Jordan P.'s Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

This user has no Want to See movie selections yet.

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

The Adventures of Tintin
4 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

It's been three years since Steven Spielberg released a movie, which was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It delighted some, and disappointed others. Personally, I enjoyed it. Is it the caliber of Raiders of the Lost Ark or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Not by a long shot. But it's a fun movie, in spite of a few leaps Spielberg took with the logic of Indiana Jones. Jump three years later, and he releases two films: The Adventures of Tintin, which marks his first collaboration with Sir Peter Jackson, and War Horse. I have yet to see War Horse(I am going to), but I've just seen The Adventures of Tintin, and I can honestly say that I'm really glad I did. It's a very enjoyable, rip-roaring action film. This is Steven Spielberg when he directed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The animation is spectacular, and why wouldn't it be? It's by Sir Peter Jackson's special effects company Weta, which also did The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, King Kong, and James Cameron's Avatar. You almost wonder if Spielberg would've used these special effects for the Indiana Jones movies had they existed in the 1980s. Personally, I think he would, and he uses them effectively in The Adventures of Tintin. It serves the story, is pleasing to the eye, and captivates you every step of the way. It feels like the first time you watch an Indiana Jones movie, whether it's The Last Crusade, like it was for me, or Raiders, like it was for pretty much everybody, or even The Temple of Doom for others.
The Adventures of Tintin, which is based on three stories by Hergé, opens on a young journalist named Tintin(Bell), along with his dog Snowy, buying a model of the Unicorn, which is a ship. After that, he gets thrown into an adventure when Sakharine(Craig), a mysterious man who has a deep obsession with the secret of the Unicorn, has his accomplices abduct Tintin and Snowy and taken to sea, where Tintin meets Captain Archibald Haddock(Serkis), a drunk who has ties with the Unicorn. So begins the rip-roaring adventure.
All of the actors were good, but my favorite performance comes from Andy Serkis, who's best known for his work in motion capture whether it's Gollum from The Lord of the Rings, Kong from producer Sir Peter Jackson's King Kong, or the main gorilla from Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes. He's a main cause for why motion-capture is now a form of motion-picture storytelling, and it's effective in this movie.
If I had any complaints about this film, it would be how busy it was. While the story made sense and was easy to follow, it rarely gave you a moment to breathe. You hit the ground running from beginning to end. Also, there were times when I wish they could've gotten a little more into who Tintin was. But I'm sure we'll get that in the two sequels coming up.
In the end, this is action director Steven Spielberg at his finest since the Indiana Jones movies, and if you're a fan of those movies, you will like this one. It's engaging, full of humor and tense action, and a story that shows in every scene. Like I said, there are two sequels to Tintin in the works with Sir Peter Jackson directing the first sequel and both Spielberg and Jackson directing the second sequel. All I can say is: bring it on, just as long as you follow the rules you both have set up with this movie.

Scrooged (1988)
4 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

It's rare that a movie becomes #1 on my worst movies list. This made it as #1.
The biggest problem with this movie is the appalling screenplay. It wasn't even a screenplay. It was more like notes all pasted together. The writers must have been asleep at the wheel when they were writing it. The laughs didn't work, the messages didn't work. There basically was no goal in this movie. I would rather have ten brain-freezes in a row than watch SCROOGED again.
This take of Charles Dickens' classic tale A CHRISTMAS CAROL is updated to 1988, with the Ebenezer Scrooge character as a president for a TV Network IBC(obviously a play-on of NBC), Frank Cross(Murray). His whole persona is basically a one-dimensional jerk who cares very little for people, including his sweetheart, Claire(Karen Allen). Then he's visited by his 7-year dead boss who tells him that he will be haunted by three spirits. And he is, as the basic template of A CHRISTMAS CAROL plays out.
There was a lot of talent, especially Karen Allen, in this movie, and it was all wasted on non-existent writing. You'd think that the writers would've learned a thing or two about structure. In this case, they threw structure out completely.
That's not to say there aren't any good parts. There actually are only three truly funny parts in this movie: Bobcat Goldthwait, who does his usual annoying voice; Carol Kane as an abusive Ghost of Christmas Present; and the dead boss. That's it. And even some of what Carol Kane did(the blowing rasperries on people's stomachs) was uncomfortably stupid. I can't even call this movie offbeat. Monty Python was the master of offbeat humor. This was a horrible attempt at it. Avoid it at all cost.

Fright Night
Fright Night (2011)
5 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

DIRECTOR: Craig Gillespie
CAST: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, David Tennant

Most horror fans are familiar with the 1985 cult classic FRIGHT NIGHT, which starred Chris Sarandon as the vampire Jerry Dandridge, William Ragsdale as the main human Charley Brewster, the late Roddy McDowell as Peter Vincent the Great Vampire Killer, Amanda Bearse as Charley's girlfriend Amy Peterson, and Stephen Geoffreys as "Evil" Ed Thompson, Charley's friend. It's a fun horror movie to watch, especially around Halloween, and it was Tom Holland's debut as a director. He would later go on to direct the first CHILD'S PLAY, THINNER, as well as direct an episode of "Masters of Horror." So when it was announced that FRIGHT NIGHT would get remade, it's understandable to wonder, "Why?" Why remake something that isn't broken? Immediately, you prepare yourself for disappointment. But, Craig Gillespie's 2011 version of FRIGHT NIGHT is no disappointment. In fact, it's potentially better than Tom Holland's original version.
FRIGHT NIGHT opens up in Las Vegas, in a residential area in the desert, where people, including students, have been disappearing without a trace, and no one really talks about it. They brush it off like, "People disappear all the time, it's Las Vegas." And that's understandable, considering the setting. Enter Charley Brewster(Yelchin), a former Omega male trading his dweebish life to associate with the Alphas, even to the point of abandoning his friend, "Evil" Ed Lee(Mintz-Plasse), and get the girl, Amy(Poots). Ed suspects Charley's new next door neighbor, Jerry(Farrell), of being a vampire. At first, Charley scoffs, criticizing the pairing of the name "Jerry" along with the species of "vampire". However, after one night of association with Jerry, Charley realizes that he is a vampire, and a malicious one at that. Charley then travels to the bright, show-bizzy city of Las Vegas to enlist the help of Criss Angel-esque illusionist and supposed vampire expert, Peter Vincent(Tennant), only to be turned down. He's basically alone in this, and that's how Jerry likes it.
While down to its bones its the same story, this version of FRIGHT NIGHT is an all-together different movie, which is what makes it so good. As much as I love Holland's original film, the 2011 script by Marti Noxon, who's most famous for her writing contributions to the TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", feels more complete. There are no plot-holes, the twists work, the characters are well-rounded, you get backstories, the mother(Collette), isn't as ditzy as the 1985 version, and the vampire is a hell of a lot more evil and malignant than Chris Sarandon's Jerry. He loves being a vampire, and you feel that every frame he's in. You also had better actors playing Ed and Amy in this film. In fact, everyone in this version was absolutely perfect.
Now, that's not to say it puts Holland's film to shame, because it doesn't, and I'll always be nostalgic for the 1985 film. It's Holland's story, and Noxon and Gillespie realize that, which is why they added so many little nods to the original film in their version. However, from a filmmaking standpoint, this one is far superior to the original FRIGHT NIGHT, and as a story, it's well-rounded and makes for a great annual viewing for Halloween. Horror fans will appreciate it, and newcomers will love it.
The Reviewer approves.

RATING: 4.5/5