44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Class of '44 (1973)
Not that bad of a movie, but it could have been better
12 November 2018
Summer of '42 was a great movie. I loved its funny and relatable characters, terrific characters, relatable story, excellent score, and the overall artsy nature of the film. It truly is a terrific film.

Now when I heard that there was a sequel to the film, I was a bit skeptical. I immediately thought it would be bad, especially after reading that the film abandons the artsy-ness of the first film and goes for a more straightforward story. But I thought to myself, "It can't be ALL that bad. I mean, we still have the same likable characters." Plus, they're in college, so I assumed that we'd get to see the typical young adult antics displayed in most college films.

I was kind of right.

Yes, it does suck how this film is more simple and straightforward instead of being poetic like the predecessor. But it's not like they had nothing to work with. I mean, this movie is set during World War II. They could have thrown in some social commentary about war, and how it affects young adults and their overall views on it, but nope. But that isn't to say that the film is a total wreck. It makes up for it by reuniting us with the same three friends who haven't changed a bit. Oscy is still a smart-ass, Hermie is still the one who stays true to himself, and Benji is still the same. So, that's good.

But one thing you might be asking yourself when watching this is whatever happened to Dorothy, the girl from the last movie that left a major impact on Hermie's life, in both Summer of '42 and in real-life. I mean, this movie had the same writer, Herman Raucher. I think it should have been at least mentioned, or maybe Hermie is in a deep depression and the new girl that he meets in this film pulls him out of it. Speaking of which, the romance in this movie isn't quite on par with the last movie. I don't see much chemistry between them. And I think that a deep soul like Hermie should have higher standards for women.

Overall, this movie was actually alright, but again, it could have been much better. I wouldn't mind watching this again. It has the same great characters who put on great performances, and it actually has some comedy to it. But because it could have been much more better, I give it a measly 5 stars.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Summer of '42 (1971)
Great film; would watch again and again
11 October 2018
First off, let me start out by saying that this movie is highly underrated. Sure, it's been on TCM time and time again and some people have seen it, but it's not world renowned like other coming-of-age classics like Stand by Me.

For starters, the characters are great. They're all relatable and I'm sure you can think back to a time in your life when you had a group of friends like these. I was a mix between Hermie and Oscy, both well-maintained and sarcastic at times. The actors who portray them put on great performances, too. It was also a great move to have relatively unknown actors play the parts, though I don't know if this was intentional.

Second, it has a very relatable plot. Everybody has had a Summer of '42 in their life, the summer that really changes them, the one that makes them go from childhood to adulthood thanks to a certain event or person, one that really shapes them to the person they are today.

Third, it's quite funny. I mean, the Oscy character really pumps out some funny sarcastic lines, and the rubbers scene alone is worth the price of admission.

Lastly, the main theme is excellent. It sounds so ambient, yet beautiful at the same time. I love how mysterious it is, too; how it plays only when we see Jennifer O'Neill's character, who throughout most of the movie, we know little about. And the fact that Jennifer herself isn't that well-known adds to the mystery.

If there's one thing I could complain about, it's the home media for this. The DVD itself is lacking in special features. Personally, I think this movie needs to be on Criterion. Yeah, get Herman Raucher in there with the guys who played the three boys and anyone else who's still alive from the movie and have a commentary and maybe some interviews. That'd be cool.

All in all, Summer of '42 is in my opinion, one of the best coming of age movies ever. It has great characters, great performances, a great script, and a great score. It's an overall great movie. Check it out.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Jigsaw (I) (2017)
Boring and Dull
26 September 2018
Disclaimer: I have never seen a single Saw movie, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a film just because I haven't seen the others. So, let's begin.

My buddy dragged me to this one. I've been hearing nothing but praise about the Saw movies. Going in, I thought it was about some evil puppet named Jigsaw who went around pulling vicious pranks on people. I was completely wrong. Apparently, the real Jigsaw is some old dude who reminds people about just how much of pieces of crap they can be. Wow, what an ass. I'll give the filmmakers credit, these traps are pretty interesting, but that doesn't save the film from sucking.

There were no likable characters and I couldn't get into the story. Actually, the only character I liked was Carly, played by Brittany Allen, but only because she was hot.

I walked out of the movie feeling a bit confused, probably because I didn't see the others. But if they're anything like this, I don't want to.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not Much Saving...
17 September 2018
Now I'm sure we all watched Bill Nye the Science Guy in school, and we all loved it. It sure made learning science fun. It has created a lasting impression on kids alike. Hell, people still recite the theme song to this day.

When it was reported that Bill Nye was coming back for a Netflix show, I was neutral about it. I just thought that it would be along the same lines as the original '90s show.

But when the first season released and the show received immediate backlash, I decided to look into it.

From the little that I've seen of this show, it's nothing but pure crap. For starters, the theme song. It's stupid, but it's punching bag material, in that one can ironically listen to it because of how stupid it is.

A big problem I have with this show is that it caters to the PC crowd. More specifically, the ever-infamous gender episode. It has a god-awful song about vaginas, a cringey cartoon about ice cream with painfully obvious social commentary, and to top it all off, Bill Nye, the so-called 'Science Guy' preaches pseudoscience. Yep, he joined the bandwagon of people who believe there are more than two genders, and he tries to represent it as fact. What a shame. Shortly after this episode, people did some research on the guy and found out that he didn't even have a college degree in science. Wow. And to think, this guy was on major news networks.

Another pain in the butt from this show is that so-called "funny" bit where that Indian dude makes some rant about white people who have Asian culture items and don't know their meaning or something. First off, who the hell is this guy to talk? He's Indian and he's complaining about white people using Asian culture? Something about this just doesn't add up. Also, am I the only one who's getting tired of hearing those constant "white people are stupid" jokes?

Another kick in the balls moment on this show is Bill himself. He seems so shallow, often describing things as "very cool" and "really great". Or at least in what I've seen. And like an unprofessional, he explains his jokes. I think The Joker said it best, "If you have to explain a joke, then there is no joke!"

How in the hell did this mess get more than one season? I don't freaking know, but I'm just glad that it seems to have faded away from the spotlight now. Good, maybe soon, it'll be gone for good.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Psycho II (1983)
Underrated Sequel
23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, so I'm a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. He's my filmmaking idol and I owe so much to him. One of my favorites of his is Psycho, which I really loved. Naturally, I would check out the sequels.

Usually, a sequel to a really great movie (especially if the original director is not involved) is doomed to fail. But not always. Definitely not in this movie. I actually enjoyed Psycho II. I liked how it continued the story and turned Norman Bates into a sympathetic character this time around. He's trying to start fresh and live a normal life, but his demons still haunt him and some of the townspeople remind him of his horrid past. This story is quite fresh and original. I like how Norman is trying to change. I'm so glad Universal chose to not follow the Psycho II book, which was about Norman going to Hollywood. That would have been stupid.

Not only is the story good, but once again, Anthony Perkins nails the part of Norman Bates. He still acts so awkwardly. The music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is also good. But nothing can top Bernard Herrmann's famous score of the original. Like the first film, it had a great twist ending that you didn't see coming, but one thing I hated about the ending is the shark-jumping moment where we find out that (spoiler alert) Norma Bates didn't give birth to Norman. It was her sister. Yeah. I'm just as appalled as you are.

Overall, this is a pretty good sequel that doesn't deserve the hate that it gets. Of course, it's not trying to top the Alfred Hitchcock classic. It's trying to do its own thing. Also, it's not a cheap retread of the previous film. That was saved for the next movie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Psycho III (1986)
Overrated Sequel
23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?

This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.

But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.

So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting Premise...
23 October 2017
When I saw the trailer for this film, I thought it looked quite interesting. Sure, the Groundhog Day plot seems to be becoming a cliché nowadays (with movies like Before I Fall), and it was most likely going to be a jump-scare-infested film, since it came from Blumhouse, but I actually had interests in seeing this film, so I went and saw this with a friend.

I thought the movie was okay, but nothing special. I liked the premise, I liked how the girl went from this unlikable bitch to an actual caring person as the film went on, and I liked how she gradually learned from the error of her ways. I also liked the design of the mask and how so many people had it in their possession, which only makes it harder to guess who the killer is.

But no film is without its flaws.

In some parts, it seemed like they were trying to go somewhere, like when the girl is spying on the people who she thinks might be out to kill her, but that was quickly dropped. The scene where she takes out that criminal was pretty good, but it then came off as pointless once the twist came. Oh, and speaking of that, while I did admire the twist and how they chose an unsuspecting person, the heroine jumped to the conclusion WAY too fast. Like, she just assumes all these things and it ends up being right. Like, you need to build up stuff like that. You can't just rush it.

Overall, this movie was okay. It didn't rely too heavily on jump-scares, so I applaud them for that. Give it a watch if you want.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lazy and Repetitive (Spoiler Alert)
23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let me just say that for the record, I'm not a Madea fan, I am just a casual moviegoer. But that doesn't mean I can't get enjoyment out of these movies.

Last year, I saw Boo! A Madea Halloween. I thought it was okay. Sure, some of the comedy scenes dragged on and on and there were some stupid moments, but I overall thought it was an alright movie. I thought it was way better than the other comedy I saw that year, Why Him.

But one year later, we get this movie. Hoo boy.

Now, when I heard that they were making ANOTHER Madea Halloween movie one year after they already did one, I thought to myself, "Why? Didn't they just do one?" But then, I was like, "Whatever. Maybe something new is in store."

When I heard the plot of this movie, I thought it sounded like the laziest sequel ever.

When I saw the movie, I was right.

I did not enjoy this film. The plot was the SAME EXACT THING as the last film. (Spoiler alert) That teenage girl goes to yet ANOTHER party with those frat guys, somehow not learning her lesson from last time, and surprise surprise, something supernatural happens. How lazy and uninspired can you get? Oh, and if you weren't there for the first Halloween movie, don't worry. The characters will be happy to mention it constantly. And just like the last film, some scenes with Madea and her friends talking drag. But it's shorter this time around. That's good. Some parts of this movie were stale, like a lot of scenes featured the same thing happening: Madea and the gang are in their car and something jumps out at them and scares them. Rinse and repeat. A lot of the characters got really annoying, especially Madea's brother, Joe, who I swear, always had something to say whenever a sentence was uttered. Further contributing to the film's laziness, the moral (if you will) from Boo 1 was the same, but it was with the mom instead of the dad. It wasn't really built up like last time, it was just rushed. And speaking of the parents, you'd think that after the father learned his lesson in the predecessor, that he'd be getting back together with his ex wife or something. But nope. He's still divorced, and his ex wife hooked up with another bald dude. Oh, and do you wanna know the twist in this movie? Well, get this... The father was behind all the ghosts and demons scaring away the kids. Yep. Just like last time where the father had involvement with the fake arrest thing. Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful. And oh yeah, the film ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger, where (spoiler alert) it turns out that one of the creatures that haunted the kids was actually real. Oh, please don't do a Boo 3. I hope this was only a joke.

But through all the bad things this film had to offer, there were some things that I liked. A diamond in the rough, if you will. But it's more like a diamond in the litter box. I liked the return of Yousef Ereka. He was funny in the last one and was quite funny in this one. Also, that scene where Madea is in the police station and sees herself on a "Wanted" poster was pretty funny. (How the cops don't recognize her is beyond me.) But that scene seemed to drag, as well. But those things could not save the movie.

Overall, this was a disappointment. It had little effort thrown into it and was basically a retread of the first Madea Halloween movie. I do not recommend it... Unless you're a hardcore Madea fan and need to see everything that this character is in.
10 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Mighty (1998)
Still a Great Movie After All These Years
22 May 2017
When I was in seventh grade, we read a book called Freak the Mighty, which was about a boy with a learning disability who befriends a crippled boy. It was pretty good. Then, we saw the movie, which was also pretty good.

Times have changed and I am now a graduate of high school. I recently revisited this film and I was quite amazed at how excellent it was.

The whole cast turned in great performances. Sharon Stone really knocked it out of the park with her role of Gwen Dillon. Elden Henson (aka Fulton from The Mighty Ducks) was also great, especially in the emotional scenes. The score was brilliant and the ending was really good. It's a shame that not many people know about this film. They're really missing out.

I give this a 9/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sisters (III) (2015)
Am I the only one that DIDN'T like this film?
22 May 2017
I went to see this movie right after we saw Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip (admittedly, we snuck into this one). This movie wasn't a good experience, but it wasn't as bad as an experience as Why Him was.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler seem to have some talent with them. I never really seen anything that they're in, but they had okay performances here. But for a comedy, it wasn't very funny. I don't recall laughing. At all. But yet, the whole theater was. I'm sorry, but I just don't find Tina Fey cussing up a storm funny. I guess that scene where she rolls around on the floor like a child was kinda funny, but I remember it being kind of forced.

There's nothing much to say about this one. I didn't really like this one. The only thing I did like about it was John Cena.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why Him? (2016)
I Hated This Movie
21 April 2017
Every Christmas, my sisters have this new tradition where they take my mom and I and go see a movie. Last year, we saw Daddy's Home. This year, we saw Why Him? Oh boy...

Firstly, when I saw the trailer for this movie, I thought it looked stupid, unfunny, and really annoying. But I choose not to judge a book by it's cover, so I went and saw it. Besides, it's something to do.

What I got out of this film was a real bad experience. For starters, it's one of those modern comedies that think that just plain swearing and private part jokes are funny. They're not. Swearing could be funny, but you have to make it funny by adding something to the swear. For example, the Angry Video Game Nerd saying things like "F*ckfarts". The main character, Laird, is pretty much nothing but a walking swearing and sexual humor machine. All that spews out of this guy's mouth is constant cursing and talking about wanting to plow his girlfriend's mother.... Eww. He's played by James Franco, who I actually respect as an actor and even a filmmaker. But he's really got to pick better movies. As for the comedy, well... Like I said before, it's nothing but swearing and sex jokes. Only a few random bits got a laugh out of me, like when Laird's trainer or whatever makes some random noise at a party, since I didn't see that coming. As for performances, well... James Franco is a complete annoyance, and the rest of the actors are passable. But the one I really feel bad for is Bryan Cranston. Seeing him go through all these lame comedic scenes, it doesn't feel like he's acting, it actually feels like he's really suffering on set. I mean, who could blame him? If you had to go through all this failed comedy, you'd be feeling miserable, too. Speaking of failing on things, this movie fails on the heart aspect, which seems to be absent from most comedies of today. You see, in a movie like this, there's always a scene where the straight man comes to understand the goofball and sees that he's not that bad of a guy. In Daddy's Home, they played it well, but here? All I remember is just Bryan Cranston randomly having a liking to James Franco, even though he didn't really change his ways or Cranston didn't really see the good in him.

Overall, this movie is another one of the typical comedies that is shat out from Hollywood these days. It's annoying, it's unfunny, and it's completely stupid. Even though I hated this movie, there was one thing I actually liked, and that was a scene where Laird is going "cheap cheap cheap" to his chickens, only because this seems like a subtle foreshadow to the upcoming Disaster Artist movie that James Franco is attached to.
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
20 April 2017
I saw this film in the theater because it was something to do and it was only like, $5. Having never seen a Madea film in my life, I went into this film with an open mind.

It was okay. I mean, Madea steals the show once she's on-screen, and I like how she's this no-nonsense African-American granny who's not afraid to kick someone's ass if they deserve it. For first-time viewers like myself, this is new and refreshing, but here's the thing: This is like, the 9 billionth Madea movie, so to fans of the franchise, this could get old real quick. As for the comedy, it was a lot better than most of the comedies that are released today, which just feature excessive amounts of curse words and private part jokes because they think it's funny. This movie actually had a few moments where I laughed, like when Madea punches the clown. But the comedy was also insufferable in some scenes. For example, when Tyler Perry's character (the father, who is the only character he plays in this movie who's NOT in drag) is laying down the ground rules to Madea and her friends, his father does the old "back in my day" bit, and it just goes on and on and on for like, 20 minutes. Save this for the director's cut, will you? But it's not just that scene that dragged. There's a couple other scenes that have the same problem, where it just drags. Also unlike comedies of today, this movie does have heart, I'll give them that. Like, there's some moral about how the dad is a real pushover, so at the end, he finally stands his ground and lays down the law to his daughter. That's good, I guess. But this movie had it's fair share of bad moments. Like I mentioned earlier, some of the scenes dragged on for eternity, but there's this one part where the daughter is at the party she sneaked to and after only one thing goes wrong, her friend is just like, "You're ruining the party!" Like, what? Only one thing happened. How could she be ruining the party by only doing one thing?

Overall, it was entertaining. It had some funny scenes, it had some heart, and it kept my attention. I was surprised to find out that this movie is 103 minutes, since it went by so quickly.

I guess Madea fans might enjoy it. First-time viewers might get a kick out of it. Check it out if you want.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
EZ Money (2005)
A Painfully Bad Movie
20 April 2017
Earlier this year, I came across a DVD 10 pack of a bunch of cheap family movies. The pack itself was cheap, so I bought it, since it seemed like a pretty good deal and I love watching bad movies. Now, with the kind of movies they were advertising on the cover, I expected them to be the movies that are enjoyably bad. While some of them are so far, this one is not.

This movie sucks. It features horrible acting, a plot that makes little sense, it's all over the place, and it was even dragging at times. This didn't feel like one movie, it felt like a billion movie ideas rolled into one. I'm serious. So much is going on in this movie. We have the money scam plot, the disconnected family plot, a buddy cop movie plot, and a kidnapping plot. And at times, it feels like they didn't know what to do, so they just filmed random scenes. The editing is all over the place. One moment, we'll be focusing on the little girl while another moment, we'll cut to that cop guy and that agent.

The only thing that was enjoyable about this film was that agent guy. His acting was so hammy that it was fun to watch.

Avoid this movie. It might make your brain explode.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Scott Fellows Does It Again!
16 August 2016
I don't know how he does it, but the man seems to capture the fun and craziness of middle school. He did it before with Ned's Declassified, and he's doing it now with 100 Things.

Personally, I felt that middle school was a more innocent time. We were teenagers, but we didn't have jobs or cars yet. And I feel that is what Scott captures in this show, the fun side of middle school.

I know I'm not in the age group here, but I think that this is a great show. It's not like Henry Danger or that other crap that's on Nick nowadays, it's a simple show about the fun times you have in middle school and how to survive them. Unlike Henry Danger, this show has interesting characters. I like how CJ is so determined to get things done. You don't see that too often on TV these days.

So, that was 100 Things to Do Before High School. It's worth a checkout. The characters are not annoying, the story lines makes sense, and it has a nostalgic factor in me.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Christmas Story 2 (2012 Video)
Obvious Cash Grab... But It at Least Has Heart
4 December 2015
In 2012, A Christmas Story had already become a staple of American culture, and it was EVERYWHERE. Clothes, props, a play, even friggin' fudge (get it?) And it was no surprise that a sequel would be made.

In November 2012, we got A Christmas Story 2. I remember hearing about this and just being like "Meh. Whatever.", since I wasn't really a fan of the film at the time. Then, I began to see what horrible reviews it got, so that was enough to peak my curiosity, and last year, I finally saw this thing (after I saw the original, of course.)

First off, my thoughts on the original: It's a good film. It certainly does put you in a child's perspective. I now see why everybody loves it. (If only the people marketing this stuff could see that.)

Now, we get to this movie, hoo boy. First thing, this was on TV A LOT last year, so I just saw it on one of the airings, although I did rent it from the library, but the DVD skipped. So, our plot is that Ralphie is now 16 and he wants what every 16-year-old wants for Christmas, a car. Of course. He also wants to woo a girl at his school named Drucilla. That's fine and all, but we can't have fine, how about we repeat the same things that made the original great in this film? Yeah, my main gripe with this film is that it tries to "recapture the greatness" of the original... By repeating the same stuff. The Old Man still is having a neverending battle with the furnace (five years later?), Ralphie's mom still overdresses Randy, Flik gets his tongue stuck to something (or, in something in this case), and of course, many uses of the phrase "Son of a bitch!" Pitiful.

In my opinion, if you want to capture the essence of the predecessor, you have to take what made it great, and step it up a bit, not repeat the same things.

Now, this movie is an obvious cash grab. It was made at a time where A Christmas Story was insanely popular. It tries too hard to recapture the fun of the original, and offers barely anything new.

But with all this hating, at least they were trying. They were at least trying with the sets and props. They at least tried to make it look like the '40s. They also try to shove in some Christmas morals. That's all good. It also has that good Christmas-y heart feel to it, where everything turns out in the end.

So, horrible movie, but it has heart and at least tried.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Don't Know What to Think of It
6 August 2015
OK, so I'm a curious person. I like digging into the rare and infamous stuff, stuff that sticks out, mainly with TV and movies. (For example, the biggest box office bomb, the biggest box office success, the worst TV show ever, yadda yadda yadda). And this show is right up my alley! A few days ago, I was on a Facebook page called "The Rise and Fall of Nickelodeon", which is dedicated to hating the aforementioned kids channel. One post was about Angelica and Susie's Preschool Daze, a Rugrats spin-off that didn't last very long, and focused on the two older kids, Angelica and Susie, in preschool. Now, in the comments section of this post, someone mentioned Australia's Funniest Home Videos. Being the curious person that I am, I looked it up, found out some things about it, and so forth. I also managed to see some suggested searches, one of them being "Heil Honey, I'm Home!". Seeing as how it had nothing to do with my search (or, at least I thought at the time), I decided to take a look. I found out that this show did the impossible, it took something like Hitler and the Third Reich, and turned it into a sitcom. I just had to see this, and I did.

Now, obviously, right from the start, this show is a straight-up parody. It's intention was to mock the old sitcoms of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, which had lots of stupid ideas, but lasted fairly anyway (hence the show's premise). So, I wouldn't be taking this show seriously. When I saw the one and only episode ever aired, I... didn't know what to think of it. I mean, it's kind of funny, but when you look at the historical side, it's just hard to look at. It's based off of an infamous person from history, but it's taken so lightly. I know, it's a parody. But when you base something off of something that actually happened, you just wonder where the history takes place.

I wasn't offended by this show, and I didn't want my time back after watching this show, I just felt pretty blank about it. It has some fairly decent comedy to it, but that's all I can say about it. It just left me with nothing. But it didn't leave the world with nothing. This is known as the most tasteless sitcom of all time. And I get where they're coming from with that. There were other episodes that were shot, but never aired (for obvious reasons.) So, that's Heil Honey, I'm Home! It's something that you truly have to see to believe.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Incredible Crew (I) (2012–2013)
Bad, But Not the Worst
18 May 2015
When I first saw commercials for this show, I had a hard time trying to figure out the premise of this show. Going by the title, it sounded like a show about a group of superheroes. Then, I saw that dumb "Incredible Crew Year's Eve" commercial. My God, what an annoyance that was. I still didn't know what the premise was. I soon figured out that it was a sketch show. Oh, joy.

This show is awful. I almost didn't watch it because of that annoying commercial where the African-American kid keeps saying "It's Incredible Crew Year's Eve!" When I saw the show, I found it bad. The whole Power Rangers spoof skit had such great potential, but what do they waste it on? Oh, just the Not-Power Rangers asking Not-Zordon about the logic behind him only being a disembodied head. Are you kidding me? That's what you call "humor"? You could have done so much more. You could have made fun of the traditional Power Rangers use of cheap stock footage from their Japanese counterparts, you could have made fun of the bad dubbing of the villain's voice, but no. You just use this skit to ask questions concerning a guy who only has a head, and no body. Such a shame.

The rest of the show is like AwesomenessTV, but no bad acting or annoyances, just them saying random garbage and expecting it to get a laugh out of us. I remember after I saw the show and hated it, I saw an Incredible Crew comic in my MAD Magazine. Thank God it was only in an advertisement. I thought I'd give the show a second chance by taking a look at the comic. It was random and non- sensical, but not funny. What a shock, right?

Yeah, that's Incredible Crew, and while it may be bad, at least it's not the worst. It's at least BETTER than the aforementioned AwesomenessTV and that abomination called Nick Studio 10. Unlike that show, Incredible Crew has (well, had) their own time slot, and didn't waste food, abuse dogs, or interrupt CN's other shows. The actors at least try, unlike AwfulnessTV. Thank goodness it's cancelled. I also gotta mention, after the show's decline, the crew came back. This time, trying to get "respect" by being "the voice of reason" for that CN bullying campaign. That's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

I don't recommend it all that much, unless you're curious.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Eh, the First Half Was Okay
5 May 2015
This is a movie that my family loves, and since they love it, I got to witness it. Christmas with the Kranks isn't bad, it's just... kind of boring.

I mean, the first half was good. It set up our plot, it introduced the characters, it did a few jokes here and there, but then the second half came, the moment when the Kranks decide "Screw going on vacation! We're going to stay home so we can please our 20-something daughter!" You may be saying, "Aw, come on! How could that be bad? They're just getting things all ready!" Oh, believe me. It gets bad. The second half just goes on and on and on, from the scene with the burglar, to the scene with Luthor actually wanting to do the cruise while they're having the party, to the Marty bit, it's just so, so long and so, so boring. It just drags on and on and on and it feels like the movie isn't ever going to end! That's what has always bothered me about this movie. But on the other side, it has some good parts, but that second half really gets me. But then again, this was based off of a book, so I'm guessing the long and padded second half was also in the book, but you don't always have to follow the book when it comes to making a movie. I'm sure fans of the source material won't get mad that you didn't follow all of the book's aspects, but I never read the book, so why should I be talking?

Anyway, that's Christmas with the Kranks. It has an okay premise, but the second half really goes on like a telethon. It sort of has the Christmas feel to it, but it's not the same feel as Deck the Halls. Hey! At least there's snow!.... It may be good to catch on TV when it's on, and that's pretty much it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad, But Has a Great Feel to It
28 April 2015
Here's a little story: This past Christmas season, the DirecTV movie channels would air two Christmas movies constantly: One being Jingle All the Way, and the other being this one. Since I heard about how awful this one is from Cinematic Excrement, I decided to check it out.

Yeah, this movie is awful. Matthew Broderick's acting sucks as usual, but it's a treat to watch. Seeing him try to say such lines as "What's happened? What's happening?" and "We live in Massachusetts. I could die!" with such little effort is so great, but there are more things to this movie. Some jokes were good, while the others were horrible. There is one "comedic" scene in particular in which I despise. It is the gag where Steve (Broderick) goes to the police to report Buddy's antics, and the guy at the counter is wearing a bra and thong. Another scene where Broderick's underacting shines is something that takes place at the winter festival that the town has. It involves Steve's daughter with Buddy's girls in a routine called.... Ugh, "The Santa Babies". Usually, a father would be scarred for life if he found out that the girl dressed like that was his daughter, but not here. Steve is just up there smiling away while saying "I'm your daddy!" But I must say, the scene where they're in the church washing themselves with holy water after seeing that is pretty funny.

Yeah, this film sucks, but in the end, it has a nice feel to it. It has a Christmas-like feel to it, where everything turns out right in the end, and people end up celebrating the holiday in happiness. So, yeah. Horrible movie, but it has a nice feeling to it.

If this movie happens to be on anytime soon, I wouldn't really recommend it. That's up to you to decide. Watch at your own risk. You've been warned.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rad (1986)
A Film That Delivers
28 April 2015
This film is called Rad, and that's exactly what it is: A truly radical experience. I admit, I did hear about this movie from the Nostalgia Critic's review of it. Then, when I heard the epic song "Break the Ice" and when I heard about how much of an audience it attracted, I decided to check it out... Right at the perfect time, summer of freshman year. I was in for a kick-ass experience.

The film's opening is awesome. It's nothing but dudes on BMX bikes showing off their tricks. Just amazing! After the opening, we get our main character, Cru Jones. He reminds me of Rocky, an underdog who is determined to get something done, despite the odds against him. It's funny to mention Rocky, because Talia Shire (Adrian from Rocky) is in this movie. We also have Aunt Becky from Full House in this movie. Man, what a babe! In the end, everything turns out great.

This movie sure knows how to deliver. It's marketed as a BMX movie, and that's what it gives us. Awesome. It's also inspirational. Before I saw this film, I saw riding my bike as a dead phase of my life. Now, after I saw the movie, I can't get enough of my bike. I like going outside on my bike and trying to do tricks and stuff. It sucks how this movie was only released to VHS. We need this film on DVD. Official DVD, which means that the homebrews out on the Internet don't count. Well, the folks at InHD came to the rescue and released a version of this movie with DVD-like quality, and it was awesome. Notice: I said "was", which means that every copy of this version that was uploaded to YouTube have now been taken down thanks to a false copyright claim by Warner Bros., even though they don't own the movie. Luckily, I caught on early that these were being taken down, so I snagged a copy and saved it to my SD card. Just look at us fans, the extremes we have to go through to get this film out on DVD.

Don't look at this film as a piece of '80s that was only a fad, look at it as Rocky on bikes. Yeah, the music is pretty dated, but that shouldn't matter today, since it seems like all modern movies rely on music from the past to use in their films, but who could blame them? Bottom line, this film was great then and it's great now.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
3 Ninjas (1992)
Feel-Good Childhood Movie
20 April 2015
Back in 3rd grade, I had just moved to a new town, so I was at the library in that town. I had just been done watching the live-action Ninja Turtles movies for the first time, so I also discovered a little VHS called "3 Ninjas". Of course, after seeing TMNT I, II, and III, I just HAD to watch this movie. And I did.

As a kid, I just ate this stuff up. I loved these movies to death. I thought they were the best things ever. I never understood why everybody hated it, but I got older, and I realize why many people hate this movie: It's too unrealistic. But who cares? Not every movie has to be just like real-life. Of course, the 3 Ninjas formula with kids beating the crap out of adults has grown since the release of this movie, but it has gotten way stupid, to the point where the bad guys are bumbling fools who don't fight back. But you don't see that in this movie. It has a pretty dark tone to it. Snyder, the villain isn't just some stupid fool like with things like this nowadays, he's a pretty menacing villain, so that's something that holds up.

Another thing that holds up is the action. I love the fight scenes, but it's too bad that a lot of the violence was cut to secure a 'PG' rating. But it's cool now, since the extended cut has surfaced and for some reason only played on movie channels like Showtime.

This movie also has some pretty awesome music. It's a shame that an OST for the film's score was never released.

Something I don't like about the hate for this movie is how everyone seems to just call this a rip-off of Home Alone and the first live-action TMNT movie just because of the quote from the Boston Globe on the cover of the VHS and DVD. Look, guys, the Boston Globe panned both Home Alone and TMNT, they're not trying to promote it as a rip-off or anything, so calm down.

That's my review. Don't look for Citizen Kane in this movie, and don't pass it off as something on the same level as Dora. Just look at it as entertaining fun.

And as for the sequels? Well, Knuckle Up and Kick Back were good. Knuckle Up is my favorite because it's action on overdrive, and it doesn't care what the MPAA thinks, because they got a PG-13 rating and took it. Kick Back brought back the same charm that the original had. But High Noon at Mega Mountain was crap. The plot was too silly, but it's fun to watch and laugh at.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Critters 3 (1991)
Not That Bad
15 April 2015
Recently, I obtained the Critters 4-pack at a Dollar General. Since seeing any Critters movies at a store is such a rare occurrence, I decided to buy it. This way, I can finally watch the movies without having an Internet connection and I can also finally watch the two Critters movies that I have not seen yet: Critters 3 and Critters 4. After I saw the second film, I was shaky to see the third and fourth installments. The third one looked okay and the fourth one looked really boring. So, since I bought the 4-pack, I decided to give number 3 a watch. I saw it, and....

It's an okay movie. Yeah, it kind of sucks that we don't have any Brown family members in this movie, but then again, it would just be the same old stuff. The new characters are alright. I would've loved to see the bounty hunters back, but maybe it's a good thing that they're not in this movie, since we could finally be able to see how people kill the Crites without help from them. But the movie has it's fair share of stupid moments, like the scene where Josh (played by DiCaprio, by the way)mumbles to his dad that he didn't like being called "sport". Yeah, I get the "sport" part. His father called him that until his death, but we never saw Josh sigh or show any sign of getting bothered by the name, so it comes off as weird. We also have a Critter farting gag. I would've never thought that a Critters movie would stoop to that much of a low. Also, this is the only movie in the series (so far) that one of the Crites is given a name. In one scene, one Crite is referred to as Blackie by another Crite. The only character from the previous movies that appears in this one is Charlie. He's still Charlie.

Well, it's nice how they chose to be on Earth in this one instead of boring space like the fourth one. And one day, I'll get to that movie. I hope it's not as bad as I think.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Game of Death (1978)
Not So Bad
31 March 2015
I think every Bruce Lee fan will automatically think disgrace when one brings up Game of Death, but honestly, it's not that bad.

I actually love this movie. Yeah, I know using stock footage of the guy to complete the film isn't the best idea, but they had nothing else to work with. They used it to make it look like he was actually there, which is fine, but sometimes, the stock footage reveals that Lee isn't really there. Examples are the post-credits scene, where they just use the scene from Way of the Dragon where Lee's character beats up Chuck Norris' character, Colt; and the scene where Billy gets shot, in which they use the ending of Fist of Fury. I think most people will think those clips belong in different movies.

This film has awesome fight scenes, with my favorite being the scene where Billy beats up Stick in the rain. The triumphant music, awesome fight moves, and the rain setting make it a pretty good fight. I like the choreography of this movie. There's lots of kicks, punches, and flips to satisfy you. But the one fight scene that lacks is the locker room fight. I think it's a bit cartoony (case in point: The part where Billy repeatedly kicks Killer Miller.) Another fight scene that's a bit lacking is the fight with Steiner, because there's this one scene in particular where "Steiner" kicks Billy, but the leg belongs to Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

I think the guys behind this movie knew that they couldn't use stock footage of Lee all throughout the movie to make him look like he's present, so they used a double and put him in shades, which look like the same shades the real Bruce Lee wore. Clever.

But I can agree with most Bruce Lee fans that the scene with Billy's funeral is real disgraceful. They use actual footage of Bruce Lee's funeral. And there's actually a part in this scene where they show a clip of the actual dead Bruce Lee. What a disgrace. But at least later in the movie, where the bad guys dig up his grave, you just see a fake head, rather than showing us a picture of a dead Bruce Lee.

Anyways, this review felt all over the place. I recommend that you see this movie. It has great action scenes, excellent music, good villains, and they use the footage that Lee shot for his version of Game of Death quite well. An example is the scene where Billy's friend, Jim is telling him a story at the restaurant about something the bad guys did to someone, where they use footage from the original Game of Death, which features a character from that version getting strangled to death by Kareem. It's cool that they used that scene there since that character wasn't written into this version.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Max and Shred (2014–2016)
Great Show!
13 February 2015
When I first saw commercials for this show, I was like, "Oh, man! Here comes another dumb Dan Schneider show that's gonna have bad comedy, annoying characters, and the nerdy kid is just going to be a punching bag!" I was 100% wrong. This came from Canada, who seem to make great shows (Life with Boys came from Canada, and that show seemed okay), and this was not created by Dan Schneider (thank goodness!) I saw the show, and it was pretty good. I love it.

The kid who plays Alvin (Shred) is a pretty great actor, and he kind of reminds me of Josh Nichols from Drake & Josh. Max is a surprisingly nice guy. He doesn't pick on Alvin like you would expect, he actually likes the guy. This show has something that modern Dan Schneider shows don't, and that's comedy. This show doesn't rely on randomly yelling out pointless crap, weird words, and names of foods (*ahem* Mr. Schneider). An example is the episode where there's a snow day, and Alvin has to face his fear of dressing up in an animal costume for some family fun skit. Hey! It may not SEEM funny, but at least it's better than that man I mentioned above.

I do not think that Nickelodeon shows this anymore, which is a real bummer. I'm not going to go all angry and talk about how they do this kind of crap to all the good shows, but I would just be sounding like a broken record.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Actual Good Show
13 February 2015
This show was pretty damn good. I found it surprisingly good. Going by the commercials, I thought this was gonna blow, but it turned out pretty good. I love this show, but sadly, Nickelodeon is in that stage where the instant they hear about one of their shows getting so much praise, they drop it like an atomic bomb (well, that's the over-dramatic version.)They took off Korra, they took off You Gotta See This, and they took off this. All of these shows were good (well, I've never seen Korra, but it seems like EVERYONE loves it), and of course, Nick had to can them, making room for crap like Henry Danger and Sanjay & Craig.

ANYWAY, getting back to the review, this was a pretty smart show. It was about this boy who was already sophisticated living with this laid-back guy. It seems mediocre, I know, but when you see it, it is amazing.

For starters, this show actually takes Jerry Trainor seriously. For once, he's not an annoyance. Not an annoying secret agent dog, not an annoying artist manchild, and not a crazy person, he's finally not annoying. Sure, he kind of has the characteristics of a manchild, but he's the mature kind of manchild, who goes out on dates, drinks, and stuff, but still wants to live life the cool way. Him and Wendell bond perfectly.

I like how Wendell, although he has a mature personality, tries to live life in his childhood. He goes through normal kid things, like sleepovers.

The writing isn't toned down to the lowest common denominator like most of Nick's live-action programming (I'm talking to YOU, Dan Schneider!), and it isn't filled with stupid dialog (again, talking to YOU, Dan!) But with all this genius behind the show, it had to get cancelled. WHY? Well... Probably a ratings or viewers issue or something, but let's talk about the hatred of this show.

Forgive me if I sound like a Justin Bieber fangirl here, but the people who hated on this show are people who can't get their heads out of their asses, and hate on modern Nick program just because it's modern, and it comes from the channel that apparently "ruined their childhoods". They complained about this show because someone supposedly got pregnant and someone said "Damn" or drank alcohol or something like that. Well, maybe it's for ADULTS!!!! That's why it aired in the night, isn't it? There's a little program called Nick @ Nite, you know. And plus, you complain when a kids show isn't adult enough, but when there's a kid show that has some adult humor in there (this show is more for adults, but let's just say it's for kids for this example), you complain about the adult appeal in there. Don't believe me? Well, someone on Facebook commented about the Rabbids shoving an egg back up a rooster's behind in the Rabbids Invasion cartoon. Well, I've never seen that show, but maybe it's for kids AND adults. Geez!

Sorry about that little rant, but ever since I heard about the hate for Wendell and Vinnie, I had all this built-up rage that I had to let out. Anyways, after the cancellation, the show was brought to the TeenNick channel, the burial ground for old cancelled Nickelodeon and Nick @ Nite shows. Well, it's now off. How sad.

Well, I'll miss you, Wendell & Vinnie. You were a great show.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed