399 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Spawn (1997)
1/10
An Honest Review
7 May 2018
This hurt. Spawn was a really cool character, well, he still is. He was a character for the 90s and...it was really the 90s that killed this movie.

It tried really hard to look like the Crow, which was also an unbelievably 90s film, but one that worked well with the look that certain movies in the decade had.

Spawn just didn't. It wasn't really suited, it didn't really match and the result was a big...meh.

But the thing is, now they are remaking it and...Spawn as a character doesn't really fit today very well either.

There is a time and a place for Spawn, and, like Maxx it was the 90s and MTV, but not the big screen and not today either.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bright (I) (2017)
9/10
An Honest Review
7 May 2018
Well, you do get the feel that it will work as a series. But you also get the feel that like all the good shows Sci-Fi puts out, Netflix will only let it run long enough for you to get involved before they cancel it...so it is probably better it's just a singular film.

The bad would be that, at least the introduction of Will Smith in the film mirrors ID4 so much its a little unsettling...it gives the feel that "I've seen this before" and that feel kind of lingers throughout the movie as it seemingly resembles other films you've thought you've seen before...but can't exactly place, at least not all the time.

The good news is, the opening credits do the same thing and that works to brilliantly set up the films universe. It gives it a very 90s gangland LA feel from the get-go with a play on race relations without mentioning actual races that is only really beaten by Marvel's use of Mutants.

It all makes for a very familiar movie. You do feel like you've seen it before and that works both as a strength and a weakness. Ultimately, however, it is more of a strength as the feeling that it's not totally fresh actually helps you get involved in the movie. It helps you so suspend your disbelief enough to fully by into the new world, that magic is real, at least until the credits role.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
An Honest Review
7 May 2018
Did it really need a sequel?

It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing.

Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting.

But did it need a sequel?

The acting was great, it really was.

There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was acted. It was pleasing...

...but it was also kind of empty. So, did it need a sequel? Questions were answered, but those questions were best left as questions weren't they? The little mysteries that fueled debate that made the first film so...talked about, even if it was initially hated.

Why did those questions need to be answered? They were better left as little mysteries to ponder.

And the result is the empty feeling you get when a really fun problem is finally solved. There is that A-HA moment of adulation...and than that little depression when you realize the mystery is finally over and you can move on.

From now on the questions will be officially answered and as it doesn't hurt this movie, it doesn't take away from the film as a singular entity, it kind of kills the first film.

Now we know it all and because of that, the first Blade Runner will never have the same feeling when you watch it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
An Honest Review
7 May 2018
Some of the praise, at least from the fans is because of the deviation from Star Wars tradition which, honestly, I have an issue with out the door. We are watching it because we want to see a Star Wars film.

And the deviation from Star Wars tradition seems especially ridiculous given how hard it tries--like The Force Awakens--to rely on nostalgia to keep the fans that felt alienated when Rey turned out to be, well, absolutely flawless, absolutely loved and trusted by absolutely everyone, and faced no real challenges or struggles...

...so, bank on nostalgia because giving the primary character a real literary struggle to add to a sense of character and plot is still seemingly out of the question.

And that kind of seems like a troupe now days of characters that are diverse for the state of diversity. It seems like their creator and political fans feel that adding any struggle for said character to overcome would somehow take away from the political importance of the character.

And that holds true for The Last Jedi. Rey still has no real struggles that can create even the slightest bit of dramatic tension for the audience. It is understood that she is the best and can easily overcome anything the story throws at her...and she does.

And that is the reason her character is rejected by fans. It doesn't make for good cinema. Skywalker had the same issues in I-III, but at least it was understood that he was going to fail at the end of his story arc only to be redeemed in Luke's.

Rey is still so perfect there is no dramatic tension where she is involved.

But, don't let that be the only thing that kills it for you. Poe's initial radio play with the new faux Empire sets the entire movie up for one long eye roll. Those jokes seemed so out of place for science-fiction that it killed the movie from the start.

But then the bad humor of your lame aunt that only think's she's funny is also a new troupe for movies for movies like this.

So the films have to rely on nostalgia to market it to fans of the last two trilogies...and in this case it doesn't really work. The nostalgia is more along the lines of "Remember when Luke Skywalker was a thing" variety. The sort of nostalgia that references the old beloved franchise, without really understanding the dynamic of it.

They did the same "Remember when this happened" nostalgic ploy in The Force Awakens and, like then they didn't have the background and understanding to pull it off. Solo wasn't really the cynical untrusting scoundrel that made him so beloved. And in this one Luke isn't the whiny flawed but blindly moral hero that gets in over his head.

The result is a nostalgia that is just an empty reference. A nostalgia that has no real idea what it is referencing, or at least not one that runs any deeper than the surface.

So the jokes don't land. So hero doesn't struggle and... ...the film has no real drama because of the lack of struggle. So the nostalgia is only skin deep and... ...it results in a nostalgia that is more of an insult to the older fan base that it tries to appeal to.

Disney didn't listen to the fans that complained about The Force Awakens. They were too busy calling them names for not loving the film. All the fans wanted was a story, that is all, they wanted a struggle, they wanted real drama. They wanted the characters they loved to be the characters they loved.

What they got instead was a character easily walks into every situation and beats every adversity with ease still...despite that being the main complaint.

What they got was old heroes acting like different people again.

What they got was another bad movie.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
An Honest Review
29 April 2018
I walked into this frightened that there would be too man characters and the result would be an empty vacant shell of a movie that was pulled in so many different directions it couldn't make sense of itself.

Yay, I was wrong.

Seriously, they did a good enough job. They focused on Gomorrah, Thor, and Strange and Stark enough to make a plot despite the insane amount of characters. And the rest they used as filler, with only the Vision story coming up a bit light due to population.

And the Vision story was a bit of a draw back. It was there but it wasn't, but at least it was there, it was important, but it seemed tertiary and a little too much so.

The Humor was also scaled back. But Spider Man did a good job, Cap had a few and laughs,and yet again, it was only Panther and the Wakandans that took themselves too seriously to be in a Marvel movie.

I'm sorry, someone really needs to tell the MCU that it is fine if the Black Panther cracks a smile or a one-line once or twice. We won't mind.

The tone was more action than action/comedy...but with "War" in the title, you kind of expect that.

However, they do NOT even address the elephant in the room...why did Widow go blond? Was it to have more fun or was it simply because she was on the run. The world may never know.

What we do know is that we missed Hawkeye, even if he is on and off again retired. And we missed Ant-Man, but given how many people were here, the absences were noted but not really noticed.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
An Honest Review
29 April 2018
I walked into this frightened that there would be too man characters a the result would be an empty vacant shell of a movie that was pulled in so many different directions ti couldn't make sense of itself.

Yay, I was wrong.

Seriously, they did a good enough job. They focused on Gomorrah, Thor, and Strange and Stark enough to make a plot despite the insane amount of characters. And they rest they used as filler, with only the Vision story coming up a bit light due to population.

And the Vision story was a bit of a draw back. It was there but it wasn't, at least it was there, it was important, but it seemed tertiary and a little too so.

The Humor was also scaled back. But Spider Man did a good job, Cap had a few and, again, it was only Panther and the Wakandans that took themselves too seriously to be in a Marvel movie....again.

I'm sorry, someone really needs to tell the MCU that it is find if the Black Panther cracks a smile or a one-line once or twice. We won't mind.

The tone was more action than action/comedy...but with "War" in the title, you kind of expect that.

However, they do NOT even address the elephant in the room...why did Widow go blond? Was it to have more fun or was it simply because she was on the run. The world may never know.

What we do know is that we missed Hawkeye, even if he is on and off again retired. And we missed Ant-Man, but given how many people were here, the absences were noted but not really noticed.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ghost Rider (2007)
1/10
An Honest Review
22 April 2018
Here is the deal. Johnny Blaze was possessed by an evil and dangerous entity called Zarathos who was a fundamentally evil being. What good he did was due to the constant inner struggle with Johnny Blaze, who was a very good man.

Dan Ketch was a kid from Brooklyn what was possessed by the Spirit of Vengeance, who was fundamentally a good spirit. And though they both struggled for control, the entity and its host trusted one another and worked together.

What this movie does is tries to mesh Blaze and Ketch and the spirits that possess them together...and it doesn't work.

The amalgamation robs the story of the intense inner turmoil and the fight between Blaze and the evil entity possessing him...that was a very good, very fun, very intense story that this film NEVER tells.

And Dan Ketch, the story wasn't as interesting, but it was still good focused more on the community, the town, the family life and the stress that the entity caused in the hosts personal life...it was still a very good story, it was still very fun, and it was, again, NEVER told here.

By trying to push the two of them together--including the supporting cast--the movie loses the stories from BOTH of them. What you get instead is. vapidity, and all the CGI in the world can't save a movie with no story.

There was no direction. There was no grand scheme. There were no real characters. It tried to be two different things at the exact same time and, because of that, didn't tell a story.

It ended up being special effects without a story and nothing more.

Had it chosen a direction, either direction, even an entirely new direction, the movie could have told a story. Unfortunately for everyone involved it didn't.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
An Honest Review
22 April 2018
Like the First one, this film can't find its footing. Johnny Blaze is also kind of Dan Ketch and the Ghost Rider spirit is kind of both Blaze's and Ketch's possessions.

It just doesn't work. It's pulled in two directions in character and because of that it can never find its footing. Like the old Indian saying "If you chase two rabbits you'll lose them both"

The franchise would have benefited if they chose ONE of the stories to tell, ONE of the Ghost Riders to portray. Pick Blaze, pick Ketch, it wouldn't have mattered, but two characters as fundamentally different as they are, dealing with two completely different demons meshing them together just loses focus on the story.

And beyond that, what you have left is too much CGI.

It could have been a much better film if it chose a direction. It didn't, and the story never landed because of it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cobb (1994)
1/10
An Honest Review
17 April 2018
Giving this one star hurts. It was a good movie. Tommy Lee Jones did a great job. Robert Wuhl did a great job. Ron Shelton did a great job...

...but Al Stump did baseball a great disservice with his pack of lies. There was no need to fabricate an already interesting life and drag Ty Cobb through the mud.

As a historian, I respect that movies can NOT be 100% accurate...but as a baseball fan, this is just insulting. Especially insulting given that we are still talking about, we are still worshiping the players of that era.

This is worse for baseball's legend than steroids, worse than what they did to Jackson's good name.

As much as I respect the hard work and talent that went into this film. I can't respect what Al Stump did to the legends and myths of baseball.

Mr. Jones, Mr. Wuhl, Mr. Shelton, I am sorry. I can't give this more than a single star, but its not because of the job any of you did, it's because of the insult Stump paid to baseball.

It breaks the heart watching this, reliving the lies that tarnished my favorite sport.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
An Honest Review
19 March 2018
My girlfriend and I called it "the Fish F***er Movie" and that is really what it is...but it's also green, very, very green.

Ever wondered how Abe from Hellboy had sex? Well this movie explains it.

But honestly, it isn't bad. It's a total period piece. It's beautiful, I mean it is very beautiful, and it has a story.

But, yeah, the thing about it is that it's beautiful AND has a story. The English Patient, Brokeback Mountain, they were just beautiful and beauty alone with no story behind it is boring. The Fisk F***** Movie had both.

And, yeah, the story is something we are used to. It was the good, friendly monster that had to be rescued by the mean nasty government plot and, especially if you are a child of the 80s, it works. It's a plot that we've seen over and over again...only in kids movies.

This Fish F***er movie, the plot is made for adults, so less adventure and fart jokes and a lot more beauty slightly deeper issues, issues that equate homosexual and racial issues to being the outsider that matters...in the right way. Not the immature and racist way that we see in Black Panther and Get Out...

...so it's refreshing to see that handled subtly and politely and still make the point.

Subtle and polite hardly go hand in hand with a serious point now days.

The Shape of Water was able to hint at a point, still entertain, and, well, do it in a way that was so beautiful it was mesmerizing.
33 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
An Honest Review
19 March 2018
Cyborg looked like he was totally CGI didn't he? And late 90s CGI too. Should have just worn the hoodie throughout the entire film, it hurt watching what is an actor that did a stellar job playing someone that was hurting and at odds with his very being...made into a distraction because the CGI was absolutely horrid.

Beyond that the movie was awful. Well, it was awful in a totally boring kind of way...and this was a superhero movie. They managed to make it boring.

Part of it could be that, like Wonder Woman, it tried to be too dark and serious, but even then Wonder Woman was a hell of a lot more fun...even if they tried to make her film into yet another Batman movie. At least she had her moments.

In Justice League, ONLY she had her moments. Seriously. The Flash, well, he really didn't do anything that wasn't forced, but then Aquaman, he had a moment...but it was forced.

Everything seemed a bit forced. And the big reveal was revealed before hand...so you really didn't even get that wow moment.

All in all, it kind of sucks, really bad. But at least it didn't feel as long as Batman V Superman.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Get Out (I) (2017)
5/10
An Honest Review
19 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The plot was good but, honestly, all white people are evil and deep down inside they want to be Black. That's really what the plot is, or at least that's the point of the movie, to show you how evil all white people are...and how they always go out of their way to harm Black people.

Now...that's the politics behind the film. When you take away the racist crap...it's actually not that bad. The problem here is that politics get in the way and, honestly, I am sick and tired of being told to admit how evil and racist all white people are...or else get the racist label.

I'm sorry, it works both ways.

Beyond the race crap, the movie is actually excellent, the plot is a slow burner and one that, if you walk into it fresh, keeps you on your toes. There isn't a lot of action, there's not a lot of gore, and it pays off in pure plot.

Unfortunately the plot makes a clear racist statement about how evil white people are. If you want to have a reason to hate white people, this is for you. If you want to have a movie that blames all white people for everything wrong with the world, this movie is for you.

And if you want a movie with a solid plot and great acting...this movie is also for you.

The down side is, once it becomes racist to make racist movies, this film is going to be received like the original Birth of a Nation a solid film flawed for it's racism.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Black Panther (2018)
1/10
An Honest Review
18 February 2018
I guess, because of the hype, I was expecting "the best Marvel movie ever," or at least "the best Marvel movie if the year."

I pray to God and Stan Lee that this isn't the best Marvel Movie of 2018.

The fact is, there are maybe 3 laughs in the entire film. Three moments where you smile. Three moments where you crack a grin and they all come exclusively from Letitia Wright.

And it wasn't because there were jokes and they didn't land. It was really because the movie took itself far too seriously. Like Winter Soldier and Civil War it had a message to tell...but unlike the Captain American movies, it thought its message was so serious that it couldn't laugh even at itself.

I think, honestly, it even forgot it was a Marvel movie. In fact at time I think that the director, crew, and cast all thought that they were making "Roots" meets the new "A Birth of a Nation"

And Martin Freedman, yeah I think he was only there to prove that he could do a better American accent than his Sherlock counterpart. Maybe it was a bet, which part of the cast of Sherlock can hold an American accent throughout an entire film?

And, honestly I am disappointed, because ALL three grins in the film went to Letitia Wright and Martin Freeman has some fairly decent comedic timing...they just didn't let it show. At least not for Freeman or ANYONE ELSE.

Honestly, I'm surprised they even let Letitia Wright makes us smile or entertain us an any way.

Honestly, it felt a lot like I was watching a college lecture...but a college lecture for a class that has a mandatory attendance policy and a professor that ONLY teaches from the book that he himself wrote...you get that kind of overly-serious pretentious feel to it.

And...really, how often do people have to tell other people who they are in this movie? That really happened far too often and not in the "Bond, James Bond" way but in the "If I tell you who I am it's going to give me extra power" kind of way.

And in the end you get two fight scenes by a waterfall that weren't very inspired and failed in comparison to other MCU fights. You get a car chase that was again...uninspired and fell flat but this time in the "we've seen this before only done better" kind of way. And a climatic battle that felt a little like the Gungan/Battle Droid battle in The Phantom Menace only with better CGI and an uninspired fight between the two powers rather than the Jedi dual.

At least Winter Soldier and Civil War allowed us to laugh and relax a bit during the more serious MCU fair. At least they pulled out the stops when it came to action and, despite the message...tried to deliver something, anything.

All this gave us was, well, a lecture and one where the action seemed, well, it seemed like the cast and crew felt they were obligated to give us that and thus did it with disdain.. It felt like all involved thought that entertainment would take away from the preaching.

And really, have a message....just please entertain me. I work hard. I already went to school. What I want for the price of admission is to be entertained.

If you can't do that, if you only let Letitia Wright make me smile and then only three times in a super hero movie that doesn't wow with action...then you've failed.

In fact, you've failed so much that you aren't "the first Black super-hero movie" I'm taking that pilfered title and giving it back to Blade...because at least Blade was entertaining.
558 out of 970 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Manhunt: Unabomber (2017– )
6/10
An Honest Review
6 February 2018
Eh....I really don't know how much of this movie is true. How many people are amalgamations. Some of the people depicted, especially the FBI agents, they seem too much to be true, too much a caricature, too good to be true. Too much in general, it sort of leads you to believe that the only character that was real was the Unabomber himself.

That being the case, it IS a series about catching the killer, and I've always believed that was the more interesting part of the serial killer movie fetish thing.

The killers have it easy. They have 323 Million people to hide out in.

The people that catch them, on the other hand, have it a lot harder, they literally have to find the needle in the haystack and, with a case like the Unabomber that haystack was the entire United States.

So, they did do a very good job of conveying that little detail, and that alone is worth watching. And, they did it without the NCIS overly techno-babble take on crime fighting that, for the most part, is too expensive to use if it even exists.

So, what you get to do is sit back and watch people solve a deadly serious puzzle. And the details of how they fit all the pieces together is displayed in an extremely believable way.

My only problem, the only thing that made me give it 6 stars is that, yeah, most of the characters didn't seem real. But, that is easy to get beyond because, this series is all in the how, not in the who.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! (2015–2018)
1/10
An Honest Review
16 January 2018
No, this is NOT Scooby-Doo.

Fred isn't really Fred, Velma isn't Velma, Shaggy and Scooby are hardly the cowards with the bottomless stomachs they used to be, Daphne is not Daphne...

...And there aren't any real mysteries.

You're watching another cartoon about a group of kids that just have fun, face no real threats, have nothing really scary happen to them, the series sucks.

It feel like EVERY other cartoon, straight down to animation that makes Hanna-Barbara look like Michelangelo.

The changes are the main reason I hate remakes and reboots. It's like people sat down and said "Let's make Scooby-Doo but make it nothing like Scooby-Doo."
1 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
An Honest Review
3 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Well, it IS slow. I read that over and over and over again in the other IMDB reviews and I am not going to argue that at all.

It is a slow film, but, I don't necessarily find that to be a bad thing and in this case slow is more along the line of a movie that takes its time, and arguably has to given the budget. After all, this is nothing but story. That is kind of all they had.

It's certainly a story driven film and that is in fairly short supply. There aren't that many pure stories on the film any longer and since the Indie film market has all but crashed, they are fewer and further between.

And the story itself isn't uplifting, but it is real. Sure, the circumstances are a bit beyond belief, but the characters themselves are certainly real, you can see real people acting that way.

I can't go so far to say that it is heart warming. It seems like a mutual use relationship, in a way, but one that certainly comes to help each of the main characters through some rough patches in their lives.

I'm glad I watched it, I wouldn't mind watching it again, but in the end, if you don't have the patience to read a book you won't have the patience to watch this film either.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blair Witch (2016)
1/10
An Honest Review
30 December 2017
It's one of those crap remakes, where they take an original that everyone loves, then they dumb it down to reach the Millennial Generation, and then they make it worse.

The original was more psychological and made to seem realistic. This one seemed more like a slasher film. But I guess that is what happens when you start remaking shows to appeal to people that don't want to think at all.

In the original, it was really your imagine that created the scares. In this one its made for people with no imagination to run wild and the difference is self apparent.

Stay away. The premise just doesn't work for the new generation's tastes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dead Bang (1989)
10/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
I haven't seen this before.

A cop with a dead partner, sure, I have seen that. A scumbag FBI agent, yeah, I've seen that too. I've also seen a widow that want's revenge.

BUT, from there it veers off and we have a group of skinhead white supremacists on a racist rampage and you have Mr. Miami Vice himself, in 1989, dressed like could care less about how he looks and, I haven't seen that before either.

The plot takes you from LA to small town America with all the shoot outs in between. The cop is a screw up and one that seems to only get by because he's seen it all before, not because he is particularly good at what he does.

It all boils down to a unique film and one that is exceptionally well put together.

The only thing that would make it a better film, would make it more unique, is if the white supremacists were as deeply and disturbingly family orientated as they are in the documentaries about the KKK. But, instead, you have them as the cliched psychopaths, which is somehow LESS disturbing.

But, it's a small cliche for a movie that you likely haven't seen before and certainly won't see again, at least not without the protagonist being a super buff ex-Navy SEAL with all the special effects to back it up.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Freaky Deaky (2012)
7/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
Well, this movie was poorly made. It really was, which is probably why we didn't see it anywhere and I had to actively track it down.

But, a big part of it is likely the budget. It stinks of low budget and you can't really make an ultra low budget period flick and have actually turn out well.

But, 7 of 10 stars because it is unique. The story is original, and that is probably why it had such a low budget feel to it, but that doesn't really matter at all.

You still have an Elmore Leonard movie, which means you still have characters you haven't really encountered in stories before and a plot that you haven't really seen before all in a genre--crime--that is over done and paint-by-numbers.

So, watch it, if nothing more than you are getting a real story, a fresh story, an Elmore Leonard story and he is always worth it...because without him you get more of the same old crap on repeat.

It's a story you probably haven't encountered before and that is always worth a watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Get Shorty (1995)
2/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
You know what, I really love Elmore Leonard, and a part of me feels that nearly any movie made from his works is going to come out as fresh, original, and worth watching.

This is the rare exception.

Here they took a classic Elmore Leonard plot and made it too Hollywood for its own good. And then they tried a bit hard to make it too much like a Pulp Fiction film, but with less bleak comedy and more slapstick comedy.

You still have Leonard's unique originality...but the story has been raped and what's left is trash.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cat Chaser (1989)
10/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
Yeah, I know it's a flawed film, I mean, I caught it one night, LATE at night, on cable TV when I was a kid. HBO to be specific and at an hour reserved for only failed and low quality films.

In other words, I found it at a place where movies go to die. The equivalent of the bargain box at a toy store.

But, I liked it. It wasn't the usual thriller and that's saying a lot given that thrillers, like action movies, all have relatively the same plot. They tend to be like the Harley Davidson store crowd as in they all dress the same and claim they are rebels.

Cat Chaser was something different. The plot stood out. Peter Weller did as best a job he could. The cast did as best a job as they could.

It was just, the director didn't really know what to do with the script, which was, I learned, (thank you IMDB) based on an Elmore Leonard novel...and that sort of says it all.

The writer, Elmore Leonard, isn't exactly a literary great. He has an irritating vernacular. BUT, he also has a talent for creating unique characters and unique settings and situations and stringing them all together into a coherent plot.

Leonard is a pulp writer, but he was a pulp writer that was original in his approach to just about everything and his stories are a pleasure to read.

And, when, like this one, they are adapted to the big screen, that uniqueness carries over. Even in a bad film, as this one was--albeit a bad film with good acting--it becomes a story that you haven't really encountered before and you won't encounter again.

So give it a watch, it's Elmore Leonard, you aren't seeing a great film, but you are going to see a story you haven't encountered before, and to me, that alone is worth 10 out of 10 stars.

Don't rate it on it's cinematic prowess, watch it for the plot, it's new, it's original, and, even if its badly done, we need a lot more of that, especially now, when almost everything we see is exactly like almost everything else we are seeing.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mother! (2017)
2/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
Let's be honest, this is a home invasion movie trying to push itself off as an art house flick with a higher IQ.

It kind of lies to you and really hate it when movies try to pass themselves off as more than they actually are.

You can't blame the actors here, it's all the director and the studio. They wanted controversy, they wanted drama, they wanted critical praise and the wanted people to talk about it....

...but in the end, it's a home invasion movie and it wouldn't have had any of what the studio and the director wanted if they just made an honest film.

But then, if they were honest about what they were making, it probably would have done better, it would have made more money. People wouldn't have been so confused about it, the critics would have panned the hell out of it and ten years down the line it may have had a cult following.

Instead, you have a crap movie trying to pass itself off as art house...and all the pretension that comes with that.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Evil Toons (1992)
10/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
What? Why is the rating so low here? It wasn't like this movie even tried to be good! It wasn't like it even tried to tell you it was good! This was a bad movie made to be a bad movie made to entertain you on the basis of it being a bad movie!

It achieved that goal. You can't give the movie 3 stars for achieving the goal it set out to.

And to ensure it is both bad and entertaining, a cartoon rapes someone. That's right, you have a cartoon raping a human.

It's kind of like someone watched "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and then said "hey, we can do that so much worse. You think that's good? We can make a movie like it that is so bad you'll love it!"

And that is exactly what they did. It's a twisted B-rated version of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" only the cartoon are evil and that makes it, not better, but in a category all to its own.

It's not trying to scare you and even the jokes aren't trying to make you laugh. It's trying to be a bad movie that entertains you by hitting all the cliche's of the bad movie genre.

So, 10 out of 10 stars, it set a goal for itself and achieved it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
Which one was this? I can't really remember. I do, however, know it was the movie where they hire a lot of women and require them all to take their clothes off.

I recall a shower scene in there somewhere.

And then I remember the women running around screaming in undies that are really only worn in the bedroom.

Was there a plot? Not really, it was just an excuse for nudity and undies.

But, you already knew all of that when you sat down to watch this. Because, honestly in film making, they aren't really trying to pass it off as anything other than an excuse to film young naked breasts and you don't really get anything but that.

This one has the geek factor...in the form of fratboys, I guess they wanted to give it a twist ala Revenge of the Nerds.

So, why are you reading this? You know exactly what this movie is about. You knew that before you even clicked on this review.

But, at least the review is as honest as the movie.

If you are expecting more than that, there is something seriously wrong with you.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
An Honest Review
27 December 2017
Which one was this? I can't really remember. I do, however, know it was the movie where they hire a lot of women and require them all to take their clothes off.

I recall a shower scene in there somewhere.

And then I remember the women running around screaming in undies that are really only worn in the bedroom.

Was there a plot? Not really, it was just an excuse for nudity and undies.

But, you already knew all of that when you sat down to watch this. Because, honestly in film making, they aren't really trying to pass it off as anything other than an excuse to film young naked breasts and you don't really get anything but that.

So, why are you reading this? You know exactly what this movie is about. You knew that before you even clicked on this review.

But, at least the review is as honest as the movie.

If you are expecting more than that, there is something seriously wrong with you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.