing someone. Kaklinski has this weird, freakish evil to him, where you question how could someone literally look at a human life the way this man does. You wonder how Kuklinksi could look at a life and define it as meaningless and useless. You wonder how he could kill so many people, still make jokes, and tell each murder like he was telling a normal story. Kuklinksi sees human lives as trash, trash that he can dispose of and not feel bad about it. This documentary has some cheesy moments where they try and recreate the crimes. When they try to recreate the crimes themselves, it just turns out to be cheesy, and unnecessary. Regardless, this documentary is one of the best TV documentaries I've seen. Though graphic, and not for the easily offended, it is interesting, and I think the way that I was drawn into watching it was I asked the question `How can someone kill over 100 people?' Then I found out.

Another thing about Richard Kuklinksi is that he isn't like most of the killers in the past. Jeffrey Dahmer felt that he had to apologize for what he did, when I know damn well that he didn't care about the lives that he took. Still, Dahmer wasted his breath and tried to act remorseless. But, Kuklinksi, he simply doesn't care. He doesn't feel the need to tell people that he was sorry, because he simply wasn't. Kuklinksi has nothing left to lose, so he tells why he killed people, and how he felt when he killed people. Obviously, jail isn't much of a punishment for Kuklinksi, he doesn't seem to be miserable. He deserved the death penalty.

Score: 9 ½ out of 10.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

The absence of James Cameron is very noticeable (spoilers)

[1/10 · 3 July 2004]

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines follows the 1984 hit Terminator, and the 1991 hit Terminator 2: Judgment Day, two intelligent, well made films. T3 is the complete opposite of Terminator 1 and 2. Terminator 1 and 2 were both intelligent films, with a style and wit that to this day is unmatched. T3 was directed by Jonathon Mostow, a guy who knows how to handle his actions scenes, but a guy who also has no respect for T3's predecessors. Mostow has made some movies in the past, but I've only seen one: Breakdown. Breakdown was a very good movie that fleshed out it's characters and had a distinct feeling to it. Breakdown was a good movie. I liked it a lot. But, back to T3. T3 has some VERY entertaining and very well directed action scenes. But that's the problem. The movie is all action scenes, with no complex merit whatsoever. Though I like the action scenes, I have a strong problem with the way the movie was handled story wise. Jonathon Mostow, like I said, knows how to handle his actions scenes, and I'm sure he likes the previous Terminator movies. The problem is that he has no respect for the complex plot that comes with the first two movies. The first movies had a few holes, but they still managed to explain everything coherently. Terminator 3 does not do that. Jonathon Mostow completely ignores everything from the first movies, there are so many plot holes and questions that are unanswered, like how did Skynet suddenly continue development even though everything was destroyed in T2, and how does (SPOILER) Judgment Day suddenly become inevitable even though in the first films they make it clear that it can be stopped. All of these questions are unanswered, and as I sat in the theater almost exactly a year ago, I noticed all of these problems. When I walked out of the theater, I absolutely despised this movie because it betrayed the first films. I bought the DVD, and I didn't hate it as much. My feelings towards it now are mixed.

This time around, a female Terminator, the T-X, is sent back through time to kill John Conner (and someone else, who I wont mention). Again, the T-800 (I call it the T-800 because T-101 is a load of bulls***) is sent back to protect John. Here's another plot hole though: In the ending, they say Judgment Day is inevitable, so why would they bother to send a Terminator back to kill John? John was the one to prevent the war, but according to this movie, the war was going to happen no matter what, so why bother sending them back to kill John? The T-X objective is to 'Ensure the rise of the machines.' If the rising of the machines is inevitable, why would they send her back to ensure it? John couldn't have stopped the rise of the machines because it was inevitable, so why send them back? It just doesn't make a bit of sense. Jonathon Mostow could have also acknowledged a reason just to clear the air, like he could of said the arm that cut off from the T-800 in the first film was found by some people and used that to create the Terminators, and even though finding an arm and making an army of machines from it would be implausible it would still fill some plot holes and answer some questions. Instead, Jonathon Mostow goes down the path of the summer action movie, he loads his movie with nonstop shooting, nonstop explosions, and nonstop special effects, and as much as I enjoyed these fights, explosions, and bullets it still doesn't change the fact that the movie betrayed it's predecessors.

The T-X is played by Kristanna Loken, this is probably her first major role in a film. Loken is a hot blonde who had the potential to be a good Terminator but again, because of Jonathon Mostow, she failed. The greatest thing about Robert Patrick's performance in the first film was the fact that he was grim, he had absolutely no emotion in his face AT ALL, he truly embodied the characteristics of a cyborg, and he did one of the most grim performances in film history (in my opinion). Kristanna Loken doesn't do that. In most scenes, when Loken is supposed to show no emotion and not show any pleasure in killing, she does the opposite, and this is because Jonathon Mostow's crappy directing. More than half the time, Loken has a smirk on her face, and when she talks, she has WAY too much movement in her face. Supposedly, Jonathon Mostow liked the idea of having the T-X smirk, so he told Kristana to keep doing it, but Mostow forgets one thing: Loken is supposed to be a machine, one that isn't supposed to smile or anything like that, and sometimes, it looks like the T-X is taking pleasure in killing just by the look on her face, but people know pleasure is a human feeling, and people know machines cant have an human feelings. Robert Patrick made the T-1000 one of the best villains in film history, sadly, Kristana Loken didn't do anything she could with the T-X character, and it's mostly Jonathon Mostow's fault, the guy only knows how to direct explosions and car chases, but when it comes to directing complex characters like machines he fails. Arnold Schwarzenegger returns as the T-800 (again, I'm not calling it the T-101), and like his performances in the first films, it is top notch. Arnold is able to maintain the same feeling he pulled off in T1 and T2, without really changing the character. Arnold doesn't show emotions, but in T2, he does have emotions, and that's the point of his character in the end, but I guess in this he didn't really need to show the traits he had in the first movie. Arnold has aged over the years, but still proves that regardless of age, he can still be an action star, his performance is good, but in T2 he did a better job, probably because in that movie his character had more depth, more areas to explore like emotions, but in this one, all he has to do is be there and be a machine. In T2, Edward Furlong played John Conner. Furlong was signed on to this when it was announced, but due to drug and drinking problems, he was fired from the project, and Nick Stahl was hired the be John Conner. At first, I thought Stahl was a terrible choice to be John Conner, but it turns out that he actually did a good job at being the character. His acting job wasn't as good as Furlong's, but it was still pretty good. I cant say that replacing Furlong with Nick Stahl was a better idea because Furlong is the one who gave life to the character, but Nick Stahl does give a good performance.

When it comes to story, Terminator 3 falls flat on it's ass. Jonathon Mostow knows how to handle his actions scenes and his explosions and all that s***, but he doesn't know how to handle the storyline. When the predecessors to the movie you're doing are Terminator 1 and 2, you need to make sure that the story is preserved, you need to make sure that you fill each plot hole and explain everything, but the Terminator storyline is a storyline that can only be handled by one person: James Cameron. Jonathon Mostow chooses to ignore virtually everything. What he does to make sure audiences don't see these holes is he piles on an avalanche of action scenes, explosions, and guns, and even though I love all these things in movies, Terminator movies are more than just explosions and action. Jonathon Mostow seemed to want to just make his own movie, and just call it Terminator, because this movie has no relation to the first, it simply ignores every plot point and just tries to cloak all the holes with action, action, and more action. There is almost no character development, the pacing is completely off target, the movie is nothing but action.

The T-X was once intended to be a male Terminator, and to tell you the truth, it would have worked better that way. Kirstana Loken is extremely hot, but I don't think she fits in the role. It was said that Vin Diesel was considered for the role of the T-X, and to tell you the truth, Diesel would have been an excellent choice, because I think Diesel would have been able to not show any emotion, he would have been able to convey a dark, ruthless nature with the character, and he simply would have fit the role perfectly. Most people say no, they say Vin Diesel sucks, but these people let the popcorn movies he's done overshadow his good performances. In A Man Apart, Diesel did an excellent job at conveying the bitterness and darkness of the character, in Boiler Room his performance was good, and in Knockaround Guys his performance was also very good. Diesel would have fit perfectly as a Terminator, just as long as Jonathon Mostow didn't have anything to do with the movie. Diesel would have made the role work, he would have made the character emotionless and ruthless. He would have fit better than anyone else.

Terminator 3 was one of those sequels that nobody really asked for. Terminator 1 and 2 were two of the best films I've ever seen, and Terminator 2 finished off everything leaving no questions. Terminator 3 was not asked for, it should have never been made. The only reason why it was made was for one reason: Money. It's production budget was 175 million I believe, but it only made 150 million, which means it tanked, but a T4 is going to be made, without Arnold most likely, and Jonathon Mostow is supposedly going to direct. It's going to be a disaster, it's going to be a repeat of this. Mostow should be banned from making anything involving Terminator, he has no respect for the Terminator movies, he betrayed them, and he simply didn't care. Most people will say 'Terminator 3 was just supposed to be a summer action movie, it wasn't supposed to be complex, it was just supposed to be fun.' Statements like these are irrelevant, because the Terminator movies weren't ever supposed to be summer action films, they were supposed to be smart action movies with depth, they weren't supposed to be mindless like this. If Terminator 4 is made by Jonathon Mostow, it'll suck ass. If it's made by Cameron, it'll be great. T3 had so many unanswered questions like how did Skynet continue production, how could Judgment Day be inevitable, and how could anyone actually approve this movie without thinking about the complexity and wit of the first two films?

Score: 3 out of 10.

Comedy Central Presents: Dane Cook (2000) Season 3, Episode 4

This is so hilarious, a constipated man would crap his pants from laughing so hard

[10/10 · 29 March 2004]

My friend kept telling me how hilarious Dane Cook was. I never really believed him because almost all the comics I've seen on Comedy Central Presents were completely unfunny. I caught the Comedy Central Presents: Dane Cook on TV once by accident. It was hilarious. Then, I listened to the audio CD, which consists of Cook's one hour standup routine, uncut, and unedited. It is beyond hilarious. Probably one of the funniest things I've ever listened to in my life. Cook's jokes are hilarious, and his impressions are unforgettable.

If you want to laugh your ass off nonstop, buy the audio CD. You won't regret doing it. Dane Cook is probably the funniest standup comedian I've ever seen.

Score: 10 out of 10.

Street Angels (1993 Video)

All I have to say is.........WOW...(and not in a good way)

[3/10 · 12 March 2004]

The way I came across this "movie" if you'd like to call it that, is I bought it for basically two dollars, and twenty five cents. Why so cheap? Because it came with three other movies, all basically the same, except the others aren't nearly as funny as this. First, I bought the dvd pack because it was so cheap, and it was four movies, and that means four more movies in the collection. I have to say, I don't regret buying this simply because all the movies are HILARIOUS!

This movie is trying to be serious, and I thought it would have at least been shot on something that didn't look like a videocassette format. I was wrong. This film was shot on video, most likely videocassette. It's simply horribly shot. The sound effects are terrible. When someone would get punched across the face, it would sound like a bone snapping. The editing isn't bad, considering how low budget it was. The acting was HILARIOUS. Each actor tries too sound serious, but the problem is that everything is forced out. In one scene (which made everyone laugh), a guy's close friend, or brother, forgot which, is killed. Then, he says don't do this to me (just like a bunch of other clichéd films), and then he sat down (which that alone looks forced), and screamed. I couldn't stop laughing, to the point to where my sides were hurting.

This movie, simply put it, is hilarious. It doesn't have the fundamentals that are naturally needed in order to make a film, it was shot on video, and every scene looks like the camera was hand-operated. Still, this movie is enjoyable if you fast forward to the funny parts. It looks like a something someone would film with a camcorder as a joke. This movie is hilarious. It has horrid acting, hilarious script, crappy camera work, and ridiculous sound effects. Still, it's hilarious.

Overall score: 2 out of 10.

All Grown Up! (2003–2008)

HATE IT...

[6 January 2004]

It is almost inevitable that when something good and entertaining is made in the entertainment biz, there's something that is made after it that serves some relation to it, but is a piece of garbage. Sadly, a great and entertaining show like Rugrats has suffered from this. I'm pretty old for Rugrats, but regardless of age, the show was still Nickelodeon's best animated show, and is definitely one of TV's greatest animated achievements. What has disgraced Rugrats? The spin-off piece of garbage that is `All Grown Up.'

All Grown Up has the same characters from the original Rugrats, but they are all grown up now, and in school. That right there already ruins the entire main idea of Rugrats. Rugrats was such a significant show because it depicted life through the eyes of toddlers, and every week would show the `adventures' they go on. That's what made it so original, the fact that they were babies, but now that they're all older, it isn't original anymore. It's just like all those other ridiculously awful shows on Nickelodeon.

What's even worse about the show is that all the characters now have all these problems involving popularity and all that other garbage, and again, that is something that furthers this travesty from the original Rugrats.

The animation in this isn't distinct like the original Rugrats. Instead, the backgrounds (buildings, houses) all look too generic and plain. The color and look of everything from characters to exteriors is too light, and worst of all, the drawings look too perfect, and really have no significance whatsoever. The original show's animation wasn't the best, but that was the beauty of it. The animation wasn't the best ever, and it looks like it was done that way on purpose. Back then, the characters and backgrounds look like they were actually hand drawn by people, and they weren't so plain.

I simply cant stand this vile. The fact that it's predecessor was RUGRATS, a great show, is ridiculous. If you want to make an animated show that displays problems in the lives of kids in school, call it something else, just don't relate it to Rugrats. Sitting through this, to put it best, is a rigorous task. It'll most likely last a looong time, seeing as how kids probably watch it.

Overall score: ½ out of 10.

Terror Tract (2000)

I liked it a lot

[8/10 · 13 September 2003]

I was browsing through the Electronics Boutique in my local mall. Usually, when I see a cheap 2 pack dvd, I'll go for if the movies look promising. That being said, I saw the two pack dvd that consisted of Cherry Falls, and this: Terror Tract. I paid seven dollars for the dvd, and it was worth it, especially for two films.

At first, when I looked at the back of the box, and read the plot, my expectations weren't exactly high. From the description on the back of the box, it sounded like it was just a single-story clichéd horror film about a psycho who takes his job too seriously. When I watched it, I was proven wrong. VERY wrong. The film features three different horror stories, all of them are retold by John Ritter's character. He retells the bloody past of each house to a couple who are thinking of purchasing them. The stories his character tells make up the stories in the movie.

The first horror tale is entitled `Nightmare.' It's plot revolves around a young woman who is caught cheating on her husband with another man. At the beginning of this story, it teases the audience, and me, by showing the back of a nude woman. But anyways, her husband catches her with the other man, revealing that he knew about everything all along. He attempts to kill both his wife, and he lover, but things end up backfiring back to him. The wife and lover dump his `dead' carcass in the water, and desperately try to cover the incident up. I particularly didn't enjoy this story very much, because it has the typical story of a wife cheating on her husband, and someone ending up getting killed. The script is hampered by below mediocre acting from Carmine Giovinazzo (Frank the lover) and Rachel York (Sarah, the wife). The dialogue is lame and derived from old campy horror tales, and each character is just what you would expect: The wife who participates in the murder of her husband, and slowly slipping into insanity because of all the strange things happening, and the lover who seems to never show consideration towards anyone else. The story is somewhat lame, but still proves to be old fashion and fun. The suspense still seems to remain intact, and the tension that builds up in certain scenes will eventually score a cheap scare out you, witch, in my opinion, isn't a bad thing. If a movie has a scare in it, regardless if it's a cheap one, it's still a good thing. Overall, however, this story is the worst out of the bunch, but the movie does get better. Overall Score (for the segment NIGHTMARE): 5 ½ out of 10.

After the couple is disgusted after the realization of the house's past, they go to house number two, which leads to story number two, entitled `Bobo.' Bobo, is about a typical family who finds a seemingly normal monkey in the backyard. The daughter (played by Katelin Petersen) loves the monkey, but as the monkey raises more hell in the house, the father (played by Malcom in the Middle's Bryan Cranston) has more hate for it, and has the feeling that the monkey is evil. This segment bares a more of a `slasher' tone than the previous story. Unlike the previous story, this one doesn't suffer from a s****y script, or bad acting. The acting is a little above mediocre. Each actor creates more characterization for each character, the lines are delivered well, and surprisingly, Marcus Bagwell (a.k.a. Buff Bagwell) delivers a more-than-mediocre performance as the pound dispatcher. Bryan Cranston gives the best overall performance. This segment bares a semi-good storyline, but is missing ingenuity and quality. I like the fact that the `evil killer monkey' story is handled quite well, and there's enough blood for the average horror fan. This segment also has a good ending. It is the second best out of the three stories.

Overall score (for the segment BOBO): 7 ½ out of 10.

The final segment is `Come to Granny,' a somewhat scary story that ahs a somewhat scary villain (the only scary thing from the villain is his/her voice). This segment is the story that delivers the most horror, and DEFINITELY the most gore, but the story is almost third rate. Here's how it goes: The story's main character is Sean Goodwin (play by Will Estes), who has reoccurring premonitions of a psychotic serial killer who goes by the name `Granny Killer,' and who also where's an odd Grandma mask (which s a nice touch to the character). Every time the killer strikes, he sees them all. There really is no distinctive point to this story. The fact that the main character has premonitions kind of already bogs it down in terms of originality. This story, however, for some reason, can actually scare you. The villain is actually somewhat scary, mainly because of it's voice and appearance. The acting is somewhat good, but falls short of what Bobo had, the script, however, isn't good. It's loaded with clichés, and mediocre dialogue, but is still better than the first segment's story.

This segment, however, has the most gore out of each. It has amazingly awesome splatter affects, and very detailed and distinct make-up. Overall, this story is the most entertaining out of the three, and delivers the most horror out of all. This one is the best segment out of the three. Overall score (for the segment COME TO GRANNY): 8 out of 10.

Now, there's technically a fourth segment, which involves John Ritter's character and the couple, but it's not really a segment. John Ritter delivers a great performance, and creates a lot of character, however, the couple does not deliver a good performance. The ending is somewhat funny, just the thought of what's happening before the credits roll will make you laugh.

Overall, Terror Tract was one of the my favorite B-movie quality horror movies. It is not entirely a b-horror movie. Seeing it as a normal movie viewer, I give it a good score, but seeing it as a critic.Actually, I'm not a critic, so who gives a crap? The script varies from good to bad, it depends on which segment, and the story lines are good old fashioned campy horror. This film proves to be very entertaining. Also, view this movie with an open mind, it's meant for enjoyment and nothing else.

Also, this is my favorite John Ritter movie. May he rest in peace. My heart goes out to his friends and family. Rest in peace, John.

Overall score: 8 out of 10.

Ed Wood (1994)

One of the best films of all time....

[10/10 · 11 September 2003]

Tim Burton and his writers depict the life of the eccentric filmmaker, Edward D. Wood Jr., a man who enjoys his films so much (and the scenes that he shoots, which have obvious mistakes in them) that he is blinded by how ridiculously awful they are. Sure, Ed did make awful films that he considered (and predicted to be) blockbuster hits. But Ed Wood isn't just a simple ordinary filmmaker who makes horrendous pictures, he has so much love for the films he's making, and so much love for filmmaking itself. This film gives you strong insight and depth into Ed Wood.

I watched this movie a couple days ago, but before I watched it, I always wondered why everybody hated Ed's films (I haven't seen any of his movies), but after seeing this, I now know why: Ed Wood had the littlest insight on how to make good movies, because he didn't know what was good in a motion picture, and even worse, he never learned from his mistakes, which was one of his major downfalls. Another major problem in Ed's filmmaking abilities (if you want to call them abilities) is that he loved the scene he would shoot so much, that it overrode the fact that there was major problems in the scene. In one of the movies most memorable scenes, Ed Wood is filming a scene in his film, I which a character walks through a door. The actor who portrayed the character was Tor Johnson. Johnson accidentally bumped into the wall, causing the set to move. Ed Wood liked the take, and didn't bother to do another one, claiming that `In actuality, Lobo would have to struggle with that problem every day.' Ed Wood loved his scenes and his films so much that is resulted in only one take per scene. This movie flat out, and boldly tells you that Edward D. Wood had no filmmaking skill whatsoever.

This film is all in black and white, which at first, I thought would have been a problem for me. I was proven wrong, because the film seems to be better because of the fact that it is in black and white. It bares that 1950's feel to it, and an Ed Wood feel as well. The decision to shoot the film in black and white, I thought, was really creative, and ingenious.

Johnny Depp gives an excellent performance as the film's mains star, Ed Wood. Edward D. Wood (as mentioned earlier) is an eccentric filmmaker, who is blinded by the rancidness of his films. Wood is also a transvestite, who he proudly admits to almost everyone. He also sees the fact that he is a transvestite as the most normal thing in the world. Depp creates a great amount of character for Ed Wood, and gives strong insight on what Ed Wood was like. Martin Landau portrays the burnt out has-been actor, Bela Lugosi. Ladnau delivers an excellent depiction of Lugosi, and bares a strong resemblance. His character Bela Lugosi is an old, burnt out actor, who, in secrecy (for the first half of the movie), is a morphine addict. Lugosi obviously enjoys being apart of Ed's movies, and is practically in them voluntarily. During Ed's picture `Plan 9 From Outer Space,' Lugosi tragically died, thus he was replaced by a man who covered the bottom part of his face with a cloak. Like Johnny Depp, Landau creates a great amount of character for Bela. Landau also creates a vast amount of humor with Lugosi in some scenes, such as in one scene, before filming a part of the movie, he yells out, `Let's shoot this f***er!!' The very hot Sarah Jessica Parker plays as Ed's miserable girlfriend, Dolores, who participates in some of his films. Parker too gives an exhilarating, and inspiring performance as Dolores. She too also gives good insight on how Dolores put up with Ed, hesitantly taking parts in his movies (which they never actually flat out specify if she hated them or not, but in one scene, she says how everyone is working on `s**t.').

I like how the film is comical, such as when Wood continually mentions Lugosi's name to everyone, and they reply `I thought he was dead.' The film always seems to make transition from happy moments, to tragic moments, thus making you think that things are starting to go good.

This film is my fifth favorite film of all time. It has excellent cinematography, a good script, VERY good performances from every single actor, the fact that it is in black and white creates ingenuity, and it really gives the audience strong insight on Ed Wood. Though Ed Wood's films were beyond awful, you cant dismiss the fact that he had so much loyalty to the art of filmmaking. Ed Wood has earned a lot of respect from people for that.

Overall score: 10 out of 10.