zaisjr Reviews

MediEvil (1998 Video Game)

A lot of hype with far too many issues.

[3/10 · 28 February 2013]

Over the past couple years I have been playing older games that are in my collection. I have had the habit of purchasing popular games that are on sale or at second-hand stores for good prices. But I have always been a busy person so I haven't had the time to play video games. I have recently been able to play all of these games I purchased back in high school and college.

Recently I came across Medieval. The game had decent reviews and a few sequels so I figured it must have a decent game. How wrong I was.

Medieval is plagued by the same issues many other game franchises are when they are first released. The camera angles are decent, until you have to make a complicated jump, walk on a thin path, or focus on surrounding enemies. Far too many times the camera has spun away from my character when I am trying to make a jump. Far too many times my character has died because the camera refused to tilt at the very moment I needed it to. The fighting system can also become frustrating when using arrows and spears. Wasting valuable weapons because your character likes throwing them at thin air is one of the most frustrating issues any game has. A better aiming system would have been appreciated.

So do I think you should skip this game? It depends on if you can stand the above issues. If you can, then this game might be decent for you. Medieval does have a very nice feel to it. The sound is fantastic and the music fits the game perfectly. The storyline is quirky yet quite interesting. It's all so ridiculous yet it still works. But the technical issues with the game stopped it from being great.

Unknown (I) (2011)

Another thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat!

[8/10 · 28 February 2013]

Unknown is one of those movies that takes you in one direction for a long time only to completely throw you off track near the end. I was worried at first because I thought this movie was a ripoff of "Lady Vanishing". But this film takes the mystery of the main character to another level.

While this movie has an interesting plot and keeps you on the edge of your seat, it isn't flawless. What keeps this movie from getting a 9 or 10 for a score is that it does have some moments that are quite unrealistic. This isn't always a big deal in thrillers like Unknown, but this movie actually has a sense of realism that is spoiled now and then.

What helps to carry this movie is the strong acting and resulting strong character of Ernst Jurgen (played by the great Bruno Ganz). His performance stands out and helps carry this film.

Unknown is a thriller with enough turns to keep you intrigued while helping you forget any of the movie's deficiencies.

Camille (I) (2008)

Odd, ridiculous, silly but very sweet and sad.

[7/10 · 18 February 2012]

When I first saw this movie, I only saw the last 25 minutes. I thought it was hilarious and a typical Hollywood piece of crap.... until I watched it later on from the beginning.

I won't spoil the ending for you, but if I told you what happens in the end you too would probably think this movie was horrible and ridiculous. "Camille" is quite far-fetched and strays from the normal love story, except for it's another movie where a female character believes she can change her man. What surprised me about this movie is how deep of a character Camille really is. Her emotions and free spirit kept me interested. I always considered Sienna Miller to be overrated, until the movie "Camille" came along. She is from England yet her southern drawl is quite convincing. Her character is well-written. She's is the stereotypical foolish southern girl who is foolishly in love with a petty thief who is just interested in escaping to Canada to get away from the authorities. While I didn't find James Franco to be very convincing (not that I ever have), he did do an adequate job of playing the inconsiderate bad-boy. Sienna Miller, however, draws you into the story. You can feel her heart break when she finally realizes that Silas truly doesn't love her. For the rest of the movie you can't help but feel terrible for this innocent woman who only seems to be full of love. The supporting cast is also complete. David Carradine (Cowboy Bob) and Scott Glenn (another underrated actor) compliment Sienna Miller and the story perfectly. There is some great cohesiveness going on between the actors in this feature. I would definitely recommend this movie for people who can suspend disbelief for the corny parts of the movie but who love heart-wrenching films. It's a true gem for romance-seekers out there!

Riven: The Sequel to Myst (1997 Video Game)

Groundbreaking game that is more challenging than Myst

[8/10 · 27 June 2011]

I started playing this game a couple years after it came out. I found it very difficult and couldn't get very far. I was annoyed by the multiple discs, something that was later remedied with a DVD version. I eventually forgot about it. Then the economy went sour a couple years ago and I found myself not being able to afford new games or afford to go on vacation anymore. I decided to pull out my old games that I never played or defeated. Riven was one of those games and I'm glad I finally finished it. Riven is very difficult at first and will frustrate people with limited attention spans. You are faced with constant puzzles and have to accept that you aren't going to figure them all out at first. Some of the first puzzles you encounter won't be solved until the end. The atmosphere of Riven is absolutely amazing, especially for 1997! It sucks you in and feels very foreign, but is awe inspiring. Just like Myst, Riven is full of strange sounds and beautiful landscapes. The music and sound effects make you feel like you are really there. This is definitely a game to be played with a nice sound system. The music isn't as memorable as Myst, but still better than most games of that time. This game is perfect for anyone who likes books, beautiful sceneries, complex mysteries, and the other Myst games. I hope you enjoy!

Myst (1993 Video Game)

A classic game that has been forgotten

[9/10 · 26 June 2011]

Myst was revolutionary for its time. In 1993 most people who had a computer did not have a computer that could handle more than 20 megabytes of RAM. So video game programmers didn't have much to work with, unlike today. Myst was revolutionary because it had the best sound and music of any game before. It also had the best visuals ever seen. I played the original version of Myst and was originally frustrated and confused. The original version doesn't give you any explanation of the storyline and just throws you into it. This was hard for people with short attention spans but great for people who love solving puzzles. The story slowly unravels and eventually you start to put the pieces together. Unlike other click and point adventures, this one is clever and has an original feel to it. You feel like you are truly in a different world. Myst isn't for everyone. If you only like games full of action and that are fast paced, this isn't a game for you. Even the re-releases of this game won't change that. I have also played Real Myst which was definitely refreshing, but still not the type of game that Doom fans would normally love. Real Myst did, however, do a better job of tying into Riven. It also contains an extra age not shown in the original Myst and explains more of the history of Atrus's family. I recommend the Myst series of games to anyone who likes a good story, likes solving mysteries, and who is patient.

Splinter (I) (2008)

Should have been awful, but a nice surprise.

[7/10 · 13 May 2011]

In order to explain my review, I first need to tell a story. A family friend had an antique clock that stopped working. He took it apart and fixed it. However, several key pieces were missing after he put it back together. Logically, it should never have worked properly. But it ended up working just fine and still works to this day to the best of my knowledge. That is the best way for me to explain this movie. It shouldn't have worked, but it did! The movie is quite unscientific and is not void of plot holes. The characters aren't well written. The movie doesn't follow the clichés of most horror movies. It doesn't rely on sex like most horror movies. It is a low budget film with only a handful of actors. None of the actors are A-list actors. This film should have been awful, but it ended up working just fine.

I won't spoil this film for you. It has one of the most original antagonists, especially since the main antagonist of the film technically isn't an antagonist. That's probably the best way I can describe "Splinter" without giving away the plot. This film has a great protagonist played by Jill Wagner. She carried the film quite well and definitely broke away from the cliché women of most horror movies. My rating for this movie is also inflated because this film almost completely takes place in a gas station yet somehow overcomes this shortcoming wonderfully.

I am probably a hypocrite for giving this movie a decent review, but I notice that my review is reflected in other reviews here. This movie should not have worked but did.

Under Our Skin (2008)

Remarkeably fair and informative!

[9/10 · 13 May 2011]

I was given a copy of this film because I have been treated for late stage Lyme disease. It seems like most literature and videos out there are incredibly uninformative and biased. There is a lot of bad information out there and there is a vast amount of unchecked scams in regards to Lyme disease. So when I received this movie as a gift, I assumed it was going to be full of lies and misinformation. Instead I have been surprised by how thorough this film was about Lyme disease. This is a must see for everyone! I'd like to inform anyone who reads this that I have a decent education in biology and also work in the health care field. I studied Lyme disease in college and thought little about it. But then I contracted Lyme disease. It took six months to get a doctor to treat me. I was diagnosed with TMJ and given Tylenol. Then I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Then Shingles. It wasn't until I asked a chiropractor for a consult that I was diagnosed with Lyme. She didn't even charge me or touch me and she was correct in her diagnosis. I went to a third doctor and tested positive for late stage Lyme. Because of the refusal of doctors to either treat or test for Lyme, I will probably be affected by this disease for life. I never had TMJ, Shingles, or a brain tumor but my insurance would cover those. This film tells our story. It finally explains why your doctor may be afraid to treat you, even if he/she wants to. It isn't meant to scare you rather to inform you. It shows the chaos that has ensued because of the lack of research on Lyme disease and the lack of action being taken by the CDC. This film illustrates how serious this illness is and clears up misconceptions. While this film is trying to inform the public about this illness, it is also trying to motivate the world to push for more research. It isn't asking for money. It isn't asking for political affiliation. It is seeking the truth and trying to help those afflicted with this merciless illness. It shows arguments from all angles and actually backs up its claims with scientific research, not empty claims.

What amazes me more than anything is how thorough the research is on Lyme disease in this film. This is truly the best documentary I've ever seen. Many journalist reviews agree that this is truly a well-planned out and put together documentary. I highly recommend it!

Final Fantasy II (1988 Video Game)

A very rare and unique gem for Final Fantasy fans!!!

[8/10 · 17 March 2011]

This review is for Final Fantasy II, the original version. This is not a review for the American Super Nintendo release, which truly is Final Fantasy IV.

For the longest time you could only find Final Fantasy II on the internet through emulators. The few Americans who got a chance to play it were in for a real treat. This game was the beginning of the Chocobos and the beginning of the Cid era. This game is where Final Fantasy began to have some swagger to it.

Unlike the first Final Fantasy, or any Final Fantasy game for that matter, this game rid itself of the standard leveling system. Players don't level up from experience, their skills level up instead. So if you have a character who you constantly use for physical attacks, that character's physical attacks will level up. If you constantly use a character for magic attacks, that character's individual spells will level up. All of your characters can also use magic. While it is basically impossible to make a good hybrid character, the option is definitely appreciated. This type of leveling really opens up your strategy options.

The story is less rigid than the first Final Fantasy. There are also more twists and dramatic points. The characters are much less watered down than the first Final Fantasy installment. The game also isn't as vague as the first Final Fantasy. Unlike it's predecessor, Final Fantasy II does a decent job leading you to your next mission or item. Instead of having to travel the globe speaking to every single character or guessing where you have to go next, this sequel does a nice job guiding you around the game.

Final Fantasy II is not without shortcomings. The game still had the average graphics of its predecessor. The music was forgettable, but still decent. The game was also stretched out longer than it probably needed to be. You still weren't allowed to save in the dungeons, which would have been a nice improvement.

This game is definitely an improvement over the first Final Fantasy game. It's not for everybody, but definitely worth playing if you want to see origins of many Final Fantasy influences. It might also be beneficial to play the Final Fantasy Origins version of Final Fantasy II. This Playstation version upgraded the music, graphics, game play, and added a game saving feature to help out in the dungeons.

Final Fantasy (1987 Video Game)

The beginning of a legend, but nothing fancy.

[6/10 · 17 March 2011]

Final Fantasy is a household name, as far as video games are concerned. There's hardly anybody on this planet who isn't in some way familiar with this franchise. Many sequels, spin-offs, and movies have come from this franchise and it all started here.

When I first played Final Fantasy, I was amazed at how unremarkable it was. The first game in the series is not a bad one, but it's nothing that special as far as presentation and graphics. The reason why it became so famous is because so few people in America were used to this type of role playing game. Aside from the Dungeons and Dragons fans, very few people were familiar with the strategy and leveling systems of Final Fantasy. This game introduced them to a whole new world and to a unique experience.

This is the only Final Fantasy game in the series where you can choose your characters by class. There are no characters forced on you. While the game is unique, it still doesn't look that great. While I understand that it was a Nintendo game released on an 8 bit system, the graphics were still average at best. The sound was somewhat annoying at times and the game play was sluggish. The spells had very vague descriptions and often weren't very effective. You also weren't able to save your game when you were in dungeons, so it was very annoying if you died after three hours of fighting in a dungeon. The game also did a poor job of explaining what you needed to do next. There's a difference between suspense and downright guesswork.

Even with the negatives, Final Fantasy is still a classic. I definitely recommend playing the Playstation version, released with Final Fantasy II as "Final Fantasy Origins", because of the many nice upgrades to the game. After playing this game and hopefully defeating it, you will definitely appreciate the many improvements Square-Enix has done to the Final Fantasy franchise.

The Last House on the Left (2009)

A remake of one of Wes Craven's weakest films

[3/10 · 10 March 2011]

Over the years I have loved to watch Wes Craven's writing and creativity grow. He really gained momentum with the later Freddy films, later making a masterpiece with "New Nightmare" with what should have been the last Freddy movie ever made. He hit a masterful stride with the Scream movies. But then things took a turn. He started remaking his old films. After successful remakes of "The Hills Have Eyes" parts one and two, he decided to remake his first horror film, "The Last House on the Left". This is puzzling because the original movie wasn't very good in the first place. My assumption was that the remake would be a much better movie, but it wasn't really an improvement.

The premise of "Last House on the Left" is a great one. A group of criminals is on the road performing vile and disgusting acts. Then the irony sets in. They look for a safe haven, but this haven ends up being the home of a victim's parents. Now instead, the vile criminals are begging for their lives. Sounds great huh? How could anyone mess this up? Well, it happened.

The film starts with the same old clichés. An irresponsible teenager is hanging out with a foolish and careless teenage friend. These two teenage friends make horrible decisions one after another, a common horror cliché that became outdated and frustrating back in the 90's. These two female teenagers make a poor decision and go back to a run-down motel with a teenage pot head and continue with more foolish decisions. What they don't know is that the teenage boy is the son of an escaped violent criminal. This boy's father, uncle, and father's girlfriend are all sick and twisted individuals. These sick individuals make their intentions known immediately, that they will kill these two girls so that they don't blow the cover of the fugitives. Instead of killing the girls off at first, these fugitives take them on the road and try to get out of the area. One girl tries to escape and the vehicle crashes in the forest. We are then treated to more of a drawn out inevitability, that these two girls are going to face a horrible fate. But instead of seeing that fate right away, the momentum of the film keeps stalling. Then we are finally treated, rather punished, with a stabbing and then a long rape scene. I watched the unrated version of this film and almost vomited from the graphic nature of the rape scene and the longevity of it. Perverts and rapists probably loved it. But I was nauseous for a couple hours after that scene. It wasn't needed. Now the hope was that the revenge by the parents would be redeeming for this film. But it wasn't very redeeming at all. The criminals come to the home of the rape victim and are fed and housed for the night. Then the parents figure out that these criminals raped and shot their daughter. Tension rises and you just can't wait to see the punishment coming. The revenge arrives, but comes along very sloppy and unconvincing. The parents just don't seem all that enraged and the revenge sequences stumble along. Aside from the last scene in the movie, the revenge scenes become too frustrating. Unlike many other revenge films, the protagonists don't seem so motivated or enraged.

In summary, this film should never have been re-made, not like this at least. The music and the cinematography were effective, but the rest of the film didn't cut it as a good revenge film. The movie could easily have been an hour long, but instead dragged us through two hours of mediocrity. This is a movie to bypass.

Carriers (2009)

A typical post-apocalyptic film

[6/10 · 6 March 2011]

Two brothers and their girlfriends have all conveniently survived a horrible virus that has killed off most of the world. Being young adults, they decide that they want to end their days on their old family beach vacation area. Along the way, they make foolish decision and often face heart-breaking and difficult decisions that have to be made. They do whatever they can to avoid those who are alive but sick with this virus.

The storyline is actually rather decent and the acting is rather convincing. Christopher Meloni, whom you may know as Elliot on Law & Order: SVU, really sucks you into the movie. He plays a father who is doing what he can to find a cure for his daughter who is sick with the virus. His pain, how he is treated by other characters in the story, and his eventual fate is something that makes your heart sink. The movie demonstrates how cruel human nature can be and how much people are willing to trample their own morals in order to survive. You won't like most of the characters in this film and your aren't supposed to. You are supposed to have a bad taste in your mouth in the end. The movie also did an impressive job of providing parallels and irony. Some of the characters find that their earlier decisions end up drastically affecting them in the end.

However, this film is loaded with plot holes and goofs. The whole world is dying, yet hardly any cars are around. Major buildings, such as hotels, hospitals, schools, etc. are empty. There are hardly any people alive at all. Yet, it seems more like the people disappeared with their vehicles and belongings. The main characters have a small car yet are able to pack it full of cleaning supplies, medical supplies, plenty of food, water, and clothing. Oh, and they are able to pack two surfboards. All of this with four people sitting comfortably in this car. Characters carrying shotguns cock their shotguns multiple times without ever shooting them and without any bullets or shells coming out. So while this movie is a decent film, it is also sloppy.

Overall this film reminds me too much of the 90's teenager horror flicks that used to be so popular. While this film has a more somber tone and is less thrilling, it still has the ever common foolish decisions by the main characters and plenty of mistakes.

If you love post-apocalyptic films, this is worth watching. It is just fresh enough to be enjoyed. If it weren't so poorly put together, it could have been a classic.

Highlander: Endgame (2000)

The best Highlander movie, but that's not saying much.

[7/10 · 2 February 2011]

I am definitely biased when it comes to my review of this film. I am a fan of the first movie, fan of the TV series (minus a few poorly done episodes), and will watch anything that has the character "Methos" in it. This movie will be hard to follow if you haven't watched previous Highlander movies and/or the TV series. Recently my girlfriend purchased all of the seasons of Highlander and we just now finished watching them. We also just watched the first movie again. So I have a unique perspective. I have the original movie and the series still fresh in my memory.

I think that Highlander fans love the concept more than the plot of the Highlander franchise. The idea of living forever while having a vintage style of dress and manners is of great appeal to us. But I also notice that many critics of this film didn't see the second and third movie. Those movies didn't do a good job following the first movie either. But this film mainly follows the TV series, not the first movie.

I am one of those people who really liked Highlander: Endgame. The movie does a great job mixing the characters from the first movie and the TV series. When I started watching the movie I was thrilled to see Peter Wingfield and Jim Byrnes in the credits. These were two great actors from the TV series. Sadly Methos had a small part in this film. He is one of the greatest, yet wasted characters of television history. Still, I'm glad he was featured in this film. Sadly, this film still can't shake some of the corny effects and additions that Panzer and Davis add to each movie. Just like the first movie, the main villain is often overacting. The final quickening is lame. Someone needs to tell Panzer and Davis that the 80's are over with. Still, this film let us see what the TV series would have been like with a bigger budget. I have also been told that the Director's Cut does a better job of developing the characters. But this movie isn't for people who aren't Highlander fans. It's also not for people who hated the TV series. It's for die-hard fans.

Gangs of New York (2002)

Research the Five Points before watching this film

[6/10 · 28 January 2011]

This is one of those movies that is very deep, has a lot going on at the same time, and demands your full attention. But one thing that it also requires is a historical knowledge of this time period. Without that knowledge, the movie isn't worth much to the viewer. You may also find yourself lost and even wondering why anyone likes this film.

I will start off this review with the positive aspects of the film.

1. The acting. Daniel-Day Lewis put together his best performance since "My Left Foot". He plays the antagonist and does a superb job of making you loathe him. The greasy hair, the ridiculous outfits, the smug look on his face, that arrogant walk, and even his manner of speaking makes him repulsive. His image alone makes you want to curl up your fist and smash his face in. He is truly the ultimate villain. Even many of the smaller roles are played quite well. The actor selection for this movie is amazing, save the selection of Cameron Diaz. Don't get me wrong, Diaz surprisingly performed her part well. But with Scorsese, you'd expect a better selection of actress. Nonetheless, she easily put in her best performance ever.

2. This film does a fine job depicting this specific time period in New York. The story is important and is actually quite relevant today. Based on the description of this movie on the back cover of the DVD, I figured this movie was just about the Irish. But it's not. It is also about civil rights, the poor, the corrupt, and is a testimony to the history of New York. This is a story that needed to be told and it was put together quite well. The set designer deserves credit for putting together an excellent representation of a Civil War era New York.

Here are the problems with this film:

1. It is still rather bland and lengthy. The movie is more informative than entertaining. While the movie definitely has tense moments, irony, foreshadowing, and amazing acting it still doesn't have much of a climax. The climax also quickly fizzles.

2. The movie has so much going on that it becomes quite confusing. I commend the director for using visual aids such as flashbacks to try to clarify the film. But it is still hard to follow. With so many events going on and so many different groups fighting, it's hard to keep track of the whole point of the film. At the end of the movie plenty of people will be left wondering what just happened and what purpose this film holds.

This movie is still worth watching. But like I stated earlier, please do a little research before watching this movie. Do a quick study on the Five Points, the Civil War, and immigration during the Civil War era. You will appreciate the film much more if you know what is going on.

Flightplan (2005)

A nice tribute to the thriller films of old

[8/10 · 28 January 2011]

I am one of those people who loves movies with a great plot and I also enjoy many older classic thrillers. At the same time I despise movies that rely on nudity, attractive actors and actresses who can't act, and a PR department that keeps telling people that the movie is "cool" or "hip" even though it's not. This is why I actually enjoyed this film. I did not consider this film to be a "rip-off" of classic thriller movies, such as "The Lady Vanishes". I considered it to be more of a tribute. If "The Lady Vanishes" were released today, the ratings would be similar. It would receive similar criticisms. While the two movies are similar, Flightplan is different enough to stand on its own.

The setting of this movie sets the tone for a great thriller. Thousands of miles up in the air with a bunch of tense passengers, made tense of course by a frantic mother who awakes to find her child missing.

The acting is superb. Jodie Foster was the perfect fit for this film. She truly carried this film. Her character is a mourning widow who is strong, loving, intelligent, and very observant. I never saw her break character and was impressed at how well she depicted a frantic mother. I have been in scenarios where a mother feared the worst for her child. This is exactly how they reacted.

This movie also has many angles. It explores all possibilities. Is the mother schizophrenic? Is she having troubles coping with the loss of her husband? Did someone actually kidnap her daughter? If so, who did it and why? The movie pulls you back and forth until you finally find out what is really going on.

While I truly did appreciate this film, I do have some criticisms. First off, the plane was quite fake. No plane has that much extra space on it. Not even close. I understand that this is a movie, but the extra space was quite exaggerated. The airline procedures are also not the same. I'll let you read the "goofs section" on your own, but anyone who works in the airline industry I'm certain spotted these errors. I also wasn't very fond of how the airline staff was portrayed. They were all portrayed as snobby inconsiderate cold and irresponsible people. Despite what some may think, most airline crew members are quite friendly and truly do care if you have problems or concerns. But I suppose this contributed to making the mother seem more helpless and contributed to her being so frantic.

Overall this was an underrated film. I recommend it for people who love mystery thrillers and movies with great plots.

A Perfect Getaway (2009)

A poor attempt at a thriller

[4/10 · 24 January 2011]

While I gave his movie a poor review, I will still start off with positive remarks.

This movie looks great. It's why I watched it in the first place. I love the cinematography. Hawaii is a nice setting and they made the most of it in this film. I also like the casting for this film. The actors fit their roles quite well. I am someone who backpacks a lot so I'm also glad the movie didn't make the same errors that most movies do when it comes to backpacking. I've seen films where people backpacked yet somehow were able to carry a 100 sq. ft. tent, a stove, cast iron skillets, hammocks, stereos, etc. Thankfully this movie didn't insult the hobby.

This movie tries to be cunning and sneaky. I love movies that have a twist and are suspenseful. But I know how these movies work. This movie should have had more characters. Basically in this movie you knew the murderers were either the main couple or the couple they were hiking with. All the other characters weren't developed so it was easy to assume they weren't the murderers. While the casting was good, the characters weren't very well written. The murderers didn't do a good job of showing their motive for murder and the rest of the couples didn't act like the typical backpacking young couple. They were a little over the top, especially the "jedi".

I recommend skipping this movie. If you like suspense and twists, there are plenty of better movies out there. This movie will probably be on USA, FX, or Spike TV sometime soon. Just watch it then. But only if there is nothing else on the television.

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Ties in well with the first movie but lacks the realistic human nature

[6/10 · 24 January 2011]

I was a fan of the first movie, especially because the movie didn't use the typical Hollywood formula for horror flicks. The movie didn't rely on nudity, sex, and gore just to bring in viewers. This film is the same way. It uses the same great mix of sound and paranormal actions to make you jump and send chills down your spine. I also like how the movie was tied into the first one. It gave a nice background to Katie's past and explained why the events in the first movie took place.

But here is why the movie only received a six in my review. Unlike the first film, the characters weren't very realistic and were poorly developed. The first movie was simple with only a few characters. Yet those characters were clearly understood and acted mostly how you would expect someone to react in a similar situation. But in Paranormal Activity 2, it was confusing how each character was related. I eventually figured it out but still went to this site in order to make sure of the relation of each character. One thing that many people agree with me about is that the characters didn't act very realistic. There is no way a decent functioning family would ever act like this. In the whole movie the toddler, who is very significant to the story, stays in his crib. All day long the family doesn't seem to ever care about the child. Throughout the film family members pick up the child, calm him down if he's crying, then put him back in the crib. When the paranormal entity becomes violent, the family never seems to care about the child's safety. Even when the child is obviously in danger, the family doesn't watch over him. The father's character was very poorly written. For being someone who obviously was financially successful, he sure did a poor job of making good decisions. When his family is in obvious danger, he still leaves his daughter home while he goes to something "important". He doesn't show any concern for his children nor his wife. If you go through the comments on this site you will see plenty of people complaining about the same issue. It may not be a big deal in some movies but in this film the characters are supposed to be very realistic. This movie relies on realistic characters. But the only characters who seemed at all natural were the maid, daughter, Micah, and Katie.

The ending of the film also seemed to be thrown together. I won't go into much detail because I don't want to spoil the film for you. But the last fifteen minutes really frustrated my girlfriend and I. I threw my arms up in the air and remarked "What the heck is going on?". The movie started off quite slow and then moved rather swiftly the last few minutes. When the first movie ended, I was astonished. When the second movie ended I was frustrated and puzzled.

If you liked the first movie, you still might like the second one. If you didn't like the first one, I doubt you will like the second one.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Not your typical horror movie

[7/10 · 24 January 2011]

When I first heard about this movie I figured it was another Blair Witch ripoff. But I must admit that it is actually a decent horror flick.

This movie doesn't rely on blood, guts, gore, sex, and nudity to make itself a good movie. It relies on well-planned and placed scares, sounds, and reactions. I was very tense during this movie and many unexpected frights make the hair on your neck stand up. The actions of the paranormal entity mixed with the frightening sounds make for one frightful film. On top of this, the movie feels realistic. For being amateur actors, the acting is superb. It truly feels like this story could be true and be something documented.

I'm not the sort of person who gets scared easily during movies. The last film that spooked me this much was the Ring. I didn't watch this film in the theater. I watched it from home which gives it more of a scary feel. Many complained to me that far too many rude teenagers come to these types of films. This is why I watched this one from home. If you are a patient individual who likes movies about paranormal entities, while not being "too Hollywood", this movie is perfect for you.

Vanity Fair (2004)

A film without a climax, purpose, and hero

[4/10 · 24 January 2011]

My girlfriend received this movie as a gift years ago. We finally got around to watching it yesterday. We both were very bored by the film and still aren't sure what the point of the film was. Here are our issues.

1. The film had no identity. This seemed to be one of those films that was filmed while writing it. It never seemed to have any purpose and even the director and actors seemed to be lost as to what they expected out of this film. Based on the description on IMDb, I assumed this was your standard film about a poor woman trying to find love and success. But never does it seem that way. It appears that this movie is just about a woman with poor upbringings who is fortunate enough to often be part of rich families, bouncing from family to family, to become nothing more than who she was before.

2. There is no growth in the characters, personally nor physically. The character played by Gabriel Byrne looks exactly the way he did 30+ years previously. But the big issue is that none of the characters, including the main character, seem to have much of a personal growth, epiphany, nor any substance. There is no compassion, sympathy, hatred, nor memorable features from these characters. They are far too easy to forget. There is no true hero, protagonist, nor antagonist. Anytime you do start to get to know a character, they take off and leave the film for a moment. Often without explanation.

3. The film isn't very easy to follow. Often many characters are introduced without any explanation or understanding of how these characters are important to the story. Matter of fact, many of the characters could have and should have been either expanded upon or written out of the movie. One example of these characters are the children. In the movie one of the characters is pregnant. A family offers to help her with her child while her husband is gone. The child is born. Next thing you know another child is presented without explanation. The first child all of a sudden is no longer living with this family because his mother moved back in with his grandparents. But the movie doesn't tell you this. What happened is that the main family in the story also had a child but failed to mention this. So you are confused when this boy is running around with black hair, then blond, then black, then blond..... it's poor writing. Later on in the movie another child shows up and the movie doesn't explain who the father is, yet all the rest of the characters know who he is without explanation. Also, some of the main characters get married out of the blue without any mention until after the fact. Two characters will meet one day, flirt for a few seconds, then be married without any wedding nor any indication that these two are in love.

4. The movie doesn't follow any plot structure that I'm aware of. There is no dramatic climax nor anything building up to one. Like I said before, the movie has no purpose.

The only good things I can say about this movie is that it looks great and I really liked the costumes. The setting and photography were excellent. It was just wasted on such a poor script.

Identity (2003)

A refreshing thriller!

[8/10 · 1 November 2010]

I'm really getting sick of Hollywood movies. But this one was refreshing. I love Hitchcock movies and this one reminds me of something Hitchcock would have done.

This is a movie where you don't want to miss anything. It reminds me of Shutter Island, a story that takes you one way and then blind sides you later on in the movie. Every time I thought I knew who was behind this mess, a new suspect showed up.

What I really liked about this movie is that it isn't the standard Hollywood horror movie. It's not some movie where rebellious teenagers run around in their underwear having sex and being hunted down. This movie instead relied on very well developed characters, characters that many people could identify with. It relied on classic plot structure instead of sex and violence.

This movie does still have some plot holes. But I was easily able to forgive them because of how good the movie was. I recommend this thriller to people who love thrillers and don't care for the standard Hollywood thriller.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Not sure if this movie makes me want to do drugs or abstain.

[2/10 · 31 October 2010]

Let me start off by saying that I will save the spoilers for the end so feel free to read the beginning of my review.

I feel that this movie is just what Hollywood wants you to believe is realistic about drugs and the world. They also want you to believe that this movie is a good movie. It's not very realistic and is NOT a good movie. I have experienced all sorts of aspects of the drug world from user to witness of the South American effect. With that in mind, I will tell you that the movie "Traffic" is much much closer to the truth about drugs. I see way too many people saying that Requiem for a Dream is a movie to show your kids or loved ones about drugs. You must be on drugs to think that way or have not thought about how unrealistic this movie is.

Here's my issue. Unlike the movie "Traffic", this movie doesn't develop the characters. I immediately couldn't stand the mother, Harry, his girlfriend, his friend.... nobody! I couldn't really identify with them. The mother. She looked and acted like a grandmother. She seemed like far too fake of a character. I actually spent most of the movie laughing at her character. Even now my girlfriend and I crack jokes about "the refrigerator". Harry was a selfish jerk of a son who I didn't care if he lived or died. His girlfriend was never really developed throughout the movie. Too little was touched on about his friend.

Now here is where the spoilers come along.

The last half hour of the movie caused my girlfriend and I to laugh and also say "c'mon!". I have plenty of experience with people being arrested and admitted with drug problems. Not once have I seen a doctor have a severely infected patient get arrested without being taken care of. Never have I seen a patient be sent right to shock therapy because they overdosed on uppers. The mother and son could have sued and won tons of money for his arm being amputated and for her being sent through last resort mental procedures without ever going to detox. It's like this movie was meant to scare you into abstaining from drugs but at the same time causing so much laughs that you wonder if you shouldn't just do some drugs to understand what is going on. And last of all, the "ass to ass" scene. That wasn't necessary. Seriously, how many times is a druggie going to just agree to do "ass to ass" in front of a bunch of strangers for just a little bit of smack. This movie took the absolute most unlikely and worst scenario and made a movie out of it.

If you honestly think this is a good movie to persuade people not to do drugs, think again. The people who told me to watch this movie? Yes, all drug addicts. Drug addicts who aren't going to therapy. The people who told me to watch the movie "Traffic"? They were recovering addicts, addicts in therapy, addicts who had reached the end of their rope and turned back, or police officers. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time on this movie.

This movie is just as realistic as MTV's "the Real World". Sure it seems real. But it's basically the most wacked out and unlikely scenarios being thrown into a movie. It's like someone making a movie about how you shouldn't smoke cigarettes. In this movie about cigarettes the characters die by accidentally burning down their house, starting their cars on fire, or dying of lung cancer at age 25. Or making a movie about how you shouldn't own guns and all the characters blow off their fingers and commit terrorist attacks. This movie is way over the top. So over the top that many people will laugh like I did.

Please, if you disagree, learn more about the drug world and how you can prevent your loved ones from doing drugs. Don't use this movie as a tool. Now I have to go. I think I hear.... oh my gosh!!!! The refrigerator!!!!!

The Crow: Wicked Prayer (2005)

Not worth seeing, even for the hardcore Crow fan.

[1/10 · 24 July 2010]

Like all fans of the original Crow movie, I've learned not to expect anything good out of the sequels. Despite what some people say, ALL of the sequels have been awful. But this one is the worst by far. I have nothing good to say about this movie. That's right, nothing. Here's why the movie is absolutely dreadful.

1. Edward Furlong looks like an emo version of the Crow. Seriously, when he put on the make-up I almost laughed. At that point, I knew this movie was going to be dreadful. Just look at the pictures yourself. You might as well have Justin Timberlake play the Terminator.

2. Throughout the movie I kept asking myself "Could this movie possibly get any more lame?". The answer every single time was a resounding "Yes, yes we can".

3. While I definitely hated the bad guys and wanted them to perish, I wanted the same for the Crow. No seriously, I was hoping that the Edward Furlong Crow would die and that the police would kill off the bad guys instead. Tara Reid would have been a better Crow and Edward Furlong.

4. Satan. Satan himself is portrayed in this movie. No really. That's the point of the movie. One of the main bad guys is trying to become Satan himself. This movie and portrayal of Satan would have been torture for Satan himself to watch. Once Satan's character entered the movie, I wanted to drink arsenic and just end it all.

5. In this movie, the characters will do something incredibly stupid and then explain it afterwards. It's like the director had the characters do random evil acts and then rewrote the script every time they did something. It was like a "write as you go" type movie.

Summary: I only watched this movie because I loved the first Crow movie. Don't do what I did. You won't get back that hour and a half of your life. This movie should never ever been made.

Illusion of Gaia (1993 Video Game)

What a gem of a game!

[9/10 · 19 June 2010]

Instead of going out and buying a Playstation 3 or Xbox 360, I figured I should play all of my old games that have been on the shelf. This game is one of the best, if not the best game I have played on the super Nintendo. This game, unlike Zelda, didn't get a lot of commercial success. Sort of like Crystalis on the regular Nintendo system, the game didn't finally hit full stride until the game was out of production. I only played the game because I had heard it was from the makers of Soul Blazer (another great game). The story line was pretty decent for this game, but I really liked the game play. The main character (Will in the U.S. version) moves around smoothly and the reaction time of the weapons is great. As with Soul Blazer, the music was great. I honestly have little to complain about this game. The only thing I don't like is having to fight the bosses over again at the end of the game. I felt that was a waste of time. Other than that, I have nothing bad to say at all about the game. It's a great role-playing game that I recommend for those of you who like similar styles of role-playing games. If you have it laying around and haven't finished playing it, then get out your old snes system and get playing!

Soul Survivors (2001)

Not as bad as I thought it would be, but still nothing great.

[5/10 · 29 May 2010]

I only put a spoiler rating on this review because I will compare it to a movie that may give away the ending for you. I'm not going to tell you what happens. I had heard that this movie was awful. Then I saw the poor rating from IMDb. We were at the store and found this movie in a multi-pack with Frailty (awesome horror movie) and Saw. We decided to watch it and this is what we felt about the movie.

Pros: 1. The movie, unlike most teen horror movies, actually required attention and thinking. It had a deep plot. 2. It's one of those movies that draws you in as you try to figure out what is going on. 3. It's not the same old slasher movie of that era. It didn't copy Scream or Urban Legend. Cons: 1. It's practically a rip-off of the classic horror flick "Jacob's Ladder". It basically takes the same plot, waters it down, and then adds college students to it. 2. With the exception of the heroin of the story, most of the characters are very poorly written. I love Eliza Dushku, but her character was insanely far from reality and very poorly written. She did what she could do with the script. 3. The setting was so off. The main character comes from a middle class home yet has an absolutely awesome apartment at a large university that never seems to have more than ten students walking around at a time. The club they went to was so far over the top that I thought this was seriously going to be a vampire movie. 4. After about half an hour, you already know what's happening. It's just trying to figure out who's good and who isn't, that's somewhat difficult. But you figure it out quickly, unless you're brain dead.

In conclusion, don't watch this movie unless you're very bored. It may not have been awful, but there are plenty of other good movies out there to watch instead.

The Mist (2007)

Not as good of representation of human nature as some say.

[4/10 · 24 February 2010]

I'm not sure if it's because of Stephen King's name being affiliated with this movie, but the movie does get a little bit of hype. This movie is supposed to be about human nature. It's trying to show how humans would typically react to such a strange and awful event. For a movie that is trying to show human nature, it failed on many fronts. This movie is basically supposed to be "War of the Worlds" meets "Lord of the Flies". But Lord of the Flies was much better at showing human nature. Matter of fact, the children in Lord of the Flies showed more intelligence than the people in the Mist. I have been in survival situations before and can tell you that this movie doesn't do a good job of portraying humanity. It does have some truth to it, but plenty of fallacy. Here are my points for why this movie fails. 1. Mrs. Carmody. Yes, in crazy situations religious zealots will start preaching. But here's the thing. All of these people are scared and start becoming religious. Yet, do you see any of them praying? Nope. Not one. Just preaching. When religious people are scared, they start praying. Also, only a select few idiots would fall for her preachings about the end of the world. Most people in America know that she was missing 99% of the prophecies of the apocalypse. Even with a Bible present, nobody called her out on her errors. 2. The doubters (those who doubted there were monsters in the mist) claimed that a mine accident probably caused the deaths of people in the parking lot. Soooooooo everyone who goes outside afterward makes NO attempt at covering their mouths nor faces. Not one attempt. In the beginning a man dies within a few yards of the store. Instead of claim it was a monster, they say it was gasses. So they go outside without protection. Right. 3. Right from the beginning people wondered if this had something to do with the military. Trapped in the store are three military men. Nobody thinks about questioning these men until it's too late. Matter of fact, the military men don't even follow their training. Any soldier will tell you that these characters were wasted in the movie. They didn't use their training nor were they used as a resource. 4. Okay, so you think there are monsters in the mist killing people. Actually, now you KNOW they are killing people. So what do you do? You go outside, stand straight up, and walk incredibly slow to your next location. For crying out loud, even the soldier did this. Why? You are on the defense. Why the heck are you making yourself into a large slow-moving target? 5. The ending. I won't go into specifics. But the protagonists of the movie will do anything to survive. They are willing to take risks to survive. They will even kill other people in their way in order for them to escape. The ending was quite out of character for all of the protagonists. I understand the irony and purpose of the ending. But I would have expected that sort of ending to have happened to the people in the grocery store who stayed behind. Nope. Instead the protagonists broke character. The ending will make you very very angry. I promise.

I compare this movie, after seeing what it was really worth, to "30 days of Night". Great premise. Great suspense. Poor characters. Poor ending. Thanks for reading.

August (2008)

Either I'm very intelligent, or this movie was pointless.

[2/10 · 24 February 2010]

I won't waste your time with a long review. Let's just say I figured out the ending to the movie about five minutes into it. I knew what was going to happen, why it was going to happen, and had a good idea of how it was going to happen. This movie will drag you through repeated nonsense. It beats a dead horse over and over. Then the credits roll. Save yourself time and money and watch something else. If you want to watch an interesting business or market movie, watch Wall Street or even Boiler Room. Don't waste your time here.

I now see that I need ten lines in order to have a valid review. Here are my ninth and tenth lines. Josh Hartnett should stick to acting, NOT producing movies.