Brendan C.'s Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews

American Beauty

"I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me. But it's hard o stay mad when there is so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I am seeing it all at once, and it is too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that is about to burst. And then I remember to relax. And stop trying to hold on to it. And then it flows through me like rain. And I can feel anything but gratitude for every moment of my stupid little life. You have no idea what I'm talking about do you? But don't worry you will someday." - Lester Burnham

American Beauty was the directorial debut of Sam Mendes. He won best director for this, and the movie won best picture for the year of 1999. Kevin Spacey got the award for best actor for the 2nd time in his career. The film won a total of 5 Oscars, and it is truly won of the greatest films ever made.

It is one of my favorite movies as well. I have seen this 2 and a half times, and I never watch a movie twice so that says a lot coming from me. I have a love hate thing with it however, because the characters in this movie are all really flawed and kind of nasty. There are a few characters that you really like, but even they have some really huge flaws in them. The American dream is to have a job, and a house so you can raise a family. However that dream in reality is very flawed and this movie shows that. Nobody in this movie is happy so it is a very depressing movie that bothers you at times. I found it to be a very dark black comedy. I also found it to be thought provoking, and interesting.

A dead man narrates the story. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is dead, and he is narrating the story of the last year of his life. He has less then a year before he dies, but he doesn't know it, but he pretty much already is. He is a walking cliché. He is depressed, he has been working in the same job for years, and his family thinks he is a loser. His wife Caroline (Annette Bening) is miserable, and she hates herself. She is a total fake, and she does the worst job trying to hide the fact that she is miserable. She is a bully to Lester and to their daughter Jane (Thorah Birch). I hated her completely. I thought Annette Bening did a great acting job, because I hated her character so much, and you were supposed to so she gets props for that. Jane is a typical teenage girl. She is angry, confused, and she has bad self-esteem. It doesn't help her that her friend Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari) is beautiful, and all she cares about is her looks. Angela is the most arrogant person I have ever seen. She and Caroline are the two characters that I couldn't stand. Angela is the American beauty in the story. However in the end I think that they tried to make you think that Jane is the American beauty. Because they make her look better and better as the film goes along, and they make Angela look like a really ugly person.

Lester develops a crush on her, and it is very creepy, because she is his daughter's best friend. He fantasizes about her naked in a bed of roses. The fantasies can be funny, because his facial expressions when he is in the middle of them are hilarious. I think Kevin Spacey won the Oscar for this film, because of how funny he was in the film. He eventually starts to change his life, and begins to stand up for himself, and that is when the movie gets really good. My favorite scene is when he has a fight with his wife in the middle of the night, and then he just stands up for himself and leaves her stunned. Also the scene at dinner when he starts saying how he gets treated like he doesn't exist, and he throws the plate at the wall. That scene really bothered me, but I loved it. Lester is one of the few characters who you cheer for in this film. I found that I could relate to him, because at times I want to change like he did, and basically say the hell with this. I wouldn't go as far as he did, because he did start doing weed, and blackmailed his boss. His story is another breaking bad story that you see in a lot of things. However he really starts to cause stress with his family once he starts to stand up for himself.

The next-door neighbor Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley) just moved in. He is a pot dealer, and user. He films everything that goes on around him, including Jane. It is very creepy, but he films her because he thinks she is beautiful, and because he finds her interesting. When Angela is around he ignores her, and he just films Jane. He eventually begins a relationship with her, and a friendship with Lester. He is abused by his father Colonel Fitts (Chris Cooper). Colonel Fitts is homophobic, and just a nasty person. He beats his son up a few times in the film.

The film takes you through a wide range of emotions. That is why I like it so much. You feel, sad, happy, angry, and bad for people at times. All of the characters that you hated you feel bad for in the end. The ending although you may think is sad because you can tell that Lester was happy when he died. That is not a spoiler because you know he is dead at the beginning.

-----Spoiler Alert-----
Lester gets killed by Colonel Fitts because Fitts kissed him, and that brought out the fact that Colonel Fitts was a in the closet gay man. The fact that he had it in him was why he hated it so much, and it was something that made me think. You know that Lester is happy because when you see his head on the counter dead, he is smiling. Ricky walks in and is stunned by it, but then he smiles when he can tell that Lester is happy. The film started with him asking Jane is she wanted him to kill her father, and it is ironic because she got her wish.
-----End of Spoiler Alert-----

This is a film that was better the 2nd time, because I picked up on things I hadn't noticed before. I never noticed that Colonel Fitts saw a lot of things that made him suspect that his son and Lester were both gay and together. I didn't pick up on those signs the first time. Also when he shoots Lester I never noticed that when the blood hit the wall that it looked like a rose. I could never figure out the symbolism of the rose throughout the movie the first time I watched it, but I noticed it the 2nd time.

-----Comparisons to The Great Gatsby-----

Although the Great Gatsby and the movie American beauty take place 80 years apart with very different plots, there are many striking similarities between the flawed lead characters and these flaws create much drama and pain for the other characters, and often for the viewer. The flaws lead to the downfall of several characters, including the death of Gatsby and Lester, and leave most of the others scarred and damaged. The Great Gatsby and American Beauty both contain elements of class; people presenting a false image, cruelty, bullying, bigotry and dishonesty. Both stories are missing the most important elements of life including real love, good marriages, integrity, positive self-images, and treating people well. These stories involve people mostly with the opposite traits. No one should want to live the kind of lives shown in these stories.

Daisy and Carolyn have the most similarities among the main characters. Both are very miserable but they try to present an image of success, happiness and perfection to the world. Both were happy at one time in their lives, Daisy during her years in Memphis and Carolyn when she was early in her marriage and her daughter was young. Now both their marriages are farces. Daisy's husband Tom is cheating on her. Lester is fantasizing about other women and openly hostile towards Carolyn, standing up to her for the first time. Neither loves their husband. In Chapter 2 Myrtle's sister says to Nick "Neither of them can stand the person they are married to" referring to Tom Buchanan's marriage to Daisy and Myrtle's to George Wilson. Lester's hatred of Carolyn is apparent in everything he says to her and how he looks at her. And both show glimpses of how unhappy they are. Carolyn breaks down in tears and anger several times and decides to kill her husband but gets beat to it by the next-door neighbor. And you see that Daisy knows how bad her life is when she tells Nick about what she said when her daughter was born in Chapter 1, "All right, I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she will be a fool-that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." She seems to be saying that she can't be anything better than a fool and she knows it, which makes it worse. In the end she chooses to stay with Tom despite her obvious hatred of him and the fact that Gatsby is willing to do anything for her, including take the fall for killing Myrtle. This shows how awful she is. And Angela is on her way to kill her husband but somebody beats her to it.

It seems that Jay Gatsby and Lester are very different. Gatsby is a millionaire and a man that has had many successes. Lester is working at a burger joint, smoking pot all the time and fantasizes about his daughter's friend. No one looks up to Lester like they do Gatsby. But they are both flawed in similar ways. They are both guys who want to change their lives even if what they do is illegal or hurts others. Both men want women that seem to be awful women. Lester fantasizes about his daughter's best friend Angela who he thinks is beautiful, but she is actually a terribly flawed person. Angela is arrogant, nasty, and conceited as you can possibly be, and she hurts everyone around her. Gatsby wants Daisy, who he builds up to represent perfection and him achieving what he wants in life, but she is actually a shallow terrible person. They both waste their time fantasizing on women that aren't good for them or worth them. Both are delusional about these women too. Lester lifts weights so he can be more attractive to Angela. In Chapter 4 Jordan tells Nick "Gatsby bought that house so that Daisy would be just across the bay." This could be like Lester lifting weights to impress Angela, except he is using his fantastic mansion to impress Daisy even though she already chose someone else. Both men don't get what they want in the end, Gatsby loses Daisy and Lester does not take the opportunity Angela offers him. By the end you have sympathy and some admiration for both yet at the end they are hated by others and this leads to their ultimate downfall. Both men are shot and killed by men who accused them of doing something they didn't do-Gatsby of killing Myrtle and Lester of having sex with his killer's son leading to the father revealing his own repressed homosexuality.

There is bullying in both stories as well. Angela, Carolyn and the Colonel all bully throughout American Beauty. Angela makes fun of and demeans anyone that disagrees or interferes with what she wants. She constantly demeans Ricky because he feels he is taking her friend away. The Colonel bullies his son and wife. And Carolyn bullies her husband and daughter. She demeans her husband by reminding him the moneymaker in the family. In Gatsby Tom Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson bully and demean others. Tom demeans and bullies Wilson throughout the story and bullies Myrtle. Gatsby in the scene in the hotel room in Chapter 7 when he says "I suppose the latest thing is to sit back and let Mr. Nobody from Nowhere make love to your wife." He is trying to make Gatsby seem worthless since he was poor without a prominent family name. In Chapter II Myrtle demeans her husband when she says "the only crazy I was when I married him. I knew right away I made a mistake. He borrowed someone's best suit to get married in, and never even told me about it, and the man came after it one day when he was out." She is demeaning him for being poor. She demeans and bullies him to his face as well. Myrtle always tries to act like she is someone she is not like both Angela and Carolyn in American Beauty. And all three women are very unhappy and insecure underneath.

There are huge differences between the stories and I liked American Beauty much more. Nothing gets resolved in Gatsby. I felt the same way about everyone all the way through. None of the characters were reformed or redeemed in any way. In American Beauty there are several stories of redemption. The main one is Lester standing up for himself and becoming happy. He even dies happy. Ricky stands up to his father. And Jane stands up to her bullying friend Angela and becomes happy with Ricky. She becomes the American Beauty. You even feel sympathy for the characters you hate in American Beauty like the Colonel and Carolyn. In the Great Gatsby the only person that generates any sympathy is Gatsby, but not much, since he is as delusional as ever. Wilson is a sympathetic figure until the end when he kills Gatsby and himself. I feel that readers and viewers want stories where there is a mix of good and bad characters as well as stories of redemption and felt that the Great Gatsby portrayed only bad character so Fitzgerald could convey his feelings for that time.

-----End of Comparison-----

This is an amazing movie that demands to be re-watched. The acting is awesome, and so is the story. Perfect movie.

The Birds
The Birds(1963)

After Alfred Hitchcock did his most famous movie "Psycho (1960)" it looked like it would be hard to do anything that measured up to that. 3 years later he released the birds, which didn't reach the level of masterpiece that Psycho was, but was still one of his best films. It is the most well done film of the 60's, in terms of making things look real given the lack of technology. This is a total masterpiece and just another film that manifests Hitchcock's genius.

This like most of his other films devotes a big chunk of the movie to developing relationships, and building suspense. About 1/3 of the way through the film birds attack a little kids birthday part, marking the first of many attacks to come. The film is disturbing at times when the birds attack people because they attack kids at times. After that first attack birds of all kinds just go on attack leaving everybody scared, and paranoid. This was his scariest film for sure. The fact that it was so slow at first makes it feel even more intense later on, because one it starts to get going you feel like "woah!"

Whoever trained the birds did an incredible job. The birds really do attack people. At certain moments birds are really biting at people's faces. I think Hitchcock used a reverse green screen. I think he would film the birds flying around, and the people trying to fight them off was the green screen. For the most part everything looked really real. It is just another brilliant Hitchcock technique that probably was used many times after this.

The only flaws with the film were that some of the acting was bad, and the people were pretty stupid. Other then that the film was great.
It felt like Jaws but with birds. In jaws people were scared to go in the water, in this film people wouldn't go outside. Also the town in Jaws looked like the town in this film. Jaws came after this and it is my favorite film. I feel like you can compare the two, and they both had genius directors. Fantastic classic. One of Hitch's best.

Raising Arizona
½

Raising Arizona is such an awesome movie. It is definitely my favorite Coen brother's film, and I loved every minute of it. The film was so entertaining, and it was so funny. Joel and Ethan Coen did a good job with their debut film "Blood Simple," but they hadn't perfected their filmmaking skills yet. With this film they became truly amazing filmmakers, and screenwriters. They went on to make so many other great ones after this. This film truly does show the creativity, and the style of humor that makes the Coen Brothers so good. They have a very unusual style of comedy, which is probably an acquired taste. This film however some people think is terrible, because they don't know that it is a comedy. I don't get that because the film is so funny that it is hard for me to see how you could take it as a serious movie, but for some reason some people do take it seriously. So if you haven't seen it you should know that it is a comedy going into it.

This was back when Nicholas Cage was making good movies. For some reason he can't make a good movie anymore. He was actually really good in this movie. I find that he always plays himself in everything that he does, except for Raising Arizona. This is the one film where he showed any range at all. He plays kind of a dumb stereotypical southern redneck in this, and he is really funny in it. He narrates the story too, which I think is good because I think he has a good actors voice, but however he has an accent for this though so it makes his narrating interesting. Holly Hunter was in Blood Simple and she played Ed in this story. The wife of H.I. (Nicholas Cage), and she also plays kind of a stereotypical southern redneck character. This film is mostly just stereotypical southern rednecks in my opinion, and that is what the humor is based off of. There are a lot of lines that are made funny by their accents, or because of the stupidity of the character. Coen Brothers films allow the cast to show their acting skills in my opinion, and this is a great example of a film that allows the actors/actresses to show their talent.

The story is a bout a man named H.I. McDonnough (Nicholas Cage) who has been imprisoned a few times, and after the third time he decides to change his life, and he asks Ed (Holly Hunter) the lady who takes the mug shots to marry him. They eventually decide to have a baby, but the learn that she can't have one, because she is infertile. They can't adopt one because H.I. has a criminal record, but they learn of "Arizona Quints," and they kidnap one of the five children from the house that they take care of the babies. After that they are visited by H.I.'s prison buddies Gale (John Goodman) and Avella (William Forsythe) who have escaped from prison. From that point on it is all a bunch of very funny, and weird stuff that influences H.I. to go back to being a criminal.

This was a classic film, and definitely my favorite of the Coen Brothers films. It was hilarious, witty, clever, and pretty creative. I would recommend this to everybody.

Mud
Mud(2013)

Now Matthew McConaughey as a serious actor I usually think is really good. When he does those rom coms like Fools Gold, or How To Lose a Guy in Ten Days I think he is terrible. He is really good in this and he changed for this film. He changed physically, and he had to make himself look like a guy who has been on an island for a long time. He looked rough, dirty, and unwashed. They did a good makeup job with it too, because you could barely tell it was him. He also had the accent down perfectly, and at times I couldn't understand what he was saying because of it. I am glad he has broken out of his rom com phase and is doing stuff like this now. He broke out of that phase with Lincoln lawyer, and I think that is when he showed his skills as an actor. He tends to play a lot of lawyers, like in Lincoln lawyer, A Time to Kill, and in Bernie. So this was a completely different role for him.

The character he plays "Mud" is a fugitive hiding from the authorities on an island. He befriends two boys, and they help him try to reunite with his love Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). The two boys do a lot to help him out, and he tells them his story. A lot of people warn the boys about Mud, but they think he is a nice guy. He is a nice guy, but he just made a big mistake. The film makes you question him throughout, and you really can't figure out if he is good or bad until the end. It is also a movie that is suspenseful, because you have no idea how it will end.

Now I really wish that films like this get made more often. I am tired of mindless action movies, and they are like pop music too me. I like stuff like this that is interesting, different, well acted, and that let you think about what will happen. Mud was a really good movie that I would say is probably an acquired taste for a certain audience, but is one of the best films I've seen so far this year. This movie reminded of a film that came out about a month before called "The Place Beyond the Pines." They were both really good in the same, way but different at the same time. The Place Beyond the Pines is a little bit better, but not by much. What makes them great in the same way is that they are both really well acted, and they are both indie dramas that make you think a little, and they are in obscure locations.

I like films like this, because they are more reliant on acting, an interesting plot, and style. Indie dramas are good, because the directors and screenwriters have way more freedom to do what they want, and they can show their talent more. This film is a good example. Jeff Nichols wrote and directed this film, and I felt like I could see his true vision for the film, and I didn't see any Hollywood influence in it. That is why Mud was as good as it was.

The Breakfast Club

This is perhaps the greatest teen drama of all time. It is relatable, well acted, well written, and above all timeless. It is the kind of film that can be watched by any generation and still be loved. This and Ferris Bueller's Day Off are in my opinion the two most timeless 80's films about teen's. This is a film that I notice is talked about all the time at my school, and it really does reach people my age. It is really one of the only teen movies that I think portrays teens accurately, and seems realistic. Most of those films tend to just feel stereotypical or they exaggerate things. This felt like something that probably would happen. I am really tired of seeing teen movies or teen comedies that are really stereotypical, and as I have gotten older I have grown to like this one even more, because it has more depth. It is about a group of high school students, who are from entirely different crowds and backgrounds that have to spend their Saturday in detention, while their extremely mean teacher Mr. Vernon makes them write a paper about who they are. They all hate it and they don't like each other either. It is about how they bond and learn a lot about themselves.

Mr. Vernon is the antagonist of the story who you hate. He is almost evil if you ask me and he just hates kids for reasons that just seem to be problems within him and not the kids. He is definitely unhappy, because you almost never see him in a scene where he isn't mad. I felt like the entire time he just vented his problems on the kids. He isn't an interesting character, but he adds to the story by making them write the essay. The fact that the essay is "Who you think you are" I felt like was really symbolic in the story, because none of these people really did no that much, but by the end of the day it seemed like they figure out a lot. Though they pretty much ignore everything that he asked them to do the one thing he assigned him is what pretty much summed up everything that they learned.

The kids are for the most part very interesting. I only say for the most part, because Claire is kind of boring and she seemed kind of whiny. Her problems were almost annoying, and I felt like they should have spent more time focusing on the interesting characters like Allison (Ally Sheedy). I say her because I felt like they didn't give that many exact details about her, and they mostly gave details that made you have to use your imagination more. They gave us details like she is a compulsive liar, and her parents ignore her, but I wanted to hear more about her. I question how much we learned about her is actually true because she said she is a compulsive liar, but however there was something about her that made her more intriguing then everybody else to me. Her character was definitely a weird one though, but is also what made her interesting. She felt slightly underdeveloped, or maybe I felt that way because she was the most interesting character to me, and I wanted to know more about her.

John Bender (Judd Nelson) is a rebel and a total punk. I really didn't like him at first, but by the end of it he turns out to be a really good character, and I thought he and Allison were the two most interesting people. I disliked him at first because of how rude and obnoxious he was towards everybody. He just seemed like he was starved for attention, and like a jerk. But when he reveals what his home life is like you learn that he is just an angry young man. He lives by his own rules, and does and says whatever he wants to. He isn't afraid to get in trouble, and that is showed when he talks back to Mr. Vernon and by several other scenes. I think his character is an example of how you shouldn't judge somebody, because you don't know their background or where they come from.

The film had several interesting characters, and a very interesting plot. It shows how much you can do in only one setting. For pretty much the whole movie they were in detention, and they still made it really interesting. It broke many stereotypes about teens, and brought more depth to them. It showed how different kids from completely different backgrounds and click's can still get along. I feel like that is the message of the story. That no matter how different people are we can all get along, and connect. This film did a great job of showing that. This is a timeless classic that will be passed on from generation to generation.

The Wolfman
The Wolfman(2010)
½

The Wolfman is a very bad remake of an old horror movie classic. The idea to remake it wasn't a bad one you could say because the old one is definitely dated now that it is over seventy years old, or you could think that it would be a bad idea to remake it considering that the old one was such a horror masterpiece of its time that it should be left alone. However I definitely feel like it was a bad idea to remake it in the way it was done. This film was hated by pretty much by all critics and audience members like myself, so I think it is safe to say it didn't do justice to the original. Some reviewers on this site say it's underrated which I could understand, but still I definitely agree with the user and critics score on this site.

There are many reasons why I dislike this movie, but the main one would be how everything just felt stupid or pointless. I didn't really feel like there was a reason why this was made. I didn't think there was a lot of character development, or suspense. Certain things felt predictable, and for a while I was just waiting for these things to happen. For the most part it didn't really seem like there was a lot going on. At the beginning they took it slow, to most likely build suspense, but I didn't feel like it was there. I felt like they were just prolonging the inevitable things in the movie that turned out to be the worst parts of the movie if you ask me. While the film kept me waiting for exciting things to happen I found I was slightly bored. Maybe I need immediate gratification, but the beginning is not interesting at all in my opinion, and it barely was able to keep my attention.

However the boring parts of the movie were the best parts, which is weird. They were the best parts, because they didn't seem really stupid or cheesy to me. The exciting parts were of course the scenes where he becomes the Wolfman and starts attacking people, but it seemed so pointless though. What did the beast gain out of killing? Why did he do it? I'm tired of these killing machines in horror films. After a while that idea got stupid for me, and it was something that only worked in the older horror films, but now I feel like there should be some sort of motive. I think that is why these old horror films where there was some monster or murderer who killed for no reason are dated now. They seem pointless now. This film is a modern film with old school horror film cheesiness. Plus the scenes where the monster ran around killing people were gross, cheesy, or stupid. Like there is one part where a guy is shooting the beats, but not doing any damage. Then once he realizes he is done he tries to shoot himself but he is out of bullets. Then the beast whacks him in the head taking his head clean off. That was the part where I started feeling like this was really stupid. The film had a big budget, which is part of the reason why it was overdone, compared to the original, which had a small budget. But the budget was spent mostly on things like bad effects and gore, and a great cast that couldn't save this mess.

It is always sad to me when remakes ruin classics, and this is one of the worst remakes of all time if you ask me. Horror remakes in general I think are a mistake, because when you look at them they tend to all get bad reviews from critics and audiences. But this is one of the worst ones of all time if you ask me. The film had a bad script, bad director, but a good cast that couldn't' make up for all the flaws that surrounded them. It was a pointless movie with some good, but mostly bad drama, bad suspense, and no scares at all. It was either dull and boring, or entertaining and stupid. Some horror films are so bad that they are funny, but this isn't even funny. It was entertaining enough for the most part, but overall I feel like I could have done better things with the time I spent watching this film.

Evil Dead
Evil Dead(2013)

Every time a film is remade it is remade for a reason, and that is to make it better. If you ask me they remade this one, because the old one is dated. When you watch the original it is more of a comedy if you ask me. I laughed throughout the whole experience of seeing that film. It is dated, because it literally has no plot or character background, all that happens is that people get possessed by spirits and become demonic zombies. Also the effects look pretty atrocious now. The gore in it looks so cheesy, and even the makeup on the people who are possessed looks pretty bad too. So I can see why you would want to remake that. With todays technology you could make things look much more realistic, and plus today we tend to be more critical of films that don't have plots so it only makes sense that a remake could potentially improve the original.

So they added more realistic looking gore, effects, and most importantly this one had a bit of a story behind it that gave some background to the main characters. In the original they just go up to the cabin, but in this one they were there for a reason. A girl named Mia (Jane Levy), who is recovering from a heroin addiction goes out to the cabin with her brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) to start her recovery. David left home after their mother was committed to an asylum, which left Mia alone to take care of her, likely causing her addiction. He estranged from her now. That is the background they added to this. It isn't a lot, but the premise of this movie isn't one that you can really do that much with. So really what they added a lot more to the film was gore. It was way gorier and way more gruesome.

To tell you the truth I hated the film for that reason, and I don't think they improved the original at all. It was rarely ever scary at all, but it was always gross and disturbing. I am really tired of how Hollywood feels like they have to be gross and disturbing all the time to be scary. To make a film scary you don't have to be disgusting. This film is literally a bloodbath. There are things like people having blood squirt or pour out of them, from either losing an arm, cutting of their cheek with a piece of glass, and at one point Mia throws up a waterfall of blood on her friend when she gets possessed. When I see stuff like that I lose interest, and I feel more disgusted then scared.

I think I would have rationalized it a little bit if the film scared me, but it really didn't. I found it all predictable due to many horror film clichés like people being stupid, and they even do the stupid thing during the chase thing at the end that they do in every Halloween or Friday the 13th movie where the girl is being chased and things keep getting in her way or she trips on something delaying her. They always have to make the girl being chased in the end really stupid, slow, or unlucky to keep so she can't get away easily, so the scene can be scary. At the end of it the film felt more like a slasher film from the 80's. The whole thing felt kind of cliché, or overly gross. Even that whole background that they gave Mia and David felt really cliché. I can't really explain why I felt that way, but for some reason I felt like I had seen stories like that before. Overall it was just not interesting or scary for me.

I feel like you have to be careful with what films you remake, because you can ruin the original. I wouldn't say that this ruined the original, because a good amount of people seemed to like it, I just hated it, but still I would say the original is better. The original although it is a really stupid, cheesy, and pointless movie it still pretty fun. It is fun because the gore and stuff that is meant to be scary is just really cheesy and funny to look at now. I feel like the idea of remaking old horror films is almost a mistake, because they are pretty much always bad. Some of the worst movies I have seen have been remakes of classic horror films. This was just a classic remake of a horror film if you ask me.

A typical horror remake to me is just a much more over the top version of the original, with some changes to the story to make it seem more original. They add more gore, and make it more gruesome to try to make it seem scarier. However the changes never really add anything to the original. They ruin the originals by changing what made them classics. That is my overall review on horror film remakes. I feel like for the most part they are a waste of time and money to make, and a waste of time to watch. That is true for remakes of a lot of films, but horror especially though. That is just my opinion though. Overall I just thought that this was a really bad movie that added nothing good to the original.

Gravity
Gravity(2013)
½

There are many films that I think are overrated, and many films that I think are underrated, but more that I think are overrated. I often feel like films that are visual masterpieces can be really overrated, because people will only look at how amazing the film looks, and they will overlook that it has flaws, or that the rest of the film isn't that great. Some films are more focused on visuals then an interesting story, or having great performances from the cast. People tend to feel that way about films like Avatar, Space Odyssey, and Inception, but nobody on this site seems to think that about this movie, but a lot of people I know personally tend to feel that way about this film.

I thought that this was one of the most overrated films I have seen in a long time. I really just thought that it looked amazing, and that everything else was just ok. It wasn't bad, but overall I found this film very disappointing. I really felt like it wasn't a very suspenseful, thrilling or well written film. It is incredibly well done, and directed, but the script is mediocre of you ask me. The director just makes up for it, and that is probably the reason why all the reviews are great if you ask me. If Alfonso Cuarón didn't do such a phenomenal job as a director I think that this film would have gotten more bad reviews. Some films they do everything right except for the script, and then it is bad due to the fact that they had a bad source material to work with. This is a film that isn't bad at all, but I wouldn't have felt like it was as overrated as I think it is, if there was more of a script.

There really isn't that much dialogue at all, and when they do talk they don't really say anything that interesting, or anything that tells us that much about the characters. They give little hints about the characters backgrounds, but leave the rest to our imaginations, which I didn't really like. I feel like it would have been better to tell us more about them so that way we could have grown to like certain characters, or dislike them. The beauty of dialogue is that it really develops the plot and characters. Some films do a good job with not using a lot of it, but I really felt like this one needed more of it. They need to at least use enough of it so we can develop opinions of characters, or even get attached to them. I didn't really feel any connection to anybody in the movie, and I walked out of the theater with no opinions of them. I feel like the script was written mostly just so they could show off the visuals, which were probably some of the greatest I have ever seen, but I really wish they did more to make the film seem more developed story and character wise.

Also dialogue allows good actors to act more. This film definitely had some good actors like Clooney, and Sandra bullock, but I really felt like their performances were only decent because the film didn't really demand that much of their acting talents. Sandra Bullock was decent, but Clooney was Clooney. The performance he gave I felt like I had seen in many other films. I like him, but I tend to get bored when I see him play the character he played in this film. Even though he is a good actor, I feel like he can be overrated at times. His performance in this film was nothing to talk about because he is barely in it, and when he is he isn't that impressive. Sandra however was good, but could have been better if they gave her more words to say. She had all this potential to give an amazing performance, but not enough lines to do it if you ask me.

What actually happened was that they were in space on a mission, and they get hit by a cloud of debris destroying the shuttle, and now giving them the challenge of getting home alive. It wasn't a very thrilling film, which I expected it to be going into it, and by the time it ended I really just felt like "That was it." It was an okay movie that I honestly feel like needs to stop being praised. Every year I feel like there is probably going to be one overrated movie, and for me Gravity is without a doubt the most overrated film I have seen this year.

Boogie Nights

"Everyone is blessed with one special thing." - Eddie Adams

Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is a high school drop out, who is discovered by a famous porn director named Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds). After his mother kicks him out of the house he goes to work for Jack. He grows to like the world he is in, once he enters it. When he is asked to come up with a name for himself to be used in the porno's that he will be casted in, he comes up with the name "Dirk Diggler." Once he comes up with that he insists on being called that, and he is never called Eddie again for the rest of the film. Dirk becomes a huge star in the world of pornography, but eventually gets into drugs and goes downhill.

Boogie Nights is a very good Paul Thomas Anderson film that isn't his best, but it is one of them. It is different, because it isn't as deep, or as quirky as his other films are. I feel like it doesn't have the usual Paul Thomas Anderson style that films like Magnolia have. It has his style, but films like magnolia to me are like Paul Thomas Anderson to the max. This film seems different for him. At the same time all of his films are different, but this is one of the more unique ones for him if you ask me. What felt different about this one was that I didn't find myself thinking a ton when I watched it. It wasn't nearly as thoughts provoking for me at least as a few of his later films were.

I felt like it showed me another world that is very different, but one that is real. It made me feel like the business of pornography, which this film focuses on, isn't very different from the regular film business, except it is all revolved around sex, and people that are really messed up, but it functions the same way. It is one of these films where they made the world look like a lot of fun at first, but awful at the same time. The people in the world seemed to be really enjoying what they were doing, and passionate about it. The director Jack Horner always had these visions for his films, and he seemed so passionate and into them. He talked about it like it was great art, and I kept thinking "Come on man what you are doing isn't art, don't take it so seriously." It shows how ridiculous it all is. I feel like Paul Thomas Anderson made the film to look that way. If that was his intention he did a fantastic job. I always felt like pornography is ridiculous, and total garbage, and this film made it all look that way if you ask me.

The film also took place during the drugs, sex and rock and roll era. There was a lot of sex, and a lot of drugs. The only thing to me that was missing for most of the film was rock and roll. The sex was extremely graphic, and it got uncomfortable to be honest. They spoke about it very graphically too. Overall I felt like it was wild. The drug aspect of the film made all the characters go downhill, and ruin their lives. It eventually got violent too. Overall the film was based off of really negative things in the world so it wasn't very happy. But it did give me perspective to how messed up that world was.

This was a very interesting Paul Thomas Anderson film that showed me what I felt like was a different world. The world of pornography is pretty messed up, and this film shows that. It is also a really bizarre world, and I have a feeling that the film depicted it very accurately. Though at times the film was very uncomfortable due to the graphic sex, and the language it was very enjoyable and entertaining. It had good performances from everybody, and it was well shot.

500 Days of Summer

The first time I watched this I absolutely hated it, and I thought it was the most overrated thing I had ever seen, and I detested every minute of it. I posted a really bad review for it saying that it was one of the worst films I had ever seen. To be perfectly honest I haven't seen enough bad films to come up with a good list of the worst films of all time, so it may not be fair for me to say that, but it was still one of the films that I hated the most. After posting my review for it, I got some comments that made me think that I should give it another try, and see if I appreciate it more the 2nd time.

But did I appreciate more the 2nd time? No I hated it just as much, and if not as much probably more the 2nd time. During my 2nd try of the film I had to stop about forty-five minutes in because I noticed myself reacting to the film the same way I did the first time, and I knew that I probably don't have it in me to watch the whole thing again. All I can say is that I just hate this movie, and it annoys me. I also find that it tries to be funny, but I don't really think it is. So overall I just don't get the fuss that is made over this film on this site or by the people I know personally. Also everybody thinks the film is so cute, which I really don't get at all. I can see where there are certain moments where it would be considered cute, but there are way more annoying ones in my opinion. The film doesn't even entertain me, and I got bored right off the bat. When I first watched it I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it didn't. It starts off kind of okay, and then just slowly gets worse and worse, and I was just glad it ended.

This guy named Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) meets a girl named Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel), and falls for her at first sight. He thought he would never be happy until she entered his life. At first he heard that she wasn't very nice, but after he learns that she loves "The Smiths" like he does he forms a huge crush on her. He begins to obsess over her, and starts getting advice from a 12-year-old girl named Rachel Hansen (Chloe Grace Moretz), which is another part of the story that I don't like. The whole idea of a grown man getting advice on love from a twelve year old seemed kind of weird to me. I will admit though that I think that Chloe Grace Moretz is a pretty good child actress. I think she may become a big star in the future.

But back to the story, they eventually start hanging out. However they look like they are in a romance, but Summer refuses to call it a relationship. It gets annoying, because they do all the things that people do with each other when they are relationships such as having sex, handholding, sleeping together, and many other things, and she is so commitment phobic, that she will only call him her friend. It hurts him too, and when they finally start dating she ignores him at parties, and doesn't treat him like a boyfriend. She dumps him for no good reason, and after she does she just goes about eating her meal as if she didn't dump him. She is completely unsympathetic, and I feel like she would make a terrible girlfriend. The reason's why Tom can't get over her, and why he thinks she is so wonderful is beyond me. I am surprised that only few people agree with why I hated her. It felt unrealistic how she would not even acknowledge the fact that they are in a relationship. People say that this is a really realistic romantic comedy, but I don't see that at all. I am also not a fan of Zooey Deschanel. I don't think that she is that good of an actress, and I feel like she plays the same personality in everything she does. She is a talented singer, but I don't think she has any talent as an actress. Joseph Gordon Levitt I think is a pretty good actor, but I just didn't like the character he played in this film. I found him to be kind of shallow, and I felt like he only liked Summer because she is pretty and interested in him. I also get annoyed when I feel like guys I know personally fall for girls because they are attractive or interested in them. I also don't like girls that are like Summer. Part of my distaste for this movie is that it is all characters that I don't like.

I also found it annoying how they did the film in a weird timeline. It felt like a really unnecessary thing to do just to make the film more artsy or interesting. The only thing in this film that I liked was the cinematography. The film looked really good, and apparently they made it look they way it looks so it would bring out Zooey Deschanels blue eyes. It was a good effect and it did do that, but it is the only part of this film that was interesting to me.

Everything else was annoying or weird to me. Usually when I dislike a film that most people like everybody else loves I can appreciate it, but for this film I have no idea why it is so popular, and I just don't even appreciate it. The first time I reviewed this film I was hoping that people would explain to me why they like it, because I was thinking of giving it another chance. I got some explanations, and I started watching it again with a different expectation, and I didn't see the points that they gave me. I think it is just fair to say that I hate this film. It is one of the movies I dislike the most. You can disagree with me all you want, but I don't see myself ever changing my opinions on this film. I anticipate even more comments of people disagreeing with me and not liking my review, because I am even more critical of the film now then when I first saw it. Though I don't get why people like this at all I will at least respect the fact that people like it, because it is popular, and I am the minority. But I will never give this film another chance.

The Great Gatsby

The film starts off with a narrative intro from Nick Caraway (Tobey Maguire). He tells the story of how he met Jay Gatsby in the summer of 1922. He goes to New York to become a stockbroker, and he reestablishes his relationship with his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan). He lives next door to jay Gatsby (Leonardo Dicaprio). A extremely rich man, who nobody ever really see's. One night he comes home and see's a man who he believes is Gatsby standing at the edge of the dock reaching towards the green light that he see's at the other side of the lake. The green light will later be a symbol of where Gatsby wants to be. The light is on the dock of Daisy and tom Buchanan's (Joel Edgerton) house.

He later learns about Gatsby, and learns many lies about him, like people think he is a killer. He feels like Gatsby is watching him, and at certain times they show him looking at Nick from his window. Nick later receives an invitation to his house, and that make shim believe that Gatsby is definitely watching him. Nobody is ever invited to his house, they just all show up, and party. Gatsby's parties are always huge, and super over the top. They show what an eccentric time the 1920's were. Stocks were going up like crazy, and that is why it was called the roaring twenties. Everything in the time seemed over the top, and the story shows that.

Getting back to the story, at that party he finally meets Gatsby, and is amazed by his story once he gets to know him. He then helps Gatsby see Daisy again, who he used to be with. Gatsby starts an affair with her, and is trying to repeat what happened several years ago. Nick tells him he can't repeat the past, but Gatsby is delusional and thinks he should try. It causes problems, and a lot of drama.

I predicted that this would be the best movie of the month of May, going into it. I thought that it would end up being way better then that original film with Robert Redford. I thought that if it just stuck to the book it would be a really good movie, because the book is such a classic, and the story is so famous that it would be hard to make it bad. It turned out to be a decent movie, and I enjoyed it more then that god-awful original from 1974. Everything about the film was better then that original, but it still could have been better.

To start off the casting was way better. Leonardo DiCaprio was a perfect choice for the role of Jay Gatsby. For me it wasn't as much as he was really good in it, as much as the role is just perfectly suited for him. He had the same accent that he had for Django Unchained in this though, and it felt like he hadn't completely broken out of that character. I didn't feel like Dicaprio had pulled of a character that he had never doe before, but he was just such a perfect choice for it that most people will probably think he was great.

Tobey Maguire I had mixed feelings about for the role of Nick Caraway. I usually don't like him, because he just seems so awkward, and I never found his presence in the film to be that convincing, or strong. But after reading the book I felt like that could be appropriate for that role. I was right, and I thought that he was a very good casting choice. The only movie I had ever seen Carey Mulligan in was Drive, and I liked her in that so I thought that she may have been good for the role of Daisy Buchanan. I thought that she would definitely be better then Mia Farrow. Mia Farrow I just couldn't stand in the original, but I thought that Carey Mulligan was pretty good. I basically thought that the casting choices for this one were just so much better.

I also thought that the directing and cinematography was way better too. I had not seen a single Baz Lurhmann film until this one, but I really liked his directing style for this one. The film had a very interesting style to it that is a little hard to explain. He uses a lot of cinematography, and different story telling techniques like an interesting style of narrating from Tobey Maguire. They had never found a way to tell this story in a good way for a movie, but Baz Lurhmann figured out how to make the Great Gatsby into a film, and make it good. Nobody had done that so far. It was a true work of art, and it took F. Scott's Fitzgerald's masterpiece, and made it into a visual masterpiece. It turned out to be a very intelligent movie with a lot in the plot, and it made you think about the time like the book did. It is definitely one of the best films so far this year. I don't think it will be nominated for best picture though, because the critics didn't like it according to this site. I am not entirely certain why critics don't like this film and why it has less then 50% approval from them. You would think that this would be something that they love. Movies like this prove that you should only pay attention to the user rating of a movie.

However there were a few things that didn't make sense for the time even though I loved it. He used music that was modern like from Jay Z. The music gave it a more modern feel, and it didn't feel right for me. It was interesting, but it didn't make sense for me. At the beginning of the narrative intro Nick says that Gatsby was the only person that he could tolerate, and didn't feel disgusted with from that time. That made me think I would feel disgusted by the characters for the entire movie, but it wasn't until the end of this movie that you hated people like Daisy, and Tom. Because they didn't develop what a bad person Daisy was, they weren't able to develop how delusional Gatsby was. In the book he was just completely blind as to how awful Daisy is. This movie didn't show that until the end, but even when they showed it they didn't show it completely.

I have mixed feelings about that, because it doesn't portray the book, which makes you pretty much hate everybody but Gatsby, but at the same time it makes the movie more watchable. They went through some of the scenes that you felt disgusted by really quickly, and they didn't develop the things from the book that anger you. Like people looked down on Gatsby in the book because he earned his money instead of inheriting it, and that was one of the things that angered you the most from the book. They didn't really develop that with this movie. The reason why I have mixed feelings about not developing those things is because it doesn't completely tell the story the way it is supposed to be told, but at the same time it makes the movie more watchable. Most audience members who either didn't read or like the novel, will like the way they did this, but true fans of it, may think it was underdeveloped a little. Referring back to what I said about critics not liking it I think the reason they didn't like it was because it was slightly underdeveloped, and more focused on the visual beauty at certain times. I enjoyed this movie, but it wasn't perfect. It was better then the 1974 version, but it still could have been done slightly better.

The Kings of Summer

Joe (Nick Robinson) and Patrick (Gabriel Basso) are both teenagers that are getting close to adulthood. However what is holding them back is there parents. Joe's mother died, and now his father Frank (Nick Offerman) is a miserable guy. He takes out his anger on his son, and makes him miserable as well, by controlling his life. Patrick however ahs two really bizarre parents, who are very obnoxious, and had to describe. They are exaggerated, and over the top, and it would probably be impossible to have them as parents. They both decide that they can't take their parents anymore, and they both now want to move out. However they decide to move out into the woods with their quirky friend Biaggio (Moises Arias), and build their own home out there. While they are out they learn to live by themselves and they grow up out there. It is also about how their parents try to find them, and how they realize they have faults.

/* Spoilers */
The film develops characters, and relationships a lot. Joe and Patrick really change a lot while they are out there, and their parents start to learn things about what they were doing wrong, and they fix themselves by the end. At one point Frank asks "Am I a bastard?" I forgot who he said it to, but she just said "No a bastard is someone who makes everybody else miserable, because he's miserable." That was the point where he learned he had to change, and he does. You see how being away affected his relationship with his son once he gets back. Even the relationship between Patrick and his parents is different too. But that is a harder one to describe.

The beginning of the film however is very strange, and I couldn't tell if I would get into it, but as the film kept going it got more interesting, and it got much better. By the end of the film it is a really good one. It is definitely one that you need to give time, because if you turn it off you will miss out on something really interesting. I have a feeling it was written to be that way though.

This is a really good obscure coming of age film. It is probably a film that isn't for every one due to its quirkiness, and how the film is very weird. It is one of those indie films that you need to have a certain taste for, because it isn't a mainstream film in anyway. But at the same time that is what makes the film interesting. Every year there are always several really good indie films that not everybody goes to see, but they have a small group of people who pay attention to them, and see them. This is one of those films. I have really only talked to a few people who have heard of the film, and even less who saw it. However the people who I know that did see it found it very interesting. I really liked this myself, and I thought that it was very interesting, and it had a good story, with well thought out characters, and a well-written script.

X-Men: First Class

I have only scene the first X-Men film, The Wolverine, and this movie, but of the X-Men films I have seen I would definitely say this was the best one. I liked is the best for several reasons. I liked it's plot, it's cast, and characters a lot. They did this film when they thought that the franchise was going to end, because of two disappointing films in a row. This film was good enough to do a Wolverine sequel, and a sequel for this movie. X-Men: First Class is what really saved this franchise. I would say it is by far the best of the franchise.

It has a very interesting plot that builds suspense for the inevitable war that happens at the end. The film puts together a few different stories and characters and brings them together. It starts off in Poland, 1944 when Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) observes Erik Lensherr bend a metal gate with his mind when he is separated from his Mother. Shaw kills Lensherr's Mother once he can't move a coin, which makes him destroy the office out of anger with his powers. Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) meets Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) in his kitchen, and makes her his foster sister. That is how the whole story got started. Then it cuts to 18 years later, and things are very different. Charles and Raven are really close now, but Raven is insecure about being a mutant. She takes the form of a beautiful girl to hide what she really looks like. They end up meeting other mutants, and forming a group. It is a very detailed story, with a lot going on.

It is a big improvement from the original X-Men. It is an improvement in story, acting, and the action is better in my opinion. The story was more interesting, and it grabbed me very quickly, which the original didn't grab me at all. The acting was better, due to the fact that it had cast members like Kevin Bacon, and Jennifer Lawrence. Well I am just going to come out and say that she is by far my favorite actress for many reasons. I have had a few people on this site recognize that base doff of what I say about her in other reviews, but now I am just going to say that I just think she is just amazing. This is the first time that she did something that wasn't an indie film. She pulled off acting in a big blockbuster beautifully as I think she does with every role she ever takes on. Kevin Bacon was just as good as he always is. He played the antagonist very well. He made a great villain. Everybody else was good, but those are the two people I wanted to point out.

I also found that everything looked better then the original X-Men. Though the first one looked ok, I felt like it's effects were dated compared to the ones on this film. This film was loaded with great CGI, such as the whole war at the end, Jennifer Lawrence transforming into the blue Mystique, and basically everything else in the movie. It was so much more, well done in my opinion. I think that this is one of the best superhero films. The three Dark Knight films are my favorite superhero films without a doubt, but this is up there in the bets of the genre. It was a really good movie that was highly entertaining throughout.

House at the End of the Street
½

House At The End of The Street is a decent, and slightly underrated psychological thriller that is carried by a good performance by the extremely talented Jennifer Lawrence. Of the films I have seen her in I would say that this is my least favorite of hers, but I wouldn't call it bad. It is entertaining, and thrilling enough to watch, but other then those two things and her good performance it doesn't really deliver anything else. I felt like she played the role of a girl in a scary movie very well. Usually the girls in these horror films have all the same characteristics. They are usually very pretty, very sweet and innocent, and you know that they will live once you get to know them. She fit that role very well. I find that she is always able to make it work in any role, weather she takes on a different personality, or look. I feel like she is the kind of actress that you can expect to be good in everything.

This is a different kind of role for her, because she usually does either really popular or Oscar worthy films. This is a more obscure horror film. I found that it looked like a much easier role for her to tackle then her roles in the films that she was nominated for, which are "Winters Bone", and "Silver Linings Playbook." Even though it wasn't her best film, or best performance I liked her in this as I have in every film I have seen her in. Something that I notice with her is that her characters in movies seem different then the way she comes across in real life. That is a sign of a great actor/actress if you ask me. I think she is awesome, both as an actress and as a person.

Though I liked her performance, what I found was wrong with the film, was the lack of surprise. Everything in the film seemed very predictable, besides a few twists. It was predictable in a way where you could tell what would happen next. The mystery aspect of the story wasn't predictable, and that was the part that had the twists. But as for the scares, I found they weren't there because the things that were meant to be scary were very predictable. I think that is one of the reasons why this film has such bad reviews. The other reason why is because I felt like it was a bad attempt to be like the Alfred Hitchcock classic "Psycho."

It reminded me of Psycho for a few reasons. First of all the film had a character named "Ryan (Max Thieriot)," who had a bit of a Norman Bates presence to him. He had the same mixture of sweetness, and sadness to him. He was also abused. In psycho Norman kept his mother hidden in the house, and Ryan kept his sister hidden in the basement of his house in this movie. Also both characters turned out to be abused by their mothers. It is different, because it is more modern, and because it is predictable, which Psycho wasn't.

It was a decent film that had Psycho elements, and a good performance from the always amazing Jennifer Lawrence. Though it is definitely flawed, it is entertaining and thrilling enough to watch.

Bruno
Bruno(2009)

This movie is just offensive, and degrading as it gets. It was done in the worst taste imaginable, and I can imagine somebody who is gay watching this, and finding it so offensive, because it seems like he is trying to make a fool out of him or her for comedy, which isn't funny at all. It represents gay people in the worst stereotype. Not just the way they are, but the things they do. Bruno's non-stop acts of public homosexuality are degrading, because nobody does the things that he does. This film miss-represents gay people in a way that makes them look really bad, which really bothers me. Not only that, but it is just so graphic that it makes me feel uncomfortable. It is borderline gay pornography, and I found that after I watched it I kept thinking about it, because I had never seen things that graphic before, and because the film bothered me. It made my stomach feel uncomfortable, and almost sick, because of how over the top disgusting it was, and because of how close it felt to watching porn at moments. I am in no ways homophobic, but a film that feels like a porno I don't want to watch.

Now Borat had a very original formula, where Sacha baron Cohen would go around playing some really offensive stereotype doing crazy, and outrageous things with real people, and he would seem to be making fun of people for comedy. It was funny at times, but uncomfortable at others. He would play some foreign character, and go to America. That was what he did with Borat. With this film he did the exact same thing, except it was with a gay man named Bruno, who had a fashion show called "Funkytime with Bruno." He goes to America intending to be a big celebrity, and he goes around doing many graphic homosexual acts in public. He is always talking to real people, and acting as if he is a really dumb foreign guy, while he is actually just a British guy playing a dumb foreign guy. The people he talks too don't even know what is going on, and he angers real people in his films. Borat lead to many lawsuits because of that.

Though Sacha baron Cohen has talent as an actor in my opinion, his style of comedy is uncomfortable and offensive to the max. I wasn't as much as offended by the film, I was just disgusted by it, and I can imagine a million different people being really offended by it. One day at my school a guy from Kazakhstan gave a speech on how people in his country just hate him for Borat. He talked about how much that movie offended him. This movie is about five times as bad, so I am sure the offense given to people by this film is way worse then Borat. Something I see in society today is that humor is way more crude and graphic then it used to be. Crude humor can be good for a while, but after a while things can get too graphic. Sacha Baron Cohen always has to take things several levels too far. Some people like that, but some people like myself hate it after a while. I know a bunch of people who love films like this and Borat, while people like me get uncomfortable during them knowing what he is actually doing during the film.

You don't have to go around doing really offensive stereotypical characters at such an over the top level to be funny if you ask me. The true geniuses in my opinion can be funny, without offending anybody. Something that I notice about the funny comedians who aren't crude or offensive can probably appeal to anybody, while people like Sacha Baron Cohen only appeal to certain people. That guy clearly doesn't care if he offends or angers people, because he does it constantly. I have told people before things he has done in his films, and they got offended. For me the thought of how offensive this film was made me feel bad. It didn't personally offend me, but it stuck with me. This is one of the films I hate the most, because of how obnoxious it is, and I am intentionally being really critical of it to get my strong belief for how films like this should not be made out even stronger. I can appreciate why somebody would find his films to be funny, but I have a really strong distaste for them.

World War Z
World War Z(2013)

World War Z had a lot of buzz, and I felt like it would end up being one of the summers most anticipated movies, which is was. The bar was set high, due to a large following that the book had, and the books following would guarantee that a lot of people would see it, considering that in the past that movies based off of books with cult followings usually get cult followings themselves. I went into it predicting to see a really crazy and exhilarating thriller. I saw it on the fourth of July and I got exactly what I was hoping for.

It was a really crazy and exciting movie that was entertaining throughout. I really enjoyed World War Z, and after I saw it the first thing I wanted to do was pick up the book. I will do that ASAP, and read it, and then add to this review, and say if the movie held up. Right now I think it will be considered one of the best of the summer of 2013 when the summer is over, and I think it was one of the most entertaining films of the year. It is a very interesting zombie film that made me want more.

It was different from most zombie films I have seen. It had the thing where the zombies ran, which for the most part isn't the case. I haven't seen many zombie films, but I need to. But I have seen enough to see certain things in the genre. Like how they used to be really slow, and you could get away from the really easily. It seems like in the more modern ones that they move faster. This film isn't original for that reason, but it is for the reason that the zombies in the film can pile up and basically make ladders out of themselves. It is pretty messed up when you think about it. This is the only film that I have seen at least where they could do that. It is a really good CGI thing, because it looks pretty real.

Overall there were many factors that made this different from other films. Like the fact that it wasn't a horror film, which most zombie films are. It was more of a sci-fi thriller, with drama in it. It had some scenes that seemed like things that would be in scary movies, but for the most part I thought it was a thriller. I liked the fact that it was more thrilling then scary. It felt more original.

What happened was that Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) a former UN employee is in traffic with his family when an outbreak of rabies goes down, but it turns out to be an infection that turns people into zombies. They leave their hometown of Philadelphia on a helicopter, but barely escaping the zombies. The rest is about how they try to survive, and eventually fix the problem with the world. The first few minutes were very calm, but then it immediately got crazy. I found that to be a good way to do it, because it caught you off guard. I expected them to ease into it a little, or slowly build up to it, but they just jumped right into it. That was a good way to do it.

This movie is backed by a solid performance from the extremely underrated Brad Pitt, and a good story that felt different from other zombie films. I liked this film for its intensity, suspense, and for its story. It was well done, and well told. World War Z will keep audiences on the edge of their seats throughout, and will satisfy fans of the book.

The Conjuring
½

I went into the Conjuring with my family, and we all had high expectations for the film, based off of the great reviews it has been getting, and we all came out very satisfied with the film. I thought that it was a very good scary movie, and it did it's job. It was very well directed by James Wan, and I could see a lot of things in the film where directing was key, and he pulled through. He took a decent script from Chad and Carey Hayes and made it into a very scary movie.

Now the film took a little while for me to get frightening. At first it was a little creepy, and I felt like it didn't have any thing in it that I hadn't seen in a million other films like this. But once you started to actually see the demon possessing the house, it got very scary very fast. It used things like creepy dolls, a little girl noticing the spirits, dogs sensing a presence. They also used tricks like doors or cabinets opening and closing by themselves. All of these things aren't original, and that is why at the beginning I was surprised that the film was getting all the great reviews it was getting, because it had all seemed like things that I had seen a million times before. It didn't feel very special. But eventually they started to use those tricks very well, and the film got very frightening.

The plot of the film is an extremely formulaic, and unoriginal one, and that is why it didn't grab me at the start of it. A family moves into a house that is haunted, but they don't know it at first. They have a pet that detects it, and the youngest daughter starts seeing or hearing things. At first they don't believe what is going on, but eventually they realize it, and the film gets crazy. However with this film they have two paranormal investigators Lorraine and Ed Warren (Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson) who are teaching at a college, when they get called upon to help the Perron family. When the two investigators go too the house they immediately see the spirits, and notice how hateful it is. Then the film gets extremely crazy, and scary. I enjoyed this film, and so did the rest of my family. It is very scary, and very entertaining. I would recommend it to scary movie fans.

Magnolia
Magnolia(1999)

Magnolia is without a doubt an acquired taste. It is also without a doubt one of the most intellectual movies I have ever watched. I didn't get it the first time, but the second time I found it really interesting. Its extremely bizarre quirky style is just part of what makes director Paul Thomas Anderson unique. Directors and screenwriters like Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, and Charlie Kaufman have invented their own unique genre in film. You have to analyze their films to get why they were made, and to understand what they want you to understand. Though films like Magnolia are really bizarre they are much more thoughtful then the average blockbuster. That is why I appreciate films like this.

The film is revolved around several characters, and several stories that are happening at once. It isn't one that I could give a good synopsis for that you would have a good expectation for what the film will be about. It is about several different characters going through different kinds of crisis. It is a psychological drama that leads you all over the place, and eventually connects the stories.

Frank "T.J." Mackey (Tom Cruise) runs a program called "Seduce and Destroy" that helps men get girlfriends. Seduce and Destroy is a very famous program that has helped many men. He is famous because of it. His father Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) is dying of cancer. He is being taken care of by Phil Parma (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Linda Partridge (Julianne Moore) is his trophy wife works on getting his prescription for morphine while Phil takes care of him, and tries to get in touch with his son Frank. Frank is in the middle of one of his Seduce and Destroy seminars while Phil anxiously tries to get in touch with him.

Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Rielly) is sent to investigate a disturbance, and he finds a body, and a boy tries to tell him who did it by rapping to him. He then goes to Claudia Wilson Gator's (Melora Walters) house, who is a cocaine addict to investigate another disturbance. He ends up asking her out on a date. Claudia Wilsons father Jimmy Gator (Phillip Baker Hall) is a game-show host, and he is also dying. The show he hosts the show "What do kids know?"

The film tells the stories of all different kinds of people. From ordinary people to celebrities, and to people that are on drugs or dying. Frank "T.J." Mackey and Jimmy Gator are the two celebrities in the story. They are both on TV, but they are both completely different people. Jimmy is like another version of his father. Like Frank's father Jimmy is dying, and he also cheated on his wife at some point. His child Claudia also hates him, as Frank hates his father. That is the similarity between Earl Partridge, and Jimmy Gator. They don't actually connect to each other in the story, but there is just a similarity between the two.

The story shows how relationships between parents and their kids will affect them. I feel like Frank is this really eccentric guy, and very weird partly because of how what his father did to him earlier in his life effected him. Claudia was affected really badly, and I felt like her cocaine addiction is to help escape her messed up life, and the pain of whatever her father did. Even the kid on the show "What do kids know?" has a ruthless father. The kid is Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman), and you can tell how pressured he is by his father. It is just another aspect that shows how parents affect their kids. I feel like that is the part of the story that Paul Thomas Anderson wanted the audience to think about when he wrote the screenplay.

I feel like I should give a lot of credit to Tom Cruise for his performance. There were a lot of good performances in this movie, but his probably comes to my mind first. He had to take on a very eccentric and weird character that was full of energy. The type of character that you would have to really invest yourself in so you could pull it off right. I also feel like Tom Cruise is a very eccentric guy in real life so he was just a good fit for the role, and a great casting choice. I am not always a fan of his, but I felt like this was one of his best performances.

This was a really good intellectual movie that joined several stories perfectly. It is great writing, and directing. Paul Thomas Anderson created something completely original, and unique with magnolia. What he created with the film is very weird, but interesting and though provoking. It is one that if you didn't like the first time I would recommend watching again, because you may like it more. That was what happened with this film and I. Weird intellectual movies like I feel like are only for a certain audience. They are more for an audience that analyzes films, and notices specific details that the director probably was hoping you would notice. I am a part of that audience so I really liked this film. I would say that it is the best film that Paul Thomas Anderson made or at least one of the best.

No Country for Old Men

To start off I think Joel and Ethan Coen are two of the greatest filmmakers of all time. They bring a very unique style of filmmaking, and a wide range of different kinds of films to the film world, and every single film I have seen of theirs I felt like had something about it that I had never seen before. Their movies are all pretty weird in their own ways, but that is what makes them unique. Their quirky style of movie making has produced many cult classics like "Big Lebowski." Their films are not for everybody, because they don't appeal to a mainstream audience.

The Coen Brothers are guys that grow on you. The more you watch their films the better they get, because they are a bit of an acquired taste. At the same time however most of the really talented filmmakers are an acquired taste. The more talented you get in a certain art, the more artsy your viewers are going to have to be so they can appreciate your work. I have found that the more I have gotten into the art of movies the more I have grown to appreciate the artsy filmmakers like Joel and Ethan Coen. That is why they are an acquired taste. You have to go deep into movies, and develop an appreciation for them to like certain things.

This film is an acquired taste, and even though I think it is a really good one I am surprised that it won best picture. I feel like if it had been nominated in another year it would most likely not have one. It seams like an odd film win best picture when you think about it. It is an odd film overall, but when I first saw it I was surprised that it one best picture. This is a film that I would expect to get nominated for certain things, but not win best picture. I don't think there has ever been a film to win best picture that was anything like this, and that is why I am surprised it won that year. Don't get me wrong I think that it is a great movie, but I find it to be an interesting choice to win best picture.

This is a very weird, but interesting crime drama adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name. It is about a murderer named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who escapes from jail by killing the deputy with his handcuffs. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes across the aftermath of a Mexican drug deal gone wrong while he is hunting out in the dessert. There is a bag with 2 million dollars in it, which Moss takes, and Chigurh goes after him to get the money. That is a short explanation of the story.

I really liked this movie. I found that it got better the 2nd time too. I am reading the book now, and I will add more about the book after I am done reading it.

This Is the End
½

Comedy scale: 9/10
Movies in general: 7/10

The film was without a doubt the craziest and wildest movie I have ever seen. But it was also absolutely awesome, and hilarious. James Franco, Seth Rogen, and the rest of the crew from films Like Pineapple Express, and Superbad deliver great entertainment and nonstop laughs. Without a doubt the years funniest movie, and possibly one of the funniest movies of all time. It goes down as one of those comedies that shock's you. I was really stunned by many things in the movie, and I could tell that all the people in the theater with me were too. It was really raunchy and at times just super over the top or ridiculous. But that is what made the movie so good.

This is actually the only comedy this year that I thought was good. All the ones that I have seen were bad, and I think that all the ones I haven't seen look bad. All the films like Incredible Burt Wonderstone were just awful for me. Movies like Identity Thief look awful for me. This is the first comedy this year for me that wasn't bad or didn't look bad. It is the only good comedy this year so far in my opinion.

It is also one of the only good movies that Seth Rogan has done recently. Since Pineapple Express the only decent movie he has made was 50/50, and even that I felt like was slightly overrated, but still good. Pineapple Express was an excellent movie, but he wasn't able to duplicate what made that movie good or what made his earlier movies good until he did this film. I hope he gets better now that he is back with the same crew from Pineapple Express, Superbad, and 40-Year-Old Virgin. Part of the reason why this film was great was because it had all those actors. I got tired of them but once they took a break I think that aloud them to seem like they were more new once they came back for this. I also feel like they are going to do a sequel to Pineapple express because they talked about it in this film, and at one point they did a sequel on home video. I am just saying that I think they put that in there for a reason.

The film doesn't really have that much of a plot when you think about it. What happens is that Jay Baruchel and Seth Rogen are going to hang out over the weekend and after they get really high they decide to go to a party at James Franco's house, where all the actors from Superbad, 40 Year Old Virgin, and Pineapple Express are at. When the two leave briefly to go to a convenient store the apocalypse begins, and when they had back it gets worse. After that it is just James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, and Craig Robinson just trying to survive it at Franco's house. Many crazy and weird things go down while they are trying to figure out what is going on.

A completely wild and crazy, but hilarious movie that I will without a doubt say is the funniest film of 2013. It is a shocker that delivers nonstop laughs, and brings back the things that made us love the old movies that these guys used to do together.

Ordinary People
½

Ordinary People is a really good movie. I like films that get better and better as they go along, and Ordinary People is a great example of a film that the last half hour was way better then the first half hour. I also like it when a scene is intense, because of the acting, dialog, and emotion in it instead of just because there was a lot of action in it, and because it was suspenseful. This film had a lot of really intense and really good scenes. It is also one of the most well acted movies I have ever watched, and the acting to me seemed like it must have been the hardest type of acting to do. The acting was very emotional and intense in the film, and that was why the film was so great. The scene where Conrad (Timothy Hutton) talks to his therapist after he learns that his friend from the hospital just killed herself is one of the best scenes I have ever watched in any movie. The final scene is also a great scene, but I won't spoil them for you.

Conrad (Timothy Hutton) has a lot of problems. His older brother died in a boating accident, and drowned right in front of him so he has survivor's guilt. It is a lot like the movie Stand By Me, because the brother was a star athlete and everybody loved him, so the younger brother feels like it should have been him who died. The film is shows what the death of a child can do to a family. He tried to kill himself and he was in the hospital for it, and he got held back a year in high school for it. He has flashbacks of his brother drowning, and they show more and more of it as the film goes along. He see's a therapist named Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch), and his therapist is a really good one that is able to get a lot out of him. However therapy was looked down on at the time. During the time, people thought that you were weak if you saw a therapist, but now it is the opposite.

His mother Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) is really cold to him. One scene he gives her a hug and she can't even hug him back. Mary Tyler Moore does a great job of making you really dislike her, and I found myself hating her but you are supposed to. She tries to act like everything is all right in the house, and she refuses to talk about their problems, and does everything she can to hide them. She doesn't want anybody to know that Conrad is seeing a therapist, and the fact that he tried to kill himself was a big embarrassment to her. She just makes matters worse for the family because she is so self-absorbed. Conrad begins to think that she hates him. There is a lot of intensity that builds up with that. The fact that Conrad is so close to his father Calvin (Donald Sutherland) makes her look even worse. Conrad and Calvin are both suffering, and the fact that she is so self absorbed catches up to her in the end, and they start saying things to her. She just ignores all of their problems, and she hurts them by that, because she refuses to try to help herself, or her family. She gets mad if one of them reveals any of their problems. I found that I really liked everybody in the movie besides her.

It is a thought provoking film, and the stuff with Conrad made me think, like the fact that he said to his friend from the hospital that he misses the hospital made me think. I think he missed it, because his home life is so bad that the hospital must have been better. Plus because the mother was stubborn about admitting or facing any of their problems, he couldn't be helped in any way. But at the hospital he was constantly getting help, and I think that is why he misses the hospital. The girl who he was friends with at the hospital made me think about weather or not she was happy like she said she was. It felt like she was putting on a mask, and hiding her struggles and it turned out that she was. The film shows what will happen if you are always wearing a mask and if you are hiding your problems. The film teaches that you should always be seeking help no matter what you think people will think of you. That was the message or lesson that this film taught.

This was a great movie that had a secret message that you needed to think about, and figure out for yourself. The message was one that all humans should learn if they don't already know it, because it will really help you. The acting is phenomenal, and I felt like Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsch, and Timothy Hutton gave performances that were good enough for academy awards. Timothy Hutton did win an award for best actor, and Judd Hirsch, and Mary Tyler Moore were nominated. The film won best picture that year, and Robert Redford won best director, and it was his directorial debut that he won for. Alvin Sargent did win the award for best screenplay too. I must say that I thought the film deserved all of the awards it got, and it was a great one. Somebody may not like it, because it is slow, and it is sad, but if you are ok with that you will love it. I would definitely recommend this.

Skyfall
Skyfall(2012)
½

Greatest Bond film of all time. My favorite Bond films are the ones that stick out the most from each other. This one was really different from every other one. What makes it different is that it is all based around a story that doesn't have a lot of girlfriends in it. They killed the Bond girl off really quickly. It is also much darker then other Bond films, and the whole story was an unusual one for a Bond movie. It was built up to be a finale, which it actually wasn't, but they did try to give you that feel. This film had more of an epic action film. It showed how he appeared to have lost a step in the beginning, but quickly got it back. I won't give the ending away. But it was also very different, from any Bond film. This film wasn't like any other super formulaic, or cheesy Bond movie, which is why it rocked.

When James Bond (Daniel Craig) is chasing a man he gets shot and he falls off of a bridge into the water, and goes down a waterfall. He is presumed dead, and he uses his supposed death to retire, but when an office building explodes he decides to report for duty. He must go back for training but he is rusty and he has lost a step. He can't shoot or fight as well, so this film is about his resurrection. He eventually does come back, and is in full strength by the end.

Now Daniel Craig is the best Bond, without a question for me. All of the other Bonds played the role exactly the same to me, but certain actors were considered better then others, because some were in better movies like Sean Connery. But when you really think about it, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, they all played 007 the same way. Daniel Craig I feel like actually plays 007 in a different way, which is why I like him the best. He is just a totally serious, and he doesn't say any of the catch phrases that get old after a while. He is also way slicker, and his style is cooler. When he walks into the room he really looks like a James Bond. If you described James Bond to me, I would probably imagine he would look like Daniel Craig. I think he was born to play 007. Because he plays the role exactly the way it should have always been played. My 2 favorite Bond films, he was the one who played 007.

I loved the part when he was in Shanghai, because I felt like that was the best setting in any Bond film. The scene when he fights the guy in the room with all of the glass walls, in that skyscraper was one of the coolest Bond scenes ever. I also loved the scene just before that when he is hanging on to the bottom of the elevator, dangling from god know what height, and then he just climbs up. It showed the guts the James bond has. The whole ending at Skyfall, was what made this film so different from other Bond films, because I had never seen a scene in any Bond film, that took place in a setting like that. The action in that scene was so sweet, and I was on the edge of my seat for that entire section of the movie. The action was all predictable, but still awesome.

Every Bond film also has an intro with a great song playing while the opening credits role. This one had the best intro, and the best song yet in my opinion. The song "Skyfall," by Adele was awesome, and the whole intro, was so awesome. It was dark, and unique. This movie had some really awesome music. It had the old classic themes that you hear in all 007 films, but ha some new things that I hadn't remembered hearing in earlier films. The Bond films are the types of movies where you really listen to the music in it, because it's always great.

Now I haven't really ever talked about the Bond girls in my reviews for other Bond films, but I am going to do that now. The Bond girl in this film had a really small role. This movie was barely focused on 007 getting girls. I did like Bérénice Marlohe, but not as much as Olga Kurylenko. Olga Kurylenko was the best Bond girl of all time. Even better then Halle Berry.
The villain was good too, because he wasn't ridiculous like other villains were. He was very serious, and wasn't at all cheesy. He also seemed much smarter then all of the Bond villains. Though he is not my favorite Bond villain, he is one of them. I give Javier Bardeem two thumbs up for his performance.

Some people may have trouble with the length of the film, but I didn't at all. I felt sad when it was over, because I wanted there to be even more, because it was slow at the beginning. I wanted to see even more action, and for there to be even more added to the story after the fight at Skyfall. It was so good, that I wanted there to be another half hour. I felt like I just couldn't get enough of this movie, and what was in it. I believe that a great movie should have you psyched when you walk out, and you should want to see more. I had a lot of both of those two things.

The Lone Ranger

I usually agree with the user rating, but this time I definitely agree with the critics rating. There are many reasons why I didn't like The Lone Ranger, and why I agree with the critics. I really only saw it, because my friend and I wanted to catch a movie and that was the only movie that we could catch on time or wouldn't have to wait a while to catch. I pretty much just saw it just to see it, and not because I actually wanted to. I was really taking a risk seeing this film, because I felt like I wouldn't like it. A lot of people got up and left when I was in the theater, and at one point I had to get up just to stretch my legs outside of the theater I was in, because I was getting to anxious for it too end. I found that the reasons why I didn't like this were the same reasons why I was hesitant to see the film to begin with.

I felt like going into the film that it would be a bad attempt to re-do the success of the Pirates of The Caribbean franchise, but do it in a different way. When you think about it they are pretty much the same form of entertainment. A formulaic Disney adventure, which has been done before with all the Pirates of The Caribbean films. It did end up being exactly that way for me. I found that it tried to entertain the audience in the exact same way that Pirates Of The Caribbean did, with all the little clichéd puns, and lines that are supposed to be funny but are predictable now. It felt like it had similar action in it too. I find that Disney is better at animated films for the most part, and when they try to do stuff like this for the most part it isn't that great.

I felt like the character Tonto (Johnny Depp) seemed pretty similar to Jack Sparrow. He appeared to have the same personality of Jack Sparrow from what I saw in the trailers. I felt like I would just see Johnny Depp playing Jack Sparrow in a western film, and as an Indian, or it would just be Johnny Depp being his usual eccentric self. I was right on that prediction that I had going into it. Tonto had the exact same personality of Jack Sparrow, and he had way too many lines that I felt like were supposed to be funny that I found to be clichéd or predictable. I also found the thing with him feeding the dead bird on his head got old instantly, and so did pretty much everything he did that was supposed to be funny. The whole thing with Jack Sparrow got old for me after the first movie, and why the tried to do the character again and try to make him more fresh I just don't get. Now I think that Johnny Depp is a great actor, but he is so eccentric. I find that these really quirky characters that he has been playing over the last ten years are just old to me now. I am really tired of him to be perfectly honest. I like him more when he does stuff like What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

I also thought that the length of this film would really bother me if the plot at the beginning of the film didn't grab me. The plot didn't grab me at the beginning of the film didn't grab my attention, and I got bored no more then a half hour into it, and I hated the rest because it went on for so long, and I was so bored. Even the action sequences didn't entertain me at the end; because I lost interest in the film so quickly that it made it really hard for the rest of the film to entertain me. I had to get up from my seat and walk outside once or twice, because I was getting anxious for the film to end. A few people got up and never came back, and I have a feeling that it was for similar reason that I had to walk outside. Because they felt like the film was going on way too long, and because it was boring them. The film was just as boring as I feared it would be. I feel like many will find it entertaining, but I just could not get into it.

Overall I went into the film with bad expectations, and I really only saw it just to see it, and my expectations were correct. I really didn't like this film for many reasons, and I hope they don't do any sequels to this, and that Disney finds something else to do that feels more fresh or original for them. The crew that brought us Pirates of the Caribbean failed to succeed in making a film that seemed original for Disney, and they failed to come up with good characters. The whole film seemed like some pop song to me that sounded like a million other pop songs. I lost interest in it so fast that I have no memory of the plot, because I spaced out. Enjoyable to loyal Disney and Pirates of The Caribbean fans, but not for people like me.

The Usual Suspects

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Verbal Kint

The Usual Suspects is a masterpiece in directing from Bryan Singer, and especially screenplay writing from Christopher McQuarrie. It is an absolutely awesome movie that demands to be re watched multiple times, because it gets better and better. It gets better because it is hard to follow, and because you pick up on things the more you watched it. This violent and action-packed cult classic that everybody talks about is one that not a single person ever figured out until the end. The film is loaded with twist and turns, and it has a plot that is very hard to follow, so that is why it must be re-watched. I have seen this movie three times and it got better each time.

The film opens up with Deane Keaton (Gabriel Byrne) sitting on the ground when a mysterious figure appears and asks him "How you doing Keaton?" He replies "I can't feel me legs Keyser." He shoots Keaton and burns the boat. It was a job that a group of men had to do. They had to find millions of dollars worth of cocain that wasn't there. They meaning Deane Keaton (Gabriel Byrne), Roger "Verbal" Kint (Kevin Spacey), McManus (Stephen Baldwin), Todd Hockney (kevin Pollak), and Fred Fenster (Benicio Del Toro). The five met up with each other during a police lineup. While locked in jail for the night they come up with a plan for a job together. Keaton at first refuses because he wants to stop, but Verbal eventually gets him to do it. The needed Keaton to do it because he was an ex cop, and he knew how the cops cab service worked. They wanted to rob a jeweler who the police cab service was help smuggling jewels into the country so they could get his money, and jewels, and get the criminal and the cops arrested for smuggling. Keaton got kicked off of the force because he was involved in the cab service, and that is why they wanted him. The next job is given to them by a guy named Redfoot (Peter Greene). The job was to rob a jewel dealer who actually had heroin in his briefcase, and the job was a trick. Redfoot admits that the job came from a lawyer named Kobayashi. They are by Kobayashi (Pete Postlethwaite), and he tells them that he works for Keyser Soze and they have stolen from him. He tells them they must attack a ship smuggling 91 million dollars worth of cocaine, that was bought by Keyser Soze's rivals. He blackmails them into doing it. They don't believe that it is really Keyser Soze, because he doesn't really exist.

Keyser Soze was an old story the gangsters knew. It was a superstitious figure. Keyser Soze came home and found his family being held hostage and he killed his family and said "I would rather see my family dead then live another day after this." He then burnt all of the houses of the men and their families and disappeared. Keyser Soze is know as the devil to gangsters, and he convinced the world he didn't exist. He showed up on that ship and killed them all. Verbal (Kevin Spacey) was the only survivor, and he saw Keyser Soze murder Keaton which was the opening scene of the movie. The whole film is Verbal talking to Agent Dave Kujan (Chazz Palminteri) telling him what had ahappened over the last few weeks. The whole synopsis I gave was the story he told them. The mystery is who is Keyser Soze? Nobody figured this one out until the end. That is why it is the greatest mystery film of all time in my opinion, because it stuns you at the end. I sometimes do spoilers but I can't take the risk that somebody who hasn't seen this film reads my review, and I ruin it for that person. So I won't be putting in any spoilers.

Kevin Spacey won the Oscar for best supporting actor, and Christopher McQuarrie won for best original screenplay when this came out in 1995, and they truly did deserve it. Awesome movie.

Monsters University

I am not a huge animation guy, but I like the genre. I also feel like Pixar never fails at making a good movie, and I have enjoyed every film I have seen that they have made. Monsters University is just another example of how they can't fail, and it is another great film of theirs. Though I think the original is better, because of a storyline that I find more interesting this film was very entertaining and funny. I had mixed feelings, because prequels usually fail, but I thought it would probably be good considering that Pixar never fails. I think prequels are usually jinxed, because they always seem to fail, but this is one of the only ones that is really good. Monsters University delivers good laughs, entertainment, and amazing visuals backed up by a good story, and is suitable for all ages.

What was good about it was that they had all the same people back for it, and they stuck to the formula that many animated films have that make them good. There is a formula to these animated films live by. Well all genres have their own formulas, but the one for animated films to me is more unique then most. All animated films usually start off when things are mostly good, but there will be one problem with somebody or a problem in the story. As the story goes on the conflict increases, but you know they will overcome everything. The more conflict the better, because it will make you even happier once they overcome it at the end. This film does that perfectly, and the film came out great.

Mike (Billy Crystal) since he was a kid wanted to be a scarer. It goes back to when he was a little kid, and other kids excluded him. On a field trip to the place where all the scarers do their job he decided to be a scarer when he grew up. Then it goes forward in time to when he was in college. He had a plan to ace the scare class, and to become a scarer, but he wasn't scary. Sully (John Goodman) however is very scary, and they become enemies. Because of the previous movie I expected that they would become good friends, and that Sully would be the first person who didn't exclude him, but that wasn't the case. The story is about how they became friends and what led to them becoming the people they were in the previous film.

This film develops the characters of Mike and Sully more. Well I guess they had to because it is a prequel, and that is what most prequels do. Sully was much more arrogant in this one. He thought that just because he was a Sullivan that he would kill the class he was in, so he didn't study. He failed of course. It is a common thing in movies, and in life where you have arrogant guys like that who people hate. Mike was arrogant too. He thought that he was smarter then everybody, and that he knew everything. He did know everything that you could possibly know about scaring, but he just acted like a know it all. That is something that was really obvious too me, how arrogant both guys were. In the original it wasn't really like that, but I found it interesting how they developed more flaws with the characters in the prequel.

They also developed how they were both polar opposites, and eventually became friends. Sully was a partier who was irresponsible, and didn't take anything seriously, because he didn't think he had to, which was part of his arrogance. Mike was a super motivated student who studied, and was very responsible. He would spend all of his time studying so he knew everything, and he did know everything. That is how they were different. They did a very good job showing their differences, and developing their characters. Overall it was a very well done, and well thought out animated film with good character development, and a good story. It will be a Pixar classic in a few years I am sure of that, and I would say it was one of the better-animated films I have seen lately, and the best animated film so far this year. I still think Monsters Inc. is better, but I did really like this one.

Man of Steel
Man of Steel(2013)

65%

Man Of Steel is definitely the best superman movie I have ever seen, but I felt like it wasn't amazing like I hoped it would be. I usually lean more towards the user rating but I am a little bit closer to the critics rating for a couple of reasons. First of all I felt like there was too much action and CGI. I guess you need to have a lot more CGI with a Superman movie then you do with something like Batman, but I felt like the 2nd half of the movie was just action, and epic fighting which I usually don't like. I like when there are several fights spread out through the movie, and one big one at the end, because then there can be more plot development throughout the movie. I find that if the action is more spread out they are able to make the ending more suspenseful for some reason. Movies like Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises have more suspense because the action is more spread out, and because they have more of a story throughout. That is why I think that those are the best superhero movies.

The first half of the movie was really good because I found that there was more of a plot there. After a while there wasn't that much of a plot. What happened was that Kal-el (Henry Cavill) was born when Krypton was being destroyed. They send him to planet earth where he grows up as Clark Kent, and eventually becomes Superman. It is the same story as the original with Christopher Reeve, but more in depth. I feel like I should not give away any more details about the movie's plot so you can have some surprises, but that is my synopsis of the film.

It has also been a few years since the last Superman movie, which to be perfectly honest I really didn't think was that good. It was entertaining enough to be watchable, but there were a ton of flaws. I used to like it, but as I have gotten older I have found that my taste has become stronger, and there have been many films that I stopped liking because of that, and this is one of those films. Last time I saw it I felt like it was just trying to hard to be an epic movie, and they over did it. There was too much special effects, and the plot I felt like wasn't very good. This film has some of the same problems like there is too much CGI, and I felt like the plot development at the beginning was really good while it was there. I feel like they haven't made a perfect superman movie yet. The old ones I find are dated, and they are very cheesy and fake when you watch them now. You just have to appreciate them for what they are, which I do, but I am not a big superman fan.

I felt like they didn't make this a sequel to Superman Returns so that way they could start the series over again, and fix the flaws from the last film, and make a better story. They did that, and they also did a good job of expanding on certain parts of the original like what happened in Krypton when he was born. But however the original had that balance of action and story that I like, and this film is missing it. I feel like they are just trying to set up for an epic sequel. I saw this with two of my friends, and we all liked it, but we weren't like "man that was awesome" or anything like that. But we were saying to each other that the sequel is probably just going to be amazing. I feel like these origin stories like this usually aren't the best in the series. Often they are, but I really doubt this will be the best of the series once they come out with a few sequels.

I knew going in that David S. Goyer wrote the movie, but I remember seeing somewhere that this was his first movie, but whatever said that was completely wrong, because I looked up more information on him, and I found that he wrote all the Dark Knight films. That alone would give me really high expectations knowing that they guy who wrote my favorite superhero movies is writing this superman movie along with Christopher Nolan. However I think that it is hard to write a superman movie without writing something that is too much or something that will eventually become dated. He at first wrote an amazing introduction, but his flaw was that he didn't transition well into the action. What was so good about the Dark Knight scripts was that they had such great plots, and they built things up for the action at the end really well, and as for the action before the end they were able to transition into it perfectly without it seeming so abrupt. Those scripts had more suspense, because they were written better. The script for this film was good, but not nearly as good as any of the Dark Knight scripts. When he moved into the big action sequence it felt to sudden. The battle just seemed like it just started so abruptly. That is my flaw with this movie.

In the action sequences of this film Superman was getting thrown around all over the place, and he was throwing people all around the place. If this happened in real life there would have been billions and billions of dollars in damage to pay, and if not billions it would be trillions. Part of the non-stop CGI fest that this film became was buildings and parts of cities or towns being destroyed in Superman's battle. It was good action at first, but it eventually got ridiculous. Well Superman is supposed to be unrealistic so I don't mean ridiculous in that way, I mean it in a way where it was too much, and it got too over the top for my taste. It is a good movie that is far from perfect at the same time. I can't wait for the sequel, because I think that it will be way better. I will probably not see this one again.

Batman & Robin

This had to have been one of the worst movies I have ever watched in my life. I feel like these old batman movies appeal more to younger audience members, but are too silly for adults for the most part. I loved this as a kid, but I can't stand it now. I am so glad that Christopher Nolan did a new trilogy, because his films rocked, and all of his villains in his trilogy were at least ten times better then the ones in this series, which I hate entirely. Okay I will admit that the one with Jack Nicholson is tolerable, but Heath Ledger blew him away. Christian Bale blew away all the guys who played Batman before him. Tom Hardy's bane also blew away the Bane from this movie. Overall the Christopher Nolan Batman movies blow these ones right out of the water. This film is the reason why we needed Christopher Nolan to make a new trilogy so that way we could have some quality Batman movies.

There is a difference between bad movies, awful movies, and terrible movies. Bad movies are just bad. Awful movies mean really bad, but terrible means just absolutely unwatchable. It could also mean that after you saw it you were thinking, "What was that?" This is one of those terrible movies that when you watch it you feel like "What did I just watch?" The one with Jack Nicholson was an okay movie, Batman Returns was a bad movie, Batman Forever was an awful movie, while this was the terrible movie of the series where I felt like "What was that?" That is the difference between the terribleness of this film and the others.

I could make a massive list about what made this movie so god awful, and I could go on and on about it. This is a film that I could just rant on an on about, because there wasn't anything good about the film besides the fact that it is pretty entertaining, but just too stupid for me to watch. First of all it was just way too over the top cheesy. Everything in the film was extraordinarily cheesy. You would think that it would be at least somewhat good considering George Clooney is in it, and I find that he is usually good. However he couldn't save this disaster. He wasn't bad in this, but everything else around him was awful.

Arnold Schwarzenegger who I am not a big fan of plays Mr. Freeze, and he is the worst part of the movie. He has so many puns like when he would freeze things he would say "cool," or "chill." It was dreadful, and I have no idea what they were thinking when they were making his character. It may have been the worst character I have ever seen in a movie. He wasn't funny in any way, and I feel like that is why I hated him and everybody else did. Uma Thurman gives a performance as Poison Ivy that is almost as bad. It is also really cheesy and terrible. I hated the way she became Poison Ivy, and I hated her powers. She wasn't quite as awful as Mr. Freeze, but she was close. The Bane villain I hated because he wasn't a villain with a mind like Tom Hardy. He was just a mindless giant that some mad man created. It was a really dumb idea what they did with him, and all the villains in this atrocious film.

The story isn't even worth going into in my opinion, because it is just pure fluff. Well this whole movie was, but the story I just don't have any thing to say about. Partly because I haven't seen this film in years, but there is a reason for that. The film was just cheesy fluff, stuffed with stupid puns, and bad development of character, and of the story. Bad performances from the whole cast, cheesiness, bad effects, and a bad story make this one of the worst films of all time. This is when we really needed Christopher Nolan to redo the trilogy and make them better. Thank god he did, because I don't think we would have been able to handle another bad Batman movie after this one.

Death Proof
Death Proof(2007)

This is the first time I watched a Quentin Tarantino film that I didn't like. I found this film to be way too weird. I know that Quentin Tarantino is an acquired taste, and I have acquired the taste, because I love everything else he has done, but this one I just couldn't get into. I found that the though of something like what happened in this movie was upsetting to think about. I think Quentin Tarantino is one of the all time greatest film directors and screenwriters, but I do think he is probably disturbed. I always wonder what must be going on in his head, but this film I think shows how disturbed he truly is.

The film had his typical style, where the dialog was really long and interesting, but it had no humor in it, which most of his films usually have, and that is why I love them so much. This film just had the disturbing factor, and the dialog wasn't even really that interesting to listen too, and it just went on and on. I felt like he must have been going through writers block or something when he wrote the dialog. He got it back when he did Inglourious Basterds two years later. I don't even know why he made this film to be perfectly honest, because it doesn't bring anything unique or interesting to the cinematic world, which all of his other films do.

The story is about a man named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) who is a total psychopath, and a weirdo. He goes around driving a stunt car that is "Death Proof" hence the title. He stalks girls with it and then he kills them by driving at full speed, and doing intense things while driving to hurt the girls or girl he wants to kill or mess with.

The film had no point, or no redeeming quality to it. It had the Tarantino style that is one of the most influencial ones in movie making history, but the style was not used to perfection like it was in films like Pulp Fiction, Inglourious basterds, or Django Unchained. I am ahuge tarantino guy, but this is on the very bottom of my list of my favorite films of his. I would not recommend this, and not even to true Tarantino fans, because even if you like it is still definitely his weakest film compared to the others. The film was just upsetting, and I didn't like it.

Argo
Argo(2012)
½

This film won best picture for 2012, and it really deserved it. Though it was my 4th favorite film of 2012, first being Silver Linings Playbook I thought that it would get best picture for sure. This declassified true story delivers intense suspense, great dialog, and an awesome edge of your seat feel to it. It grabs you right off of the bat and just gets more and more awesome as it goes along. It was perfectly paced, and ten minutes into it my Dad and I looked at each other and said "This is already awesome for me." We walked out of the theater with our stomachs in knots because it got so heavy and intense. I felt tense for about a half hour after the film was done.

Partly because the film felt so real, and it was so convincing. Though the ending had to be made historically inaccurate so it wouldn't be boring for the audience it still felt real. This is a film that you probably knew the ending going into it, because it was a true story, and a declassified one so part of the struggle to writing this screenplay would have been making an ending that kept you on the edge of your seat even thought you know what will happen. Chris Terrio did a great job adapting the screenplay from the book. He won best-adapted screenplay for this.

Ben Affleck I never really liked him that much as an actor, but I have always thought he was a really good screenplay writer and director. He wrote Good Will Hunting with Matt Damon in high school, he wrote and directed Gone Baby Gone, and he wrote, directed and starred in The Town. He didn't write Argo, but he did direct and star in it. I grew to appreciate him as an actor more when I saw the town, but I thought he was really good in this. I think he should direct and write more films then he acts in. This film was different, because his films usually take place in Boston, and he gives the true feel of the city in his films. I come from Boston so I found that I could relate to his films like Gone Baby Gone, not for the story or characters, but because you get the true feel of the city of Boston in them. This film was so different from his other films, and it took place in many places all around the country and the world. I think that is what made this an interesting film for him to do, and he pulled it off beautifully.

Protesters try to break into the American Embassy in Tehran so they are forced to shred all of the documents after all attempts to hold off the crowd fail. Six diplomats escape as the protestors barge in and take everybody hostage. The escapee's are Robert Anders (Tate Donovan), Cora Amburn-Lijek (Clea DuVall), Mark Lijek (Christopher Denham), Joseph Stafford (Scoot McNairy), Kathleen Stafford (Kerry Bishé), and Lee Schatz (Rory Cochrane). The actors actually looked like the real people. The Canadian ambassador lets them hide at his place.

Things get intense in the CIA as they try to figure out a way to get them out. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) a CIA exfiltration specialist is brought in to help come up with an idea to get them out. He is inspired by watching Battle for the Planet Of the Apes to do a cover story where the escapee's would be Canadian filmmakers looking for locations for their film in Iran for their science fiction movie.

Tony and Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston) get in touch with John Chambers (John Goodman) and tell him of their idea. Chambers is a Hollywood makeup artist. They then get in tough with Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) who is a foul-mouthed Hollywood producer that is hilarious. He sets up a fake movie, script, publicizes it to look legitimate. The film will be called "Argo," and it will be a sci-fi fantasy. It then becomes a really intense movie with a lot of suspense, and an incredible story.

The movie was absolutely awesome. I loved it from start to finish, and I would recommend it to everybody. The story was incredible, and the fact that it really happened made it even better. The book isn't that great, and it is boring, but the movie blows you away.

Django Unchained

Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave who is being brought to the Greenville Slave Auction when Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) saves him. Dr. Schultz is a bounty hunter, and a former dentist who wants Django to be a bounty hunter with him. Django has the goal of freeing his wife Broonhilda (Kerry Washington) who is a slave at Candieland. They go around the country catching bad guys, and trying to gain money so they can buy his wife. The film was crazy, and violent, but it had a great story.

This movie was just absolutely awesome in every way. Like all of the best Quentin Tarantino films he took all of the best cinematic elements to the next level, and it made the film just absolutely ridiculously sick. I saw this with My Dad three days after it came out, and we both walked out of the theater so psyched up. The best Tarantino films usually do get me really psyched when I am done with them. I have seen the film a total of three times, and I still get psyched every time I see it. Quentin Tarantino films like Pulp Fiction, Inglourious Basterds, and this one never get old. They are classics that will live on forever. This film is too young to be considered a classic, but I think it will definitely be one in a few years.

Whenever I watch a Quentin Tarantino movie I always feel like I just saw something I had never seen before, or at least not from him. This film is mostly original, except for the few things that were obviously stolen or parodied from other old westerns. With this film he blended satire and comedy into a spaghetti western about slavery in his Oscar winning screenplay, which I have read, and loved. The film is beautifully written, and put together. He blended all the different styles together so well, and the film came out just awesome. Nobody could blend those things together into one epic western but Quentin Tarantino. It is movies like this that make him my favorite director of all time.

This film uses a lot of satire to make slavery look awful. The film has received a lot of critcism for it's violence, and use of the n-word. Now the violence on the slaves in this movie I feel like was either exaggerated to make you hate slavery even more then you did before the movie or was told accurately. In other movies about slavery you see things happen to the slaves that will upset you, but this film made me feel more upset about it then any other film. I feel like Quentin did that so that we would have a different perspective on what slavery was like, and in interviews he has said that he is happy with the films response because people are discussing the topic of slavery in a different way. That is why he made this film, and made the slavery look more brutal and awful then most movies seem to do.

Now as for the criticism of the films extreme use of the n-word I find that I can't criticize Quentin for putting that in the film so much, because back in 1958 when this film took place that is how people spoke about African Americans. An argument that I can understand is that he used it too much, and after a while it wasn't necessary to use it as much to get the point across that whites were racist to African Americans at the time. That is the only argument that I could understand, but I think that when you are telling a film about slavery and really trying to make something look bad you have to do things like that. I think that it goes back to the thing where everything may have been exaggerated to make it look really awful. Tarantino has always been really liberal with his use of that word, but this was the only film where I felt like it was necessary. I do give him credit because it is hard to have the courage to do something like this where you know people will be upset by it, but he did one of the best jobs I think anybody could do.

There is also a lot of over the top violence that doesn't include the stuff that happens to the slaves, which all Tarantino films have and I can understand why you would criticize the film for that. Violence is just one of the many things that Quentin takes to the next level. In this movie there were times where a guy would get shot, and about a bucket or two of blood would fly out. It is pretty ridiculous and crazy, but after a while I felt like "its Tarantino that's what he does." One day I was in class and a girl told me that she heard Django was really good and that every time somebody got shot about a pint of blood came out. Then she just said to me "That's Quentin Tarantino for you." Yeah I would say that what that friend said to me is right. All of the blood in this movie is just classic Tarantino. The blood and violence in the movie was taken to the next level like all of the other awesome aspects of film were.

The violence in this film shocked me even though I expected it for some reason. However I found the shootout scenes to be kind of exciting, because they were so crazy that it became entertaining as hell. By taking violence and gore to the next level he made the film exhilarating in certain ways, but disturbing at the same time. When that huge gunfight happened where people were basically being blown up by gunshots I felt kind of exhilarated by how crazy it was, but disturbed by how over the top it was. I think that was what Tarantino was trying to do, and how he was trying to make us feel. When I saw it in theaters with my Dad a few people around us were laughing.

This is the shootout scene I was talking about. It is really crazy, and the bloodiness of the film gets campy, but it is still a well-done scene in a way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h3oSWHfVU8.

I feel like he does violence for many reasons. First of all you can have some potentially great cinematography with violence. Tarantino in interviews has said that he thinks violence in movies is great cinema. I agree with that to an extent. Some movies that are violent have incredible cinematography, but I don't think that you need violence to have great cinematography. The violence in this film is unnecessary, but it is just part of a style that Quentin Tarantino has. I usually can take violence so that is why I am able to watch his films and like them. However I do question what is going on in his head, because I have a feeling that he is a real weirdo. But he is definitely a filmmaking genius.

Though this film is one of my top ten favorites, there were one or two moments where I felt like I would rather not look at that. But it wasn't the bloody gunfights that bothered me as much. They didn't bother me that much, because I know how unrealistic they are, and because of that I was able to get past that. It was the slave violence that bothered me more. Like when they fed the runaway slave to the dogs at one point, and another scene where two African American men fought each other to death. Those were the two violent scenes that I would have rather have not seen. But at the same time I think that goes back to the thing that I said where I think that the films violence towards slaves may have been exaggerated or told accurately to make us hate the slave holders from the 1800's even more. I found that my distaste for slavery was even worse after seeing this movie. I always hated it that slavery used to be a thing in America, but I hate it more now.

There was more slave violence in the screenplay that got taken out for the movie. I read the screenplay, and thought that it was beautifully written. However there were some changes in the movie, and there were some things that were left out. Like there is a scene in the screenplay where Django (Jamie Foxx) is having sex with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), and then their slaveholders barge in and force them to keep having sex in front of them for their amusement. Also the scene where Django is hanging upside down and Stephen (Samuel Jackson) is telling him about what is going to happen to him is worse in the screenplay, because in the screenplay Django gets tortured more. Stephen burns his face in that scene, and it is described that Django unlike most heroes in movies shows pain, and screams. I can tell that Tarantino had to cut certain things out to make the film more watchable. I am glad that they cut out those things, because I don't think I would have been able to stomach that kind of slave violence. The gun violence was tolerable but intense for me, but the stuff with the slaves being punished for running away or tortured was a little bit much for me at times. Tarantino actually added violent scenes that weren't in the script to the movie. Like that violent gunfight that I keep talking about in this reviews was not in the script. I feel like Tarantino is the type of guy who can improvise stuff with his films. The script was great, and it got him the Oscar for best original screenplay. It just needed a few things to be taken out of the movie, and a few things to be added to it. Then it would have been perfect.

I feel like I have said enough about the violence in the movie, so I feel like I should talk about the acting now. A thing I notice with all Tarantino films is that that scripts are so good that all the best actors want to be in them. I also feel like the way he writes them allows the actors to be really good in the films, and it make sit easy for them to show off whatever skills they have as an actor. This film had incredible acting, and part of it was because of how great the characters were.

Leonardo Dicaprio took on the role of Calvin Candie. His character was a nasty, evil, and self-absorbed slaveholder whom you hate. I thought that this may have been his best acting job. It was the first time that he took on a role that wasn't a lead in a while. He usually takes on intense leading roles, but in this one he took on an n intense supporting role, and he pulled it off beautifully. He really made you hate his character, and he really got into it. In fact there was one scene where he cut his hand by accident on a wine glass, and he needed stitches later on. When he cut his hand he stayed in character, and then rubbed the blood on his hand all over Kerry Washington's face. When I first saw that scene I thought it was probably scripted, but it wasn't. I think he did that, because of how into the character he got. I felt like that was a great idea to leave that in because it added to the brutality, and to the evilness of the character, and I felt like it made that scene even more intense. It was an awesome acting job from a great actor. I thought that he was the guy who changed his personality the most for the movie.

Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz took on the two main characters. Jamie Foxx as Django, and Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz. Christoph Waltz won the Oscar for best supporting actor, and he really deserved it for this. He gave an awesome performance, and he was funny, and just a perfect character for a Tarantino flick. Django was originally a character from a 1966 western called "Django." There is one scene where the guy who played the original Django has a cameo, and in that cameo he meets Jamie Foxx's Django. I like Jamie Foxx's Django better, because he was cooler. He was a dead shot like all great guys in westerns, and he was able to come up with some great lines. That is why the new Django is better then the original.

What Tarantino did was that he took things from old westerns, and blended them into his own creative story that had slavery, satire, and comedic things in it. It was one of the most creative films I have ever seen in terms of blending in different story elements. The 2nd best Tarantino film after Pulp Fiction. I loved this movie, and it got better for me the 2nd and 3rd time for some reason. So awesome, and I was so psyched after I watched it.

Role Models
Role Models(2008)

Role Models is a great movie. It is both funny as hell, and a really good movie at the same time. The film is very entertaining, and fun, because of some really funny people, and a good story. It is funny throughout, and there are many unexpected funny things in it. It can be very crude at times, but not crude to the point where it is uncomfortable. They balance out the amount of silly jokes; with the amount of crude or inappropriate jokes, which I felt like, was a good thing. It was a pretty well done comedy, which I have watched a few times.

Wheeler (Seann William Scott) and Danny (Paul Rudd) work together going around to different schools trying to teach kids to stay off drugs, and drink the energy drink that they are trying to promote. They are both polar opposites. Wheeler is this really happy guy who loves everything, and he loves the job he does, because of how easy it is, while Danny can't see the positive in anything, and hates everything. Danny proposes to his girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth banks) out of impulse after she tells him how he doesn't take joy in anything anymore. She brakes up with him there, and that is rock bottom for him. After a presentation they drive their Minotaur truck into a school statue when it is getting towed.

They are sentenced to community service, and they have to go to sturdy wings. A charity where kids are given a buddy that they hang out with. Wheeler is supposed to look after a boy named Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson) who is a really foul mouthed and crude kid. However I think he is the funniest part of the movie. He has many lines that I just love. I won't spoil them though. Danny is partnered up with a kid named Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who is obsessed with reenacting battles in a place called LAIRE. The part with the battles in LAIRE I felt like really made that stuff look ridiculous. That was one of the funniest parts of the film.

I really liked this film. I thought that the childish relationship between Danny and Wheeler was great. I also liked the way that they developed the relationship between Danny and Augie, and the relationship between Wheeler and Ronnie. The experience of going to Sturdy Wings really helped everybody in the end, and I liked the way they showed that. It was a really good movie, and it was really entertaining. Not one that I quote frequently, but there are a few quotable liens in there too. Enjoyable for pretty much any audience, except for young kids.

A History of Violence

This was a big surprise for me. I didn't anticipate that I would like this film as much as I did. It was a really good movie, and it is very underrated. I loved the intensity of the film, and it was crazy. It is a film that will just suddenly get really violent, and intense, but it will be over quickly. I liked that style that it had with the sudden violence a lot actually. The film also blends in drama, suspense, and mystery really well. This is really the only script that Josh Olson ever wrote that was any good, but he did a great job with this one. He was able to write a mystery film that you didn't figure out until you were told what the truth was. He also put in a lot of suspense, and you couldn't tell how it would end. The drama side was good to because they really showed how what happened to the guy really affected his family. It was overall really well done.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) runs a local diner in an Indiana town. He has a family, and is very in love with his wife Edie (Maria Bello). One night his diner gets robbed, and he becomes a local hero when he kills the robbers, and saves the lives of the people in the store. He is all over TV, which make shim nervous, because he doesn't want that. One day a man named Carl Fogarty (Ed harris) came into the store and starts calling him "Joey" and starts to question him about the old days in Philadelphia. He accuses him of being a part of the mob many years ago. The film from that point becomes a mystery of weather or not he is the guy they tell him he is, or if he isn't. Once you learn weather he is or not it is about how he will get out of the situation he is in.

The film does a good job of making you wonder weather he is that guy that Carl Fogarty tells him he is, because there is foreshadowing of the violent side that he has, when he kills the robbers in his diner. Also his son has a violent edge in him to which he lets out on a bully. But they make him seem like such a peaceful man, and it surprised me when I saw him kill those two robbers, because it didn't seem like something he had in him. You could think either way about his identity, because they did a really good job developing that part of the story.

Overall I thought it was a really good movie. I really liked the plot, and I found it to be very entertaining. I think the reason why it got mixed reviews from users is because it was a little short, and certain parts of the film felt like they could have been developed more. That is the only flaw with the film. If it was about fifteen or twenty minutes longer I think the user rating would be even higher. Usually I think films are too long, but this film is too short. Other then the flaw in length it is perfect, and it is really well done.

Glory
Glory(1989)

The story is mostly about Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Mathew Broderick). I thought that I should give some more of his background that wasn't in the movie. He was born on October 10th 1837, and he died on July 18th 1863. He was born into a prominent abolitionist family.

The film starts off in the middle of the civil war, and at the Battle of Antietam, which took place on September 17th 1862 near Sharpsburg, Maryland. It was the first battle of the civil war that took place on Union soil. It was also the bloodiest single day battle in American History. The film does a great job of showing how vicious the battle was, and it was a really gruesome scene when they showed this battle. In the battle scene people were getting blown up, and were having there limbs blown off too. There were a total of 22,717 dead, wounded or missing men on both sides put together. It really was a gruesome battle, that was tough to watch, and I can't even imagine how awful it was in real life.

It was really tough to watch, but I have tremendous respect for the film, because it depicted that battle in a way, which seemed to be really accurate. It told it as it was. The best directors in my opinion take stuff like that and tell it the way it was. It is hard to do that, because you also have to be ok with disturbing people when you do a battle scene like that. But that is why Edward Zwick's directing was so good. He took a really well done screenplay that was written by Kevin Jarre, and then made it seem so realistic.

Robert Gould Shaw (Mathew Broderick) woke up after that battle in the hospital. He learns that President Lincoln is about to pass the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln would later pass that one January 1st, 1863. It said that all of those who were slaves in Confederate territory would be free, and the army would have to allow them to fight in the Civil War.

Many African-Americans volunteer, and then they start the training. The training is brutal, and it felt like the movie Full metal Jacket to be honest. One of the generals really makes you hate him, because of how rough he is. Robert Shaw is the guy who you like, but he is still intense. He gets intense with his soldiers to get them ready for the intensity of a battle. Broderick acted that part of the film out very well. I would probably say that this was his best film in terms of his acting. I find that he has been type casted as Ferris Bueller, and that everybody always thinks of him in that character in everything he does. I find that I think of him that way too, but I still think he is a good actor. He has range to him, and he shows it with this film.

The film had a lot of great actors, who gave great performances. Another part of this film is that it was Denzel Washington's first big hit. When this film came out everybody knew that he had a lot of potential, and he went on to be awesome. He is one of my favorite actors, and he has done so many good ones for me. It is also another great Morgan Freeman film for me. It was just a great film all around. This is one that I could go on and on about discussing, but it would ruin it for somebody who hasn't seen it. I would recommend this film, because it is really well done, and because it is also historically accurate.

Fatal Attraction

Now Fatal Attraction is a stressful film to watch I have to say. But I also have to say that it is really good. Great to be perfectly honest. It is an intense thriller that is perfectly paced, and really well done. It had an effect on guys in particular, and I feel like all guys should be shown this at some point. The reason why they should see this is because it shows the consequences of cheating on your girlfriend or wife. A lot of men apparently were really disturbed after seeing this, because they imagined themselves getting into the mess that the guy in this film got himself into. It is one that if you imagine it happening to you it will really stress you out. I think that was why the film was written. The term "fatal attraction" gets used a lot because of this film.

The film is about this one man named Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas). He has a perfect life. His job is great, his family is great, and he has a perfect wife. But he meets a woman named Alex Forrest (Glenn Close), and they have a mutual attraction for each other. They have an affair that lasts an entire weekend while his wife is away. The problem is that Alex is insane. She is super clingy and you can tell when you see the way she clings to him during that weekend that once he has to go back to reality it is just going to be hell for him. The whole film is about him trying to keep his wife from finding out, and trying to get this crazy woman to leave him alone. It also builds up his guilt, and he really starts to manifest how much he regrets the affair almost immediately. Part of the film you also sit there mad at him, because you know that this will later effect his whole family. You also are disgusted because his wife is perfect, and the woman he cheated on her with is the exact opposite.

It was an extremely suspenseful movie. It was the type of film where you knew certain things would happen, but you didn't know when or how. So it was somewhat predictable, well at least it was for me. But even though it is a little bit predictable it is still really suspenseful. A really good movie that will keep you on edge, and gives you a not in your stomach. Great screenwriting, directing, and acting.

The Hangover Part III
½

I had mixed feelings going into the Hangover part 3. I predicted in a blog that it would either be good or bad, and there would be no middle. I walked in with mixed feelings, and I walked out with mixed feelings. The film was very entertaining, but it wasn't hilarious like the first one was, and it wasn't as funny as the 2nd one. I really felt like they were just trying to push it with this one. Meaning that they were just trying to see how far they could take this series. Weather you like this film or not, whatever ideas they had left were used in this film. It better be the end like they said it was, because I don't see how they could possibly come up with something else. I may have to see this again to get a final opinion of it, and if I do I will re0write this review, and possible change my rating for it. I am giving it a 50% because I am not sure weather or not it was good or bad, but after seeing it the first time I thought it was ok. But at the same time when I first saw the 2nd one I didn't like it because of how similar I thought it was to the first. But when I watched it again I had a 2nd opinion on it, and I liked it more. So that is why I will give Hangover 3 another try when I can.

What happens with this one is that Allan (Zach Galifianakis) has been off of his medication for months and has been going crazy. He buys a giraffe, and when he goes under a bridge that isn't high enough for the giraffe to go under it takes off the giraffe's head causing a major traffic wreck. His father has a heart attack when he learns of it. Meanwhile Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) escaped from a high security prison in a scene that parodied Andy Dufresne's escape from prison in the Shawshank Redemption. They take Allan to a hospital to get him help, but they are run off the road on the way by a bunch of gangsters led my Marshall (John Goodman). They say that they have three days to find Lesley Chow. They kidnap Doug and say they will kill him if they don't find him in time. The plot is completely different from the first two films, because there is no hangover, and because they had to relate it to the other two. You could tell that they learned that in order for the movie to be good they had to come up with something new, and they did.

There are a lot of things that I want to talk about, but it would spoil the movie if I did, so I won't. I still have mixed feelings about this, and I want to see it again to see if it changes my opinion. But it is definitely not nearly as good as the first.

The Exorcist
The Exorcist(1973)

The Exorcist is one of those one in a kind films that has people have tried to duplicate, and have failed to succeed either because they went to far with it or because they just couldn't do it the way that it was originally done. When this film came out it was the scariest movie of all time. But what made it so good was that not only was it a really freaky movie, but it was also a really good quality movie. Unlike most films in this genre the acting is great, and there is more of a story that isn't just about the possession. The film is slow so it can develop the story and its background more, which most films over thirty-five years old tend to do.

The film is also extremely well done for a film from its time. For a film that is almost forty years old it has amazing special effects. I will admit that certain things look fake, like when her head spins it is really fake now, but almost everything looks real. What is good about it is that it is more reliant on things like lighting, then computer effects. Because of that they are able to make things seem more real.

The film is just as much of a drama as it is a horror film. It is slow like a lot of dramas, and more reliant on acting, which most horror films aren't. The acting from Linda Blair is amazing. Her character before she got possessed was just the sweetest little girl. She was actually to sweet, and that worked because it made you feel even worse as she got possessed because it was such a change from what you saw at the beginning of the film. Linda Blair's performance must have been extremely hard to pull off, and the fact that she did it when she was so young was amazing.

The stuff with her getting possessed was the main focus of the film, but there were other backstories. Like the story of Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller) who would help other's that were losing their faith in God get it back again. He lost his faith after his mother died, and he wasn't there to see it. Part of the story is building up suspense for when he must regain his faith in the end and try to save Regan (Linda Blair). You know that he will in the end have to help save her, but a big part of the films suspense is building up to when it will happen.

While the audience knows that she is possessed the people in the film can't figure it out. At first they thing it is a behavior thing. Her mother Chris (Ellen Burstyn) is a single parent, and she is worried sick about her daughter. Nobody is helping her, because they don't know that she has been possessed for a while. I found that part dumb, because eventually it got to the point where it was really obvious that she had been possessed, and they still that it was a psychological thing. That part was a little overdeveloped, and they should have realized faster that she was possessed. Everything else in the story was perfect.

This is one of the greatest horror films of all time. It is one of the greatest because of how scary it was, how it inspired a new horror subgenre, and because it was also a great drama and suspense film. It scared the hell out of me the first time I saw it, and I loved it. I saw it twice, and it freaked me out just as much the second time, and that shows you how good it was. However some people in my generation tell me they thought it was funny. About three or four of my friends say they laughed at it, which I don't really get. I am talking to who ever is reading this. Let me know what you think of the fact that some people laughed at this. This is a great movie that should be taken completely serious.

The Hangover
The Hangover(2009)

The hangover is one of those comedies that really affected pop culture. It was a one of a kind film when it first came out. It's jokes, characters, and lines are legendary. The film has many lines that get used in today's culture like "One man wolf pack." What made this film so great was how crazy it was. It had so many things in it that were so unexpected, and they were all just hilarious. I would say that this is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen for sure. It is the ultimate guys movie, but girls can love it too.

What actually happens is that Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in two days. So his friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and soon to be brother in law Alan (Zach Galifianakis) decide to take him out to Vegas for his bachelor party. All three of the people have problems, and they go to Vegas not just for Doug but to escape their problems. Alan is a really crazy guy, and it is really hard to explain him, but he is hilarious throughout the whole movie. Part of what made him crazy is that he used to always do drugs, and now he is almost like a little kid. His experience really helped him in the end, because he grew up more from it. Phil is an unhappy teacher who doesn't appreciate his life. He hates having a wife and kid, and when he goes to Vegas he says that he may not go back. His experience in the end really helped him appreciate what he has in life much more. Stu at first was with this really nasty woman named Melissa (Rachael Harris) who he can't even tell that he is going to Vegas, because of what she will think. Phil is always telling him that he needs to dump her, but he won't. He learns how awful she is through his experience, and that is how the experience they went through helped him.

The experience that I am talking about is that they have one wild night, and wake up hung over in their villa at Caesars palace, and they have completely destroyed the place. It was a total mess the whole night, and it is evident. They find a baby in the room, and they have no idea whose baby it belongs too. Alan also finds a tiger in the bathroom. A really random thing is that there is a chicken walking around the place. The big problem is that they don't remember anything, and Doug is missing. They have to go throughout Vegas trying to find him so they can get him back in time for the wedding. It is a wild and crazy ride. They learn about some really messed up things that they did. Like Stu got married to a prostitute named Jade (Heather Graham). He has also lost a tooth. Apparently Ed Helms lost that tooth in real life, but he got a fake to replace it, but they had it taken out for the filming of this movie. But the stuff that I listed with him was only a few things. The film is wild, and there are many big surprises.

I loved this film, and it has many of my favorite comedy characters. I have a tee shirt that says "One Man Wolf pack" on it. This is an awesome movie, and I feel like they should have left it alone, and not done the sequel. The sequel was funny, but not as good because it copied this one. This one was special because it had not been done before, but the 2nd one was not special at all.

Tombstone
Tombstone(1993)

For me the Sergio Leone westerns of the 60's are dated, but the ones from the 90's and of the 21st century rock. Tombstone is one of the best westerns I have ever seen. The director of this film George P. Cosmatos is a one hit wonder. He made this one great film, but all of his other films were bad. This film shows that he should have been doing westerns his whole career.

The film was a perfect western. It was really well paced, and it was intense when it had to be. It had all the characteristics that made old westerns great, and many more modern ones. The newer westerns are usually better acted and this film was really well acted. I feel the need to point out the terrific performances from Kurt Russell, and Val Kilmer. Those two carried the movie for me. It also had more development. Not only was there plot development, but also there was character development, and the suspense gradually got greater as the film went on. They went more into the personal lives of the characters, which modern westerns tend to do. It had the old western characteristics like all the gunfights, and the fact that it was a gang of bad guys. SO this film will appeal to lovers of old westerns, and more modern ones.

What actually happens is that there is a man named Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) who decides to retire from law enforcement, and go to the town Tombstone. He meets up with his old friend Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) and learns that the town has been taken over by a group called "The Cowboys." He came to Tombstone to retire and reside with his wife, but now he is caught up in something huge. It started off slightly slow, but then got really intense, and it was great.

I like my western films to be like this. Unpredictable, suspenseful, well acted, and well developed. I am writing a western screenplay, and this is one of the films that inspired me to do it. Westerns were an acquired taste for me, and I am really growing to love the genre. This will always be one of my favorites of the genre. My favorite western films are ones like "Unforgiven," the remake of "True Grit," and this one. I liked the intensity of this film a lot, and that is what made this film so great. One of the all time great westerns for sure.

Warm Bodies
Warm Bodies(2013)

R (Nicholas Hoult) is a zombie, and he hates it. He is unhappy with what he is, and he wants to be human again. All he wants is to be able to connect with people, and go back to the way he was before the apocalypse, but he can't until he meets a girl named Julie (Teresa Palmer). After eating her boyfriend Perry's (Dave Franco) brain he gets his memory from him. The memory he acquires allows him to get to know Julie a little bit better. He takes her back to the airport where all the other zombies live, and he bonds with her there.

Warm Bodies is a really good movie that is a completely different kind of zombie film that adds more to the genre. I have seen serious zombie movies that are meant to be scary, and I have seen funny parodies, but I have never seen a romantic zombie film. The idea is very original for it's genre and that is why it adds to the genre. The idea of a zombie who hates being a zombie and then falling for a girl was interesting. The fact that they both fall for each other and it shows how he becomes more human and how he learns to deal with humans was a great idea for this genre.

For a romantic comedy the only original part is that it is around zombies. It follows the same predictable formula where a guy gets a girl and they fall in love, but a conflict rises and he loses her, but gets her back in the end. It is definitely a little predictable and formulaic, but still very original. I really enjoyed this film and I found it interesting.

They also portrayed zombies in a completely different way. R narrates the films and I assumed that he was narrating his thoughts, but at the same time zombies can't think. I found that to be interesting. I also found it interesting how he had feelings, and he felt unhappy with his current state. Zombies are usually just completely mindless, but they weren't in this film. They had feelings, and they could think. They could also talk a little bit.

From the beginning of the romance between R and Julie you can tell that R is most likely going to be a human again, by the end. On the poster for the film it says, "He's still dead but he's getting warmer." That itself is foreshadowing that he will be a human at the end. That is part of the predictable feel of the film. However I liked the way they developed that part of the story. It was love at first sight when he saw her, which is a human thing so he always had some human things in him. As the film goes on he starts getting better at speaking, and other human things like that.

The film was very funny, and original. It had a really good soundtrack, which added to several scenes, and it made the film better for me. It was overall a really good movie that despite being predictable and formulaic still kept my interest throughout. I would recommend this to most people, and especially to zombie movie fans.

The Master
The Master(2012)

The master is definitely an acquired taste. It is one that will get better every time you watch it, and I think it is the type of film that you have to really be in the mood for. When I first watched it I had to quit on it, because I was so bored, because it is very slow. But then I thought that I might have missed something big. I watched it at like 11 at night several weeks ago, and I was just not in the mood for something like this when I first tried to watch it, and I think that is why I hated it the first time. I decided to re-watch it because I knew it was definitely an acquired taste, and I felt like I would pick up on something great. I really did pick up on something great.

The 2nd time I watched it I really liked it, and I actually loved it. It was extremely well acted, and it really was an intellectual movie. It has an unusual style that makes it so you have to think more to understand everything that is going on. It is not blunt at all, and you have to really think about what you're watching so you get it. This is the type of film that you could hyper analyze in an English class in high school, because of it's style. First time I watched it I wasn't in the mood to analyze anything, but when I was in the mood to analyze something I gave this another shot, and really liked it. I noticed that at times it didn't appear to have that much going on, and that is why you really have to think a lot about what you are watching to get it.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is a war world 2 veteran who gets out of the war, and has many problems that he is trying to run from. He is extremely obsessed with sex, and he relates a lot of things to sexual things. One scene at the beginning he is taking the test where he is shown a picture and he has to say what he see's, and he just see's sex. In the opening scene his obsession is manifested when he has sex with a person made of sand on the beach. He also is a big time alcoholic. He gets job as a photographer at a department store, and gets fired because he gets into a drunken fight. These things develop his character right of the bat, and they show how flawed he is. One thing they did that I think was to develop his sexual obsession more was that when he went on a date he fell asleep at the table, and I think that that was done to show he has no interest in a relationship and he is only interested in sex.

He then gets a job in a cabbage field, where he starts making these mysterious brews, and it poisons one of the migrant workers there, and the other workers chase him off. They do a shot of him running as fast as he can in the field. I think that they did that shot to symbolize how he is running from something, and not just the people who are chasing him. I think that because the shot lasted long enough for it to be a symbol. He is definitely running from something, and I think that they made that fairly obvious. The scene where he poisons the guy shows how he isn't doing the world any good. He isn't doing himself or anybody else any good. He is completely flawed. It was the 2nd job in a row he lost in that scene, and it gave me the impression that when he finally meets whom Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays that guy would really help him.

He ends up on the yacht of Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) when he gets drunk. Dodd tell shim the next day what happened, and he says that he can stay on the ship with him as long as he keeps making his brew for him. He is at sea again, and water is a huge symbol in the story, which I think symbolizes how life flows.

Dodd is "The Master." He is a doctor, a scientist, and many other things, but what I think he is more then anything is a genius. Freddie inspires him, and he inspires him with "The Cause." "The Cause" is a philosophical movement that Dodd leads that helps people in a really deep and intense way. He tries it on Freddie, and he gives him a test where he asks him some deep questions and does certain rules for the test. Like Freddie can't blink or he will have to go back to the start. He pulls out certain information from him which makes Freddie look even more flawed, and that starts a intense relationship between the two. Dodd is the only one who likes Freddie and believes that he can be fixed through "The Cause," but nobody else can. That is a really detailed synopsis of the film.

The film was a really intense one. It demands to be re-watched so you can pick up on things, and so you can get the films message more. It is a hyper acquired taste, because of it's style, and some will find it boring. Others will find it fascinating, intense, and extremely well acted. As long as you are in the mood for something like this when you watch it, you should love it. It is sad at times, because of the trouble that Freddie gets in, but you like it how Dodd never gave up on him. I found this film to be so thought provoking. Films like this will never be grasped by everybody, but for those who do grasp it they probably are really experienced movie watchers with a lot of acquired taste. Those who do grasp it will really like it, like I did.

42
42(2013)

42 was a really good movie, about a great ball player. Jacki Robinson was the first black man to play major league baseball. This film tells his story, and the trouble he went through because he was black. This was during the time where there were separate bathrooms for black and white people, so the idea of having a black ball player was hated by everybody in the league. The story of this film is truly inspirational, and it felt real. I thought that they did a great job telling it as it was. It was extremely well acted too. I expected the guy who played jacki Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) was the guy who would give an Oscar worthy performance, but it was actually Harrison Ford who in my opinion should get an Oscar nomination for this. He played the role of Branch Rickey so well, and I probably wouldn't have thought that it was he. So overall the story was well told, and the movie was really well acted.

The story mostly revolves around the 1947 season of the Brooklyn Dodgers. At the time there were only 400 MLB players, and they were all white. They took one player out of the league, and put Jackie Robinson in to replace him. He became the first ball player in the league to be black. Pitchers were throwing at his head a lot, and he would duck. He had a hot temper and they had to teach him not to fight back, and to just ignore it all. A lot of his teammates wanted to go on strike so he wouldn't play, but they refused to let him go. He was to good to be let go, and he became one of the great ball players of all time.

It is not a typical sports drama, because it tackles a real life issue in history. The treatment of blacks was very terrible at the time, and the discrimination levels were the worst. This film tells it like it really was. I like these true story sports films, and not the ones like Rocky. Films like 42 are the really good sports films.

The racial stuff in the movie made me feel awful, considering that stuff like this at one point was happening in the country I live in. Like there is one scene where Jackie is at the airport with his wife and they give their tickets away to a white couple. There was one part where a hotel wouldn't let the team stay there because of Jackie. Though this stuff is upsetting, you have to do it. What made the film so good was that they successfully showed what it was like for him, and that they were able to make you mad at times. A great film around a topic like this needs to tell it like it is, and it needs to anger you at times. This film did exactly that. This was a great film, and I loved every minute of it. It was a great true story, and the acting was great. Not your typical sports drama at all.

Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy
½

What happens is that Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the anchorman of San Diego, and he is a huge deal. When he is on everybody tunes in too hear him deliver the news. His news team always finishes first in the ratings, and he is on top of the world basically. But they bring in a woman named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), and she has a goal to become the anchorwoman. Ron and his crew all try to go out with her but Ron is the only one who succeeds. At first they are in love, but an incident where Ron's dog gets punted off a bridge causes him to be miss the news she has to deliver it, and they end up having to give the news together. They end up breaking up. They also start to fight each other a lot, and Ron and his crew will do anything to get rid of her.

Anchorman is a very funny satire. A classic Will Ferrell film, that is very quotable. The film is one of those cult classics where it is so stupid at times that you have to laugh. At times the stuff isn't that funny, but it is mostly very funny. The film is a spoof/satire on being an anchorman and news broadcasting. Satires and spoofs always exaggerate certain things to make whatever they are trying to make look dumb, look even dumber. The films stupidity is all part of the fact that it is exaggerated, and it is a spoof. Spoofs are usually stupid, but that's what makes them funny, and that is what made this film funny.

It is a stereotype with newscasters that they are really concerned with how they look, and that they have these great voices. Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is the stereotypical newscaster in this film. He thinks he is really good looking, but he actually looks kind of funny. That is the joke that makes fun of the newscaster's looks. He also has the stereotypical deep voice that they have too. Also a lot of people think that the newscasters aren't really thinking about what they are reading when they are delivering the news, and at certain moments Ron Burgundy says something that shows that he wasn't thinking about what he just read.

His crew isn't very funny in my opinion. The only guy in his crew that I found funny was Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). He is the stupidest person in the movie. Literally he says at one point that he has an I.Q. of 48 "and is what some people would call mentally retarded." He delivers some very good lines. Ron was the funniest guy for sure, and most of the funny stuff came from him, while the rest just happened around him randomly. The film was very funny, and I enjoyed it both times I watched it. I have also gone back and watched the clips of it on YouTube many times now. Not my favorite from Will Ferrell, but one of them.

Iron Man 3
Iron Man 3(2013)

I had mixed feelings about iron man 3 going into it. The trailers made it look epic, but sometimes they overdue these epic superhero films, and they turn out bad like Spiderman 3. But sometimes they do them right and they turn out awesome. Dark Knight Rises was the only time I could think of where the third movie in a super hero movie trilogy was great. Even that one got some criticism. I predicted that they would make this the final Iron Man film, but they would keep him alive for Avengers 2. I will not say weather I was right or wrong so I don't spoil it.

The film turned out to be very good, and it was very well done. I thought that it was better then the 2nd one, but I am not sure if I liked it quite as much as the first one, but I probably did. But weather or not you liked it as much as the original you will definitely like it better then the 2nd one, and you will definitely enjoy this.

The only flaw with the film was that it was very predictable. Well pretty much all of these films are predictable, but it was obvious at several points. The ending was the most predictable part of the film, but it was still a good ending, which I will not spoil. The humor was good but at times very predictable, and I didn't get why everybody else in the audience was laughing at times. Most of the time it was good, but at times it was too obvious for me to laugh at. I also wish that they cut down on the jokes a little, because at times it didn't feel like a serious movie. Most of the time they were good, but I felt like there were slightly too many jokes. Those were really the only two flaws with the film. The rest is perfect.

This film picks up right after the Avengers. All the marvel films before the Avengers were set up so they would build up to the Avengers, and they all connect to each other in some way. The Avengers was great because it was planned years in advance, and it was a massive project. The years of work and preparation paid off, as it is the third highest grossing film of all time. I can tell that this film will be the first of the marvel movies since the Avengers to build up to the sequel. Thor: The Dark World looks like it will directly connect to the Avengers 2, because it has the villain Loki from Avengers in it. I have no idea how the will connect Captain America: The Winter Soldier to the Avengers 2, but I look forward to seeing how they do that next year.

The film starts off with a flashback where Tony Stark met a man named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) at a new years party, and he told the guy he would meet him on the roof of the hotel to discuss the project that he had in mind with him, but he never met him there. That was 1999 when he was still a playboy. Then it goes back to the present, and it is Christmas, and Killian has invented a way to recode DNA completely. He approaches Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) about it.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is not having fun this Christmas time. He hasn't slept in days, and he is having a lot of anxiety problems. I felt like they were trying to make it look like his health was going downhill, and that he would probably die at the end. He has however come up with some cool things like he came up with something that allows him to call his suit. What happens is that he will do a certain motion and all the parts of his suit would just fly on to him, and he would be Iron man. I thought that was pretty good.

There is a major terrorist called the mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has been bombing places, and causing major destruction. He tells Tony Stark that he is coming for him, and he does. He destroys his house, and nearly kills him. Tony ends up in Tennessee after that and he must repair a suit, but with the help of a young boy he is able to do so.

I feel like the way Dark Knight Rises was done and Iron Man 3 was done was the ideal way to do a third superhero movie. Make it so the hero will be going through a lot of problems, and like they may die. They also both have the huge terrorist villain who is threatening to destroy everything. That makes it so that there is a lot at stake, and a lot to do, which give's the film a more intense feel. I liked Dark Knight Rises more then iron Man 3 because I liked it how it was just a dark and serious movie, while Iron man 3 is more of a funnier super hero movie, that is less serious. However this is still very good.

Also you need a perfect actor to play the super hero. Robert Downey Jr. is so perfect for the role of Tony Stark. His natural personality is perfect for it. He plays the egocentric hero so perfectly, and he is also funny in that role. There is no better actor to play that role then Robert Downey Jr., and everybody I know thinks that too.

Iron Man is different from other super hero films. Like Batman he doesn't have any natural powers. But as a person that is where he is very different. He is much more egocentric, and narcissistic then the average superhero. Usually they are quiet people when they aren't doing what they do. That is what makes Iron Man unique. He is also like the Fantastic Four, and everybody knows who his identity is. Iron Man is one of the only super hero series that I like.

I thought that this was a very good, and fun movie. It was done right, and it ended well. Only a few flaws, but I didn't notice any plot holes which films like this usually have. Very well done. Shane Black the director of Predator, and Lethal Weapon did some really good things with this, and he was a great choice for the director of this picture. Definitely see this if you are a iron man fan, because it is very entertaining, and very fun to watch.

Kill Bill: Volume 1

Quentin Tarantino returned after a six-year break from directing with Kill Bill: Volume one. What happens in this one is that The Bride (Uma Thruman) was about to get married when several people came in and shot everybody to death. She somehow survived a shot to the head, and ended up in a coma for years. When she wakes up she realizes that the baby she was carrying at the time is gone, and she knows what has happened to her. She decides to get her revenge on Bill (David Carradine), but first she has to find him. She ends up going through many fights, and kills a lot of people, but she doesn't get to Bill until the end of Volume Two. This was a great one, and it was really exciting and entertaining.

This is when Quentin Tarantino really started to get weird. I mean even weirder then before. His style really changed in the 21st century compared to his 90's films like "Pulp Fiction," "Reservoir Dogs," or "Jackie Brown." This is when his films started to have a bit of satire in them too. I felt like this film made fun of old Japanese ninja films, and made them look stupid at times. That is what I meant by satire. The stuff in this film really didn't seem serious at all, and at times I felt like I had to laugh. The film is really cheesy at times, and that is why you laugh. Tarantino always had a lot of humor in his films, but he tried a different approach to humor with the two Kill Bill films that he would later use in "Inglorious Basterds," and "Django Unchained."

However it is perhaps the most violent movie I have ever seen, or at least one of them. The film is bloody as hell, and people are getting decapitated, and having limbs cut off through out the film. The ending is literally a blood bath, but it is such an exciting ending though. The sword fights in the film are awesome, but man ohh man are they violent. But it is Quentin Tarantino so you should expect that from one of his films.

His films in the 21st century have had a lot more revenge in them. This film is about one woman's revenge against a man named Bill, who tried to kill her at her wedding. After the two Kill Bill films he did two more even greater revenge films "Inglorious Basterds," and "Django Unchained." Now it seems that the ideal Tarantino film of the 21st century is a fantasy revenge flick, with satire in it. However this film stands out the most from all of his films, because it was not like his style at all really when it first came out.

Usually Tarantino films have long talking scenes, and great dialog. This film just had a ton of really over the top sword fights that were great. The film had more style instead of a great screenplay, and most of his films have great screenplays instead. The screenplay for Kill Bill is not one that I would call a masterpiece. He has written a few fantastic screenplays however. I find that when I watch his films I always wonder what is going on in Quentin Tarantino's head. He is one of my favorite directors, but he must be crazy. But I love his work, and I have seen and loved every film he has made. His style fascinates me, but I find it disturbing at times. I love this movie, and I love it's sequel. Quentin may be my favorite director, and this was one of his best works.

Slumdog Millionaire

The whole idea of this film was so amazing. The way he knew all of the answers to the question, because of something in his life, was just such an incredible idea. The story is about a boy who goes on the show "Who wants to be a millionaire?" hoping that the girl he loves, and wants to be with is watching. He answers every question correctly, which makes the host suspect that he is cheating. He knows all of the answers because of certain events that happened in his life. he has to tell the stories of the events in his life that led to him knowing the answer.

Not only is this an amazing drama, but at the same time it is a beautiful love story. The whole story is about Jamal doing all of these things to find the girl he loves Latika. He goes through a lot to find her, and then they get separated again. Then he does even more to find her about 10 years later. He goes all throughout India to find her. That is what makes this a beautiful love story.

It is a great rags to riches story, because he was at first a boy that grew up in the slums, and then becomes a millionaire on a game show. But his whole life story is told in flashbacks. This movie started with a question, asking how did he win the game show, and you are given 4 multiple choice answers like on the show. After he wins he answers the question that was given to us. I won't tell you the answer, but you will know what I am talking about.

I usually don't talk about the camera work, and lighting in my reviews, but I will this time. The coloring of the film, is like the coloring of films like "Crash." The coloring was darker at several parts, but then brighter at others, which gives the film interesting visuals. They did some very interesting video editing for the scenes with Frieda Pinto that made her look even more beautiful then she is. She became my celebrity crush after I saw this. One with that you notice in really serious scenes, is that they whisper a lot. Not is not what you would see in real life, but it makes the scenes more emotional.

There were some really funny things that Jamal, and his brother Salim did to make money, like give fake tours at the Taj Mahal. They had a good amount of funny things in this movie which was great, so that way it isn't always sad, or depressing. There were some really sad things that were tough to watch. But there was a lot of heart warmth in this at the same time.

There was a lot of great acting in this film. The most well acted scene is the flashback to the part of Jamal's life that he learned the name of the colt revolver, and knew the answer to that question. When Salim is pointing the gun at Jamal telling him to leave, that was intense. All of the actors are really good in this film.
Overall this is just an unbelievable movie.

North by Northwest

This is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock film after Rear Window, and one of the rare movies that I will give a rating of a 10/10 to. It is a suspense story that gets used a lot today, but was entirely original when it was first used. Cary Grant plays Roger Thornhill; a man who is being mistaken for another man named George Kaplan and is and kidnapped. He is brought to a house where he is interrogated, and is forced to drink burban so he can stage a drunk driving accident. When he gets released a man he is talking to gets stabbed in the back right in front of him, and he pulls the knife out of the mans back, and it looks like he murdered him. Now he is wanted for murder, and a manhunt begins. That starts an awesome chain of events that truly do prove that Alfred Hitchcock is the master of suspense. This type of suspense story gets used a lot today, but it had never been done before this. A man running from the law trying to prove himself innocent, and find the person who is setting him up. That is a formula that is clichied now, but completely original back then.

Cary grant to me is the original Sean Connery. He sounds like him, acts like him, and even resembles him slightly. If Hitchcock made a Bond film it would be like this. When he talks with women he has the same charm that Sean Connery's James bond had. I find that a lot of the actors and actresses in old films were all-similar to each other. Now Hitchcock obviously loved blondes because all of the women in his films are blonde, and they do take on the same personality in each film. Grace Kelly is still my favorite actress in any of his films.

After he did this film he did Psycho, which may be his most famous movie, but is not his absolute best in my opinion. This film and Rear Window are his two bets films in my opinion. All of his films have something that stick out from the others. This one was much more of an adventure. It was a manhunt, and it had actions scenes at places like Mt. Rushmore. Rear Window was unique because it all took place in his house, and all you saw was inside his place and what he could see out the window. Psycho was much more of a scary flick, and it was creepier. Vertigo was unique for the dolly zoom. This film was the one that I felt like had more effects and action. The famous scene when he is getting chased by a crop dusting plane is awesome, because it is suspenseful. They give you little hints as to what is about to happen, and leave you guessing as to what will happen. You know something is going to happen but not sure what. Once it happens it looks really cool, and pretty realistic for a 1950's movie. The ending at Mt. Rushmore it all looked pretty fake, but it was still a great scene. Old films tend to be more reliant on story and suspense then effects, which is actually good.

This is one of y absolute favorites, and one of the greatest films of all time. Hitchcock was always amazing.

GoodFellas
GoodFellas(1990)

Goodfellas is the greatest of all mafia movies in my opinion. It is the most entertaining, and fun mafia movie to me by far. The Godfather is a close second but even though most people like it better I like this one more. The two both set the standard for mafia and gangster movies in my opinion. The Godfather is more epic, but this one is more awesome, and fun. They both have their unique things that make them amazing, like The Godfather has more quotable lines, and a more interesting story, while Goodfellas has a much more unique style invented by the director. Also Goodfellas is much more straightforward then the Godfather, while the Godfather is really hard to follow, and Goodfellas isn't.

Martin Scorsese has made many awesome movies, but this is with out a doubt my favorite of his films. His style is a very recognizable one, and one that is very original. His style is very cool, and the films are very entertaining because of the coolness the film has. He tends to have somebody narrating over the film, and it always adds to the entertainment of the film. Ray Liotta narrates this film, and his voice sounds really good as he does it. He narrates thirty years of Henry Hill's life. Part of his style is that he doesn't always stay in one scene for a long time, because he has to tell a story that last over a few years in only 2 to 3 hours. This film is very much like that. However this style really only applies to his gangster movies. His stuff like "Taxi Driver," or "Cape Fear" is all completely different.

Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) always wanted to be a gangster, even when he was a kid. The life was just so appealing to him. He admired the Lucchese crime family a lot, and he quit school to go work for them. At first his father was getting really angry with him when he learns he hasn't been going to school. The gangsters threaten the mailman if he continues to deliver letters from the school to his house.

The beginning of the movie almost glorifies being a gangster, and it makes the life look awesome. It shows all of the advantages of it. Gangsters were treated like celebrities, and anything they wanted they could get. They made money, and they had a lot of fun. Of course it was a really violent life that nobody should live, because they are all sociopathic killers.

Jimmy "The Gent" Conway (Robert De Niro) took him under his wing. Jimmy loved to steal. He loved to pay off cops. According to Henry he was the kind of guy that would root for the bad guys in movies. He also worked with a guy named Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci). Tommy is a total hot head. He will brutally beat somebody just because that person teased him for something small. At one point he brutally beats a made man of another family to death because he made fun of him for a shoeshine job he did when he was a kid. That got them in trouble, because you can't kill a made man of another family without getting permission from the other family to do it. If you kill a made man without permission they will later come back and kill you. He also shot a guy in the foot for no good reason, and then later shot him to death because he wouldn't dance. He is a total psychopath. But he is a great character for a gangster movie.

The life is not one you should live, but Henry Hill sure loved it. His narrating, and the way he told the story is what made the life look great, and not as awful as it really is when you think about it. He told it in a way that made the film happy to watch, because it just seemed like so many good things were happening for him. Towards the end a lot of bad things were happening though.

The dark part of the movie is the brutal violence, and the stuff between henry Hill and his crazy wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco). She gets really mad and crazy at him all the time, and she is always screaming at him. She is an awful psychotic person, but he doesn't deserve anybody better then her, because he is a sociopathic killer. He is also a cheater, and she gets mad at him all the time. She is the only part of the movie that makes it tough to watch. Everything else is just awesome.

This movie is absolutely amazing. Entertaining to the point that it is sick. The most fun mafia movie of all time. Really well acted, and the story is great. It demands to be watched many times.

Spider-Man 3
Spider-Man 3(2007)
½

Spider Man 3 was by far the weakest of the series in my opinion, and I really disliked it. It felt much more like a drama then a superhero movie. It did have plenty of action, but the reason why I found it to be more of a drama is because it was too focused on the relationship between Peter parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). That part of the film really dragged on. It got lame, and kind of unoriginal. Unoriginal meaning that it had all been done before; it felt like it was formulaic. The hero loses his girlfriend because he was too full of himself, but then he makes up and gets her back. Seemed way too familiar. At first it was nice, because they were in love and he was going to propose to her, but then it just goes downhill in an escalate.

I hated it how Peter had a lab partner who had a crush on him, and I hated it how she started having feelings for his best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco). It was almost soap opera like. In soap operas the romance is ridiculous, and the acting s usually terrible. That's how this film was. It felt like they were trying to make it seem like who will end up with whom at a few moments. The drama with the new suit, and how it affected the relationship between them was very dumb in my opinion. It was also unnecessary and it took attention away from what was good in the movie.

Most of the things in the film were unnecessary, and they put too many things in it, such as too many villains. The first two were good, because there was only one villain. There was too much drama between the characters, and the first two had the right amount of action, and drama. This film has plenty of action, but it is outweighed by the amount of terrible drama. I feel like they were just trying to make an epic super hero flick, but they over did it. The previews looked awesome, and it had tons of potential to be the best of them all, but it failed miserably. They had a few good things in the story, which didn't get enough attention too.

The good parts of the story were things like Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) trying to get money to help his dying daughter. That made you feel sympathy for the villain, which the other films had not done. I also liked the twist that he actually killed Peter's uncle. The part where Harry (James Franco) was finally getting his revenge on Peter for what he thinks he did to his father. Those were the good parts of the story that they should have focused more on.

James Franco is the only guy in this film that I liked, and everybody else in the movie gave very bad performances. I take that back Thomas Haden Church I thought did a very good job playing the Sandman. So it was just those two who I liked in this film. James Franco I usually like him in most of the stuff he does, and I think he is very talented. Thomas Haden Church was good, because he successfully made you feel sympathy for his character. I always like it when they make you feel bad for the bad guy. However Flint Marko is not a bad guy at heart, he is just a guy who will do anything to save his daughter.

Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) just made me want to be sick for some reason. I hated his character, and I hate people like him in real life. His character was too full of himself, and he was a suck up too. He was one of many things that made this movie bad, and the drama with him was the worst part of the film. I think that Topher Grace was supposed to play that role that way, but his performance got really bad once he became Venom, and when they developed the drama between him and Peter parker.

They did a really bad job trying to make you sympathize with him too. Eddie lost everything because Peter exposed him for submitting fake pictures of Spiderman stealing. At the end he tries to get revenge on Peter for it, which he didn't deserve, because Eddie was trying to make Spiderman look bad, when he was innocent all along. Because Eddie Brock's character was so bad you felt no sympathy for him, because he deserved the humiliation he got. Once they tried to make you feel bad for him, I really got annoyed, because that dragged on towards the end a little bit too. I expected Venom to be a great villain, but I found him cheesy. So not only was Eddie Brock a bad character, but he was a terrible villain.

What actually happened in this film was that Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) finally found the balance for being Spiderman and himself. He is in love with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), and he wants to propose. His friend Harry (James Franco) tries to kill him at first, because he thinks he killed his father, but Peter puts him in the hospital, and Harry forgets the whole incident. Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) just got out of jail, and he has a daughter who is sick, and he needs money to treat her. He falls into an experiment that turns him into the Sandman. His first confrontation with Spiderman is when he is given the key to the city. Now New York loves him, and Peter is full of himself, while Mary Jane struggles with her career. That is my synopsis of the film.

When I was younger I loved this, but now that I am a experienced movie watcher, I think that this is terrible. It had too much of everything bad, and not enough of the good parts. It had a lot of bad acting, and drama. It was just a failed attempt to be amazing.

A Clockwork Orange

I like weird and violent movies, but this just goes about a hundred miles too far. The reason why this movie has such a cult following baffles me. I thought that this was probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Maybe even the worst film I have ever watched. It is just the weirdest movie I have ever seen, and it is the type of weird where you can't even figure out what it is about. Every scene is either so weird that it makes you uncomfortable, or it is too disturbing too watch. That is part of the reason why I hated this film so much, because of how disturbed I was by the whole thing. I like a few Stanley Kubrick films, but this one was just too weird. I know that the film is an acquired taste like a lot of his films, but I think I would rather not have the taste for this film. I have the taste for really weird films, but I don't like this one because of how disturbing it is.

Now I will admit that the cinematography of the film is great. There are certain parts of the film that really looked amazing. There are many things in the film that look really artistic, and the film does make Stanley Kubrick look like he is some sort of artist, besides a filmmaker. I think Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time, and this was one of his best jobs directing, but I hated the film for how bizarre, and disturbing it is. I think that from a directors point of view this movie is incredible, and if you think of it that perspective it is hard not to love. Even though this is one of the movies I hate the most I still did appreciate everything about it that makes Stanley Kubrick so unique and great.

It also has good acting from Malcolm McDowell. He plays Alex, a guy who you hate from the very beginning. You can tell from the start, and from the cover that it is all about him, and that is part of the reason why I hated this I guess. The film revolved around one of the worst characters I have ever seen in a movie. Not bad as in lousy, bad in as a terrible person. He is a sadistic sociopath, whose main interests are classical music, ultra violence, and rape. Malcolm McDowell did a brilliant job portraying him, and he really seemed insane and awful. The role did seem like it was a really difficult one to do, and I give him a lot of respect for pulling it off as well as he did. He really makes you hope that something awful happens to him, and awful things do happen to him.

He is the leader of his "droogs", Pete (Michael Tarn), Georgie (James Marcus), and Dim (Warren Clarke) in a futuristic dystopia that is London. They drink "milk plus" which somehow makes them go crazy and go on a "ultra violence" rampage, where they fight other gangs, and they drive up to one couples house, and cripple the husband, and rape his wife. The rape scene is one of the worst scenes I have ever watched. They just sing, "Singing in the rain" the whole time. That is just the start of the super violent things that happen in this film.

After a while his Droogs want more equality in the crimes they commit, and after he bludgeons a woman to death they finally turn on him, and they smash a bottle of milk in his face, and leave him for the cops. He is sentenced to jail, and is eventually tested at the hospital. The rest of the plot is so weird that I can't even explain it.

People say that this film is really thought provoking, but I just don't see it. I see how it is an incredible job done by Stanley Kubrick, but I just hated the film anyways. The novel I have no intention of reading, because I am sure it is more disturbing then this. I hated this movie so much, but I may watch it again to see if I like it more. But at the moment I just don't get it. This is a film that even if you like it you shouldn't really recommend to people, because it is offensive to watch. Too disturbing, and weird.

Prometheus
Prometheus(2012)
½

Do not read this if you have not seen the movie yet.

This is an extremely overrated prequel that shows that prequels can rarely be good. You would think that because it was done by Ridley Scott, a former Sci-Fi master that it would be great, but I guess that the fact that he hadn't done anything like this in so long made him a little bit rusty. If you love Alien like I do this movie will ruin it for you. The film is absolutely stunning to look at, but in my opinion that is why people are giving it good reviews. The plot however is just a confusing mess. It is a really poorly written film, and I remember feeling like there was so much to explain that didn't get explained. Way too many plot holes.

See this site for plot holes: http://movieplotholes.com/prometheus.html

This is my opinion on the plot holes that I noticed and this site pointed out for me. I did notice the thing where somebody runs from a falling building in length instead of sideways. That part annoyed me so much. When are filmmakers going to learn that in real life people would not try to out run the fall, they would run sideways? This site is right about that completely, and I noticed it too. One of the major plot holes that this site pointed out, which I noticed too was that it would be impossible for Fifield and Millburn to get lost in the cave, because of the crew of people in the ship monitoring everything, and they would know their exact location. The plot was so flawed and had so many holes that it made the film confusing, and I got bored. I was so bored that I could only make out a few plot holes, and once I read that web page I recognized all the ones that I missed. The film was a total mess.

The film is also really stupid, and it just ruins Alien. It just wasn't a very intelligent movie, which I had high expectations for it to be. The film was predictable, and at times just really gross, and stupid. Like the one scene where there was a snake in the cave that went into the guys suit, and then went into his mouth. That was just a very unnecessary gross thing that they did in the movie. Also the C-section scene was one that wasn't really a bad part of the plot as much as something that I really wish they didn't do. I really wish she didn't get pregnant with an alien, because that was just disturbing. It wasn't a bad idea, considering it kind of has been done in the original series a few times so it connects the prequel to the original, but there are so many better things they could have come up with. The film was gross at times, and it really didn't have to be. Sure in Alien they had the gross chest bursting scene, but other then that it was ok. This film went to far.

Now it had some really good acting from Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, and Guy Pearce but the script they received made it so that their efforts couldn't be good enough to save this movie. It is a real shame, because this film had so much potential to be amazing, and it was just such a let down. This is a film that is entertaining, but when you really think about it, it does not deserve any of the praise it got. If you pay attention to plot holes, which I usually don't do you will hate this film, because there are so many. This is just a failed attempt to make a new Alien, which only James Cameron could do with his awesome sequel Aliens. After that every movie in the Alien saga stunk, and this was almost as bad. I will say that it is better then Alien Resurrection, but that is the only credit I can give it.

Ridley Scott is a great director, but I feel like he should have continued doing the stuff that he was doing before this like Gladiator (2000), Black Hawk Down (2001), and American Gangster (2007). His sci-fi period where he did Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982) was great, but he has moved past that. This film shows that he has moved past that and his sci-fi work should be done. Though I think the films quality is definitely more Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts fault, because they wrote a terrible screenplay, which I guess didn't allow Ridley Scott to show his talent as a director, which he has a lot of. Alien had a great screenplay, and he was able to do a great job as a director with it. So I guess it isn't completely fair to blame Ridley Scott for this mess. I still think he is a little bit rusty at making sci-fi pictures like I said earlier, but most of the blame for this bad film goes to the screenwriters.

I have heard that they are working on a Prometheus two. I have a feeling that it may make this one better, because it will explain things that didn't get explained. I hope that they notice all the people who criticize this film like me, and see why they hated it, and then take that into consideration when they make the sequel. The sequel will be good if they clean up the mess that this film made, and if they don't make another one. That is the only hope that the original Alien will have to not be ruined by terrible prequels. They probably could only make it better too. This film was a disgusting mess, but I look forward to see how they clean it up with the sequel.

Saving Private Ryan

What happens is that there are four Ryan brothers, and three of them have died in the war. The last of the four James Ryan (Matt Damon) is still in the middle of the war, and they order Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks), and his troops to go and get him so that way the mother of the Ryan Brothers won't lose all of her children in the war. At first the group hates the mission and they think it is a waste of time. But eventually they realize that it is their job, and they accept that if they get that done they will be able to go home. They eventually find him, and end up in the most intense battle they have ever been in.

This had to have been the Spielberg film that was the most fascinating to make from his perspective. He took the script that Robert Rodat wrote, and just turned it into the most epic war film of all time. This film in my opinion showed his genius more then any of his other works. Though it is only my third favorite, behind jaws, and Schindler's List. I think it is the one that would have been most fascinating to direct because you are re-creating a war scene, and making it almost exactly accurate. Spielberg just seems to make one epic film after another. That is pretty much true when you think about his whole filmography.

He tends to make a lot of different types of films. He makes the adventurous films Like Jaws, Indiana Jones, and Jurassic Park. He also tends to make these historical masterpieces like Schindler's List, Lincoln, and Munich. This is one of his historical masterpieces. It is just such an epic movies. It also goes into his category of movies with great special effects like E.T., Close Encounters of The Third Kind, and Jurassic Park. The film is just tremendous in many areas.

Another interesting directorial thing that Spielberg does with this film is that he puts in a lot of slow motions sequences in the war scenes. When he does that you see everything through the perspective of John Miller. He see's all of the awful things going on around him in slow motion, and that gives you a more clear perspective of what is happening. It also goes silent to. It is just an incredible idea in my opinion, because I felt like that was when I saw the war scenes most clearly. Overall it is just fascinating, and an incredible job of directing by Spielberg.

This and Apocalypse Now are my two favorite war films. It is just an absolutely epic movie, and changes the definition of epic. This is the most accurate depiction of a war movie of all time. The battle were scenes are so accurate, that apparently real soldiers saw it and got post dramatic stress, because it made them re-live the war they were in. Only Spielberg has the ability to tell it like it really is, and he does it better then anybody. He just can't fail when it comes to making these really historic films. The film is tough to watch, because the war scenes are so intense and accurate that it gives you this feeling like you may be sick, because it is so intense. Well if you are a very squeamish person you will probably find this film sickening to watch, because the war scenes are so accurate, that they really show how awful and scary it must have been to fight in a war. However the fact that it is so accurate makes it so good. There are so many things in the film, that when you watch it, you can't even understand how it is possible to film it. That is why I loved the film so much.

Pulp Fiction
Pulp Fiction(1994)

Pulp Fiction is my third favorite movie of all time. It is absolutely awesome, and I get so psyched up every time I watch it, and I have probably seen it ten times in my whole life. Part of the reason why it gets you so psyched up is because the film is wild, and it has such a strong shock factor. Quentin Tarantino did a good job first time around with Reservoir Dogs, but not a great job. This is when he became a perfect film director and screenwriter. This film developed his unique style and improved it. This is just one of the most interesting films of all time. The dialog, the story, and all the little things in the film that he did make is fascinating. This is a film that an average film watcher should like, but a film buff would just love.

His dialog improved so much in this, and there are so many lines in this that I use in my daily life. I don't even think of this as a drama I think of it as a black comedy. In the Reservoir Dogs he had a lot of talking scenes that went on for a while with good dialog, but in this movie he perfected his skills at doing great dialog. The film is so funny, and the lines are so great that it gets you psyched up. I have shown this to a lot of my friends before, and they were all so amped up at the end of it, and they all just though it was awesome. That is something about Tarantino films, they get you psyched up, and this is when he developed that ability to do that. Reservoir Dogs doesn't do that, but this film definitely does.

He also perfected his use of an inlinear time structure. This film runs in a random order of events, and you don't pick up on it until the end. Something with this the structure in this is that they do it in a way that you can't tell that it isn't in chronological order, but once you realize it you are able to put it all together very easily. Some people have to re-watch it to get it, but I think it is just because they are thrown off by the time order. But if you think about it after you watch it you can figure it out in your head. An example of how they are able to skip something in time is how they did the situation with Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega. They skipped the scene when Jules retired, but they could do that without you knowing they skipped something, because it was only supposed to be Vincent with Mia. Though Vincent and Jules worked together, there was a reason why they weren't doing this one thing together, because their boss only asked Vincent. They do a lot of things like that to hide the weird time order. The script is so perfectly written.

You pick up on things when you watch it again too. Like I noticed that the book that Vincent Vega had on him is the same book he had on him when he was in the bathroom in the final scene of the movie. I also realized that the reason why Jules wasn't with Vincent, was because he had retired, but you didn't know he did until later on when the go back to a different part in time. There are many other things you will pick up on, when you watch it again, and it is a film that just gets better and better.

Something that happens with his films is that they are in the same universe. Meaning that they all connect to each other in some way. Like in Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Blondes real name was Vic Vega, and John Travolta's character in Pulp Fiction is Vincent Vega. It is a theory that they are brothers. Also in Reservoir Dogs Mr. White discusses doing a job with a woman named Alabama, which may be the Alabama in the movie True Romance. Also the sword that Bruce Willis used in Pulp Fiction may be the sword from Kill Bill. It is fascinating how his films connect and I think it is genius.

I love Tarantino, and all of his films. Whatever he directs is awesome. He is an acquired taste I must admit, but Pulp Fiction isn't. It is a wild and crazy movie that you pick up on things when you watch it again, and that ties to his other films. I will watch this movie over and over again until the day I die, and I am sure it won't get old.

Reservoir Dogs
½

The Reservoir Dogs was Quentin Tarantino's first attempt at film directing. He did a very good job with it, and this film ahs developed a cult following of people who love it, but the reason why it is only a cult classic instead of a classic, is because he hadn't perfected his skills at directing yet. He was very close to being perfect with this film, but there were still a few flaws with the film. The flaws being a little bit to rough to watch, and the brutality was too much, and he didn't have any humor, which his films usually have a lot of. The film also took too long to get going for me. It started off with a very catchy beginning, but then it just got so slow, and you kept waiting for things to happen. Don't get me wrong he did a good job with this one, and it is a good movie, but he didn't do a perfect job until his next movie Pulp Fiction, which is a top five favorite for me.

He did develop the style that makes him unique with this film however. His style consists of really interesting dialog with a lot of cursing, and that goes on for a while. It is unusual the way he stays in one scene for a long time, and how the talking scenes go on. However the dialog is always great, so you don't get bored. His films are always really violent, and bloody, and this one was kind of hard to watch. He also tends to have weird plots where it is basically several stories that come together at the end. This film goes back and forth in time. His films tend to use the n-word a lot, which gets obnoxious, but I think he uses it to be funny. He tends to use a lot of dark humor like that. Which is an acquired taste, but if you have acquired it you will love it. This film is an acquired taste for sure, and I know just as many people who love that hate it.

It is about a job that went wrong. Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), and Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) had to rob a jewelry store, but somebody in the group ratted them out, and they nearly got arrested. Mr. Orange got shot in the stomach and he is about to bleed to death. They can't bring him to a hospital or they will be arrested. Two of their men had already been killed. They have to figure out what happened. It shows all of the events before, and after the robbery in flashbacks.

The film was very good, but not perfect. It had a good story, but not a great one. The acting and the cast was great though, but I found it got a little far fetched at times. Tarantino got much better with his next film Pulp Fiction for sure, and most people I know think the same thing. However I did enjoy this more the second time I saw it, because the first time I just though tit was weird, but the second time I felt like I had watched something I had never seen before. That is something about Tarantino films, when you watch them you will feel like you just saw something you had never seen before. This film is definitely one of those. A good one, that could have been better.

The Social Network

87%

The Social Network is one of David Fincher's best films for sure. It shows how much of a range he has as a film director when you compare this to his other stuff. It is a fascinating film that is interesting throughout. The first thing I did after I saw this in theaters was get a Facebook, and I was going through a period of time where I was just fascinated by the site because of this movie. I was also a web developer for a while and this movie really inspired me to get better at doing that. The movie really did affect my life for a period of time. That is why I loved it so much. I don't know how accurately the film portrayed what really happened, because of legal issues there were certain parts of the case that couldn't be revealed. It did leave me wondering about that even though I found it fascinating. So the only flaw with the film may have been that it wasn't completely accurate.

The film starts off with Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisnenberg) being dumped by his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), and immediately returning home to blog awful things about her and make a website called Facesmash. The site will show two pictures of girls, and they person who is on the site would have to vote which girl is hotter. It crashes Harvard's server because it got 450 visitors, and over 22,000 page hits in its first four hours online. Of course he gets into huge trouble for it and everybody begins to hate him. The whole thing was basically a build up for Facebook in my opinion. I think it is the idea that inspired it all. He would then learn from that experience that people want to see their friends online, and look at pictures of them.

After that he is approached by two rowers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie hammer), and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella). They ask him to make a website for them which he agrees to do, but he doesn't like their ideas for it. Mark is an arrogant guy and he thinks he is better then them. His arrogance is what leads him to think that he can do something better, and he actually was right. He comes up with the idea for "The Facebook." He thinks it would be a better idea for the site to have a thing where you would have to get permission to see somebody else profile. He had more ideas at the time too, but he approached his best friend at the time Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) about it, and he loves the idea.

Zuckerberg spends about a month working on "The Facebook" and avoiding the Winklevoss twins. He sends them all of these message saying to them that he is making their website when he is doing something entirely different. He was very secretive about it, and he led them on the entire time. Once he launched the site it became a huge thing on campus, and people started to saying to each other "facebook me." The Winklevoss twins found out about it, and they immediately sent him a letter telling him that he stole their idea, and that they will take legal action against him. The film switches back and forth between the depositions, and the flashbacks of everything that happened.

I found the film thought provoking, because it made me think about weather or not he stole it. I think that he would have come up with the idea anyways, even if the Winklevoss twins didn't approach him. I think that because he seemed to be heading towards the idea of Facebook with Facesmash. I think that the Winklevoss twins just helped him come up with it faster, but if they didn't approach him it would have just taken a little bit longer for him to come up with it. The fact that they had to hire Zuckerberg to do their website shows that they aren't very creative, or original. I think their argument was just that he would not have come up with the idea of Facebook of they had not approached him. I think the Winklevoss twins are juts spoiled rich guys who are mad because for the first time they didn't get what they wanted. Zuckerberg said that too at one point, and I agreed with him one hundred percent.

However what happened to Eduardo Saverin was awful. Sean parker (Justin Timberlake) the founder of Napster joined the company. Saverin didn't like that, but Zuckerberg felt like they needed him. Saverin accidently signed a paper that allowed them to delude his shares down to almost zero. I think he is an idiot for signing a contract that allowed them to do that, and he should have had a lawyer with him because he did it to himself. However Zuckerberg is a jerk for doing that, and that isn't even legal. I think Saverin should have sued for sure, because he was a victim while the Winklevoss twins were just spoiled rich kids who didn't get what they wanted for once. I felt bad for Saverin, but I felt like he was lucky to be a part of it. All he did was support it financially, he didn't come up with any ideas for it, I think it was all Zuckerberg's genius. Even though I felt he was lucky, I think he had a terrible thing done to him, and he should have sued.

Sean Parker had a big part in this movie, and Justin Timberlake did a very good job portraying him. He is one of the few singers who can act in my opinion. They made him look really bad in my opinion. He seemed like a really paranoid guy who was always afraid that somebody was after him. He seemed like a bad guy, and when you watch the movie and think about it you will probably see what I see.

Facebook now has over a billion users worldwide, and it has gone public in the stocks. It is a freakishly addicting site that everybody seems to be on at several points during the day. It has effected my life and the lives of others around me. This movie tells the story of how it was made, and the law suits that followed it being made. It is a fascinating movie, that is thought provoking and just awesome. One of David Fincher's best, and one that everybody needs to see.

The Fast and the Furious

This movie was like pop music. I felt like it mostly was, just a bunch of cool cars, races, hot girls, and buff guys like Vin Diesel. The film is like candy for the mind, but then again I feel that way about most action movies for some reason. I like action when there is a good plot, but this film had a bad story in my opinion, and I feel that most people like it because of the cool races, cars, and girls. Well a lot of people tell me that's why they liked it at least, so I feel there is a percentage of people who love these films just for those reasons. I will admit that the cars were pretty awesome, but this is just not my thing. I think you have to be a gear head to love these films, which I am not. I am just a movie buff that spends all of his time watching and reviewing movies. I find that movies like these don't really appeal to guys like me who look at films the way I do. I find that I like it when there is a plot and not just a lot of action, and this film I felt like had more action then it had a plot. I find that the film is hard to review because there isn't very much to review about it, because it has no themes, and it doesn't have that much of a plot to think about. I can respect why people would like it, but it just isn't my thing.

It is about underground races and an LAPD officer named Brian O'Conner (Paul walker) who has to go undercover to investigate the illegal street-racing scene. After he gets a cover job at the Racer's Edge he enters one of the races he fried the engine because he doesn't know how to race. He wins the respect of Dominic (Vin Diesel) after he saves him from being arrested. Then it just goes downhill from there.

There isn't any acting really, and when there is acting it isn't impressive in any way. I don't like Vin Diesel that much or anybody in this film. They just don't have any skills to do anything besides action. The best actors should be able to do dramas, and stuff that isn't just action. I don't think Vin Diesel has the ability to do any acting that is difficult at all, and that is why he resorts to these kinds of films.

I didn't like this movie, because it felt to thoughtless, and just like any standard action movie. Well most action movies are standard action movies, but this one is more unique though, so saying it's a standard action film I guess isn't fair to say. I just am not that much of an action guy. When I said that the film is like pop music I meant that it is like a poppy song that doesn't have any thought provoking or interesting music or lyrics. This film doesn't have anything in it that makes you think at all. The film is well done, but it is not that good. Completely overrated, and the only reason why it got a 40 is because it was entertaining, but it barely deserved that. I will see some of the sequels to see if they get better for me though.

True Grit
True Grit(2010)

This is a very good remake of the 1969 classic of the same name. It is another good Coen brother's film, but this one reminds me of the western Unforgiven for its pace, and the fact that it feels more like a drama. The film is really well written, and acted. The only cast choice that I didn't understand was Matt Damon. I thought he was very ok. I don't think of him as a very good actor, because of how he never plays anybody else bedside's himself. The rest of the cast was great, and the performances were too. Jeff Bridges was the best in terms of acting for this film. He had a perfect accent that sounded like Carl Childers from the Billy Bob Thornton classic Sling Blade. He also had the personality right, and was just overall perfect. Hailee Steinfeld also impressed me with her debut as an actress. She seemed to be very intense for a fourteen year old, and she did seem very determined to catch her father's murderer. The only thing that was wrong was that she didn't seem very sad that her father died. I am not sure weather they told her that they didn't want her to be, but I thought it was a little weird that she wasn't sad.

Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) murdered Mattie Ross's (Hailee Steinfeld) father out of cold blood. She then hires bounty hunter Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to find him. She pays him 50 dollars and wants to go with him. At first he refuses to that, because he doesn't want to put her in danger, but she is so intense about killing her fathers murderer that he eventually agrees. When Cogburn is asked "How many men have you shot?" he replies "Shot or killed?" That implies that he is experienced, and he has done it a lot. Mattie Ross hired him because she had been told that he has "True Grit." He is a great shot, and he gets into a few shootouts, which he always wins. He is a terrific western movie character, and Jeff Bridges is great in it. This was a very good film.

The Coen Brothers are always great, and they always seem to be original, but they never lose their style that made them famous. They are genius's, and two of my all time favorite film makers. I haven't seen the original, but I have heard it is not nearly as good as this.

Hitchcock
Hitchcock(2012)
½

Alfred Hitchcock may be the greatest director of all time. Probably because of how many things he invented with filmmaking and how many things he did that nobody else had done before. This film is about the making of what may have been his most famous movie. It is a pretty decent movie that s not as good as the book however. The film was interesting, but the didn't include all of the details from the book, and if it were a half hour longer they may have been able to make it more detailed. I think the reason why it got mixed reviews was because it was only an hour and a half long, and they didn't get enough detail for it. It could have been really good if they made it longer though. It was still pretty decent though and if you are a Hitchcock fan like I am you will probably enjoy it.

Anthony Hopkins did a very good job playing Hitchcock, and the makeup job really made him look like Hitchcock. He naturally sounds like him, and he did the persona of Hitchcock very well. Alfred Hitchcock seemed like a very weird and interesting person. Something that they don't really talk about in the movie is that he was scared of everything. He never drove a car because he was scared of police officers pulling him over. This film showed some of his problems but they didn't go deep enough into them. He was having nightmares in the film, and they showed his dieting habits too. He was very unhealthy, which you could tell just by looking at him. He also was depressed, because of how people in Hollywood would criticize him for his film until it became a hit. Overall he was a very troubled guy all of his life. He was kind of a tortured genius.

This film goes into his struggle sin the making of Psycho. At the time films were much more tamed and Psycho was pretty extreme for the era. Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) was very picky with his work, and he was really militant about not doing something twice. He was hot in the fifties and he did most of his most famous films in that decade. He had just did North By Northwest in 1959, but he knew that with the new decade starting that he would have a new audience, so it was time to change it up for him. He read the book Psycho by the author Robert Bloch that was published in 1959. After he read it he decided that would be his next piece of work, and he ordered that the book be taken out from the bookstores until the film came out, because he didn't want anybody to know the ending of the film before the film came out. He got Joseph Stefano to write the screenplay. In the book he had a few people adapt the book into a screenplay for him, but in the end he went with the one that Joseph Stefano did.

Nobody could see why Hitchcock was doing with this film, because it was so different, and it was nothing like the stuff he had been doing over the last ten years. In the book it said that nobody could ever see what Hitchcock was seeing with the film he was doing until it came out. It says in the book that Cary Grant didn't get Hitchcock's vision of North By Northwest until it became one of the most famous movies of all time. I think that is a sign of a true genius, and Alfred Hitchcock was one of the biggest ones or the biggest ones in film making history.

Something else with the film was that it was really disturbing and twisted. He had a lot of battles with the censors for certain things in Psycho like the shower scene and the opening scene. The book describes it more, but the movie just does the basic explanation. The shower scene where Norman Bates kills Marion Crane made women afraid to take showers for years after it. It was controversial, because nothing like that had ever been done before. Hitchcock thought it would be a really unexpected thing to kill off the protagonist of the story half way through, and Psycho made it ok for films to do that. It was controversial because films were not allowed to show nudity, and Hitchcock would have only been allowed to do the scene if he didn't show her nude, so he had to do a lot to make sure that they didn't show any nudity. That was part of the censorship battle. Hitchcock focused mostly on that one scene.

When it came out Hitchcock had precise plan as to how he wanted Psycho to be shown. He sent a manual out to the theatres with instructions on how to show it. He didn't want anybody to be allowed in after it started, because he thought they would lose the effect of the film if the missed any of it. The film shows you how Hitchcock always had such exact visions, and how that was such a big part of his genius.

The film at first I thought was really good, and now I just think it is decent, because I read the book after. It is still interesting, and it inspired me to go deeper into Hitchcock films. I also appreciate him more because of this movie, and the book it was based off of. Anthony Hopkins did a very good job playing Hitchcock and it was a hard role. The book didn't talk about his wife that much, but the film did, and that was the one really interesting part of the film. I think this is a film that should be re-made and done with a better script that makes the film two hours long, and with more detail from the book. Though I had a lot of flaws with it is was still a pretty good movie. I would only recommend it to Hitchcock fans, or too people that want to get into Hitchcock, or to people who want to be in film. A lesson from this film is never question a genius, and let the artist do his or her work.

The Place Beyond The Pines

The Place Beyond the Pines was a really good movie. It was very thought provoking, and well done. The film is really well acted, and it had a really good cast. Ryan Gosling I am usually not a fan of I thought was very good in this. I think he usually plays the same character in all of his movies, and I also think he is very overrated, but in this film he was very good. He did play his similar role, which is a guy who doesn't say much, but he had a little bit more of an edge for this one. Bradley Cooper did a good job of playing a cop, which he had never done before. He still played his own personality, which he does in pretty much all of his movies, but he was still good. I think that Bradley Cooper is a really likeable guy, and I have a feeling that directors tell him to play his own personality because people can relate to him because of his personality. I do wonder if he will ever play a role that makes us feel stunned that it is him. The film was everything I expected it to be. I expected it to be a slow drama, with good acting, and a thought provoking story and it was exactly that. It's not making a lot of money, which I don't get why. Well drama's like this don't get promoted a lot, but they are often better then most of the films that get all of the promotion and advertisements. The movies that get all the promotion are like pop music, but movies like this are the type that you get into when you go deep into movie, and they are way better.

Luke (Ryan Gosling) just quit the circus because he learned that he father a baby named Jason with a woman named Romina (Eva Mendes). Romina is with another man, but he still wants to raise the child because he knows that it's his job. He says he will do anything he has to do. However he only makes minimum wage and he doesn't make enough to raise a baby so he starts robbing banks so he would have money to raise his kid. He does it with good intentions, but it eventually catches up to him. The story of Luke robbing banks to help support his kid shows what a parent will do to help his/her kid. He gets caught and gets into a chase that end sin him being shot and killed by Officer Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper). The film then goes into Avery's life afterwards, and the life of everybody around him affected by the fact that he killed Luke. It was self defense though and he is considered a hero. The film has a couple of stories told at once in chronological order. There is the stress of Avery's shooting, police corruption and once Jason grows up and learns about his father. I don't want to give away anything else, but there is a lot to talk about and this is a movie that I could write forever about, but that would ruin it for somebody who hasn't seen it.

I liked the way it told many stories because it made it more thought provoking. It is definitely a film that when you see again you will pick up on things, because there is a lot to analyze with this film. I didn't see Blue Valentine, which is the other film Derek Cianfrance directed with Ryan Gosling staring in, but I will soon, and this film inspired me to do so. Derek Cianfrance is a good director and he works well with Ryan Gosling so he should continue to do so. I thought that this was a really good movie, and I will have to re-watch it.

School of Rock

School Of Rock is a perfect movie, and it is an awesome cult classic. It has the secret ingredient, which is rock and roll music, and it has lots of it. If you are a rock and roller like I am you will love this movie for sure. The film is funny and completely original too. What is good about it is that it is a movie you could watch with the family, because it isn't raunchy or gross at all. It is all very clever and good humor. Most comedies today are really dirty and often tasteless, but stuff like this is much better quality in terms of humor in my opinion. The true geniuses in comedy should be able to be funny without cursing, or being gross or crude in any way. This film is a great example of that.

This film is about the story of Dewey Finn (Jack Black) a total bum who dreams of being a famous rock and roller. How ever he is terrible, and he gets fired from the band that he started. He owes rent to his roommate Ned Schneebly (Mike White), and if he doesn't come up with it by the end of the month he will have to move out. Ned is a substitute teacher, and when Dewey answers a call intended for him he pretends to be him, and takes a job as a sub at a prestigious prep school. When he hears the kids in the class playing in their music class he decides to make a band with them. He lies to them that it is a school project and they will be getting a head start at it. He plans to compete in the battle of the bands with them so he can win 20,000 dollars, and possibly land a record deal. They must keep the whole thing a total secret.

He forms an interesting bond with all of the kids, and he helps a lot of them. He also has a lot of good nicknames for them. There is a blonde girl named "Blondie" for example. There is a kid named Lawrence (Robert Tsai) who is a sweet kid, but he says that nobody ever talks to him. Dewey really helps him feel better about himself and he nicknames him "Mr. Cool." There was one girl named Tomica (Maryam Hassan) with a great voice, but she felt bad about herself because she is fat. He helped her out there. Overall he is a really good guy in the end, and he learns a lot from his experience, and they learn from him. That is part of what made this movie so good.

Jack Black pretty much plays himself in this, but it works out great though. He was really funny, and he seemed like a real rocker too. His character was great, and his natural personality was perfect for the role. Everybody was great in it too. The film had such an awesome ending, and the music was great. The line "stick it to the man" is one that I say a lot now, and it has given me a pretty good definition for what my favorite genre of music is about. This is a classic that is great for all ages, and one that you can watch over and over again.

Friends With Benefits

Well a very formulaic, and clichéd chick flick but it still delivered a few laughs, and it was a decent movie. It is relatable, because it does talk about how sex always comes at a price, and how relationships are so stressful. I am in high school, and everybody around me is always saying how being in a relationship is stupid, and it is unneeded stress. So it's kind of a good film in that sense, with a ton of sex. Justin Timberlake, and Mila Kunis make a good couple. I could actually see them being with each other. The story is about two people who just came out of two break ups, who want to have sex, but don't want the stress of a relationship. So they become friends with benefits. Probably a total of 8 minutes at least was them having sex or making out. They eventually start falling for each other as expected. Then the guy messes up, and ruins it, then gets her back like in every love story. The film has some funny things like the opening scene where Justin Timberlake gets dumped. His girlfriend dumps him because he showed up late for a John Mayer concert, and they missed the song "Your Body is a Wonderland" because he showed up late. I laughed at that because I am a huge John Mayer fan, and I thought I would be angry if I missed that song. Well I wouldn't be like she was, if my girlfriend showed up late and I missed that song because of her, but I would be pretty annoyed. I thought it was funnier at the beginning of the film, then the part of the film that made it more of a chick click kicked in. It was still decent then however. I have a mental list of films that I would want to watch on a date, and this is on it, because girls like films like this. I usually don't but this one is decent. This is definitely a date night film, or something you would watch with friends. It is not original, but it is entertaining, so that is why I say it is decent. I don't have many more things to say about this, because it is kind of just basic entertainment. Maybe I didn't love it because I don't like Justin Timberlake, or Mila Kunis as actors.

Flight
Flight(2012)
½

Flight was a very good movie, but it was not what I expected it to be. The trailers made it look more like a really cool film, but it turned out to be a really serious drama. It was better then I expected though, and I liked the story that was misrepresented in the trailers. It is a heroic story, about a hero who has done one huge heroic and miraculous thing, but has done many terrible things. The story is clichéd in certain areas, but the uses of clichés are good. Clichés are good as long as you go into depth with them, and this film does a great job with that. Directed by Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump, Cast Away) this story takes you into the investigation of a plane crash that was piloted by Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington).

Whip is an alcoholic and an addict. One morning he wakes up in a hotel with his girlfriend drunk so he does some cocaine to get his head straight. He then heads out to the airport to get ready to fly. He sneaks a few drinks into his orange juice and falls asleep in the cockpit, but is woken up when the plane breaks down in mid air, and starts falling. He makes all the right decisions and he crashes the plane in a field, and saves nearly everybody on the plane. He wakes up in the hospital and he is told of his condition. The crash is all over the news and he is now being called an American hero. They found alcohol and the cocaine in his blood which was predictable, and the story becomes a drama about weather or not the crash was his fault or if it was because he had a broken plane, which he claims they gave him. It also follows his life afterwards, and his huge drinking problem. "Will he go to jail or not?" is the question you have the entire time. It is a very different role for Denzel, because he gained a lot of weight for it so he would have a beer belly, and just the character itself is different for him. Different because he usually has a pretty charming personality which he doesn't have at all in this. It shows what a great actor he is though.

Whip is a hero for that but as the story unravels he looks like he shouldn't be called one. He has saved a lot of people, but he has hurt a ton with his alcoholism. The ending makes you think, and it leaves you satisfied. You could feel happy or sad at the end, depending on how you felt about him during the film, but they did end it well. The only plot hole is that they never really described why he started drinking and snorting cocaine. That is the only question you have when you leave the theater.

Other then that it was a very good movie, and very well done. It is enjoyable, and thought provoking. It got intense at certain moments, because of the acting. John Goodman has a small role in it, but he delivers some funny lines, which he pretty much always does, so it was good to have him in this. The compelling performance from Denzel Washington really adds to the film being thought provoking, and it being intense at times. It was a very good drama, and just another good one to add to Denzel's filmography.

Goldfinger
Goldfinger(1964)

This is when James Bond really became James Bond. When we think of 007 we think of cars with cool gadgets, and cheesy villains. Sean Connery was the best Bond after Daniel Craig and this was the best film he did, and the best in the whole series after Skyfall, and Casino Royale. The first two in the series Dr. No, and From Russia With Love were great, but not as great as this, because they were slower, and they didn't have all the gadgets that make the stereotypical 007 film that we love. They had them, but not as much as this film did. All the James Bond films are cheesy, but some of them are too cheesy. This one was cheesy enough for it to be funny and entertaining, but not so much that the film couldn't be taken seriously at all. That is why this is my favorite of the old ones. What is good about Sean Connery is that he is like the Cary Grant of the 60's in the Bond films. He sounds like him and was similar in personality to him. He had the same leading man presence that Grant had too. Which was perfect for a 60's Bond film.

James Bond (Sean Connery) is ordered by his superior M to go to Miami Beach to observe Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe), a bullion dealer that is staying at the same hotel. After bond catches Goldfinger cheating at gin rummy, and stops him he consummates the relationship with the employee he used to blackmail Goldfinger into losing. He is knocked out by Goldfingers servant Oddjob (Harold Sakata)he wakes up and finds her dead covered in gold paint. After he learns what Goldfinger's true mission is he arranges to meet Goldfinger and play golf with him. He beats Goldfinger, and then follows him to Switzerland determined to find out how he smuggles Gold internationally.

This film gets parodied a lot in Austin Powers films. OddJob's famous thing in this film is that he throws his hat and it breaks a statue. In the first Austin Powers there is a guy who throws a shoe. The 3rd Austin Powers film was called "Goldmember" which was a parody to the title of this film. The Bond films have had a huge effect on the film industry, and the fact that they get parodied so often shows that. This film is one of the most important films in the series, and it is one of the greatest films of all time. It is the one Bond film in the book "1001 movies you must see before you die."

This is a great movie that is fun, funny, and cheasy. You can make fun of it without ruining it, which makes Bond films so special. Also because this is only the third film it was still original and new. After a while it got ruined because it became the same thing over and over again. I liked this one because it felt so original at first. The other Bond films were mostly decent, but they weren't as good until Daniel Craig came around and reinvented 007 and made it better. This is a great classic overall.

Zero Dark Thirty

The film is everything that happened with Al Qaeda after 9/11 leading to the point where the killed Bin Laden. It is the story of the greatest manhunt of all time. It was nearly ten years before they found and killed Osama Bin Laden, and this film shows all the work and events that occurred during the world's biggest manhunt. This is a film where you know the ending before it starts and it is still suspenseful, and intense. It is a slow moving film, that gradually gets faster and faster. You kind of sit there, knowing what is going to happen like another movie that came out that year Argo. In both films you knew how it ended but it was still really intense, and suspenseful. That was why the film was so good. I loved it I have to say. Jessica Chastain I think would have gotten best actress if Jennifer Lawrence did not play the role of Tiffany in Silver Linings Playbook. I wanted Jennifer Lawrence to win that award, but if it weren't her it would have been Jessica Chastain. I did not think the film would get best picture, but I think it definitely deserved to be one of the nominees for that category. The film is just as awesome as you would expect it to be. However there wasn't as much action as I thought there would be, but it was still intense. It was interesting, suspenseful, and a great drama, with great acting. However I doubt that the film was entirely accurate. The mission's details were so secretive that there is no way they could have gotten it right. I feel like in about twenty years from now when it is made public the details of the mission, this movie will be pretty inaccurate. It is still an awesome film. It is called Zero Dark Thirty because the mission to kill Bin Laden started at 12:30 at night.

The film starts off with some recordings from September 11th 2001. The screen is black when they play the recordings then it starts. Patrick (Joel Edgerton) is a tough guy navy seal. He is one of the guys that tortures the members of Al Qaeda that they hold as prisoners. He starts the film by torturing the nephew of Osama Bin laden for information. The nephew is Ammar al-Baluchi, and he doesn't say anything, so he is subjected to waterboarding.

Water boarding is a form of torture where you are held down, and they place a towel over your face. They pour water on your face, and that simulates the feeling of drowning. It was used only at the beginning of this film, but it was a tough scene to watch. It was tough considering that this was how the film started. I also wondered how often were these guys telling the truth when they said they didn't know anything. The film was criticized for it a lot, and it is not for sure if it is accurate. Some have argued or thought that it glorifies torture, which I disagree with. I think it is impossible to glorify torture. It is wrong and it is awful that we had to do it to get information. However some may think it is karma, because they are terrorists and they have tortured our people before. But still nobody deserves that.

Maya (Jessica Chastain) is a really intense, socially awkward, intense, and obsessed girl. All she ever does is work on the Bin laden case. She doesn't have any real life or friends. All she has done since she has joined the CIA is the Bin laden case. Jessica Chastain did a great job portraying her, because she was really intense, and she really did have a hard role to play.

The torture does work, and they get the info from him about an old acquaintance that is working as a courier for Bin laden. The courier is using the name Abu Ahmed. They catch Abu Faraj in 2005 and he denies knowing any courier even though Maya tortured him. They develop Maya's determination and desire to catch him as the film goes along, and she ends up surviving the 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. She eventually figures out where Osama is being held, and for everyday they don't do anything they she writes the number of days on one guys office window. She does that until they decide to kill Bin Laden on May 1st. The mission starts at 12:20 A.M. on may 2nd. The have to fight their way in, and they shoot many guys on the way in, and they finally do shoot and kill Osama Bin Laden. The last half hour of the film is the mission. Something that they did that was historically accurate was that they took a picture of Osama dead on the ground. The picture has not yet been leaked, because of how controversial that would be, because it is supposedly really nasty. They didn't show them dropping his body in the ocean, and they just ended it right after they killed him.

One of the terrorist attacks that they show was the 7/7 London bombing in 2005. I was actually in London when it happened, and it was a very scary day. Terrorists detonated four bombs in the public transportation systems during rush hour in the early morning. I had just woken up when I heard of it, and I was only ten when it happened but I was there though. Three were in the underground trains, and one on a bus. Fifty-two civilians and four suicide bombers were killed in the attack.

On September 11th 2001 four men crashed for planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to take back the plane. 2,977 people were murdered that day in the most awful way. This film is about the ten-year manhunt to catch Osama Bin laden the man responsible for the biggest terrorist attack of all time. That attack showed what kind of evil, and hatred people were capable of. America hates Osama bin Laden more then they hate us, and I remember everybody at my school was really happy when he was killed. There was about a week where people at my school were talking about it. This film inspired more of a discussion and it was talked about around my school when it came out. It was an awesome movie, that didn't win any awards but would have gotten them if 2012 weren't such a phenomenal year in movies. There were so many awesome movies that I felt like deserved awards that didn't get any and this was one of them. Kathryn Bigelow directed this and The Hurt Locker which won best picture, but I didn't think was as good as Zero Dark thirty. Mark Boal wrote Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty too. Those two have collaborated twice and their two collaborations have been nominated for best picture and one of them one. They should keep working together, because they make great movies together. This was an awesome one.

American History X
½

American History X is a really great movie. It is really intense, interesting, and well acted. It is a tough movie to watch though, because the intensity can be pretty extreme. It is not one that you can watch over and over again, because there are a few moments where it is hard to watch. Tony Kaye made his feature directorial debut with this film, and he did an incredible job. The film had a lot of things in it that showed that he had a vision in his mind for the film, like the black and white sequences, the intensity, and the direction of the acting. The black and white sequences I think symbolize the racial part of the film, because when the film is in black and white it is in flashbacks of Derek's (Edward Norton) white supremacist days.The film is hard to follow at times, and it is good to know something about it before you watch it. I didn't know anything about it, and I found it hard to follow. My Dad had to explain certain things for me.The film is about white supremacists, and it really shows what they are like. They are the lowest of the low. This movie really shows that. They looked like a bunch of uneducated losers in this film, and I have a feeling that the film probably portrayed them accurately. The whole film they were dropping n bombs, and whatever racial slur you could think of. I found that I really grew to hate that movement after seeing this, because I saw how awful and racist they came across. They also seem really stupid too. White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to all other racial backgrounds. It is not true however. All people are created equal.Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton) a neo Nazi, and gets a swastika tattoo on his chest after his father got murdered by a few black drug dealers, and becomes the leader of the white supremacist movement. Three Crips try to steal his truck and he goes outside and shoots them. The first guy he killed the other guy he curb stomped, and the last guy got away. He went to prison for three years after that, but it would have been longer if his brother Danny (Edward Furlong) who witnessed the incident testified against him. He would have gotten a life sentence actually.When he is in prison he grows a lot, and goes through some interesting things. He befriends a black prison inmate Lamont (Guy Torry). He became part of the Aryan brotherhood in jail, and he thought he was sailing through it after a year until he is brutally raped and beaten in the shower one day. When he gets out he decides to change his life. Everybody expects him to go back to his old ways but he decides to change. Derek is actually a very smart guy, and you can see that after a while. He finds his little brother Danny is becoming like him. He has shaved his head the way he used too, and is racist against everybody. Derek wants to fix that, because while he was in prison he learned how awful the way he used to be was. On the day Derek got released Danny got in trouble for submitting a book report on Mein Kampf. That book was written by Adolf Hitler, and it is about all of his beliefs. It is the bible for white supremacists. His history teacher reports him to the principal Bob Sweeney (Avery Brooks), and Mr. Sweeney convinces him to give him another chance. Mr. Sweeny tells Danny he will now attend the class "American History X." He makes him write a paper about the events leading up to his brother's imprisonment.This was a great movie that was intense throughout, but tough to watch. One of my favorite movies, but not one I could watch over and over again, because it is tough. I would recommend this though.

A Bronx Tale
A Bronx Tale(1993)

A Bronx tale is one of the great gangster movies. What is good about it is that it is a much more clean gangster films then ones like Casino or Scarface. It does have some violence in it, but not a ton. The film isn't very dark which gives it an interesting feel, and it actually has a lot of humor in it, which I liked a lot. It was Robert De Niro's directorial debut, and he did just a well, as you would expect him to do. The film felt like Goodfellas, but less brutal. It had a few of the same actors, and it was similar because of the narrating.

Calogero Anello (Age 17 (Lillo Brancato Jr.)) narrates the story from the point where he first got involved with Sonny (Chazz palminteri) when he was nine years old. Like Henry Hill from Goodfellas he was a gangster when he was a kid. Lorenzo Anello (Robert De Niro) drives the bus in their neighborhood, and they live next door to the bar that the mob hangs out in. Part of the film is Lorenzo's struggle to keep his son from going over there. Calogero (Age 9 (Francis Capra)) witnesses Sonny murder a man on the street in broad daylight. The police line up all the suspects and tell him to identify who did it, and he doesn't rat them out. He thinks he did a good thing but his father tells him "You did a good thing for a very bad man."

Calegero goes to the bar and wins Sonny a lot of money playing crabs for him, and gets a cut of the winnings. His father finds out about it and confronts Sonny to leave his kid alone. It then flashes forward eight years and the guy who plays Calegero at age 17 (Lillo Brancato) looks like a really young Robert De Nero. Calegero is a very smart kid, and is good friends with everybody in the mob.

Sonny teaches Calegero that it is tough to be feared and loved, but if you could only be one it is better to be feared. He says you can't give them too much or they will walk all over you. He also taught him what makes a great woman, and that you can only have three great ones. The film is more about relationships that mob violence then movies like Goodfellas. That makes it a more interesting movie. He ends up falling for an African American girl named Jane, and that causes problems. A lot of the things in this movie revolve around race, like the n-bomb gets dropped a lot. Also they beat up a couple of black guys on the street just for being black in one scene. That is the only bad part of the film.

The film was great. It was really well acted, and they trained Francis Capra not to blink, which I thought was good. I really liked this movie and I would put in in the top ten for gangster films. If you like stuff like Goodfellas you will like this, though it is not as good as Goodfellas it is really good.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a really unfunny movie that just has several really funny people in it. The comedians sticks in this film have gotten old, and they are running out of funny things to do. This is an example of a film where the humor is not at all creative, and is just purely tasteless. It didn't even have many jokes. The movie was really lousy. It got boring after a while too. It started off with some potential to be good. It seemed like it could be interesting, but it eventually just got slow, and serious for the most part. The film had maybe three or four funny things but even then they weren't that funny. Nobody in the theater was laughing, I found that sad. The jokes were very predictable and overused, and you can tell that the writers of this film were not very creative, or original in their jokes. The film contained no intelligent humor at all.

Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carell) and Anton Marvelton have been friends for thirty years. They have been doing the same magician gig for the last ten years in Las Vegas. Another magician named Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) does way more interesting, wild, and original things then they do. They have been doing the exact same show for years, and Burt has become a really arrogant jerk to every body. Everybody is tired of Burt and Anton, so they start paying more attention to Steve Gray. Steve Gray does some really painful and disgusting things for his tricks, that aren't really magic tricks like not blinking for three days even when they spray pepper spray in his eyes, and holding in his urine for twelve days. He just does wild stuff but very few magic tricks. He also laid in a bed of red-hot coal, and slept in it over night. His show is called "Mind Raiper." That name was just another tasteless joke in the film that may be funny to some, but will not be after you hear the name a second time. However his so-called "magic tricks" take away the attention from Burt and Anton. Fewer and fewer people go to their show and eventually they have to come up with something wild and original. They come up the hotbox trick, which fails after twenty minutes when Burt freaks out and breaks it. Anton gets really injured, and that ends their friendship. After that it just becomes a really slow comedy, and that was when it got really tasteless. It had potential at the start, but just went downhill in a landslide.

I would not recommend this to anybody, because there is nothing to praise about it. It will be forgotten shortly. It will stay in theaters for a month or two, and be forgotten about completely after that. The performances from Steve Carell and Jim Carrey are just like the ones they gave in every film. Well actually Steve Carell was slightly different from his usual self, but his humor wasn't at all. I think the reason why I disliked it so much was because I felt like the jokes were so overplayed, and there weren't many jokes in my opinion anyways. Its like none of these guys had ever written a comedy before. Two of the screenwriters hadn't actually, and this was there first screenplay and it clearly manifested itself that they had never done it before. Really bad movie.

The Godfather, Part II

The Godfather part 2 is the best in the series because it tells two stories. It tells the story of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) finding out who the traitor in his family is, and it shows how Veto Corleone (Robert De Niro) grew up and how he became Don Corleone. If it didn't tell two stories it would be a close 2nd to the first one, but it does tell two stories so it is my favorite. This film had it down the right way to do a prequel. A straight prequel is never good. You have to make it part sequel, and part prequel. It needs to be a sequel with lots of flashbacks. The prequel part of the film was in the book, but the sequel part was not. I think the reason why the sequel story was really good, but not as good as the first one is because Mario Puzo had to make it from scratch. It also doesn't have as much suspense as the first story does. This film is a lot more dark then the first. Because it shows the effects that breaking bad has had on Michael Corleone.

It has been seven years since the events of the first one. It starts off with a party in Lake Tahoe Nevada. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has a series of meetings. One of them is with Senator Pat Geary. Geary just insults him, which shows how weak Geary is, and Michael doesn't offer him anything. A meeting with his depressed, and troubled sister Connie Corleone (Talia Shire) shows that he has lost control of the family. His father had perfect control over the family and the business, but Michael can only really control his business. That is the only way where he is as good as his father. This film shows what a much more flawed, and cold person he is then his father. His father was feared, and loved, but Michael is only feared.

An assassination gets attempted in his life when he is at home, and he knows that there is a traitor in the family. The story becomes how he figures out who the traitor in the family is, and what he will do with him when he figures it out.

-----Spoiler Alert-----

The traitor in his family is his brother Fredo (John Cazale). He learns that because
He told him that he never met Johnny Ola, and then later he says that he knows him. Michael approaches him in the middle of the new years party, gives him the kiss of death and tells him "I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart." At the end of the movie he kills him because he cannot have any traitors n the family. Genghis Khan the leader of the Mongolian empire killed his brother because he betrayed him. I feel like they got the idea from that part of history.

-----End of Spoiler-----

The prequel part had Robert De Niro playing the younger Veto Corleone. He was first named Veto Andolini, but he came from Corleone, Sicily. He changed his last name to the name of his town after his mother was murdered in front of him. He then went to America and grew up and raised a family there. He lived in a neighborhood where Don Fanucci ruled, and he eventually killed him because he was taking money from people. In the book it says that his son Santino saw him kill the Don. Eventually Veto becomes more powerful and acquires the wine business. He does favors for people like you saw him do in the first movie. The prequel section is my favorite part in the whole trilogy.

---- Compare to the first one-----
They both start with a party and end with him taking out his enemies. And they both end with him waiting for one of his parents to die before he kills a member of the family that hurt the family. They both had a big threat to the family, and they were both assassination attempts that failed. They both have a few similarities, but they are very different.

This was an unbelievable movie that was just as good as the first if not better, but probably just as good. It was very well acted, and the only thing that was missed was Marlon Brando. Marlon Brando brought a happiness to the first one, that Al pacino didn't bring. Al Pacino's character is a great one, but he makes the film much darker. This was the darkest of the Godfather films, and it was the heaviest in terms of emotions at the end. The first one had a little bit more suspense, and it had more action, but this one was more intense at the end. It was a perfect movie.

Rushmore
Rushmore(1998)

Rushmore is a really interesting Wes Anderson film. It is very quirky, funny, and silly at times. Wes Anderson is one of those directors who has a completely original, and unique style, which makes him one of the best. His style is very quirky, weird, and the kids are like adults in his films. He always has a lot of interesting music in his films, that really adds to the film, and the entertainment of it. Wes Anderson always writes his screenplays too. He wrote this with Owen Wilson, and it is a really well written one. He has never directed a movie that he didn't write or co write, which is good because that means the film is his vision entirely when it comes out in the end. This was his second film. It came after his 1996 hit Bottle Rocket, which he did two years earlier.

I have only seen a few Wes Anderson films, but I have seen enough and read enough to notice that he is one of these guys in Hollywood who works with the same people, so all of his films have a similar feel. The Wilson brothers are always involved in his film. He co-wrote this with Owen Wilson, and Luke Wilson made a quick appearance in this. He teds t have Bill Murray in his films a lot. Bill Murray played Mr. Blume in this film, and he stared as Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Bill Murray also did the voice of Badger in Fantastic Mr. Fox. My favorite directors write their own stuff, and they have the same actors in their films. I have only seen about 3 or 4 of his films, but he is becoming one of my favorite directors.

It starts off with an interesting intro. It starts off in math class, and the teacher puts up "The hardest geometry problem in the world," and he says that whoever gets it won't have to open another math textbook again. Max Fischer (Jason Schartzman) stands up and does it in seconds, and got it right. Max is like a grown adult, which a lot of kids in Wes Anderson films are. He is also very eccentric, and is nothing like any other kid at Rushmore. Rushmore is the private high school he goes too. He is really proud to go there, and he only wears his school uniform because of it. He does the most extracurricular stuff, but the least scholarly stuff at that school.

Herman Blume (Bill Murray) comes to admire him, but they both starts to fight each other for the love of the widowed Ms. Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams). AT first it is only Max who loves her, but she won't go with him of course because he is a student. Eventually she starts an affair with Mr. Blame, which starts the fighting with max. Bill runs over Max's bike, and Max cuts his brakes on his car.

Max gets expelled from Rushmore because he tried to make an aquarium for the school. He doesn't care at all for his grades, and he only wants to do extracurricular things. I think it is because he is a genius and he gets bored with school because he is above the schoolwork. Max is an interesting character. His secret to life is find out what you love and do it for the rest of your life. What he loves is going to Rushmore. So if he didn't get expelled he would have probably spent his whole life doing extra curricular things for the school. He truly is delusional, and not in the right place mentally. He is a genius, but not very smart.

Part of the extra curricular activities that he does is putting on really high production plays. He writes them, and directs them. He made a play about a war that reminded me of films like Platoon, or Apocalypse Now. He is really talented, and the fact that he can do the stuff that he does is incredible. He is a fascinating character, and a typical kid that you would see in a Wes Anderson film.

This film was so creative and witty. I loved it, and everything about the style that Wes Anderson brought into it. Weather it was the soundtrack, the personalities and skills of the people, or just the plot. It is a brilliant film that is definitely worth watching again.

Die Hard
Die Hard(1988)
½

This is the best of the Die Hard films for sure. It is better because it seems more original, and it feels like I haven't seen this before. The Die Hard films have their own formula, clichés, and signature things that make them stick out from other action movies. The original Die Hard is the best because it started all of them. That is the beauty of the original film in every series. They invent their own thing, and they are special, but sequels are rarely ever that good. This film I think is very good and very entertaining. Part of the unique feel that Die Hard action movies have is the action that is completely over the top and ridiculous. A lot of action movies have that, but Die hard films do it differently. Die Hard films master action movie clichés like the bad guys can't shoot with machine guns from ten feet away, the protagonist is a cool tough guy who always has cool lines, and talks to himself. The protagonist is John McClane and he is portrayed by Bruce Willis, and he is the tough cool guy who all Die Hard fans love, and cheer for. He stayed cool for all true Die Hard fans, but the people who only like the first one got tired of him after the first one. He is like Rambo who got old after the first one. But the Die Hard films had about one or two decent sequels. The action you see in every Die Hard film is totally ridiculous. This film is the one that is the least ridiculous, and that may be why it is the best. This film like I said mastered action movie clichés that are ridiculous, and that is why it was good. It was extremely entertaining, and fun to watch, but there were moments that I criticized it for being far fetched. Die Hard films usually don't have a lot of a story, but they make a simple story so they can have a lot of action take place around it.

What happens is that John McClane (Bruce Willis) is a New York City police officer, who has a wife called Holly Gennero McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) whose career has taken off and had to move to L.A. to work for Joseph Takagi (James Shigeta) on the 30th floor of the Nakatomi Corporation building. He goes out to L.A. to see them and attend the Christmas party that her company is having. When he gets there a terrorist group led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) ends the party and holds them all hostages. They have a plan to steal 600 million dollars that is locked in Nakatomi's high-tech safe. John was in another room at the time so he was able to escape, and he had a gun, a Beretta 92F pistol, which he has because he is a cop. That starts the craziest night of his life so far. "So far" meaning that the sequels are even wilder. McClaine starts by observing them, and he secretly witnesses the murder of Joseph Takagi, and then he tries to get the cops involved. Once he does it is all over the news, and the film gets even wilder and action packed.

It was a good movie, that was really entertaining, but just extremely unrealistic. The film had very little character development, and a small plot, but plenty of mindless action. It is like candy for your head that is sweet but not thought provoking. Its good enough to not be called a standard action movie, but barely good enough.

Oz the Great and Powerful
½

Oz the Great and Powerful could have been really good if it weren't for a few things. The prequel to the Wizard of Oz was very entertaining, and beautiful to look at but it wasn't perfect. Maybe if I saw it in 3D it would have been better, but I didn't like a few things like James Franco's acting. I usually like him, but I didn't in this for some reason. Well maybe its just because he played a character that wasn't very likeable. His character was pretty egotistic, arrogant, not very nice, self absorbed, and he was a liar at first. They do change that and his character goes through some formulaic character changes. Formulaic meaning the typical hero's journey story. The effects are unbelievable, but not perfect. I think we have not yet perfected technology yet, because you can still tell at certain times that you can tell that it is a green screen or t is computer animated. I think in the future technology and visual effects will be absolutely perfect. The effects in this are great, but if you pay close enough attention at times you can see a green screen. Except most movies you can tell when it is a green screen or not. That is the area where they need to perfect technology in special effects.

In Kansas, Oscar Diggs (James Franco) is working as a small time magician, who travels around with his circus. He is arrogant, and he thinks he is way better then he actually is. Well when he ends up in Oz it turns out that he is, but in Kansas he is a nobody. He is also a womanizer, and he gets caught flirting with the wife of the strongman (Tim Holmes) in the circus. He chases after Oscar and he escapes in a hot air balloon. He gets sucked into a tornado, and ends up in Oz. Oscar meets Theodora (Mila Kunis) the Witch who tells him he is the wizard that was prophesized to come and save this place. At first he lies and says he is the wizard, but eventually admits he isn't the wizard to a monkey named Frank (Zach Braff). He eventually lies and agrees to go kill the witch so he can be the king of Oz. He is very ignorant, and he has no idea what kind of trouble he will get into. He eventually meets Glinda (Michelle Williams), and they make it to Oz. Evanora (Rachel Weisz) turns Theodora (Mila Kunis) into A wicked Witch, and the whole story is put into place.

Some connections to the first one is that whenever water touches Theodora she gets burnt. She became the witch from the original film later on, and in the original film she melts at the end because she got burnt. When she gets burnt when she cries that is kind of a hint that she is the witch from the Wizard of Oz. The ending, which I can't spoil, connects to the original film too.

This was a very ok prequel that had its ups and downs. Most of the positives were the cinematography and effects. James Franco's acting wasn't that great, and I found him to be kind of sleazy. When Mila Kunis became the witch I thought she sounded annoying when she would scream, and her laugh was obnoxious. Well maybe I just find the witch laugh and scream annoying, or maybe just when she does it. She did a good acting job, and they really made her look different. The film was very predictable however, and I knew everything that happened. It was just as bad as it was good. So that makes it an ok movie.

The Big Lebowski

"You are entering a world of pain." - Walter Sobchak (John Goodman)

"The dude abides." _ The Dude (Jeff Bridges)


The big Lebowski is a comedy that gets better when you re-watch it. It is very good the first time, but I loved it the second time. I rarely ever watch a movie twice, and I am selective about the ones I will watch twice, and I decided to watch this twice because I thought I would appreciate the humor more the 2nd time. I was completely right, and it was even better the 2nd time. It is better the 2nd time, because you pick up on little things. Like the line "The aggression will not stand." I noticed the 2nd time that he heard that on TV in the opening scene at the grocery store. The film also has humor that you may not get the first time, but you will the 2nd time. I say that because that is what happened with me.

Plus the film is really ridiculous, and kind of wild so there is a bit of a shock factor in it. Also now that Jeff Bridges is an academy award winning actor it is weird to see him in this. It also shows what a good actor he is when you see how good he is in this, and when you see how good he is in Crazy Heart, and the remake of True Grit. John Goodman plays Walter Sobchak, and he plays his typical funny self, but he is way crazier in this then most of his other stuff. His character is loud, moronic, and wild. But that is why he is so funny in this. I love John Goodman in everything he does, because he always cracks me up.

Jeff Lebowski (Jeff Bridges) goes by the name "The Dude." He sometimes talks in 3rd person and he calls himself that. He is really poor; in fact he is so poor that he has to write a check to buy milk, because he doesn't have enough money to carry around with him. One night he comes home to his disgusting apartment and two men are there and they are asking him for the money that he doesn't have. They then realize that they have mistaken him for another Lebowski, but not before one of them urinate son his rug. That rug is the nicest thing that the Dude has, and it tied the room together. He eventually meets with the Big Lebowski (David Huddleston), and explains the situation that his wife owes money all around town, and that these people who urinated on his rug were looking for you and not for me. Eventually the Big Lebowski's wife has been kidnapped, and he asks the Dude to drop off the money to the kidnappers. When the ransom drop goes sour because of something that Walter does it sets off a series of really crazy and funny events. Bad things continue to happen to the Dude, and he must fix the situation before a couple nihilists' come over and kill him.

The film is a classic Coen Brothers film that stick out from all of the others, but it has a few of the same actors who were in his other films. It has John Goodman from Raising Arizona, and Steve Buscemi, and Peter Stormare from Fargo. John Turtorro is in two scenes, but he is hilarious in both of them. In a lot of comedies there will be something that comes in randomly at several points in the film, and when it does it is always hilarious. That was John Turtorro in the Big Lebowski.

The Coen Brothers are masters at black comedies. They are good at having things in their films that really stick with you, and you remember. Like this film has a lot of things that I remembered such as the nihilist's, the stuff with the rug, all of the trippy dreams he has, and individual characters like Jesus Quintana (John Turtorro). It is also very quotable, and I plan to quote this movie a lot with people that I know who love it. Another thing that I noticed was there was a triangle with how the three main characters got annoyed with each other. Walter was always telling Donnie (Steve Buscemi) to "shut the f!*$ up Donnie." And then The Dude would always get mad at Walter for being an idiot at times. It was a funny triangle that I picked up on the 2nd time I saw it. You see that a lot at the bowling alley. A lot of scenes take place at the bowling alley, because the three compete in tournaments together, and that is basically their main hang out place. My favorite scenes were there actually, and I won't say what they are too eave it as a surprise.

The film is memorable because it is like a funny and catchy song that you hear that is fun to listen too, and it sticks with you because you like how catchy it is. A lot of Coen Brothers films are like that. They are definitely an acquired taste, but like Quentin Tarantino when you acquire the taste they become some of your favorite movies.

This film is so clever, wild, and funny. It is ridiculous, and every other word was the f-bomb. There are many things that I will always remember from this, and it is one of my favorite comedies. One of the rare ones I can re watch. The Coen Brothers are always great, and I plan to see all of their films because I have loved all of the ones I have seen so far. I would recommend this to experienced movie watchers mostly.

Winter's Bone
½

This was Jennifer Lawrence's first big film. She was really good in this film, and she was on screen for the entire film. I think she is the best actress of our generation. She is only twenty-one years old, and she has been nominated for best actress twice, and won once. She is my favorite actress at the moment after I saw Silver Linings Playbook, and I liked her even more after seeing this. She also looks different in all the films she is in. She can play any role, and she can even change the way she looks in every role, that is why she is so great. The film was a very good and serious drama, that is not very entertaining, but it is interesting. It is dark, sad, and pretty depressing however. It is weird though, because for a while there doesn't seem to be that much of a story, besides a family with a lot of problems. It is slow, but it gets good.

Seventeen-year-old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) has to look out for her two younger siblings and her mentally ill mother. She is in high school but she practically has to be a mother to her younger siblings, and raise them herself. She even teaches them to shoot so they can hunt squirrels. They have to hunt because of how poor they are. The father hasn't been coming home for a while, because He is out on bail following an arrest for manufacturing methamphetamine. It becomes a mystery about her trying to find her father, and she eventually finds out what happened to him.

The film was dark, unpredictable, and very good. Jennifer Lawrence is a fantastic actress, and she is great in everything she does. Not only was she good in this, but everybody else was too. Overall a very good movie.

Rebel Without a Cause

Rebel Without A Cause is what made us remember James Dean. It was his best role by far. A very good movie; with a very good script, that also follows a very relatable theme in the 1950's. The performance from James Dean is what makes the film good, while the other performances were nothing special, his was. The screenplay, and James Deans acting were the two things that made this film as good as it is. It is weird how James Dean was so famous for this movie, and East of Eden, but he died when he was so young. He was obviously a great actor at the time, because he sure was popular for only having two big hits.

I had wanted to see this for a long time, and I thought I would enjoy it. I liked it just as much as I thought I would, and I thought it was very good. I bought it on DVD so I could watch it, and I thought it would be a good classic to own, and I was right. The important thing about this film was that it stood the test of time. I find it interesting how films about teenagers in high school seem to always stand the test of time. Some examples are "Breakfast Club," and "Ferris Buellers Day Off." Films like that and this one will always be good classics. They don't get old.

Directed by Nicholas Ray, this film tells the story of Jim Stark (James Dean). He is a "Rebel Without A Cause" just like the title says, but he has a reason why he rebels. He rebels because he is unhappy, and he is angry because of the way other schools treated him. I think he was treated badly because he is strange, and because he does rebel against everything, and he has no cause or apparent reason for it. He is a stereotypical rebel. Meaning he just goes against everything, and he even rebels against his fellow students. When people call him "chicken" he rebels against them, and gets really mad. He also doesn't appreciate anything that his family does for him. His parents have to move to another town to help protect him from getting in trouble. It is sad because the other students do pick on him, which causes him to be unhappy and to rebel. He is just a troubled rebel who has a reason why he chooses to rebel, but no cause that he is for.

Jim and his family move to another town, and he must go to a new high school. When he goes there he immediately gets into a knife fight, which he wins. In the fight they do not stab they just do little slashes and give each other small cuts. At first he didn't want any trouble but eventually has no chose but to be in the fight. He then meets them at 8:00 that night by the cliff to do some ridiculous stunt that leads to another guy driving his car off of the cliff and killing himself. It then turns into a wild night.

The film was very fun and entertaining. Something else I felt about it was that all the kids were rebels in their own ways, and not just Jim. It is an interesting film that will celebrate its 60th anniversary in 2 years. So far it is 58 years old and it has held up, and is still a good story and movie. I can't wait to see "East of Eden" after this. I hope I like that one just as much as I liked this.