Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Army of Darkness (1992)
More Comedy slapstick than Horror
Army of Darkness continues right from get go of Evil Dead II (which was hinted earlier in that movie) Showing our hero Ash hurdled into the dark ages; battling demons and beasts head on- promising a truly unique piece to a horror comedy trilogy.
But that's not exactly what we get. While it's still unique it fails to live up to the evil dead name.And the main reason is: 1)The writers/director ran out of ideas. And forced to say" Screw it!" and changed the whole direction of the trilogy. 2)it's extremely low in quality.
The story and film itself completely takes the high road, making Ash a completely different character with a macho personality and cheesy one liners in his place- He is the savior who doesn't give a ****. And that's funny and interesting but where the movie falls apart is how the movie stops any attempt at being scary or original in any sense and puts jokes and slapstick in it's place. And leaves you with a result of the three stooges mixed with Monty Python's Holy Grail. Which is a let down compared to the other 2.
As for quality: I'm talking chopped scenes, with slowed and speed up frames, bad stop motion, walmart costumes and green screens.Which is very messed up because it's budget is more than 4X(13 mil) more than it's previous(3 mil) but looks half the amount. I honestly don't know how this movie was rated R because there is zero amount of gore or scary in this film.
What there is to like about this film is that it's very quotable and memorable andvery self aware of it's flaws-making it relevant in a cult film sense and becomes a so bad it's great schlock fest. Army of Darkness is at times a hilarious yet disappointing part of a Trilogy.
The Conjuring (2013)
A gem that is subtle and has gradual suspense
For a movie about haunted house, a style that's been nearly beaten to death since the 1970's with films like: Amity ville Horror, Haunting, Paranormal Activity,etc.(I could be here all night) The Conjuring not only manages to stick out from the crowd but exceeds expectations.
I think this has a lot to do with James Wan's growth as a horror director. Having directed the already classic first Saw film and others such as Dead Silence and Insidious you can really tell there's a lot of experimenting in different ways to an old genre. Plus it helps create his style, which makes people become distinct(like his use of dolls and Patrick Wilson)
But what can really be appreciated in this movie compared to Wan's other films; lets say Insidious,(where a boy becomes linked to demons and effects his home and family)is this film is treating it's audience completely differently. What that means is The Conjuring relies on not only the acting, but the atmosphere like the music, the feeling of being watched, and gradual build up making you wait for that big moment or reveal. Which honestly is what makes it so exciting.
The conjuring isn't a movie that aims for creepy costumes and jump scares, it wants to stick in your head and fester there. It wants to scare adults, where as for me personally felt Insidious was trying to scare children.
What's also to appreciate is you become invested in the Perron family being attacked and also the Warren's in the danger they face too. There's a very small amount a second-banana characters to put up with, so the movie never slows down in it's pacing or get's distracted. Another thing to know about the movie is there is no big reveal, and it doesn't end on some cheap cliff hanger like most horror movies this day and age do. What you see is what you get.
Some peoples have gripes that a haunted house film is an overused idea, it recycles movies, and maybe even shoves religious overtones down peoples throats a little bit. But keep in mind this story is, "based" on "true events". And complaining that a movie about a haunted house is similar to other haunted house films, is like complaining porn always having boobs in it--it's ridiculous.
I think it's not only a great new horror movie but it beats out a lot of it's older competition.Check it out if your into suspense and creepy or if you're getting sick of slasher films and need a break.
Dynamo: Magician Impossible (2011)
Dynamo--It's Neat, Yeah?
Dynamo is a professional street magician going from place to place in America or UK performing slight of hand, card tricks and an occasional stunt or two with a bunch of monologue in between.
The tricks that he does are very fast, clever and well performed.And you can tell that almost all the tricks that are done are as authentic as possible(without cameras and inside actors)just by the audiences gradual reaction and left in stairway thought. This is a factor that gives Dynamo a major advantage over other magicians*cough* Cris*cough. And I find Dynamo himself comes off as a very relate able and likable guy.
With that being said, Here comes the big question: Is he the next Cris Angel? Um No. I can't help but feel that there's still a long way for him to go to get that level of recognition. Many reasons for why he's not yet.
I don't want to sound mean but Dynamo sounds like a name too big for this guy, his tricks are good there nothing crowds have seen before. And I don't really sweat about the whole "this has never been done before factor," but what really holds Dynamo back is not his repertoire but his showmanship.
Dynamo comes off as awkward and uncharismatic, with ending all his sentences with a question(yeah?) and just bad set ups to his audiences. I think the show's production also hold's him back as well: instead of expecting music and camera work that comes off as thrilling/climatic It comes off as if I'm watching a Youtube commercial.
However all nitpicking aside, I find Dynamo a very skilled and watchable magician. If magic is an interest of yours than you definitely might want to take a look. Personally, I'd give it a 5/10.
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Blazing Saddles Burns Out
It Just Doesn't hold up, sorry to all the fans.
I love Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder can honestly see why this movie is considered a classic and was probably great for it's time. I can appreciate the originality, it's dark and ballsy humor, and of course,"Where all the white women at?" But seeing it for the first time in 2013 with all the great comedies that came after it. It falls flat on it's face and hobbles it's way through the credits.
The movie is poorly acted and slowly paced, and a lack of any sense of ambiance. Meaning when nothing happens you are begging for someone to do something.The jokes range from a few chuckles to a lot of lame misses. And probably most importantly: this movie can be extremely offensive, especially by today's standards.Not a movie for date night by any means..
The movie has big ambitions and is well remembered for such, but became worn down overtime by it's bad production, acting(lets face it--the ending was atrocious!)and outdated humor and lack of political correctness. I'd recommend this movie only if you're a fan of classic comedy and cannot be easily offended.
Overall I gotta give it a 5/10.
Man of Steel (2013)
LOOK UP IN THE SKY! It's a bird-- it's a plane! IT'S... Just Okay
Man of Steel has been so far and might still be the most anticipated film of 2013(next to Lone Ranger). Superman was to get the up to date reboot film he truly deserved only replacing the light hearted campiness of Christopher Reeves with a darker grittier Henry Cavill. With a story written by Chris Nolan and directed by Zack Snyder it seemed like the next Dark Knight was about to happen. So how does it hold up? It's Alright/Pretty Good.
But in no way does it hold a candle to Dark Knight or even the Spiderman movies and here's why: It can't decide whether to be an action movie or a gritty drama film, it takes itself way too seriously and when the action isn't happening it's mostly boring. The story of Superman is completely scrapped and the viewers are left with a story full of clichés and stuff we've seen before.
THE GOOD: The action and effects were amazing when Superman dukes it out with Zod you feel every punch being landed and when he takes to the skies for the first time the cinematography really makes you feel like you're flying with Superman-amazing stuff.
Henry Cavill did a great job as Superman with what they gave him and he really looks the part.Could have used much more dialogue than just the one liners he was given.
Several good clips of the challenges of Clark Kent growing up to become Superman and what it means to become a great person that really help make the movie decent.
THE BAD: General Zod- Michael Shannon is hammier than an aisle of SPAM as Zod, I cracked up several times during the film because I just couldn't take him seriously. Gary Busey or William Shatner could have done it better.
Lois Lane- Amy Adams was very out of place as Lois and it showed. I could buy that she was Lois Lane a reporter or even belonged in the movie.
Jonathan Kent- Preachy Uncle Ben B.S everyone seen coming.
Ending Scene was also kinda bad too.(You'll know if you don't)
The movie really forgets who Superman is: yes, Clark Kent was mysterious but not dull or completely unrelatable. They should of shown how he was a symbol of responsibility and someone you could look up to and aspire to be.Instead they give Cavill very little dialogue often spewing one liners to compensate.And filled the rest up with gritty arbitrary movie tropes. I still really enjoyed the movie but I am still waiting for the real Man of Steel to show up. And we still might have another long 40 years to go.
The Dating Guy (2009)
Something to watch when nothing else is on type shows.
Basically it, the show usually airs very late at night due to it's mature subject matter, just when all the other channels are plugging in re-runs. How does this show compare to the other late-night cartoon comedies(like Adult swim, Toon at Night, etc.)? Pretty hit and miss.
The show is about Mark Dexler chilling with his 2 roomies Woody and VJ and gal pal Sam, and their quests for getting drunk and chasing tail. With such a simple story base it allows writers to be very creative with hijinks and the story, with a very anything can happen nature. And the art style is done well and suits the subject matter. Although it still has it's flaws: It aimless story idea that allows for a lot of creativity but despite it's strong efforts just doesn't make the mark(heh). The jokes and episodes never push the envelope and you'll probably guess how it ends correctly by the first couple of minutes. The characters are very vain and mean spirited just for the fun of it(but not in a "glorious bastard" or "loveable villain" way) making it hard to relate or cheer them on. And the views on race and gender sort of reinforce negative stereotypes(just slightly) rather than parody media and the general public way of thinking. The episodes that are funny or involve celebrity appearances(Russel Peters) are more pleasant surprises than anything else.
Overall The Dating Guy is an OK show.
Iron Man Three (2013)
Less Lasers and More Acting
Ironman 3 is a movie that can't decide if it's meant for kids, adults or teenage audiences and becomes lack luster in all three. Even with the Star studded cast and appearances of Ben Kingsley and Don Cheadle and the big budget backing the movie really fails to amaze or stand out from the other great superhero(or any) movies I've seen.
The story is bland and forgettable, the acting is mediocre, and the twists are REALLY WEAK.You literally see Tony Stark holding a gun SHOOTING at people...just wtf? At the end the movie just becomes a cheeseburger deep fried in special effects. The movie get's a pass because its Robert Downey Jr,the superhero genre is still popular, we'll buy anything in hopes of a second Avengers movie.
Watch if you like a movies for effects and don't take a story line too seriously or a young boy between ages 6-12.