Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
The Boy (2016)
This mediocre dummy had potential at greatness, but end up being kinda dumb.
Originally titled 'In a dark place' and previously known as 'The Inhabitant', 2016's 'The Boy' is an surprisingly step up, for director William Brent Bell, considering his last widely released film was the universally loathed, 2012's The Devil Inside. Most general consensus see the American psychological horror movie as decent at best, however, for me, I saw it as below average. Yes, I like how the film is focusing less on cheap jump scares and more on the story, however, this Gothic horror is nowhere near watchable. First off, the dreadful story reads like a script going through a lot of studio interference. First off, the title for this movie is way too broad. There has been, way too many movies titled 'The Boy' in recent years. I don't know, why the studio thought the title 'the boy' would be better. It's clear, in how this movie flows, that the original story was written, sometime in the year 2011/2012. It match well, with 'The Inhabitant' title, however the studio change it, when the 2014's horror film, 'Annabelle' became a hit. Not only, did they forgot to change or update a lot of the 2011 original story, but there are plenty of parts, in this movie, that seems like they stole from the 'Annabelle' horror concept. If it wasn't that film, then it had to be from another 2014's film, call 'Housebound'. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, while, I'm glad, the movie had a quick pace. I just didn't like, how the movie move in a very incoherency way. It really didn't match the tone. Very odd character behavior comes and goes with the main character. Written by Stacey Menear, the movie tells the story of Greta Evans (Lauren Cohan), an American woman on the run from her abusive ex-lover, Cole (Ben Robson). She winds up in England and accepts a job as a nanny for an eccentric old couple, Mr. and Mrs. Heelshire (Jim Norton & Diana Hardcastle). But the interview are apparently turn out, a lot creepier than it seems; for it turns out that Greta won't actually be taking care of a real boy, but rather a porcelain doll who represents Brahms, the couple's long deceased son. Rather than reject the job, Greta is grateful for the safe haven, the mansion provides, and the enjoyment, she gets from the flirtations of Malcolm (Rupert Evans), the local grocery boy. Unfortunately, the spirit of Brahms think otherwise of her visit. Her recent actions has violating a sacred series of strict rules of his, and now a series of disturbing and inexplicable supernatural events has come to make Greta's life, into a living hell. At least, whatever, a low-budget PG-13 rating can muster as scares, such as loud noises, and really pitch black scenes; which in my opinion, fails to scare me. The movie is so dark that you can barely see anything. The loud noises sounds very clichés and recycled. The movie is not overly gory, but characters do die. Not only that, but some of the supporting characters like Malcolm seem useless. Honestly, besides, playing Greta's love-interesting, there is barely any reason to keep him, around. I really, maybe, he would have a bigger part, toward the end. You know, be related to the twist. Sadly, he isn't. Even, Brahms himself, doesn't seem as scary as the film makes it out to be. I thought, the twist toward the end with him, didn't make much sense. After all, it's hard to believe, that movie thought, 1974's 'Bad Ronald' and 1989's 'Hider in the House' was a clever way to end the film. I also didn't like how much of a man-child, the movie makes Brahms is. Are we really suppose, to take Greta ordering Brahms to go to sleep, serious? This is the high level of nonsense. Remind me of the killer mistaking his victim for his mother scene from '1981's Friday the 13th Part 2'. Trust me, when I say this, I was really dumb. Another thing, that kinda bug me, is how Laura Cohan is playing an American nanny. I really don't see her as that type of a character. Don't get me wrong, she's a fine actress, but I really don't see any sense of 'motherhood' with her performance, here. Also, doesn't it seem a bit odd, for her to want to take care of somebody else kid, after the recent miscarriage of her own!? I just, don't buy it. However, I was really hoping the movie would go, 1992's The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, with this sub-plot. Sadly, in my opinion, the miscarriage subplot comes in and out of the film, way too often. I don't know, if she wants to be a mother or not, with her, trying to screw the grocery boy. Also, why is Laura Cohan still doing her American accent rather than her normal British sounding voice? I know, she's an American playing an American, but she does hold a British citizenship as well. Wouldn't her normal English voice, sound a lot better, here since the settlings is in England?! The reason, why I say this, is because I just don't buy the fact; that this American is flying all the way to England from Montana for a job that she doesn't know, anything about. It makes no sense. It make more sense, if she was British. Overall: This movie was very disappointing. If you want to see it. Its might be alright for you. However, this isn't a movie, I'm willing to rewatch, anytime soon.
It's a strange world, we live in! Let's keep it that way. Watch it's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World! It's crazy good!
On a Saturday morning on a Southern California desert road, four carloads of strangers from all walks of life see a reckless criminal driver, Smiler Grogan (Jimmy Durante) go over a cliff with his car. Before he dies, Grogan confides with the witnesses of his car crash, that there is a $300,000 fortune, in which, he stole that is all buried in a park 200 miles away. This inspires, all of the witnesses, to search for this treasure in a free-for-all rat race to the cash. Directed by Stanley Kramer, this slapstick comedy was mostly funny. I love the stunt work in this film. The film was so crammed with action that each leading actor was given two scripts: one for the dialogue and one for physical comedy. However, the film does kinda fall apart, when the police tracking subplot, kicks in. I really don't like how the police, are allowing these idiots to endangering innocent bystanders, with their reckless driver, and odd behavior. There is a scene, where one of the treasure pursuers kidnap a kid and another is planning to set off a bomb for goodness sakes. You would think, it's there, that they could step in, and control these people. I just found it to be too unrealistic not to notice. Another scene that kinda ruins the film is the ladder scene toward the end. I found that sequence, to be a bit over the top with the fake looking stop-motion special effects. It really doesn't hold up. Sorry, to say this, but that whole sequence looks really dated. Another problem with this film, is the pacing. The preview version of this film clocks in, with a length of 210 minutes resulted from a 5-hour-long work-print. Kramer himself made further cuts for its theatrical release which is also super-long with 192 minutes. But that still wasn't enough for producers United Artists, because they intended to show the movie in theaters as often as possible on one single day. As a result, the studio made further cuts on their own, with 161 minutes without Kramer's involvement. It wasn't until later, that a "final" theatrical version was made with both director and producers. Weighting in, with 154 mins running time. This version of the film, is almost the only option to watch the movie, even these days. If anything, the best result of getting everything, you need out of the movie, is to check out the 1991's Special Edition version. This Special Edition contains delete footages found in the archives. Admittedly, the new footage does often some differs from the rest, but unfortunately, only 20 minutes of the footage could have been reconstructed. Another problem is how roughly, it has been reinserted. While, technically, the Special Edition isn't the original Director's Cut, however the resulting version runs more smoothly than the others film versions. Nevertheless, the positive impression of this edition overbalances the negatives. Anyway, no matter, which version, you watch. This comedy is still a marathon to get through. It took me, a few seats to finally, finished this movie. Another problem with this film, is the huge cast. There are just way too much characters to remember. The film starts out with a few characters of the main cast; J. Russell Finch (Milton Berle), an entrepreneur who owns Pacific Edible Seaweed Company in Fresno, Melville Crump (Sid Caesar), a local dentist; Lennie Pike (Jonathan Winters), a furniture mover; Dingy Bell (Mickey Rooney) and Benjy Benjamin (Buddy Hackett), two friends on their way to Las Vegas; that for the most part, were very entertaining and funny. However, I couldn't say, the same for the female cast; while Crump's wife, Monica (Edie Adams) & Finch's wife (Emmeline Marcus-Finch (Dorothy Provine) was mediocre, and kinda bland. Yes, all the character driven by all-consuming greed, but it's Mrs. Marcus (Ethel Merman) who takes the cake for the most annoying character in this film. All of her screaming and whining, really made this film, hard to watch, at times. I really couldn't stand, any scenes that had her, there. Despite that, there were a lot of supporting actors that really shine in this film. Terry-Thomas as, British scientist, Lt. Col. J. Algernon Hawthorne and Spencer Tracy as Captain T. G. Culpeper, the local police trying to solve this case were some of those secret gems. Dick Shawn as Sylvester Marcus and Phil Silvers as Otto Meyer, also did fine, adding to the madness of the film. But, some of the other celebrity cameos in this film, felt a little bit wasted. Actors like Jack Benny, Jerry Lewis, Don Knotts, and Carl Reiner should had played, a bigger role than what they got. However, they do kinda shine, within the small roles, they got. One thing, I could do, without seeing is Buster Keaton, and The Three Stooges. They look way past, their prime. All four of them, look creepier than ever. Even with that, the movie does have other good things going for it. The opening animated credits, designed by Saul Bass was amazing. The main theme song by composter Ernest Gold, really sound joyful. It's remind me of a silly circus. The 1960s vibe in the rest of the music was rich as hell, too. I really can't stop, laughing at the 'Thirty-one Flavors' go-go dance scene. It was so odd and yet, so charming. Overall: I have to say, you have to be bat-sh*t crazy to hate this movie! It was a lot of fun. Yes, it's not the funniest movie ever, but a film worth checking out. This movie proves without a doubt, that the world is full of crazy people willing to do anything for money. If you don't find that funny; then you're mad, in a bad way.
Escape from Tomorrow (2013)
It's time to escape reality. Escape from Tomorrow somewhat does that. Just not in a good way.
Entirely film at the Disney World and Disneyland theme parks, without the approval, of Walt Disney Company. Escape from Tomorrow has been called 'the ultimate guerrilla film'. The reasons, why is because of the highly secretly production of monochrome black and white guerrilla-style shooting, in order to avoid lighting issues. Another, is how well, the filmmakers evade attracting attention of park security. Because of the ways, this movie was created. It allows the viewers to see the familiar sights of the Disney parks in a whole new light. Because of that, I really wanted to see this movie. After all, I wasn't sure, if this movie was even allow to be shown. However, I was deeply surprise later by the fact, that Disney didn't sued the movie, for copyrights claims. I guess, Disney thought it was better off, just to ignore it and not feed its trolls for the film negative depiction. Anyways, copyright issues wasn't going to stop me, from watching this fascinating film. However, after watching the film. I doesn't think this movie works at all. Not even in the realm of avant-garde art-house level. It wasn't sophisticated or high-brow. For the most part, it's stupid and gross out imagery was nearly unwatchable. It felt like somebody drug me, with a Mickie and I was going through a bad acid trip. Because of that, it took a lot of sheer will power, to get myself to finish watching this film. Another thing, that bug me about the film is how exposition impaired, this movie is. Normally, I would love to find hidden meaning within this story, but sadly, this movie takes the fun out of it. This movie from first time writer and director Randy Moore was also a bit too confusing for my taste. I really don't get this fantasy horror film, at all. The story about unemployed father, Jim White (Roy Abramsohn), whom sanity is challenge by the over-fantasy domain in which, his family wants to spent time in; just didn't work with me. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the film's story and imagery remind me of a mix between 1999's Sam Mendes's American Beauty & David Lynch 1977's Eraser Head with elements of Disney magic. It sounds interesting, but it's badly executed. Trust me! First off, the movie has horrible pacing. Lots of awkward long shots of nothing much going on. Half of the film is really, really boring. Then, there is problems with filming locations. Since, reshoots were nearly impossible. Some scenes were shot against a very obvious green screen background. Its looks so fake. You can really tell, which scenes were filmed in locations, and which were not. Another problem, is its CGI, which wasn't used right. However, the biggest jarring production issue that I have against the film is how content proprietary to Disney, such as the lyrics to "It's a Small World" and footage from Soarin', was removed from the film to avoid copyright infringement, yet others, are kept in. I guess, the filmmakers weren't as brave as they make themselves, out to be. Look, I'm willing to look pass the novelty, to see the truth about Disney, but the film wasn't presenting anything that seem real. Its 'so call' facts like the emu myth and Disney prostitutes, are just as fake as the castles in which, this story takes place at. I get that, this is a fantasy version of the real-life park, but if you going to make Disney seem like an evil company, you should show more realistic tones of that. Not only is the whole message of Disney being an evil company kinda unclear and too murky, but the idea of shaming 'escapism' is also a bit too bitter and joyless. I get that, the word 'escapism' often carries a negative connotation, suggesting that escapists are unhappy, with an inability or unwillingness to connect meaningfully with the realism world, but that idea is taken out of proper context by this first time director, Randy Moore. Not everybody that goes to Disneyland or go see a movie is depressed. Some of them, are just looking for fun and entertainment. However, you wouldn't know it, by looking at this film. All of the main characters, here are just miserable, hateful, and unlikeable. Don't get me wrong, all the actors in this film are fine, but being an escapism movie, doesn't mean, that all of the characters have to be jerks. It just means, that, characters have to be likable enough to connect with the audience. So that their spirits can be uplifting, when we see a character, be able to conquer the problems of his own world. Sadly, you don't see that in this film. Looking for a means of entertainment isn't supposed to be bad-thing, but this movie acts like it does. It's like, telling us, that we should be in shame for liking uplifting epic blockbuster movies and should act more realistic, gritty and downtrodden. I really have to disagree with that mindset. The reason, why, is because movies like this, is all about suffering. It's not a healthy escape for the viewer. If anything, this cruel and spiteful movie, can only make the viewer, colder about their own world. Unpleasant media make unpleasant people. I glad, there are film directors like director Preston Sturges that shows that. In his film, 1941's Sullivan's Travels, he points out, how 'vain and self-indulgent', films like Escape from Tomorrow are. Most people go to the movie for healthy distraction, not to be told, how depressing, their world is. Overall: I felt more disappointed by this weird film, than honestly downright hating it. For the most part, I was all eyes and ears for this surrealism film, coming in, but sadly, after finishing this movie. I can clearly say, it was a very below average film. I can't recommended watching at all, unless you want to be upset.
This movie is a driving force of entertainment. A great thriller! An intense ride!
Duel is the 1971 Made-for-TV Movie that put then-first time director Steven Spielberg's film career onto the right course on being one of the most famous film directors of all-time. Adapted from the short story of the same name, by Richard Matheson, the film follows the story of an 'Average Joe' motorist David Mann (Dennis Weaver) being terrorize stalked by mostly unseen driver of a mysterious tanker truck on a remote highway. I like how Spielberg approached this movie in the manner of a Toho monster picture. The 18 wheeler tanker truck does seem like an unstoppable beast trying to eat up its small victim. I also like how the driver of the truck is never seen in full view. The audience only ever sees the arm of the trucker in one scene, his snakeskin boots in another, and a brief shadowy glimpse at the end. It gives the audience, the idea that David Mann might be fighting against a mysterious evil force of nature. Then, there is a lot of people theorizes that David is fighting Satan AKA the devil. Hints, why the truck is full of flammable material and snakeskin boots. However, I have to say, there is a few things that kinda debunk that theory. First off, the truck driver doesn't seem like totally evil. He has respect for other drivers. After all, he did help out the school bus full of kids. Then, there is the fact that everything he does in the movie seems to be, in the idea to only terrorize David, not kill him. Events like this, kinda does hurt, the film, a bit, because I wanted the truck driver to be a bad mother trucker. I want the truck driver to be a soulless supernatural being who only want, is to kill David. It would make the film, a lot intense, if it's presented that way. I get that the movie want us, to believe that the truck driver is toying and bullying with him, until he wants to kill him, but it was somewhat getting irritate, how many times, the driver let Mann live. Some people theorize that this road rage battle, between the truck driver and him representation man's fear of conflict and the emasculate of manhood. After all, David is presented as a man lacking masculinity. There is so many undertone to this. A good example is how his car is small and slow-driven, fighting against in a Freudian view, the big bully phallic symbol. Then there is the fact that, he is a suit. A common 'Yes Man', who pretty much, get bullied by his wife (Jacqueline Scott) and his colleagues. He enslave, not to fight back, due to his strict corporation lifestyle. A good example of this, come from the fact, that he didn't stop a guest from trying to molest his wife at a party. He's is a man trying to run away from his problem, rather than fight back. With that said, the truck driver, represents freedom in its most primal and violent form. An anarchic driver, who alpha male complex, is something out of the dark ages. A barbarian type of attitude. A man who has nothing, stopping him, from doing good or evil. I just glad, the movie didn't give the trucker, a name like the short story did. Calling him, Keller, was just a bad idea. It's such as a bad pun. Anyways, you can really sense the drama, between these two types of a man. I have to say, while, Dennis Weaver isn't the best actor. He does show, David's innate cowardice and timidity, very well. Maybe, too well, because some critics, found his performance to be, very unlikeable. However, his character does begins to realize he must face his fears of confrontation and complications. I think the way, Spielberg shoot the film in the perspective of him, made the second half of the film, very enjoyable. Mann vs. Machine, but also David vs. Goliath. Shot in just two weeks, the film turned out so well, that it was given a theatrical release in Europe. However, with its original runtime of 74 minutes, the TV movie was not long enough to be released in theaters. Universal called Spielberg back to shoot additional scenes in order to make it a 90-minute film. These new scenes were the railroad crossing, the school bus, the scene where David phones his wife and the opening scene where the car backs out of the garage and drives through the city. One of my favorite scene that the movie add, from the original showing is the restaurant moment, where David is trying to figure out, who is the driver. It was very suspenseful. Another thing, for a movie that barely has any car crashes and doesn't go over the speed chase of 65 MPH. Its action scenes weren't that bad. Still, it's really hard to believe, that David couldn't easily lost the trucker on the open road, or call the highwaymen. Anyways, with this success, Steven Spielberg was able to get the job for 1975's Jaws. I love how in the end of that film, he made homage to this film, by using the same animal like roar sound effect, that he use in the end of this film. Still, it kinda sucks, that some of the scenes in this film were later used as stock footage in 1979's The Incredible Hulk: Never Give a Trucker an Even Break, without Spielberg's knowledge, but what can you do, if the studios, at the time, own both 'The Incredible Hulk" TV Show and this TV movie. Not much, I say. Overall: Duel is a great movie. Yes, it hasn't aged well, but at least, this movie keeps on trucking. So check it out.
You have to be in a concussion if you think Lucas is a good movie. This coming of age movie is depressing, as hell. Lucas is the poor man, Rudy.
This movie had its fans, particularly those whom who like; its honest portrayal of the highs and lows of adolescent, it's not so stereotypical 1980's teen characters and the theme of the little guy trying to become somebody within his society, but for me, I found this movie to be, somewhat unwatchable. I'm not a fan of this movie at all. I give the movie, some credit, the movie does have a terrific young cast. Both the main actor, Corey Haim and the female lead, Kerri Green were amazing and very attractive in their role. Supporting actors like Charlie Sheen and Winona Ryder weren't that bad, as well. However, this movie wasn't that inspirational to me. The reason, why I'm say this movie is a poor man, Rudy is because, unlike the 1993 movie, which had a very inspiring main character, wanting to join the football team in order, to better himself and his family, by getting a college education. This coming of age movie about a socially inept boy, Lucas Blye (Corey Haim) trying to join the high school football team, only, because he was suicidal by heartbreak. By heartbreak, I meant, that the local girl, he has a crush on, Maggie (Kerri Green) doesn't want to date him. You can see the problem of the story, right here. He isn't doing this, because he has love of the sport, he just doing this, in order to change her mind of him. It's in the same mindset levels of a man like John Hinckley Jr shooting the President in order to impress Jodi Foster. It's disturbing. It felt a little more self-centered and selfish, than inspiring. I hate the fact, that this movie was market as a sport movie, because it isn't all about his dreams of being a football player at all. The football plot, only plays a part, toward the end. The movie is more about learning to deal with first love and teen angst. Don't get me wrong, I love 1980s coming to age stories that deals with this. After all, 1985's Breakfast Club is one of my favorite movies of all time, but this movie directed by David Seltzer, really anger me, in saying it's a sport movie, when it's barely is. The reason why Rudy works, and this film doesn't, is because Rudy's not only fighting to get into the team, but also driven to help others, reach their goals. They is a reason to root for him. Not only does Lucas barely show, any interest in the sport, but he rarely treat his friends any better. Ignoring them, isn't going to help you. The movie really tries to make him, into a hero with the idea of him, being a victim of bullying, but when you think about it, the school wasn't really that mean to him. Most kids in his school, honestly somewhat accept him. It's only a few guys that really doesn't like him! Honestly, how many nerdy teens in the 1980s, do you know, are able to hang out with the captain of the football team, while, also being cool with one of hottest girls, in school? Not that many. So, I don't buy the whole, stand up against natural selection, BS, this movie is, saying, because of the fact that there are girls that secretly love Lucas. Yes, I get that, his best friendssomewhat betrayed him, when his older-brother figure, Chappie Roew (Charlie Sheen) and his crush, fall for each other. However, as upsetting, it is, to him and for me to see those two hook up. I still can't feel too much pity for Lucas. I feel worst for Chappie ex, Alise, (Country Thorne Smith), because she end up with nobody in the end. The reasons why, I couldn't felt pity for Lucas, is because he still good friends like Reda (Winona Ryder). It's very stupid to see him, always overlooking her sexual advances throughout the film. You have to be really crazy, not to want to date a girl like her. I would love to see a scene where Lucas finally admit, that he mistreated Reda, so badly, and ask her to forgive him. You know, like address the love, he has for her. It would had, made a better ending than the misguided slow clap for Lucas after getting himself, nearly kill and quitting football. Honestly, what the hell!? How is getting a football jacket, supposed to solve anything!? He still lives, poor with his alcoholic father. He's now suffers from a severe concussion and most, likely not going to finish school. Also the fact, that the movie never resolve that conflict with Reda, nor does look for a solution to the love triangle between Chappie, Maggie and him. What a horrible ending! I hate how the movie ends so abruptly with him, getting a varsity jacket. Anyways, take off your nostalgia glasses, people! That wasn't the only problem with this movie. The whole symbolism with the locust was also a bit off in its message in morphology. I get the movie wants to use it, as a metaphor for growing up, but if the filmmakers read any science book, they would know that having locusts around, isn't a good thing like having butterflies. They're a serious economic threat to agriculture. If anything, the sign of locusts returning, is bad news than good. Overall: Besides the good acting, the wonderful music by Dave Grusin, this movie isn't a film, I will rewatch, anytime, soon. If you want to check it out, go ahead. You might like it, but for me. I'm staying far away from this film. It upset me, too much.
WWE Royal Rumble (2016)
Watching the Royal Rumble, this year, felt like drinking Crown Royal. It was fun to do, but you will get a wicked hangover after it.
For the most part, seeing the rise and fall of the Roman Empire was a pretty alright show. Before I start, I want to give credit to the graphics department for the very cool opening video package. The CGI marble statues of all the wrestlers look fantastic. It will be one of the most memorable wrestling graphics for years to come, that everyone will remember! I just wish, the entrance set was just as marvelous. Why couldn't they used the cool looking, Roman Coliseum entrance set, that WWE used in the 2006 Royal Rumble? It would be so awesome, if they did! Anyways, without spoiling the results of the matches on the card. I have to say, the pre-show match, which had a 4-way tag match for 2 Rumble number spots was sloppy mess. Not only that, but it was mostly a snore-fest. I really don't understand, why Darren Young & Damien Sandow was teaming up with each other to fight the teams of Mark Henry/Jack Swagger, the Dudley Boyz (Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley) and The Ascension (Konnor and Viktor). It doesn't make any sense!? These two, have nothing to do with each other, nor was they given any build up as a tag team to be taken serious. I'm just glad, the team that won, won, because they really do deserve more credit. The next match on the card is a Last Man Standing match for the WWE Intercontinental Championship between champion, Dean Ambrose and Kevin Owens. Both have alright build up to this match. Since the events of the last WWE PPV: 2015's TLC: Tables, Ladders and Chairs, both men has trade shots at putting each other, through a table, in order to cripple the other. So, I'm glad, they had somewhat of a story for this 'Street Fight' weapon type match, rather than it being laziness added on, at a last second, due to recent WWE loving to have gimmick weapon matches without little to no build up. I like how their match had some type of rivalry. Both are great wrestlers and the two took some vicious, scary bumps. The ending to the match was fine. Coming up, next was the Tag team match for the WWE Tag Team Championship between the Champions, the New Day (Big E and Kofi Kingston with Xavier Woods) Vs the Usos (Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso). The New Day's comedy antics before the match, once again, was very entertaining, however during the match, I really couldn't remember any cool moves. It was somewhat forgettable. The next match is even worst. The WWE United States Championship match, between Champion, Alberto Del Rio and Kallisto was by far, the worst match of the night, besides the pre-show. It was very sloppy and botching. I also really tired of this Mexican Vs Mexican, David versus Goliath encounter style of match booking. It's very tiresome. It's way too similar to Alberto Del Rio's feuds with Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara in the past. It was very unexceptional. Nevertheless, the right man won in the end. At least, WWE is thinking of the future, somewhere. The WWE Divas Championship match between the Divas champion, Charlotte Vs Becky Lynch was next on the card. I love, the build up to this match, since it's rare to see, one for the women. Still, it's a bit odd to see Charlotte turn heel, so quickly after the Nikki Bella feud, a few months back. Anyways, Becky Lynch as the face is so over with the fans. The match was alright for the most part. While, it was gross, I also didn't mind, Ric Flair's sexual assault, kiss stealing interference. After all, they're heels. It's supposed to make people uncomfortable. The aftermath of the match with Sasha Banks was intense. You really didn't know, who side, she was, really on. It was very intense. Another match that was strong was the 30 men: Royal Rumble Match for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was very unique to see Roman Reigns defended his championship in a match like this. I like how, WWE didn't wasted spots for nostalgia comebacks, making the Rumble have a feeling of being serious, legit competition with purpose behind every entrant. Still, there were some comedy moments with R-Truth and the New Day that were kinda stupid. However, for the most part, seeing Indy wrestlers like AJ Styles, Sami Zayn and others, debut in a WWE ring with season wrestlers like Triple H, Brock Lesnar and others was very surreal and fun to watch. I just wish, the order of this match was a little better. It makes certain wrestlers like the Champion, Roman Reigns look weak. Much like Stone Cold Steve Austin in the 1999's Rumble, Reigns sat out most of the match after drawing a number one. I don't know why they'd book him to go #1, if he wasn't willing to go for the hour, wrestling. I know that he isn't that seasoned or talented as a performer to pull that off, but you can have Roman stretchered off, after his attack, rather than showing him, walking backstage. Maybe he was supposed to look strong that he's walking out under his own power, but I thought he looked cowardly, actively walking away from the match, rather than finishing it. I really hate that there is no count outs rules in these things. Despite that, The Royal Rumble match was a very entertaining, show, however the hangover results of this show will make Wrestlemania 32 look a bit worrisome, with the heel champion getting cheer more than the top babyface. Overall: It's pretty hard to please pro-wrestling fans, these days. There is always something for them to rant about. However, I think every WWE fan, can mark this PPV as a huge improvement compare to disappointing 2014 and 2015 events. So check it out. It's worth your time
The Chipmunk Adventure (1987)
This movie is a chip of the old block. Somewhat annoying, but also very entertaining.
This movie directed by Janice Karman, is one of my favorite guilty movie pleasure. Based off, the classic 1960s animated characters created by Ross Bagdasarian & way better than the recent loosely based live-action adaptation films came to ruin the long latest franchise for most fans; Alvin and the Chipmunks first feature-length animated adventure was not that bad. This movie follows the 1980's NBC show's revenue of the novelty music group to a t. It even introduce us, to the Chipettes, the female musical counterparts of the Chipmucks. Written and voiced mostly by Janice Karman and Ross Bagdasarian Jr, the movie tells the story of the two music groups, the Chipmucks and the Chipettes travelling the world in a hot air balloon race to deliver dolls at certain locations for a brother/sister team of European diamond smugglers, Klaus (Voiced by Anthony De Longis) & Claudia Furschtein (Voiced by Susan Tyrrell), in which, the winners will collect a prize of $100,000. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I found the mixer of author Jules Vernes 1873's novel, 'Around the World in Eighty Days', with the Chipmuck concept very weird and illogical, but somewhat entertaining. Don't get me wrong, the whole idea of diamond smuggling, could have work; only if the movie had a more realistic plot, in which the boys and the girls were smuggling them, during their own musical world tour, travelling place to place on plane. It makes more sense with the time of travel, and how many cities, they have to hit. After all, aren't these boys and girls, like famous singers, at this point, in the series!? Wouldn't some type of media, would had reported, the Chipmunks travelling the world in a hot air balloon? It doesn't make sense for their owner/manager, David Seville (Voiced by Ross Bagdasarian Jr) not to know, about their hot air balloon scheme, way earlier in the film. After all, isn't he, their music manager!? Why is he going to a business trip, without them? Also, how in the hell, did Miss Miller (Voiced by Dody Goodman), not know of the balloon scheme!? Isn't she, the Chipette's guardian? This movie doesn't make sense. Another thing that really bug me, about this smuggling diamonds plot is how Klaus and Claudia believe, this uber-expensive and outdated form of transport, was going to work in a world-wide trip. It's clear, by this movie, that these things are not only, hard to control, but also clearly dangerous. There is no way, these balloons would survived in the hands of children for this long. Nor would they ever find each other. Sorry, Amazonian rescue scene. Also, who in their right mind, give two hot air balloons to untrained children!? In real-life, this plan would fail, very quick; because of child endangerment laws or the fact that the Chipmunks and Chipette are very well-known celebs. They would quickly get catch. No smuggler is willing risk, millions of dollars on a complex plan like this. Unless, it's short distance like the 1972 drug-heist film, 'The Big Score: A Ton of Grass Goes to Pot', with adult hot air ballooners. Another thing that bug me is where did all those dolls come from in the first place? I can accept that in-universe, The Chipmunks and The Chipettes would probably have merchandising, and perhaps Klaus and Claudia, being wealthy, could have bought a bunch of commercially-available/fully-licensed dolls to stuff diamonds in, but that doesn't explain how other people in their smuggling ring across the world also have the same dolls to stuff diamonds in, especially in the timeline in this movie is working it. Maybe, I'm thinking too much of the silly plot and should allow myself, to take it as it is. I would, if the movie wasn't full of negative stereotypes like 'white slavery' Arabs, Gun-shooting Mexicans, and Cannibal South Americans. This movie has a pretty mess view on other people culture, when you think, deep about it. You can also add, the weird sexual tone in, which this movie portray the Chipettes. Lots of shots of them in scantily clothes. Maybe, a little too sexual suggestive. Did we really need that much, panty shots? Despite that, the animation at the time was pretty good. Bagdasarian Productions picked up a lot of the Disney animators who were laid off after a number of Disney films flopped. Still, there were some noticeable inconsistencies with the character designs all throughout the movie. However, there are a few things, where this movie works best at. One is humor and the action. This movie is laugh out funny and intense at moment. Even, as an adult, I can still laugh at some of the jokes and be afraid for their safety. Another thing that I love from this movie is the music. Songs like 'My Mother', 'Off to See the World', 'Wooly Bully' and 'The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll' can easily be heard in my playlist. I know, a lot of people might have mixed feelings about the squeaky high pitch voicing, but I didn't find them, to be that annoying. The only thing, I found somewhat irritating is some of the characters clichés stereotypical one-dimensional bickering and misbehavior. Overall: if you're not a fan of the Chipmunks music, the over the top action plot alone will not be enough to hook you. If you are, check this movie out. It's a lot better than the newer films, big time. Lots of fun for the whole family.
Old Fashioned (2014)
This movie was a little too old-fashioned for my taste. It was disturbing & awkward to watch.
I'm losing my faith for humanity, if they think normal relationships is either like 2015's '50 Shades of Grey" or 2014's "Old Fashioned". These two films, represented the far off unorthodox extremes in which, what human beings shouldn't be doing, when in a relationship. Unlike, director Sam Taylor-Johnson version of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' that goes over the top with the sexual aggression. This movie directed by Rik Swartzwelder is lacking any sense of on screen chemistry. Are we sure, these two people are in love with each other? I don't sense it. The movie tells the story of Amber Hewson (Elizabeth Ann Roberts) a free-spirited young woman, who rents the apartment above her landlord, Clay Walsh (Rik Swartzwelder)'s antique shop. As she gets to know her reticent landlord, a courtship somewhat develops, into an odd relationship of bible reading, strict police like-interrogations and baby-sitting, other people's kids. Wow, sounds fun! If you wanted to date a Warren Jeffs, type character. While, she find herself being drawn to his strong faith and noble ideas for some unexplained reasoned, Clay's notorious lofty behavior and his failure of forwardly, their relationship start to put stress on Amber Hewson. Is Amber willing to relinquish control of her freedom of her life, to Clay's over dominance and firm 'Sharia Law'? Watch the movie to find out, if you want to. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, for a faith-based movie, this movie doesn't make, Christians look good, at all. I don't know, any normal Christians who act like this. None of them, are that close minded, against public display of affection or even casual dating. Rik Swartzwelder idea of the perfect Christian relationship is something like a medieval arranged marriage. Forget about learning about each other, just properly trained her for marriage and raise children before even knowing that they can be emotionally or physically compatible. Don't get me wrong, this movie concept could work, if it's a horror movie, or a historical movie, showcasing why this outdated practice is wrong. However, it's not that. This movie really thinks that this is how people should act, when building a relationship. I'm sorry, but this is not, what people deem normal. This movie has to be, for crazy people. I feel like, I was watching a movie about somebody joining a cult. Seeing, Amber fall for Clay's borderline- psychotic sanctimoniousness is nearly unwatchable. Honestly, how is this, even possible? She has to know, he's nuts. After all, he doesn't even, believe that a man and woman can be in the same room, together. How does she not get that vibe that he sounds like a rapist with no self-control!? How is that, a sign of affection to her!? She has to be, just as irrational as him. After all, it makes kinda sense in the story, since her last boyfriend was physical abusive to her. She's falling for the wrong people. She has to be mentally disturbed. Don't get me wrong, the actress that plays Amber is alright, but her character is just annoying. However, her co-star is probably the worst thing about this movie. Not only, does Rik Swartzwelder show no charismatic element in his character. His sullen, selfish character is not even, willing to talk about compromise, at all. He's seem like a David 'Moses' Berg type character. Secretly, angry and hates everything and everybody. He even, has the nerves to stop a friend's bachelor party that he clearly could have, not went to, if he strongly disagree with having strippers, there. He acts way too righteous, and preachy to be likable. When he's not arguing with his friends or his date of their life choices, the filmmaker pads out the movie's running time with several mopey pop-music montages, showing Clay simply wandering around, like a loner. I can totally understand why people would have issues with nudity and sex, but there has got to be a middle ground of some sort. You don't need sex scenes to have a romantic chemistry. Films as recent as 2014's Theory of Everything show that. If you looking for a semi good Christian romantic movie. Check out, 2008's Fireproof. It's a lot better than this film. Overall: If 2015's '50 Shades of Grey' was upsetting for promoting Sadomasochism & dominance and submission lifestyle. Then 2014's 'Old Fashioned' is just as disturbing with its display of mentally abusive, manipulation, stalking, and coercion old fashioned lifestyle. This movie is so old, that it needs to die out. I can't recommended, watching it, at all.
The Big Short (2015)
The Big Short is a bit short of being a masterpiece for me. I felt like it was just alright.
I have mixed feelings about this movie based on author Michael Lewis' non-fiction book of the same name. The reason why, is because it's might be, a little too loosely based on true events. While, the Big Short, definitely shows that the U.S housing market, was built on a house of cards. I felt like the movie directed by Adam McKay really doesn't go deep enough into the 2007 financial crisis, as it should. It puts all the financial blame on the evil bankers. Yes, bankers at the time, are too blame, and they are greedy, but the government at the time is just as bad. After all, it's the past, 3 presidential administrations that pressured banks to help poor people become homeowners. If anything, blame them, as well, movie. I also didn't like, how the movie doesn't even, address Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, much. You would think, those two, would play a big factor in this film. Then, you got no mention of corruption in the Federal Reserve. Where was that? I was really hoping for this movie, to spill the beans. Sadly, it only scan the surface of the financial issue. Another thing that bug me, about this film, is the movie pacing. The pacing somewhat lose directions, at parts. I really don't get why the film love venturing into bizarre sub-stories, about having a fake eye, or a brother that commit suicide. It felt like filler. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that they're trying to build, character's backstory, here, but it wasn't really needed. All that fast cutting editing for these scenes, just made the film, more annoying, disorienting and frantic for me. I really didn't care about them. All, I wanted is the movie to examine the housing problem. That's all. I do like the how the movie have sequences in which, famous celebrities cameos like Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez and Anthony Bourdain explain, more of the complex economic terms with more, flashy, quick-witted layman's terms. Just think, how more awesome, it could had been, if the movie got its original celebrity cameos in, like Scarlett Johansson, Beyonce, and rapper Jay Z. No matter what, some of the other humorous way of story-telling sequences, seem not to work as much as it should. I really didn't like how the artist, 'Ludicrous' rap music video was being mixed with scenes of Wall Streets. I'm sorry, I find his music, to be very awful. Another thing, I really don't understand, why there was a laugh-track, during the whole discussion about synthetic CDOs. Are we, supposed to find it, funny? I really don't get, what the message, was supposed to be, there. Another thing, I don't get, is the whole 'break the fourth wall' gags. It's a bit funny, at times, but I found them to be, somewhat distracting and jarring. While, are these people repeating lines!? It's too confusing. Another thing, that made me, dislike the film, a bit, is how, they made these investors seem like the heroes. Honestly, as much as the movie wants us, believe that these hedge fund investors have a moral code. In truth, these men, are not somebody to root for. After all, all the characters profit hugely as the housing economy crumbles in 2008 and really didn't do anything to stop it. They are just as much to blame, as the stockbrokers in Wall Street. These are not modern day 'Robin Hood and his merry men" fighting against the corrupt banks. They were in the scheme as much as the banks were. Just note, that Saints don't live in Park Ave, when watching this film. Despite that, the All-Star Cast did an alright performance. I found the characters in which they play; Michael Burry (Christian Bale), Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), Mark Baum (Steve Carell), Charlie Geller (John Magaro), Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) & Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) all very interesting characters. What I don't like, about the characters, is how many of the real-life names were changed for this movie. It gives me, the impression that they're trying to hide something. Out of the four main characters, Michael Burry is the only character whose name wasn't changed for the movie and whom character seem like the real-life couther-part. The real Michael Burry spent a total of roughly 12 hours talking with actor Christian Bale for this role. For the most part, having seem real interviews with real Michael Burry; I believe Christian Bale master his behavioral traits, very well. As for the others, Steve Carell did met with Steve Eisman, the real-life person in which, his character was based on, however, his version of him, was a bit over the top preachy. The movie made him, seem like too-much like an activist for the righteous, when in truth, Eisman was once, indicted with allegations of inside trading, within his own company. It got so bad, that Eisman had left FrontPoint Partners in 2011 amid investor withdrawals. Another thing, it does not appear that Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt were in touch with Greg Lippmann and Ben Hockett, the real-life counterparts to their Big Short characters. If anything, I have a strong feeling that, these performances are not that accuracy to the real-life characters, as well. Also, where was the character of Meredith Whitney in this film? She predicted the demise of Citigroup and Bear Stearns, and was mention in the book, but she's nowhere to be found in this film. How come, they cut out her story? Another problem, is how, of the central supporting characters; only Michael Burry and Baum's employees are the ones that kept their real names. Why do they so differ from the source material? I have to say, after doing research for this film, I found the movie to only be 2/4 accuracy. That's not good. Overall: It's a fine movie. Just, a little flaw. Not a classic, but watchable.
Don't count on it, being correct. House of Numbers has zero cred with most doctors. It's an irrational number.
Widely rejected by mainstream scientists, this film's claims on how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is harmless and does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), is mostly BS. Often dismissed as pseudoscience and conspiracy theory masquerading as even-handed examination. This film by director Brent Leung, is a hard sell. Even the group of scientists that the film interview, later stated out, that their comments had been misrepresented and taken out of context, and that the film misused them to promote the filmmaker's belief of pseudoscience. They also state out that the editing of film footage, made them look like fools. Even some of the AIDS-deniers being interview looks like idiots, as they really have no clue, what, they're trying to say. A good example of this, was an HIV-positive activist and anti AIDS promoter, Christine Maggiore. Her influence on South African president, Thabo Mbeki's decision to block medical treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women was often criticized, with medical researchers noting that an estimated "330,000 lives were lost to new AIDS infections during the time Mbeki blocked government funding of AZT treatment to mothers." Another reason why her testify has always been a bit controversial, is because the fact that her 3-year-old daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, which consider to be an AIDS-defining illness. Not only, was she in the wrong idea that HIV was harmless, but Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, nor try to have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime. No matter, how she wanted to spin it. This sounds like medical neglect and child endangerment to me. Worst off, most of her claims about the Padian paper, were later, proved to be false, because Christine Maggiore falsified the dates in her HIV tests and misinterpreted the results. To top it off, she later died before the movie was released, from HIV related illnesses such, as Pneumonia. The ending credits make a small note to her passing, and try to say it wasn't AIDS related, but clearly, the official story is she died from Pneumonia as a result of AIDS compromising her immune system. It's hard to debate against facts like that. Despite all that, I do have to play Devil's advocate for a bit, and give the director, some credit. It was very well shot documentary, for the most part, with its low budget. Also, some of their statements are somewhat correct. Things like how Center of Disease Control (CDC), budget was increase in the 1980s, due to AIDS reserve, are factual. However, the film got some of the information that belong with that statement, wrong. The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on smallpox to include sexually transmitted diseases was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Long before AIDS was created. Nor was the CDC in endanger of budget cuts. Still, I have to give some credit, in showing that CDC hasn't always been relatively free of political manipulation. I like how the movie show CDC's response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s has been criticized for promoting some public health policies that harmed HIV+ people and for providing ineffective public education. I also like the film show that HIV testing could be inaccurate in third world countries, in poorly run tent hospitals. It's something, I could believe in. However, I doubt, the movie can run with the idea that all HIV testing are inaccurate, because the reality is very different. HIV antibody tests are extremely accurate. When, used by a skill doctor, the studies can show, nearly a 99.9% accurate. The film does not mention, this. Still, I can somewhat believe that a small bit of immune problems that people face, when dying, could be common ailments such as drug poisoning, lack of adequate food and fresh water, extending to starvation, and or common form of Tuberculosis (TB), malaria or Flu influenza, rather than AIDS. After all, AIDS is very broad term. However, that statement is nowhere near close to a scientist fact. So, I can't say, I'm for AIDS denialism. At all, hundreds of textbooks, scientific journals, and medical studies, within the last 40 years, that proved, otherwise. I just know, you should be, open to a small window of doubt, when talking about subjects like this. Overall: House of numbers is more like House of Cards. Its structure and argument is built on a shaky foundation. Not only does the science element seem removed from the film, but most of its core argument. It will quickly collapse on its own weight. With that, I'm not saying, you should be, for, or against the movie. Just simply be watch it and judge for yourself with an open mind.