Change Your Image
rsre4-1
Reviews
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
See It For Yourself
Don't judge this movie by the reviews. See it for yourselves. I've seen reviews where the reviewer says things like, "well this wasn't explained" or "I don't get how this happened", yet those things were explained in the movie. Maybe they were in the bathroom. So see the movie yourself and make your own judgement.
Is it perfect? No. Are there question about the story line? Yes. But this is a smaller tale in a grander story. Stay tuned.
Either way:
1. Leave your Harry Potter expectations at the door. This is NOT Harry Potter. This is not a kid's movie. This is the Wizarding World for adults.
2. Harry Potter/Wizarding World inconsistencies? So what. That's nip-picky, as far as I"m concerned.
Go in to the movie without any preconceived notions - you'll be better off for it -, enjoy it for the entertainment it provides, then make your own judgement.
I enjoyed it and thought it was good fun despite it's flaws.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Leave Your Queen Knowledge in the Car
The movie was fine. It felt rushed at times, but that's understandable trying to fit so much of the band's real story into a movie. Also, it is a bit self-indulgent. But it was a fine movie without outstanding performances by the cast. But leave your Queen knowledge in the car as much of the Queen timeline is shifted around (release of songs, etc). Remember that this is a movie meant for general audiences, not a rockumentary.
Grab your pop-corn and soda, sit back, and just enjoy it.
Cheers.
Sausage Party (2016)
It's Actually Pretty Simple
If you like Seth Rogen's brand of humor, then you'll most likely like this movie. Think of Superbad in animated form, but with more sexual innuendo...maybe.
For people who like comedies that are actually funny and don't rely on their crudeness and foul language as the punchline to the jokes, then this probably isn't for you.
The movie tries to be funny by simply being crude and foul. Crude and foul can be funny when used in the right context, but not AS the comedy of a movie. The "comedy" arch of the movie is in simply being crude with loads of cursing and references to sex and drugs.
There is cleverness in the story, but it's just too bad that it got lost in what seemed to want to be the "shock" of being able to have an "R" rating.
Overall, it's just an unfunny pile of garbage of a movie unless you are of the people who find funny in Rogen, Jonah Hill, and their brand of "humor". Then you'll probably love it.
Godzilla (2014)
*Sigh* SMH
Finally went to see "Gojira" and was left disappointed. The negative reviews of this movie were pretty accurate.
Bland characters. Bland script. Big budget, Hollywoodized, clichéd, story that doesn't quite deliver.
By the way.... where's Godzilla? Imagine seeing the Transformers movie and only getting glimpses of them throughout the movie until the end. Or not seeing King Kong until he's finally in the big city.
The movie tried so hard to be something, but ultimately just didn't get there.
Awesome visuals, and when Godzilla finally DOES get into the game full throttle, it was pretty awesome. Too bad that didn't happen until there was like 15 minutes left in the movie. By then I was already bored, the movie had already lost me, and I was already planning my review of disappointment.
Man of Steel (2013)
Man Of Steel, NOT Superman
Now we know why it was called Man Of Steel, and didn't have "Superman" in the title. Because Superman wasn't Superman. He was an alien called Clark Kent/Kal El with great powers who didn't know exactly what to do with them or himself. On one hand told by his adopted father that he was here to do great things, and yet on the other hand told by the same adoptive father that he should conceal his powers, even if it meant a bus-load of school kids drowning in a river. Really? REALLY?
When we think of Superman, we think of the guy in the blue suit who helps/saves people: A Hero. This guy wasn't really that. He was just a dude with some great powers who wondered form town to town occasionally helping people when they needed help, never staying anywhere for more than a few months. LAME! Here are the problems with the movie:
1. The acting was bad. I'll say mostly because the actors didn't have anything to work with. I love Amy Adams, but her Lois was flat, wooden, and one-dimensional. She had NOTHING of the spark and spunk that Margot Kidder brought to the role (which is surprising from someone like Adams). Same with Lawrence Fishburn's Perry White. There just wasn't anything there. There was NO distinction between the character of Clark and Superman because, as stated, there was NO Superman. His first appearance in his suit happened just before he started battling the baddies (Zod and friends) which came probably 2/3 into the movie. The characters lacked charisma and personality. In short, they lacked.... character.
2. The characters didn't really blend well together. There was no chemistry between Lois and Clark. None of the banter between the characters that made their relationship so enjoyable in the original '78 film. They were essentially strangers, yet somehow were suppose to have feelings for each other. There wasn't the dynamic of Clark wanting Lois, but Lois wanting Superman, but Superman BEING Clark, but not letting her know. Again, the characters and their relationships with each other were just plain flat. Spoiler Alert: Lois knows that Clark is the superpowered alien from near the moment they met.
3. Uber-destruction: Waaay too much, and needless, destruction in the fight scenes. Seriously, every time someone hit someone else, they went flying through buildings essentially destroying them, time after time, to the point where it just got downright boring. PLUS - the real Superman wouldn't have allowed the destruction to continue. That was, in fact, a plot-point in Superman 2: he LEFT the fight because it was putting people in danger. Here, there was absolutely no regard for the human lives whilst first Smallville, then Metropolis was being destroyed.
4. While Michael Shannon did a fine enough job playing the "evil" baddie, Gen. Zod, he was no way as good as Gene Hackman's Lex Luther, who was a bad guy that you liked because he was fun. This Gen. Zod was played straight and was just another evil bad guy. He didn't even have the subtle flair that Terrance Stamp brought to the roll.
Overall, as a stand alone, I probably would have given the movie a 5, or maybe even pushed to 6, but because it pales so much in comparison to the original Superman movie, which was a FAR more enjoyable viewing, I knock it down to a 4.
The good points: It LOOKED good. That's about it.
Major League: Back to the Minors (1998)
It's fun, and funny....but no Oscars.
It's not as good as Major League, but considerably better than Major League 2.
It has good humor for some good laughs, and has it's own charm. Good for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon fair.
Scott Bakula was a good choice and has that veteran smarts and laid back way that makes him likable.
"Tell him to throw his fastball" -
"That WAS his fastball". Funny.
Don't take it too seriously and you may find yourself enjoying it. It follows along similar fair like Necessary Roughness. Good humor that sometimes gets lost when people look for too much. Grab some pop-corn and a soda and just enjoy it for what it is.
Allen Gregory (2011)
Gawd-awful. Next!!!
Not even remotely funny. Wasted 15 minutes (I couldn't even sit through the whole thing) of my life.
I kept waiting for the funny parts to come. Alas, they never did.
The preview seemed like it might be interesting, at least. Wrong.
Neither I, nor my 13-year old son, so much as smiled at this dull, humorless, waste of TV time.
Really? Someone actually green-lit this project? I love humor - even Fox's animated humor (Simpson, Futurama, Family Guy) but this show was just flat out bad!
Next!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
Too Bad It Ended Like This
OVerall it was okay, and will make a bunch of money. But David Yates was not the best to direct the Potter films. His method always seems to be to just get through the movie as quick as possible. This has been true since OOTP. The problem is that such a quick pace leaves out many key scenes and doesn't allow the viewer to make more of an emotional investment in the story and the characters. Deathly Hallows 2 was no different. It was enjoyable enough, I suppose. But could have been so much better with just an additional 10 minutes of movie. A few additional scenes and extending a few of them just a little more could have added greater depth and emotion.
Spoiler alert: Just some scenes that could have been added or extended: Snapes memories- a few more scenes to greater establish his closeness with Lilly and his role in fighting Voldemort. It would have helped to explain why Harry named one of his kids after a man he had hated for 7 years. And a few more lines to show his reluctance to have to be the one to kill Dumbledore. This would have shown Snapes greater respect and love for him.
Slightly extend the scene leading up to Mrs. Weasley fighting Belatrix. A few more seconds to establish Jinny's peril in the fight before Mrs. Weasly stepping in and uttering her great line. IT happened so fast, you could miss that Jinny was even fighting Belatrix if you blink at the wrong time.
SHould have shown the death of Fred and Percy's reuniting with the family. This wouldn't have taken very long and Fred deserved to have his death scene, rather than just being an afterthought body on a stretcher.
SHould have shown a few more individual fight sequences, especially with Hagrid. I was beginning to wonder if Hagrid was even going to appear. And there was no emotion from him when he thought Harry was dead.
Extend the scene of Mrs. Malfoy and Harry to better explain why she lied to Voldemort about Harry being dead.
Should have shown more entities involved in the fight, like parents, Hogsmead residence, the elves as lead by Kreacher - rather than showing mainly an army of kids fighting the Death Eaters.
MOre of the school's teachers in the fight.
The final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort could have been done better and stayed truer to the book.
OVer all, Yates' Harry Potter movies have been rather emotionless and anti-climatic. DH2, sadly, was no different.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
It's OK.
As for the plot of the movie - it was OK. Nothing spectacular. The action was great - plenty of it.
It was an overall entertaining movie worth the 2 hours on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
HOWEVER - the 3D was, to me, not worth the extra money. I'll put it this way: visually, the movie looked great. About as cool as looking into a holographic 3D picture. Things looked like you could reach out and grab them. But it lacked the "Coming at you" effects of what 3D movies should be and what I'm paying for. Nothing popped out of the screen at us. Nothing came flying towards our heads, despite many opportunities to do so. It looked more like a world you can reach into rather than a world coming out at you. I was disappointed in that, especially since I paid twice of what I would normally pay.
For whatever 3D may be for you - if you looking for stuff to come flying out of the screen at you, this movie isn't it, and you might be just as well served watching it in 2D and saving the extra money.
The Last Airbender (2010)
Judge For Yourself - It's Good!
After reading all the negative reviews, my hopes were dashed going into this movie with my kids. We are big fans of the cartoon. But we learned a lesson: don't let others make up your mind for you.
We enjoyed the movie very much. So I'll try to prepare you for it:
1. Forget about the casting. Throughout the history of film, people of different ethnicities have been cast to play other races. So what? Big deal. Get passed it and don't let it even remotely become an issue.
2. Don't go into the movie expecting to get the TV series. It's not. M. Night had to try to condense 10 hours of show into a 1/2 hour movie so many sacrifices had to be made. Get over the fact the Kioshi warriors weren't in it. They really weren't that important anyway, at least not yet. Get passed the "character development" - there just wasn't time for it. Get passed the "Aang seemed angry and confused" - of course he was. His whole world has just been taken from him and turned upside down. Everyone he knew and loved was dead in what was basically overnight to him. And he's 12.
3. Get passed the different pronunciations of some of the names. M. Night went with a more Asian pronunciation. Again, so what.
4. Noah Ringer (and the others) really weren't as bad as people are making them seem. At least not to us. I think the kid did a pretty good job of playing a kid who's life had just changed drastically.
5. It was a good twist that the fire benders needed a "source" of fire to bend. After all, Earth benders can't "create" earth out of nowhere. Nor can the water benders. They need a "source", so the Fire benders were put in the same boat, except for the most powerful ones (Iroh).
If you go in with an open mind and don't expect the TV show, and allow for the liberties taken, you might actually enjoy the film. The characters actually were close to their TV counterparts, regardless of what you may read. No, Sokka didn't get a lot to do, but, again, that was because the story had to move on. There really wasn't time to get all the little nuances and quirks from the show, so you'll just have to allow for that.
Overall, the movies had flaws, and the acting wasn't always the best, but it was an overall entertaining movie. It could have done with another 15 minutes, but it didn't drag either. Me and my kids were very satisfied with it and hope that Books 2 and 3 will be made.
So go watch it and make up your own mind. I have most definitely seen much worse movies. This one doesn't rank among them.
Maybe it doesn't rank an 9- but I think many of the negative reviews were unfair and shortsighted. Just trying to make up for that a little.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Worst of the Bunch.
I've never felt compelled to write a review until now. This movie left me so empty that I almost walked out before it even really finished. To take the words from other reviews, this movie was soulless and anti-climatic. The movie makers chose to emphasize the wrong side of the story. It felt more like a teen love/sex comedy than a Harry Potter flick. The hormones were played up, while the Voldemort back-story felt more like an afterthought. Even the "memory" of when Dumbledore meets Tom seems irrelevant because it doesn't really explain much. It doesn't explain Tom's pain and awkwardness and doesn't really set the stage for who he becomes. We don't learn anything about his parents or his family, which, to me, is an important element in his becoming Voldemort.
Many of the characters were basically useless and wouldn't have been missed if they didn't appear (Luna, Tonks, Lupin, Neville) and others are never really introduced (Fenrir Greyback)or included (Bill Weasly). Although I feel this was Michael Gambon's best performance as Dumbledore, the island scene didn't do enough to convey the pain Dumbledore was feeling, which sets the stage of what we learn in the next installment. In many scenes, there were "awkward silence" moments like the movie makers weren't sure what to do next, so they just had everyone stand around staring at each other a bit, then just moved on.
And the total omission of the final battle was just plain inexcusable. I was so looking forward to the battle and to seeing Hagrid taking on Deatheaters. But..nothing. It was like climbing a tall slope on a roller coaster knowing the long drop on the other side, only for them to stop the ride when you reach the top and let you off. The Dubmledore death scene was not done well at all either. He didn't come across like a weak, helpless victim, but like someone who was ready to die. That felt totally wrong.
Many attribute the shortcomings of some of the Potter movies to the studio trying to make the movies appeal to more than just fans of the books. THe problem is: if you read the books, you'll be very disappointed with the movie, but if you didn't read the book, there'll be many things in the movie that won't make sense.
In the end, I almost wanted to cry at how disappointed I was with this movie. When I had read that writer Steve Kloves was back after being absent for OOTP, I was willing to give director David Yates a pass for the shortcomings of The Order of the Phoenix movie. But I can't do that now. The fact is he's just not the right director for this franchise. Unfortunately, since he's also directing Deathly Hollows, I fear I have two more Harry Potter movie disappointments in my near future.
Kath & Kim (2008)
Waiting to Laugh...
I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.