How I rate films:
.5 stars: 1/10 - Horrendous, hard to endure.
1 star: 2/10 - Really bad.
1.5 stars: 3/10 - Bad.
2 stars: 4/10 - Pretty bad, bad scenes outweigh the good ones.
2.5 stars: 5/10 - Near decent, has some good aspects and bad aspects to it but not one I'd watch again soon.
3 stars: 6/10 - Average, nothing fresh and it doesn't really bring anything special to the genre but it's nothing I regret seeing.
3.5 stars: 7/10 - Better than average, enjoyable. Flawed but pretty good.
4 stars: 8/10 - A great film, often a new favourite.
4.5 stars: 9/10 - A near perfect film, something that's really enjoyable and is really memorable.
5 stars: 10/10 - A masterpiece, something I really enjoy.
I'm a really big film watcher, and I really like a lot of genres of film (especially comedies, thrillers and horror). I've only been writing reviews for a few months, but I've always really loved movies. I see film as an art form, and films can have really great meaning. Oh, and I'm actually seventeen, not eighteen. That's about it.
Visit my blog if you get the chance? http://filmcraziest.wordpress.com/
Summer 2013 seems like a time for vulnerable heroes. First, Iron Man/Tony Stark experienced anxiety after the events of The Avengers in Iron Man 3. Now, it's Captain James Kirk's time. After losing something he holds dear, he takes his U.S.S. Enterprise crew after a Enterprise agent turned fugitive, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), to settle a personal score. This mission is really bigger than any of them ever expected it to be.
It has become apparent that the plotlines for Star Trek movies are essentially wars of those technologically advanced spaceships, where the ship with the biggest guns win, and often enough, practically just the protoganostical U.S.S. Enterprise. They are often enough just traditional revenge stories; and they don't elevate above that, because they don't have to. These stories are average for my liking; and that's the case with this. It is also the reason why, while both of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek films have been well-done, it does not make me eager to seek out any of the Star Trek TV shows or movies with Shatner or Stewart. I'm good with watching Pine and Quinto rock their roles.
Simon Pegg's Scotty and newcomer Alice Eve's Carol become more primary characters of the Enterprise, as well as, of course, Kirk and Spock. However, there isn't enough of a focus on Uhara (Zoe Saldana) or Bones (Karl Urban), and the mostly secondary characters of Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) become more secondary. They have few duties to fulfill; but they are mostly critical to the plot. They're really on memorable in a few scenes. Bones is usually the prime character of comic relief, and while he does produce a few good yuks; Scotty's the main comic relief in the movie. Will you hear many complaints? Not really, because Simon Pegg is very funny. The whole crew still works as an ensemble, where Eve makes this sci-fi fun a little more sexy. Spock is a likeable Vulcan, who really talks like a computer; and Quinto is such a strong actor, that you might yearn for more of him in roles where he doesn't have pointy ears and a bowl-shaped haircut. The layer of emotional vulnerability that is added to Kirk is creative, and so is the contrasting layer added to Spock; where he is afraid of portraying many emotions, because he doesn't want to feel the same feelings he did when his home planet was destroyed.
Some of the best scenes are emotionally powerful ones, as well as some fun scenes where the crew mostly bickers. That isn't exactly good for an action movie. Some of the action sequences are stunning, but others might just give you a headache - especially in IMAX 3D. That's the point, they're bigger, they're badder, they're bolder. More than a few are forgettable, but there are some really special ones that stand out. The story is somewhat easy to follow, even if it becomes complex. That is mainly thanks to the main villain, John Harrison. His backstory is complex, but it receives a decent explanation. Benedict Cumberbatch is a booming on-screen presence. When Kirk relentlessly hits him, he just stands there without a scratch with a facial expression that asks, "What are you trying to do, puny man?" He's savage, he's deadly, he's brilliant, he's terrifying. He makes Eric Bana's Nero look like a little mouse. I think it further implants the influence of The Dark Knight's The Joker on action movies, where writers are now trying to find the next, big, brilliant terrorist mind. This guy is it. He is the most memorable part of the movie. He absolutely dominates the film. This isn't Pine's show, not Quinto's, and not even Abrams' any longer. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Benedict Cumberbatch's Star Trek Into Darkness.
While I wouldn't call this the year's best film, I will call it the year's best action and science fiction movie. The plot might be reminiscent of a few prior movies, so contrary to one of the franchise's most prominent mottos, it might feel like it is going where prior movies have gone before. There are a few memorable action scenes and amusing exchanges of dialogue. The villain outdoes the villain of its predecessor; but I think the crew doesn't become utilized as well, and I also don't think it has the same magic as the first. Still, it's pretty damn good, and it's fun, summer entertainment.
Blue Sky Studios is best known for their Ice Age movies. Chris Wedge, co-director of that franchise, goes solo with Epic, the third animated movie of 2013 (after Escape from Planet Earth and The Croods). It follows the female protoganist, M.K. (voiced by Amanda Seyfried), who is forced to re-locate to the home of her estranged father, Professor Bomba (voiced by Jason Sudeikis), after her mother's death. Her father is an eccentric character, as he is convinced there are tiny people living out in the woods.
It turns out, there is. But it's a little more complex than that. It's a challenge of good and evil of the Leaf Men, who, by protecting the queen (voiced by Beyoncé Knowles), preserve the life of the forest; but the evil Boggans threaten them with powers of decay. Today is the day Queen Tara must pick the pod to be the heir to her throne. M.K. is mixed up with this world when she is turned from a stomper (the Leaf Men term of big humans) to a little miniature human. She must team up with a crew to help keep the pod away from the malevolent leader of the Boggans, Mandrake (voiced by Christoph Waltz), in order to save their world, and ours.
It must be expected that a movie called Epic really won't be so damn epic. It turns out to be a good, light-hearted animated flick that teaches kids about teamwork and that, even if you feel alone, you truly aren't. It's a nice message, and the way the filmmakers portray it is imaginative and admirable. The animation has a great, human look and feel to it. It might as well be an animated version of The Borrowers, just with very mild action sequences, in a very fun, but forgettable story.
It's an old-fashioned, good vs. the forces of evil, predictable and formulaic ride. The imaginative action sequences are fun and have intensity present. There's a lot of room for imagination at play, but there are only a few notable characters. The main Boggan, Mandrake, is often psychotic and threatening for a children's movie, but nothing that will have kiddies waking up in the middle of the night with nightmares. He has some memorable lines, but he's more underwhelming than anyone could believe a character portrayed by Christoph Waltz could ever be.
Nod (Josh Hutcherson) is a misfit Leaf Man who needs to learn about teamwork, and the primary Leaf Man, Ronin (Colin Farrell), is precisely the man to teach it to him. He's a no-nonsense character, and Queen Tara desperately wants to see his smiling face. She requests this in a truly dull fashion. I don't have much praise to hand out to Knowles, Hutchison, Seyfried or really even Farrell, but I don't have anything to fault them for, either. They just don't stand out so well. Many of the characters have good lines, but you'll forget their names (most notably Bomba, Bufo, and M.K.) as soon as you walk out of the theatre.
There are four characters whose names and presences no one will forget anytime soon. Nim Guluu is the "rock-star" information keeper of the miniature world, appropriately voiced by rock star Steven Tyler. There's also a silly, three-legged dog who mostly just runs in circles. The laid-back slug called Mub (Aziz Ansari) and his uptight snail associate, Grub (Chris O'Dowd), are the true scene-stealers of the movie. They're hilarious in the way Mub thinks he has a chance with M.K., and how Grub is an aspiring Leaf Man. (Let that irony sink in for a second.) They're never annoying, always funny, and the movie is at its most lively when they're on-screen. Who thought slimy little things could be so appealing?
Epic isn't quite, y'know, epic, but it's a predictable and funny ride that is a blast once it really gets going. For the most part, it's about as memorable as its generic title. The great animation and hilarious and slimy scene-stealers make this memorable, and something worth watching twice. Christoph Waltz, to his best ability, rocks his role and he shines when Mandrake is at his most psychotic. You care for the protagonists, because no one wants to see a forest rot to the ground, right?
Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms star in an original tale of bad decisions and mayhem. The movie I'm talking about is 2009?s The Hangover. The first sequel has a severe case of sequelitis (exact same thing as the first). We now arrive at The Hangover Part III, a movie that suffers from a far more common and simple occurrence: bad movie syndrome.
After the death of Alan's father, the wolfpack take Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to a mental hospital to get his problems sorted out. On the way there, they are assaulted and Doug is kidnapped (again). They must find Leslie Chow and bring him to Marshall, Doug's kidnapper, in order to save Doug.
This isn't able to cut ties to the original or the first sequel. The plot afoot, where Marshall (John Goodman) kidnaps Doug (Justin Bartha), in consequence to what Chow did in the first. They go to Las Vegas, again. The filmmakers don't keep some of the best components: Stu singing a song, good comedy, and worst of all, a hangover. These guys are never drunk during the movie! Todd Phillips is so terrified of making the same movie three times; he changes the overall tone. Viewers who are expecting to cry from laughter will be sorely disappointed. It has some funny scenes, because you might laugh at Alan being his idiotic self; but most of the content is so dark, it can't be considered funny.
One joke that becomes exhausting is when Alan pretends to give someone a high five, but it's a sike-out and he grooms his hair instead. It's a little funny the first time; and since it's not so funny the second time, it sure as hell won't be funny the third freaking time. Stu (Ed Helms) is relied on to make gagging noises at disgusting parts. The only characters that have should-be funny dialogue are Alan (of course) and Chow, a character who is truly better as a cameo, not a primary role.
The problem is, both Alan and Chow become more and more irritating as the movie progresses. The fact that thinking of a truly funny scene in a comedy movie, especially one of The Hangover franchise, is a huge issue. This one is memorable for all the wrong reasons. The first produces a laugh-a-minute, almost, but here you'll be lucky to laugh every ten. This is truly the most bizarre out of the three; and the plotting is ludicrous.
The humour is mean-spirited and, often enough, downright despicable. These sociopathic and passive-aggressive characters only seem to care about retrieving Doug. Alan, an overweight toddler with an awesome beard, is the only one with a heart because he begins to learn the folly of his ways. Bradley Cooper is generally unfunny as the calm and collected one. This will be remembered as that one movie that broke Bradley Cooper's hot streak.
This has a few forgettable laughs, but its dark tone makes this memorable for the wrong reason. This really should be excellent, because the trailers make this look promising. Optimistic fans of the franchise will not find a bigger disappointment this summer season. The filmmakers give making a good movie the old college try; but giving something 'the old college try' shouldn't mean it will feel like it's written by mentally disturbed college students.
Read the full review at http://filmcraziest.wordpress.com/
This quote from Billy Madison, said by the Principal to Madison, sums up my thoughts on this film really well (I have paraphrased it extensively), ?Mr. Zucker, your movie is one of the most insanely bad films I have ever seen. At no point in your god-awful excuse for a comedy were you even close to anything that could be considered a hilarious joke. Everyone who sat through this is now dumber for having seen it. I award your movie no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.?
In the parody sub-genre that?s already standing on a thin wire, Scary Movie 5 comes into play and curses the world. It?s not refreshing or witty. It?s sophomoric, tedious and, worst of all, painfully unfunny. The filmmakers reach to the very bottom-of-the-barrel for laughs. There are many fart jokes, and you?ll forget every joke one minute after they say it. The jokes are everything a ten year-old boy might find hysterical.
The jokes are unfunny, they don?t conquer any punch-line because there isn?t one, and they?re so, so predictable. If a man stands under a frying pan, what should one expect to happen? There?s also a scene shared between Snoop Dogg and Mac Miller where they are escaping from pot farmers after they steal a giant blunt from their harvest. As a hiding place, Dogg sees a cabin in the woods in the distance, and suggests they go there. Miller replies, ?I don?t know, that reminds me of a horror movie I once saw?? Dogg would suggest a title, ?Texas Chainsaw Massacre?? To which Miller says, ?No, the one with the cabin in the woods!? This goes on for what feels like ten minutes, until Dogg gets fed up. He seems like a saviour to the audience for stopping this nonsense, but he?s still the one who?s in the movie. We get that, yes, there are 30+ horror movies that have a cabin in the woods in it. Thank you, Zucker, but do you have to show us that in this predictable, lazy and endlessly tedious exchange?
This is such an embarrassment, so much that, everyone involved should move to a country where movies are unheard of, change their name and live the rest of their lives there. Mostly because when this is as bad as Disaster Movie or Meet the Spartans, one knows their movie won?t be a success. When you request more Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen, your movie is terrible. It?s also terrible if the strongest scene is a poor ?comedic? sex scene shared between those two, where they inexplicably rustle around under the covers, and soon enough midgets and even a small horse join the fun. Whoever thought ?Haha, hey, this is going to be really funny!? should be hit by a car, or, if that?s too extreme, fired.
Following the norm, spoof movies always have meaningless characters and a haphazard plot that just makes fun of movies that are way better than it. Some of the movies that are spoofed include: Black Swan, Mama, Evil Dead, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Inception, Paranormal Activity 4, The Cabin in the Woods, and Insidious, among others. This takes seventy minutes to get to the end, and it feels like a two-hour runtime. This is what torture feels like. The fact that the ten-minute blooper reel is miraculously more painful than the movie itself, is baffling.
There?s very little that this has to offer. It spoofs movie after movie, and even ones the writers aren?t smart enough to understand. One of these titles include Black Swan. Darren Aronofsky?s style of cinematography is mocked by filming Tisdale walking to an audition, and she just begins to walk in reverse. It?s not funny. It?s indubitably stupid. It?s no wonder that none of the original cast members are a part of this, and to make it even more offensive? They make an obnoxious character that is an obvious knock-off of Regina Hall?s Brenda Meeks (this character is called Kendra Brooks). Simon Rex is from the third and fourth Scary Movie, and he?s somehow even worse now. No one in this movie is funny. At all. Especially not Ashley Tisdale. Who would have thought one person could miss Anna Farris so, so much?
There?s little good that can be said about this movie. It?s in focus, sure. It?s the first spoof movie (and hopefully the last) that mocks 2013?s Mama and Evil Dead. However, that?s also one of the movie?s most idiotic choices. Evil Dead might be considered a remake, but it?s more of a reboot and since it was only released April 5, that means the filmmakers have to do a few last-minute, amateurish adjustments to fit it into the storyline. Also, if Evil Dead is still in theatres, wouldn?t it only be logical to go and watch the real thing and not this piece of crap? Mama is also not a prominent horror movie in popular culture just yet, and it isn?t nearly as popular as Insidious or Paranormal Activity. These are some of the filmmaker?s biggest screw-ups because the audience likes to be aware of which movie is being mocked.
The fact that this movie is not R-rated is an absolute farce. There is one f-bomb and non-stop sexual humour throughout. (Even some of the swear words throughout are bleeped, which is RIDICULOUS for a Hollywood production.)
The movie?s masterwork could be the narrator, who might or might not be Morgan Freeman. It isn?t. It?s an impersonator. It?s really stupid. Filmmakers, if you can?t get Morgan Freeman to narrate your movie, either follow Seth MacFarlane?s decision and settle for Patrick Stewart, or, I don?t know, don?t have a narrator at all!
This is not only the worst addition to the Scary Movie franchise, Worst Movie of the Year Contender, but a Worst Film of All-Time Contender. I also sincerely hope this is where the franchise ends. This movie makes me want to find the Book of the Dead, recite every phrase in that book, and unleash demons onto the world. I?ll read it in Latin, English, Greek, French, Clik-Clak, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Cherokee, Taushiro; all languages so it wakes up foreign demons, and it stops at least some of the world from experiencing this lazy and dreadful movie.
Lawless is probably the most fun you'll have not understanding half the words that come out of the actors' mouths. They don't exactly master Southern accents; especially, Tom Hardy. The guy's a fantastic actor, but he's no Christian Bale in mastering any kind-of American accent. The actors are fantastic in their roles, but you might have to put on the subtitles when the Bondurant's are on-screen. And that's almost the whole time. The ensemble cast is one of the more memorable of 2012; composed of Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain (she gets nude!), Dane DeHaan, Jason Clarke, Mia Wasikowska, and a very small role from the always-fantastic Gary Oldman.
The story follows a bootlegging gang (the Bondurant family) who get threatened by a new deputy and other authorities who want a cut of their profits. It's a slow story at that, but it's gruesomely violent and one heck of a gangster feature. It's set in the fascinating Prohibition era in Franklin County, Virginia, and it's essentially a story of standing up for oneself. Especially for the youngest Bondurant, Jack (LaBeouf), whose innocence is heavily contrasted by the incredibly tough Howard (Clarke) and the brain and brawn, Forrest (Hardy). They're not the type to give away a cent of their profits, and it's usually entertaining to watch the violent brawls and how they defend what's right. If you like Prohibition era gangster movies, Guy Pearce playing a major nance, shoot-outs, great ensemble casts but a fairly forgettable story, and well-developed characters; check this out. Prepare to use subtitles whenever Tom Hardy speaks.