Reviews

This is the third installment of the unofficial trilogy starting with 'Shawn of the Dead', then 'Hot Fuzz', then 'The World's End'. I haven't seen 'Shawn of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz', so I went into this film with fresh eyes, and out of it wanting to see 'Shawn of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'.

How was the acting? The acting was very, very good in this film. Simon Pegg was great in it. From beginning to end he portrayed Gary King beautifully. Nick Frost did very well playing Andy Knightly. There were three other main characters in the film. They were Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marson. All three of them did well, too. How was the writing? The writing in 'The World's End' was also very good. It had many comedic elements to it that brought many humorous moments. The screenplay was written so that there could be some good action sequences and many humorous moments. There were also aspects of the characters that caused them to do things with their type of reasoning behind it. That was good how character's actions reflected on how the characters were built. Did it have an interesting premise? Yes, the premise was interesting. The fact that there was something going on causing some characters to want to leave and some stay was very good. It was also done well through the directing and writing. There were also good characters. Some were sane, and some were crazy. Some were easy to relate to, and some were outrageous, but in a good way. The film mixed these characters together and it well. I also liked many of the events of the film other than the ending. The ending was a bit of a letdown to me. I can't really say it's bad, but it's not good or mediocre either. It a somewhat over-the-top ending that I didn't think belonged. I'll say it was a little-below-average. The rest of the events, though, were surprising to me. I didn't guess any of the plot points, and many aspects of the plot were good. Was it entertaining or boring? Other than a few dull moments, this film was entertaining. The dull moments were around the middle of the film. There weren't too many of them, but it would've been best if there weren't any dull moments at all. The moments were supported by the fact that the scene had been lasting too long and was the same the whole time, the scene was exactly like the one before it, or the scene containing moments that were supposed to be intense, but were mostly boring. Another "problem" I have with film is that it could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was enjoyable, but I didn't love these things about it. The good things in the film were not incredible. It could have been more funny, the humorous moments could have been funnier, the times where there were no action sequences or comedic moments could have had elements that made it very enjoyable, and had people get into those moments. The film did hold itself together until the dull moments and after the dull moments, though.. The action sequences were thrilling, and the comedic elements stopped the scenes that would've been slow from being slow. The film was also able to sustain the substance and enjoyable elements due to the mixing of characters that differ from each other. How was it overall? 'The World's End' had very good writing, very, very good acting, an interesting premise, good story, good characters, and for the most part was entertaining, but had a slightly bad ending, some dull moments, and could have been more enjoyable than it was. This film was overall really good and would be worth seeing in the theater. On the grading rating scale, I give it a B+. Do I recommend this film? Yes, because this film was enjoyable for the most and I didn't very many true flaws with it, I would recommend going to see 'The World's End' even at full ticket price. Will I buy this film? No, because of the main fact that it could have been much more enjoyable than it was, and the flaws I had with it, I would not buy this film. I can't see myself watching buying it and watching it again.

'Kick-Ass' very much surprised me when I saw it. I went into the film with somewhat high expectations, but it exceeded them. I then went into this film with higher expectations than for the first one. My expectations were exceeded in 'Kick-Ass 2', also.

How was the acting?

Overall, the acting in this film was good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did well in this film like he did in the first one. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well portraying Hit-Girl/Mindy Macready. In this film Mindy goes through many stages, and Moretz portrays her well in all of them. Christopher Mintz-Plasse did very, very well portraying Chris D'Amico, the rich, spoiled kid. Jim Carrey usually plays the same character in the films he stars in, but like Nicolas Cage did in the first one, Carrey played Colonel Stripes and Stars very well.

How was the writing?

The writing in this film was overall very good. The screenplay was written well. The dialog between characters seemed fairly realistic, and character's actions showed reaction to how they are. The density of the characters was also somewhat deep.

Did it have an interesting premise?

This film had an alright premise, but nothing special. The premise of Chris D'Amico building an army to kill Dave Lizewski, and I liked Dave Lizewski teaming up with Colonel Stripes and Stars, Battle Guy, Night B%>#^, and a few other as a "justice league" thing. It shows how good they are, and what good things they do. I however, mostly did not enjoy Mindy Macready's side story with her stopping being Hit-Girl thing. It started off somewhat interesting, but it eventually got somewhat boring and uninteresting. There were some emotional parts that did work, but that was only in one scene. The story of this film was good. I liked the events and I liked where the story was going. There were also some things that happened that were very abrupt and intense and that I didn't expect. That's a positive thing. Those events made me say "wow". They also used more emotion in this film than in 'Kick-Ass'. With as rich as the characters are, it worked for the film and had me on edge in one scene.

Was it entertaining or boring?

Other than a slightly slow beginning, which was better than the slow act in 'Kick-Ass', the film was very entertaining, and very easily enjoyable. The entertaining parts were even more entertaining than in the first installment. Overall, the film was very enjoyable.

What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?

The directing in 'Kick-Ass 2' was really good, and the action scenes were very thrilling and somewhat intense in some scenes. This film was also more humorous than the first one. There was one scene when everyone in the theater I was in was laughing into the next scene.

What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?

This film didn't have many flaws to me. My only problem with it that I haven't stated is that I think the film could have been done better and have been more entertaining and humorous for what it was.

How was it overall?

'Kick-Ass 2' was a very fun film. It had very thrilling action sequences, comedic qualities, good action, good writing, a bit above average story, and was easily enjoyable and very entertaining. It did have one side story I didn't care for and it could have been more enjoyable and a bit more humorous, though. 'Kick-Ass 2' is a very good film. I give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and give it a B+ on the grading rating scale.

Do I recommend this film?

I very much recommend going to see this film in theater, even at regular showing price.

Will I buy this film?

I'm not quite shore if I will buy this film. I possibly will, but I might not.

'Kick-Ass' brought an incredible hype with it when it came out in 2010. From that they were able to make the sequel, 'Kick-Ass 2'. So I went into 'Kick-Ass' with somewhat high expectations. It met if not exceeded my expectations.

How was the acting?

The acting in 'Kick-Ass' was very good. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did really well as Dave Lizewski and as Kick-Ass. He portrayed Dave Lizewski as a high school student and the character put on a different face for Kick-Ass. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was able to portray Kick-Ass differently, which is what the film was shooting for. Christopher Mintz-Plasse also did very well playing Chris D'Amico. I didn't see him as Fogell from Superbad. Chloe Grace Moretz did very well playing Mindy Macready and portrayed her well as an intimidating 11-year-old. Last of all, Nicholas Cage did extremely well playing Damon Macready. He probably did the best out of all of these actors and actresses. He was amazing in this film.

How was the writing?

The writing in 'Kick-Ass' seemed very realistic. There were many scenes with high school students, and the characters seemed like real high school students. They messed with each other, teased each other, and had comedic dialog throughout the film that was actually humorous. I liked many aspects of the film including the realistic tone of it. I liked how the protagonist, antagonist, and several of the main characters had at least more than one layer to them. I also enjoyed many of the plot events, especially near the end. In the end, there was also a fair amount of emotion in this mixed-genre film. For a usual mixed- genre film, it's just a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be. This film, though, separated the genre into different sections, which would seem lazy, but it actually made the film better. When it wasn't serious, it had comedic elements. When there were action sequences, it had moderately thrilling elements. In a few serious scenes, it had the right score in the background so that it's a drama.

Did it have an interesting premise?

In an action/comedy, one of the main flaws would be the premise. Luckily, this film had an alright premise. It wasn't necessarily good, but it definitely wasn't bad. I'll say it's above average, but somewhat good for what it was.

Was it entertaining or boring?

This film had slow parts near the beginning and middle, which sadly brought the rating down, but for the most part it was entertaining. I thought that they could have sped film up in those acts, but it tried to show too many characters. There were about four sets of characters, which made the film have to split camera time between them, making the scenes somewhat boring. It did pick up after a while, though.

What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?

'Kick-Ass' had very enjoyable and thrilling action sequences throughout the film. The layered characters were also aspects of the film that made the action sequences more thrilling. The ending of the film was also very satisfying to me. It mixed the right amount of drama and emotion to make the sequences great then.

What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?

The film was not as humorous as I thought it would be. It didn't have a big use of comedic elements, and the ones that were used stayed mostly the same, and got old by the third act of the film.

I have not seen 'The Avengers' yet, so I decided to see 'Captain America: The First Avenger', the only setup to it that I have not yet seen. I went in there with not-very-high expectations, and this film did not meet them.

How was the acting?

The acting was good in this film. Chris Evans did well portraying Captain America. His performance wasn't great, but it was good. Hayley Atwell did well playing Peggy Carter, the love interest. Sebastian Stan did very well playing James Barnes in the film. He stole the show and was the best part of it. Tommy Lee Jones also did very well playing Colonel Chester Philips. Hugo Weaving did well overall as the antagonist, Johann Schmidt. I couldn't really pick out anyone did poorly in this film, so it had overall good acting

How was the writing?

I thought the characters' dialog was average, but nothing special. Sadly, that's the only thing I can say about the writing that's not bad. The obviously choreographed action sequences were not thrilling. Even towards the ending of the film, with the not-so-good character development already in place, they had no background tone for action sequences to work with for a level of emotion to make the sequences more thrilling. There were also very illogical, unrealistic, and/or unexplained things. This is a superhero film, so I'll let things in that category that all superhero movies have slide, but there were many, many more incredibly ridiculous aspects than even 'Thor' had. For example, in this film, Captain America was not allowed to get hurt at all. There are also many more things where that came from. In the beginning of the film, they didn't make me like Steve Rogers (Captain America) nearly enough for me to care about him. It was the same with all of the other characters. So for me, the emotional parts were just slow parts. Also, adding to the unrealistic things, the characters make extremely unrealistic choices, do illogical things, and the romance between Peggy Carter and Captain America didn't build up at all, didn't make sense, and just came out of nowhere in a second. Lastly, for the majority of the film, the events weren't interesting.

Did it have an interesting premise?

Sadly, this film did not have a very interesting premise. I didn't like the idea of the smallest, skinniest kid ever and turn him into Captain America, using this energy that comes out of nowhere. The antagonist. doesn't have any layers. It's just one simple villain. The protagonist does have about two layers though, which is better than none, but doesn't make for an interesting premise.

Was it entertaining or boring?

The reason this film has a 4/10 and not a 1/10 is because for the second have of the film, it was good if you didn't watch it seriously. It had interesting aspects but did have many of the annoying little things that took me out of the film. It was enjoyable and entertaining. The first have, though, was not exactly boring, but was a little slow. The uninteresting premise contributed to its slowness, but it wasn't the only contributor. The characters weren't deep enough for me to want to know what was going on with them. The character development was somewhat interesting, but that's because it didn't last that long.

How was it overall?

In the process of writing this review, my rating changed from a 5/10 to 4/10, because the more I think about it, the worse it gets. The film overall was somewhat interesting, had its ups and downs, had good acting, a somewhat good second half, and not bad dialog. The film did have an extreme amount of unrealistic and/or illogical aspects and minor events. Each of which pulled me out of the film. It also didn't have any like-able characters, poor events, simple characters, entertaining but not thrilling action sequences, Many slow parts, and an uninteresting premise. It was even somewhat hard for this film to be enjoyable. I say that 'Captain America: The First Avenger' is not a good film. I give this film 2/4 stars and give it a C on the grading rating scale.

Do I recommend this film?

Even though it did have some interesting parts and some enjoyable/entertaining parts, as a whole it was somewhat hard to enjoy. I do not recommend a film that would be even somewhat hard to enjoy.

Will I buy this film?

Since I don't even recommend this film, there is no doubt that is not worth owning.

"Lee Daniels' The Butler" and 'Jobs' are the first historical fiction/biography/documentary type movies coming out this year. I decided to skip 'Jobs' and see "Lee Daniels' The Butler", which I had expectations for. How was the acting? The acting in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" was fantastic. Forest Whitaker does amazing. He portrayed Cecil Gaines nearly perfectly through every single year Cecil was played by him. His performance was amazing. David Banner also did very well portraying his character as Cecil's son. Oprah Winfrey surprised me on nearly every level playing Gloria Gaines, Cecil's wife. She was great in this film. The rest of the supporting cast, which is very large, also did very well in "Lee Daniels' The Butler". How was the writing? Like the acting, the writing in this film was also extraordinary. It might be that this film was loosely based on a true story, but the screenplay for "Lee Daniels' The Butler" seemed incredibly realistic, which is what a film like this mostly needs in my opinion. The writer also pulled off skipping multiple years in a row. There was even were also many comedic elements in this film. I think that the humor was overused a bit, but it was amazing how they were able to add that element into a very little space. The rich characters were also pulled off very well. With barely any room, the writer fit all of these things into the film. I think the screenplay for "Lee Daniels' The Butler" was nearly perfect.

Did it have an interesting premise?

"Lee Daniels' The Butler" had an interesting premise, but nothing special. I liked how it wasn't overdone, but it was somewhat underdone. I don't that many points away for that, though, because of the type of film "Lee Daniels' The Butler" is.

Was it entertaining or boring?

The first half of this film was for the most part very entertaining and even had some intense moments and overall was great. The second half of this film was slow for the most part, though. I think that this takes many points away from the rating of it. I think that "Lee Daniels' The Butler" was also a bit too long. I thought they could have easily shaved fifteen minutes off of the end. The second half did have some entertaining parts, and more comedic elements than the first, but even the comedic elements got old as they were used more and more. I also think that they shouldn't be allowed to sneak humor into boring parts to make them more enjoyable for audiences. I don't think that's right, especially for this type of film. The very last act of this film was interesting, though, and had a message. This worked very well for "Lee Daniels' The Butler", yet that was coated with a bad aspect. By the time the last act of the film was starting, I was ready to go, and not only because it had been boring for a while. The film also seemed like it ended about three times. That factor will always bring me out of a film.

What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?

I've already covered most things that I did like about the film. The characters were so deep that you cared about the. That factor gave the film many points. "Lee Daniels' The Butler" also had some somewhat intense dramatic moments just with dialog. That was great for me.

What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?

Like the things that I liked about the film, I also already covered many of the things that I disliked about the film. I felt that I didn't cover some of the things about the first half of the film that I disliked. The first half wasn't flawless. It didn't necessarily seem that focused in the first half and that was an even bigger flaw in the second half. It also could have been better than it was. It could have been more interesting than it was which a huge factor in this kind of film is.

How was it overall?

Overall, "Lee Daniels' The Butler" was a very deep and enjoyable film that was also very interesting and had comedic elements at the same. I did have several small flaws with it, though, and it could have been more interesting and more enjoyable. "Lee Daniels' The Butler" still is very good, though. I think that it would be worth seeing in the theater and give it a B+ on the grading scale.

Do I recommend this film?

Yes, I do recommend seeing this film in the theater to anyone who is considering going to see it.

Will I buy this film?

No, this film wasn't worth owning in my opinion. It was very good, but it wasn't great.

I just watched 'Thor', to get ready for 'Thor: The Dark World'. I had heard many good things about it, so I decided to give it to shot at being good. I have to say, it very much surprised me...

How was the acting?

The acting in 'Thor' was good. By that I mean everyone portrayed their character and played their part above average. The best of the acting was Natalie Portman. She definitely did the best. She played Jane Foster and just killed it. Chris Hemsworth as Thor was a good choice. He portrayed Thor very well. Tom Hiddleston did just about as well as Natalie Portman playing the main antagonist: Loki. Anthony Hopkins did fine as Odin. There wasn't necessarily anything bad or good about his acting.

How was the writing?

It's hard to critique the screenplay for this type of film. I did like how the story went, though. It did have many predictable elements, but some things surprised me. This film did have a bit too many slow parts and the romance between Thor and Jane Fisher just decides to happen, but the things that bugged me the worst weren't those things. It was how there were many illogical, unrealistic, or unexplained things in this film. All of which took me right out of it. Also, the frost giants were way too easy to kill. Those things are twice the size of what the people of Asgard are, and are still killed with one small cut of a sword across their chest. It turns out, the writing was not very good.

Did it have an interesting premise?

I did like the premise and get the humor of what Thor is going through on Earth. Yes, the premise overall was interesting, despite my few flaws with it that I described in the writing section of the review.

Was it entertaining or boring?

Like I said earlier in my review, the film did have a few too many slow parts, making the film kind of boring. Although, the situations at hand during 'Thor' did bring some light into the shadows. The film was entertaining overall, but nothing special happens, and there are only about two scenes that I found exciting. Most of the film was enjoyable, but not entertaining as it should have been, in my opinion.

What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?

I really liked all of the beautiful scenery, CGI, and effects in 'Thor'. I also liked the direction the film went in story-wise. There were also some pretty entertaining action sequences, too.

What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?

I have already covered most of the things that I disliked about the film, but I have one more. I thought that some of the action sequences were not exciting, a very small number that even that entertaining. There was also one in particular of which I predicted almost everything that happened, and I really did not enjoy it.

How was the film overall?

Despite all of my many flaws with 'Thor', it was mostly entertaining, and had a couple of exiting parts. I say 'Thor' would be good if you don't watch it seriously. That means don't sit down and try to enjoy it. Watch it with a few friends. Text during it. Doing these things could make the film enjoyable. I would give 'Thor' a C- on the grading rating scale.

Do I recommend this film?

As I just explained, I only recommend this film if you didn't try to sit down and enjoy it. If you tried to do that, it wouldn't be very good. If you try to have some fun with it, and watch it with some friends, talk during it, or text during it, 'Thor' could be good.

Will I buy this film?

No, I will not buy this film. If I can't just sit down and watch this film seriously for it to be good, it's definitely not worthy of me buying it.

The summer movies come to a close with 'Elysium', from the director of 'District 9'. I didn't see 'District 9', but I was still hyped for 'Elysium'.

How was the acting in 'Elysium'?

The acting in 'Elysium' had some good aspects, but it did have some bad parts of it. The good parts included Matt Damon, Sharlto Copley, and Diego Luna. Those were not the only good actors in the movie, but they were the parts of the movie that were more than good. Matt Damon was the main actor, and did well in this role. The way he portrayed Max was brilliant. He did very well in this film. Diego Luna did well in this movie, too. He was in the supporting cast, but I think that he should have been in the movie more. He also portrayed his character well. Sharlto Copley was definitely the best part of this film, though. He was amazing playing the "crazy guy" in the film. While the character changed, he changed and portrayed the character definitely. He did excellent in the movie. The bad parts of the acting included Jodie Foster. She was the only actor/actress that did badly in this film. With every syllable she said, she either fidgeted, blinked, widened her eyes, or did all three. She didn't portray that character very well either; and lastly, her voice was obviously dubbed. This wasn't that big of a problem with her, but the film. Sometimes when she talked, the vocal track was obviously off.

Was the writing in this film good?

The writing in this film was good. It seemed realistic, and the choreographed fighting didn't really seem choreographed. That's really all I can say about the writing, though.

Did this film have an interesting premise?

Yes, this film has a very interesting premise. It puts problem we have today into a premise for a science fiction film that actually seems kind of realistic. The premise for the film is also very engaging and focused.

Was this film entertaining?

Yes, this film was slow at first, but had intense action sequences that provide thrilling elements using the technology they have in this film. There is some CGI used for the sequences, but it was not easy to notice. There was also a slightly overused factor of this film. It was the use of slow motion. I just didn't think that it was necessary to use the effect as much as they did. Other than the action sequences, the film was entertaining and enjoyable. This film had very rich characters and entertaining dramatic dialog. It did go in an overly-emotional direction in some scenes, but other than that, it had enjoyable buildup to the action sequences. The slow parts did get boring and have dialog that wasn't enjoyable, which did somewhat weigh the film down, but not too much.

What things in particular did I like about this film?

Some things that I particularly liked in this film are the rich characters, very entertaining action sequences, and the very intense ending. The characters in this movie were very deep and the writing in this film made me want the antagonists, or "bad guys", to lose. Due to the technology inside the story of this film, very entertaining action sequences were provided. The last act of this film was very cool and intense. It had several things going on at once that had a sketchy thought to them the whole time. It made 'Elysium' what it really is.

What things in particular did I dislike about this film?

Some things that I particularly disliked in this film are the slow parts and bad performance by Jodie Foster. This film had a bit too many slow parts that had boring dialog. Those parts didn't weigh down the rating and quality of this film too much, but it did somewhat bring them down. The performance from Jodie Foster was forgettable, underdone, and had several bad aspects. With every syllable, she either fidgeted, closed her eyes, widened her eyes, or all three. She also had an obviously dubbed voice, and the track for her voice also badly lined up to the movement of her lips when she said the words on screen. Sometimes it even looked like she was saying something else.

How was the film overall?

The film overall had a few problems but was mostly strongly entertaining. 'Elysium' was a great film.

I strongly recommend 'Elysium' to see in the theater for anyone who is considering seeing it.

I will probably buy this film on Blu-Ray when it comes out.

So, after 'X-Men' and 'X2', the X-Men series was doing very well. Then, they came out with 'X-Men: The Last Stand', which the general audiences did not care for. After that, there was 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine', which audiences didn't care for, either. In 2011, the X-Men series was brought back to life with 'X-Men: First Class'. That was movie was reviewed well by general audiences. Now, after the two X-Men prequels, we have a sequel to 'X-Men: The Last Stand'.

'The Wolverine' stars Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Hiroyuki Sanada, and Svetlana Khodchenkova. Hugh Jackman is of course great in this film, like he always has been as wolverine. The wolverine is Hugh Jackman. He nails the role in every way. The rest of the cast and the supporting cast also do very well. I had no doubt that any of them were who they portrayed in their role. Svetlana Kohchenkova did really well as the main antagonist in the film. She had that "bad guy" feeling that went along with her the whole time. The only problem I have with the acting is that some of the actors overacted their role. They brought the acting too far and it was over the top.

The story was also good. It had a clear conflict, adventure, and task at hand for most of the time. When it got to then, it wasn't like that, but the end was only a little part of the film. For most of the film there are certain reasons characters fight, and what they fight for. They have their motivations and their weaknesses. The characters were all very rich. They didn't need to do much character development on wolverine because we know who he is, but they let us know what he is like now. It also developed the other characters well and gave them back stories. 'The Wolverine' was not all about wolverine. It was about the situation at hand and many of the characters. It was still focused, but it didn't stay on one thing the whole time.

The writing for the movie made it seem more realistic, and gave the characters more depth. It helped us know them better and care about them more. Sometimes it got a little unrealistic and illogical to the characters, but at the beginning of the film it made the characters what they were. Sometimes the dialog was clichéd, like when characters had situations and were in trouble, but for the mood of the movie, it would be hard not to cliché the dialog. There was one thing in this action film that really separated it from most acting movies. In most action films, the antagonist always loses because they talk to the protagonist and tell them their plan. In this film, there's not very much of that. The antagonist doesn't talk too much. I liked how an action film pulled that off.

The action sequences in 'The Wolverine' were excellent. They mixed the right amount of emotion and intensity into the action scenes that balance out into very big fighting scenes that seem like they should mean something big to the film. There was one sequence that I thought got old and didn't really make sense at some points, but it was still good.

The slow scenes after a big action sequences were done well. They were there to show the change in the characters, so they weren't that boring. Yes, they weren't incredibly entertaining, but they were still good. This film captures the emotions of you and puts them into the prolonging intensity of the situations at hand. This film has done this better than any other action film I've ever seen. There was also a very big twist at the end that I would've never guessed. It did get the smallest bit over the top, but it still worked very well.

My only other problem with the film is that it seems like it ends several times.

So, amazing battle scenes, great acting, very well done, very rich characters, good writing, it captures your emotions, and has good slow scenes, but has some unrealistic things, sometimes the acting and events of the movie get a bit over the top, and it seems like it ends several times. 'The Wolverine' is not perfect, but is excellent. I will definitely buy this movie on Blu-Ray and DVD when it comes out and highly recommend it to anything who is thinking about going to see it.

'Aliens' came out in 1986, so the quality of it won't be as good as a movie coming out today. I'm not giving this movie any special treatment for that. I'm reviewing and rating it just like I would rate and review a movie that would come out now. Anyway, there are two types of people in the world: people who think 'Alien' is better than 'Aliens', and people who think 'Aliens' is better than 'Alien'. I don't think either of them is better than another. I watched the 1990 special addition of the movie, so it's two and a half hours long.

'Aliens' had a very slow first hour of the movie. It worked for only about twenty minutes. The movie then started dragging on for the other forty minutes. In the first twenty minutes, it was alright because the slowness hadn't gotten boring yet, it was just used to introduce new characters and go over the situation at hand. This part of the first hour was enjoyable. As it went on, though, we had already known all of the characters and there was just nothing going on. There was quite a bit of CGI used near the end of the first hour, which I think they could gone without using, because it was two-dimensional CGI. There were also green screens used, which also brought it down. That was part of the reason the forty minute boring part was bad. The other part of the reason is that it was simply unexciting.

The acting in this movie had a few problems, too. A few of the actors didn't seem to give it their all. Luckily, the main actors and actresses (Sigourney Weaver, Carrie Henn, and Michael Biehn) did well. I believed those three actors and actresses were their characters. The supposed cast weren't all very good, though.

In several scenes of this movie, the characters would have to be quiet to get through places, and there was no music in these parts. This made suspense build up to set up for action sequences. They executed this well in the film. It made trauma for the audience and even some intensity. That worked in the movie. They also didn't just have mindless acting in the movie. Every sequence had a reason for it's happening, which just made it more enjoyable. That brings up the quality of the acting sequences. The acting sequences were great. They had alright music for the situations and had very thrilling humans vs. aliens battle scenes. There were used of guns which brought more explosions that just made it more thrilling. Also, the humans didn't just win every time. There was an equal balance of aliens winning, too. This made the movie more thrilling and intense. It wouldn't have been good if the humans won every time. The technology used in that time period wasn't too far- fetched, either.

Overall, this movie was really good. That's what my 8/10 rating means. I very much recommend 'Alien' and 'Aliens' to anyone who is thinking about watching it. I own the movie on Blu-Ray.

'Pacific Rim' looked to me like a mindless action movie in the trailer. I thought I was going to the theater to seeing two hours and eleven minutes of giant robots piloted by humans fighting giant aliens. Just about the first hour of this movie makes it more than a mindless action movie. This movie focused on the backgrounds of characters for a while and used character development to make us care about them more. That worked for some of the characters.

The acting in this movie as about average. Some of the performances were better than others. Some aspects of actors' performances were better than others. Charlie Hunnam was more of a lower quality performance. In some parts of the movie, I wasn't convinced he was really Raleigh Becket (his character in the movie), because he wouldn't say some of the dialog with feeling. It was like he was just reading lines some of the time. He had a bit of a British accent in the movie, but it seemed like it was only in affect in a small number of scenes in the movie. I don't think that anyone has a British accent in only a few parts of their life, so that makes it a bad thing. That bring up another performance: Idris Elba's. He had a better British accent than Hunnam, but it still only seemed to be in affect some of the time. Also, his acting performance was good, but he wasn't able to put enough stress on words at times. When Stacker Pentecost (his character) was supposed to put deep feeling into his words, Idris Elba wouldn't be able to put enough feeling into the words. Other than those things, his performance was fine, though. Rinko Kikuchi, who played Mako Mori, had the best performance out of the all of the actors I can think of. She didn't have any accent problems, she was able to put enough stress on words, and I was convinced she was Mako Mori. Her performance was good.

I couldn't find any problems with the writing in this movie. I didn't look for any problems in the writing, but it seemed realistic. In some parts, it seemed it little far fetched, though.

The CGI in this movie was great. It really didn't seem like nothing was there. All of the images blended in with the aspects of the scene. When there was almost nothing but CGI, it seemed like they (the images) were real. The only time I would really tell if there was CGI (if I didn't already know) if it was compared to an actual image.

Now, for the things I went to the movie to see: the action sequences. The action sequences were just CGI's fighting each other. I thought the sequences were great. They were very exciting and exhilarating. The sequences also didn't happen as much as I thought they would, but more would've been less, I think. It might have been like 'Man of Steel', where the action took a long time to get old. Here, the sequences never got old and they stayed exciting. The action was even better than I thought it was going to be in this movie. There's a clear reason for almost everything which causes less thinking during the scenes. Several points to the film for the acting sequences and events.

About the first forty five minutes of this movie after the title came up were character background and development. It did introduce characters and tell their purpose in the story, too. It was interesting at first, but it got old after a while. There was some drama, but it was just slow. I don't know why this movie wanted to be slow in the beginning. Some action movies have been slow in the beginning, but it just didn't work in this one. For the mood of this movie, the logical thing wouldn't be to be slow in the beginning. Being like this almost only takes points away from the movie. Knowing so much about the characters did imply different tones of the movie later on when things would reflect on the character's past. The slowness of the beginning of the movie didn't only consist of character background buildup. Only about half of it consisted of that.

'Pacific Rim' has great images and scenery, barely-below-average acting, average writing, amazing acting sequences, very deep characters, and is well done, but has some bad performances and some boring parts. It was very exciting, had explainable events and aspects, and had a good story. I very much recommend this movie and might buy this movie on DVD when it comes out. My 8/10 rating means 'Pacific Rim' is really good.

'The Killing' season one ends with 'Orpheus Descending', the thirteenth and final episode of season one. This episode was very interesting, intense, and suspenseful. Through the whole thing, there is very much trauma building up that kept me on the edge of my seat.

It even started out interesting. With the episode before this one ending in a cliffhanger, this episode fills it in, but in a weird way. This is explained quickly, though. As it goes on, they have to do different things of which they did have to do in past episodes, but I always found that aspect of the situations interesting. This one was about as good as it had been in past episodes, though. It wasn't anything special. Then, the episode took a different turn that started to make it more interesting. The turn turned from something they had done in past situations into something new. It also started to show the detective's emotions, which seemed strange, and it didn't last that long. It wasn't written into the episode story line well.

As the episode went on, different things started happening that affected the detectives' work, which put them in a situation. In that situation, it became intense, and I really went for the detectives to be able to do this. It starts to get big and I knew that this episode was going to be a big one, and it became a big one. Something very unexpected happens, which did work very well, but I really didn't expect it. Next, there was a big turn that I loved. The episode was almost over, so it worked well.

At the end of the episode there is a big twist that puts characters in very bad situations and worked nearly perfectly for the episode. I was a very good even for the finale. There was intensity in this part, and it doesn't seem like there should have been. After that, there is an even bigger twist that brings massive intensity and suspension. It leaves the end of season one with a huge cliffhanger that just made me want to watch the next episode. When a T.V. show is able to do that, then props to that T.V. show. The whole ending of this episode wasn't even suspenseful, but it still brought huge intensity.

This was a great episode and great ending to season one. The reason it didn't get an excellent is because it had a few very small problems and I didn't think it was as good as other things I've rating 10/10 - excellent. Anyway, my 9/10 rating means that 'Orpheus Descends', episode thirteen of season one of 'The Killing' is great. I highly recommend watching the first season of 'The Killing' and especially recommend this episode.

'The Bridge', adapted from a Scandinavian T.V. crime series, 'Bron\Broen', follows two detectives, one from the US and one from Mexico, who follow a serial killer working on both sides of the Mexican\American border and kicks off with the pilot episode.

When I watched a pilot episode, I couldn't find any problems with it. There was nothing that I thought what unrealistic or stupid or didn't fit in. It also wasn't boring. It was a very interesting opening to the series. It's also not just about the detectives. There are several other characters who I believe all have something to do with this. Those characters aren't explained yet, but I think they'll serve a purpose. The acting is good, I believe that all of these people are the characters they play. Ones that work together have chemistry between each other. The characters are also very strange, which would be hard to pull off for the writing... But it was pulled off. The events that happen in this episode build up intensity and trauma that show that this is "real". You feel people's reactions to the things that happen to them. Also, there's a very unique story line and events with the serial killer that I've never seen before. Those aspects are really really good in the story: they fit well, they add interests, and they make it better.

The reason this episode isn't excellent is because even though, basically the whole episode was enjoyable, I didn't enjoy every second of it and I didn't think it was excellent as a whole. That's not saying anything bad about it. It's a 90 minute T.V. episode (including commercials), it's going to have parts that aren't as good as others. Not every part of it will be enjoyable. 'The Bridge' has it's 9/10 rating because there was nothing wrong with it, it was very interesting, it had good acting, writing and characters, I've never seen some of the aspects in it before, those aspects worked well, and it was very enjoyable.

The pilot episode of 'The Bridge' set the bar very high for the rest of the season, or even the rest of the series. It was a great opening to 'The Bridge', and I will continue to watch 'The Bridge' as it comes on weekly. I very much recommend this episode to anyone who is thinking about seeing it, and I recommend watching the series as it goes on. My 9/10 rating means 'Pilot', episode one of season one of the 'The Bridge' is great.

An English zombie movie, which was the beginning of 'Zombieland', 'World War Z', 'Dawn of the Dead', and many other zombie movies. '28 Days Later' came out in 2002, so it is relatively old now... But it looks horrible! I will let the low budget of this movie pull it's rating down. The zombies were not done well and made stupid sounds. The acting wasn't good, either, and many parts in this movie were extremely boring. Here in there, there would be some enjoyable scenes, but it would go back to being boring soon. Only good part in this movie was the end. I liked that part.

The movie has an interesting plot and some good ideas, but all of the characters are bland and I didn't care about any of them for a while. Some good and smart events happened that sometimes made the scene enjoyable, but that would be that would be the leading event of the scene that carried it. The dialog made most of the scenes that were boring become boring. It would seem unrealistic and just not be interesting, because the characters were so bland that we didn't care what they said and how the acting was bad. It would also be the situations that they were in. By "situations" I mean consequences, chances, choices, and tasks. They had no thought behind them and went on too long. They weren't realistic so that would also bring them down. The fighting scenes also had basically no climax. They stayed the same through the whole scene and stayed uninteresting and unexciting. This was because until the movie was almost over, so I didn't care if they all died so there wasn't nothing necessarily to go for. (This excludes the end) There was bad music and unrealistic fighting, too. The movements of the infected and people were did not seem like they would happen, the way the humans defended themselves seemed ridiculous, and they isolated certain characters and major aspects of the plot of the movie so the scene go a certain way for our "enjoyment", which just made it less enjoyable for me. Also, the infected were unrealistic. They're zombies: they're not supposed to see that well, and they just go after a living thing they hear or smell to try to eat it. They're not smart enough to stop and listen when someone gets away and they don't know to wait for things to happen... And, they can't see that well, as I said one sentence ago. In this movie they went mainly by sight. That's not what zombies are.

Now for things I did like in the movie... A much shorter list. The partially enjoyable actually had some somewhat clever dialog that seemed a bit enjoyable, but only worked because we had no idea what the character's were like, because they weren't introduced, so we wouldn't think that would they would be saying would be ridiculous for the character. Sometimes, the circumstances for the characters would be interesting, and what the characters had done as solutions in past circumstances would be interesting. Some of the choices the characters made and the chances the characters took would also be interesting. About half way through '28 Days Later' an event happened that I thought was smart, but strange. The introduction of this event was enjoyable, because it introduced new characters and places and did well. Sadly that's the only good thing I can say about that event, though, until the end. Now, here's what I thought about the end: It was enjoyable, and made sense sometimes, so it was good. There were some intense moments and some battle scenes that were cool. Some of the things in the end were realistic and made sense. It had some smart events that gives props to the movie. I also liked what they did at the very end. It had some more clever events, character's actions, and good dialog. It was also kind of realistic in some parts.

This movie had a good ending and some partially enjoyable parts, but it had bad acting, bad dialog, bad battle scenes, unrealistic events, bland characters, bad music, and boring events and situations. My 4/10 rating means '28 Days Later' is not very good. It's not exactly bad, but it's not good and I didn't like it. I will not buy this movie and I do not recommend it to anyone who is considering watching it.

James Wan directed 'Saw' in 2004, which showed America a different type of horror when it came out. It got six sequels and did very well. Then, Wan directed 'Dead Silence' and 'Death Sentence', which didn't do so well. Wan teamed up with producer Jason Blum for 'Insidious', which came out in 2011 and terrified audiences (I didn't think it was very scary). Now, based on a true story, comes 'The Conjuring', a film that did so well at the film festival it streamed at, that it was put right in the middle of the summer movie season. It had terrified audiences even more than 'Insidious'. I thought this one was scary.

In the previews of this movie they showed that this movie isn't just loosely based on a true story, it has the same characters, same story, same situation, and the real people say that this is how it went.

'The Conjuring' was very scary, but it had a few jump scares. It's not like the image that pops up is what's supposed to scary you, but it's the fact that somethings unexpected happens. I thought this movie would be better than that, but when I think back on it, 'Insidious' had about twice as many jump scares. There were only a few in this movie, though. The first half of the movie didn't have as many scares as the second half, and the scares were different. The first half build up on suspense and trauma that had me digging my nails into my legs, which were on my seat. It was so intense and suspenseful, but it would end with a jump scare. There were a few things with scary imagery, but most of that came in the second half. In the second half the scares had to do with imagery. There was only about one jump scare then, and it had to do with the fact that this dead thing was doing this to the family. There were also some suspenseful and intense parts in the second half of the movie, too, but they mixed imagery with that to make it stick with you, too. They pulled that off well. The imagery was very scary, and they didn't use it too much. There are some other things in those parts that made them scary but I didn't want to spoil them. At the end there were some scary things, but I don't want to spoil those, either.

The acting was good, and the writing was good, except for one thing in one part, but I didn't like the music very well. Something little would happen and it would play really loudly, and it wasn't that good, either... But I understand it was supposed to be like a 70's movie, so that's not really a bad thing. The movie was slow and kind of boring in some parts that I think it shouldn't have been, but all those parts were after a scare and were only about two of them. The main problem I had with the movie wasn't about the movie. It was the marketing that was the problem. Many scares in the first half were spoiled because of the previews, but in the movie sometimes they were longer and actually scary.

'The Conjuring' was very interesting. I very much enjoyed the film and it went by quickly. It had a few boring parts, but it was still exciting. During the whole second half, it was intense, suspenseful, scary, and very good. The first half was also good, too, it just had more problems.

The movie was very scary and great. It's a horror movie, so it being scary goes for the rating, and it bothered me later, so that adds to the rating, making it a 10/10, which means excellent. It didn't bother me later very much, but it did throughout the whole time I was home. 'The Conjuring' isn't perfect, but it's still excellent. I don't think I liked it as much as I liked 'Sinister', but it was very close. 'The Conjuring' was scarier than 'Sinister', though. I will probably buy this movie on Blu-Ray and DVD when it comes out. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is thinking about seeing it.

As it being an old movie, 'Alien' was meant to be a horror movie, but it wasn't scary. 'Alien' was very suspenseful, and very well done for what it is, so it was really good. I watched it as a sci-fi thriller movie. This was a very good sci-fi thriller movie. It was suspenseful, interesting, and had cool images. That's what a sci-fi thriller is supposed to have in it. There was even some action, and things I've seen once before. That's because I saw 'Prometheus' before this. I liked this as well as I liked 'Prometheus'. The technology difference probably makes this a better movie. The scenery for this was great, and this movie was a very good idea. 'Alien' was very, very enjoyable almost all the way through. I thought the beginning was kind of boring, but still a bit interesting, because it was such a good idea.

The movie did have very little time on the planet, but in the time that the scenery was beautiful and worked well for this very strange planet. The alien ship was also worked on very hard for a long time and the look of it worked well for an alien ship, but mostly because we would have no knowledge of what an alien ship would really look like, so the architects of it could be creative. They did really well in this one, because it didn't have the architecture of what we'd THINK the ship would look like. There were very strange things that didn't really fit in to an architecture of a ship that made sense because again, it's an alien ship. I really thought that worked well for it. That was very cool.

The movie's scenery and architecture was really cool, but I saw this movie to see a bunch of people on a ship getting killed by a huge alien, and it delivers that well. There was a really suspenseful, intense, awesome, good and long part that gives us what we came for. The part was long enough to give us what we wanted, but not too long that it got boring and stopped being interesting. This was mostly because of what all was happening. It was able to be suspenseful enough that it kept it's solidness and was still able to be just as intense. It was kind of like when a horror movie is scary enough that it can repeat several times and you're focused on being scared, so it doesn't get old. It was like that, but only with being suspenseful instead of being scary. Anyway, that part was incredible and kept me guessing and on the edge of my seat the whole time. It was, of course, the best part of the movie.

For most of the movie, it was very interesting, because again, the story line was great. This part of the movie was enjoyable and very strange. The story was able to stay good because of the events that happened leading up to the big part of the movie I talked about in the previous paragraph. Several strange things that almost didn't belong there (like in the architecture of the ship) were there, but they worked. This part was a little boring, but it took a while to get boring, because so much happened here. Right behind the part in the previous paragraph was a little interesting, but boring. It was able to stay enjoyable for that long. One or two major story events happened then, which were actually intense (so they were enjoyable). Those were the best parts of the lead-up to the big part of the movie.

The ending of the movie had some good, intense action that was very enjoyable. In this part there weren't odd things that you wouldn't think about being there, but it was very enjoyable; but sadly, the lack of those things made the end get a little boring. I still liked it, though.

I recommend this movie to anyone who's thinking about seeing it. It's a little boring in some parts, but it has beautiful scenery, amazing architecture, intense, suspenseful sci-fi thriller sequences, and some fun action. The movie was a little bit longer than I think it should have been though. Anyway, the 8/10 rating means the movie is really good.

This is a movie by Andrés Muschietti. You've never heard of him because this is his first major motion picture. Yep, basically a first time director. 'Mama' was the most anticipated horror movie from November of 2012 to when it came out, and "The Best Horror Movie of the Year" until April 2013, form a first time director. So, I saw it on opening weekend, and I thought... How could a first time director make such a good horror movie.

There were many scares in this movie that were in the trailers. That's why it was so anticipated... But it was still really good. The beginning was... Odd, but interesting. They also did a good job at having you see the ghost that was in a very good context. It started out with a lot of potential and made a clear path for itself. After the title sequence it got slow, like basically all horror movies do; but it was interesting. There was some creepy with the girls, but it was in a bit of an unexplained context. It's hard to explain. There was good acting, good dialog, and character buildup that worked. Some very creepy and unnerving things happened in coming up scenes that worked well for this movie. Muschietti was doing a really good job at throwing the scares at us.

Coming up, there were many, many creepy moments, especially with the little girls. Some unfortunate things happen to the family, but it happens for a good reason. That also worked in the movie. Coming up there were even more creepy and even scary things that happened. It did turn into a haunted house movie, but several things happened outside of the house, and this wan't done like most haunted house movies. I liked seeing something different in this type of movie. It worked about as well as the cliché haunted house movie horror events and scares, but still, it was new. There were creepy, suspenseful, intense moments that made most of the creepy parts scary. It was good that this movie was able to pull those scares off. There were some jump scares in this part, but it was less about the point that something was jumping out at you. Some of them were the point that little girls don't do that or the point that those things aren't supposed to to happen. The ones that were just jump scares were so big and done so well that it was actually scary, not just a jump scare. I've rarely seen a movie pull that off.

Coming up, the movie gets extremely intense, suspenseful, creepy, and more scary. Odd things happened, big things to the story line happened, and scary things happened. The scares in past parts of the movie had to do with the sounds or the facts that things like that were not supposed to happen or intense, creepy parts. The scares now almost mainly focused on the visuals. There were very scary things that popped on the screen and were done almost perfectly. There were also realistic reactions and very well done written and directed scenes. There were some things that I had never seen before, but some that I had seen before.

I rate everything up to the end 9/10, but the end brought it down to 7/10, because the ending was horrible. Several things that had been scary in recent parts or earlier in the movie in general, stopped being scary, and were just there. It wasn't scary: it was slow, stupid, badly written, and didn't belong with a horror movie. I don't know why the writers decided to do that, and that Andrés Muschietti decided to execute it that way. It also started to make scary things earlier in the movie not seem as scary when you look back on them.

'Mama' was good, scary, and done well. It could have been an 8/10 or 9/10 if the ending was good, but it was not. It did not bother me later at all, but it was still scary. I recommend this movie to anyone who's thinking about seeing it. I bought this movie on Blu-Ray, too. The 7/10 rating means I thought the movie was good.

Four months after 'Sinister', Jason Blum's biggest production, comes 'Dark Skies', Jason's next production. 'Dark Skies' has a different writer, director, and cast of 'Sinister', so it's not very similar. 'Dark Skies' is a "horror" movie starring Keri Russel, Josh Hamilton, Dakota Goyo, and Kadan Rockett as the Top Billed Cast. This movie had some potential, and reminded me of classic horror movies from the 70's and 80's with the "ghost" tricks that are played on the family. The movie did NOT execute the potential well.

The movie started out slow and I could tell there was bad writing because of the unrealistic dialog and events. I did not believe that a lot of the things that could have happened would have happened. Also, I think this movie was supposed to give the feeling of old horror movies, but there was advanced technology and things that would that not make sense. This part was also boring, because the slow beginning wasn't executed well, and we didn't learn much about the characters. I know horror movies are supposed to start out slow, and 'Dark Skies' is technically a "horror" movie, but it just wasn't interesting.

Then, things start happening. Things that are supposed to be odd and creepy happen, which adds some excitement and fills in for the crappy dialog, but it wasn't creepy. I just sat in my seat watching stupid things happen. It was a little interesting then, because the movie hadn't ruined it's potential yet, and it hadn't started to get boring again. Soon, though... It got boring again. The same things started happening, some a little different, but it wasn't scary and just boring. I almost couldn't process what they were trying to do with the movie. This is when the movie started losing it's potential. In this part of the movie some cool things happened, but most of them were in the trailer. That wasn't the movie's fault, it was the marketing's.

The movie then goes deeper into the story, and a lot of the most cliché events in horror movies happened. I won't say because that is technically a "spoiler", even though this movie is crap. Some extremely unrealistic things happened that had been made unrealistic from earlier points in the movie, which brought up more bad things about the writing. In this part there were more moments that tried to scare the audience. It was a little creepy, but not enough to be considered scary. There were a few jump scares, which are the lowest resolution of scares in a horror movie. They were also meaningless scares that were only scary because of the movie. This is lowest resolution of the jump scare, the lowest resolution of a scare in general. As it goes on, more things happen and there's some explaining to what's happened. That was a little interesting, but not enough for it to be enjoyable; and I didn't really like how we found it. It was a character telling something to another. That's not as bad as a voice over monologue, but it's still bad. The story wasn't much of what we had seen before, but what it replaced the cliché story with wasn't good.

For all the bad things I've said about this movie, it still has a 4/10 rating. That's because of the end. Other than a few more unrealistic flaws in the writing that were made by the story and writing from earlier in the movie, the ending was actually good. It was a big ending with a lot of enjoyable action. This director should go to action and sci-fi thriller movies and drop his version of horror. It was enjoyable and intense to some degree. Props to 'Dark Skies' for that. The ending was fun, but cliché. It was good, but of course, could have been better. There was a bit of a twist at the ending that explained some unexplained things from earlier in the movie. The unexplained things weren't things that I was wondering for a while, they were things that were unexplained that I didn't really think about that were floating in the background, which is a good thing. It was good that the movie was able to that. The twist was a good thing that made me think back on the movie. More props to 'Dark Skies' for that.

The ending was good, but the rest of the movie weighed the rating down to 4/10. This rating means the movie wasn't very good. It's kind of like the mediocre: not good, not bad rating but without the "not bad" part.

I'm rating the this show by the seasons: Season 1 - Great 9/10; Season 2 - Really Good 8/10; Season 3 - Excellent, Nearly Perfect 10/10. That averages out to 9/10, which means this is a great show.

I didn't like the first episode. I though that it was too long, and boring; 6/10. I did like the second episode very much. It had suspense, action, and new characters. I liked it and dove into the show after that; 9/10. The third episode was basically the same, but I think I liked the second better because the third lacked a lot of the things that I liked in the second episode, but added new things that were pretty good. It also ended in a pretty good cliffhanger; 9/10. The fourth episode was different, but my favorite of the first season, and most of the second season. It gave all of the things that I liked from the second episode with more of it and added a surprising thing at the end. It was completely amazing; 10/10. The fifth episode was still good, but not as good as the fourth. Some new things were good, but had less of what I liked in the past episodes; 8/10. The sixth was as good as the second and the third. It added several new things that were good, but I it didn't have as many of the things I liked from those episodes. The ending made it really good, though; 8/10.

I'm not gonna review season two episode by episode, because it is so much longer than the first, except for a critique of the season premiere. It was different from the first season, but still good. It was long, but I actually enjoyed this premiere. I thought the new things they added were as good as the things in season one; 8/10. The next few episodes after that were almost mainly for character development, because at this point there are a lot of characters and we don't know much about them. All the episodes stayed the same, and they were kind of boring. I enjoyed them, so they get a positive rating (7/10; means good), but could have been better. The next few episodes seemed like character development, too. A lot of of things changed, especially with the characters. The episodes got a little better, though, but something was going on that just kept going on that it became boring... So these episodes get the same rating. The next few get near the middle of the season, and they got better. Some things did get old, and it STILL seamed like character development, but I really liked what they were doing with the characters, and even some drama built up. There were several cliffhanger endings, surprising aspects of the story, and some things happened that put characters in hard places; 8/10. The next few episodes was a mix of drama, action, intensity, and more walkers. There were a lot more tough situations, a lot more violence, and intensity with drama, too. A few things also got a little old, too. There were some new things in this part, but a lot of the drama had been the same for the whole rest of the season; 8/10. In the end few episodes of the season, there was even more of the things that I liked from the last few episodes of the season. There were also some more new things in this part that filled in for the things that had gotten old, and they were alright, but still better than things that had already gotten old. Anyway, the next few episodes were really good, and the finale was great. I loved the finale. It was my favorite episode since season one episode four and until the middle of season three; 9/10.

I'll do this season the same as I did the last... The first few episodes were great. They were a huge improvement from most of the episodes of season two. They were just awesome. Sadly, the next episode was enjoyable, but not as good; 8/10. The next few episodes were just about the same. Some awesome, intense, bloody, exciting, unexpected, huge things happened that worked perfectly, and some reactions of other people were written well. Some parts of episodes were boring, but still good. They were very enjoyable; 10/10. The next few episodes were excellent. There was awesome action, walkers, battles, intensity, death, and the writing makes you incredibly bad at some of the characters that is done nearly perfectly. You see characters brake, hit a soft spot, and fight for their life. It is just awesome. All of these episodes kept me on the edge of my seat with huge things that happened and big cliffhangers, 10/10. The next few episodes were almost the same as the past few, but not quite as good. Some of the awesomeness was replaced by some boring parts. There was also less of characters braking and being pushed to their limits; 10/10. The last episodes of the season wrapped it up, but did it well. There was still a lot of the things that I had loved from the earlier episodes, but not as much. I didn't like the elements they replaced it with. They didn't wrap the season up the best, though. Several things caught me by surprise, but they weren't all necessarily good. Most things were, though; 9/10.

'The Walking Dead' is a great show but some of the bad things in season two weighed it down from being excellent to being great, which is what the 9/10 rating means.

Michael Bay, the director of the 'Transformers' movies directed this: A comedy/action movie based on a true story of which in the 90's three guys decided to kidnap and torture a rich guy until all of his assets were sent over them in a month's time. That is a very stupid decision because the families of the victims (yes, there was more than one victim) are still alive to see this comedy based on something horrible that happened to a family member. If this wasn't just a movie review I'd add that in to hurt the rating, but sadly, I'm reviewing this movie as a movie. 'Pain & Gain' was enjoyable and pretty good. I'm reviewing it on that basis.

This movie looked like mostly a comedy in the trailers, but it's not really that funny, other than a few funny parts. I didn't even know if it tried to be funny very much, because most of the time it wasn't. In the trailers it also tried to make itself look like a heist movie, and it really wasn't a heist movie. Yes, they do kidnap a guy, but it's not a heist. I just wanted to clear that up.

This movie, yet enjoyable, was boring in some parts. It had to pick up at some points. This movie also didn't really have a strait forward story line, either. It wasn't very focused and the pacing changed many times. There aren't very clear main characters, there's just all the characters and it seems to be everybody's movie. That part of this movie annoyed me. Some things happened that got intense and did clearly show the main characters, but most of the movie does not. About the pacing being off, in about half an hour of the movie covers a month, but then an hour of this movie will cover in hour. It just goes all over the place. The writing and the directing was very strange in that sense. I had no idea if it was poor directing, or if Michael Bay thought it needed to go that way.

The acting in this movie was good, because two of the main characters are played by Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson, which are good actors. The other guy, Anthony Mackie, did a good job, too. That made the movie enjoyable. I'm not saying they nailed their parts, but they did well. As the movie goes on, it gets better, despite the boring parts. There's some action and some intensity near the middle. There's not that much intensity until the end, though. The end had action and intensity and you see the characters break. That's another good thing, there's some good character buildup, but it's done almost all by monologue, which is a bad thing. Anyway, it was the end that made this movie get a positive rating. I really liked that part. There was also some buildup to the characters breaking that didn't give it away, or not get the message to us. That part of 'Pain & Gain' was nearly perfect.

So, I liked the movie even though it had some directing problems and it was kind of slow. It was enjoyable, (mostly because of the end) fun, and a good time. The end and some parts near the end were done well. This 7/10 means that the movie was good and I liked it.

Here comes the unneeded prequel they waited too long for to 'The Wizard of Oz', the 1939 sensation. A movie starring James Franco to tell us the story of the wizard and how he got to Oz using way too much CG I, boring story line, and bad acting. How about we do this.

This movie didn't get a terribly negative rating because it did what it set out to do: Tell the wizard's story. It did that and used things from the 'The Wizard of Oz'. And I gotta say, some of the stuff in this movie was very cool, even though most of it was CG I stuff. There were many throwbacks from the first movie that did almost the exact same thing, which was actually a little too much. It was so much that it almost became low quality. The ending of this movie was good, but it disappointed me a little. In most of it there was something I hated, but I was able to get past it. There were some cool tricks in this movie that the characters did, because the wizard was a magician in real life. I enjoyed those things in it, but still, some were way too close to the original, so that was kind of bad, but a little cool. I think they could have gone without that though... Or they could have not overdone it so that it wasn't low quality and boring. I like that one better.

This movie was also stupid, very slow-paced, and I also walked out of this movie almost hating it... Not in the middle, after it was over. That's when I walked out. Anyway, I decided to give a 5/10 because I decided that it was just meant to be a prequel and it did what it set out to do, so I had to give it credit for that. It also did have kind of cool parts, event though most of them were throwbacks from the original. The acting was very bad, and this movie was completely unfocused. It's like it was ten stories in one movie... Or twelve, but then it would be 'Movie 43'. But seriously, this movie almost switched to another story with a lot of different characters without even resolving the one before. I could have said it just made many twists and turns, but it went beyond that. Sometimes it even seemed like it switched the type of movie.

This movie overall shows how everything became how it was, which was cool. That was another reason I didn't review this movie negatively. 5/10 isn't positive or negative. It's mediocre, but in a bad way. It's actually below the middle of the IMDb ratings, because it starts at one, so on my filled-in scale of the IMDb ratings, 5/10 is the negative side of mediocre ratings, and 6/10 is the positive side. Anyway, this movie could have been good, and an even higher budget wouldn't have done that. There's going to be a sequel for this, and for that they'll need better casting, writing, and directing.

Fans liked 'Scary Movie and 'Scary Movie 2' when they came out in 2000 and 2001. After that the director was changed and in 2003 'Scary Movie 3' came out, which fans didn't like, even though it had a higher budget and bigger cast. The budget was even higher for 'Scary Movie 4', which came out 2006, which fans hated. 'Scary Movie 5' was meant to come out in October or 2008, but that never happened. Now, from the same writers of 'Scary Movie 3' and 'Scary Movie 4', comes 'Scary Movie 5', the real release date. It's not called 'Scary MoVie'. I don't know why it's called that on IMDb. Anyway, since it had a failed release date, didn't have a real one until five years after the failed one, and was from the same writers of two movies that did poorly with fans and critics, the expectations were very low for this movie... But it still had a negative 4% Rotten Tomatoes critic score, and a 57% user score, which was also negative, but almost positive. I really didn't think this movie that horrible.

This movie was stupid... It was very very stupid. There were many, many jokes in this movie, which was a bad thing. The jokes were almost all from the same humor. It was very strange humor. The humor was funny, but not hilarious. The humor also got old very quick. Since it went on so long, and didn't really change, it had a clear path to get old quickly, and it did. The jokes were also all over the place, and sometimes they would drag on too long and not be funny anymore. Sometimes there would be many things happen in a row that were too similar to be funny, even the second time. I don't dislike stupid humor, but there's a right way to do stupid humor, and they didn't pull it off very well.

Getting past that the humor was stupid and the same and all of the other faults I found in it, 'Scary Movie 5' was a funny movie. At the beginning, when the humor wasn't old yet, and some other parts in the movie, I laughed most of the time. The jokes still lingered for a while in some of the funny parts, but the beginnings of the jokes would be enjoyable. Even though the humor stayed the same in the movie, They changed what they were making fun of several times. Some of the times it matched the movies they made fun of, and sometimes it didn't. When the humor and jokes hit the movie spoofs they matched, 'Scary Movie 5' would be funny and enjoyable then. They could never pull off a very long portion of the enjoyable parts, though. It would only pick up for a few scenes, then go back to the usually unfunny parts. It switched movies several times, though, so it would always come back around. This movie had many funny parts, like in one scene I laughed and laughed and laughed. They had pulled it off right. The writers set up the right things in the movie to poke fun at and make fun of with the right humor, almost perfectly. But the jokes stayed the same, so eventually it died down.

The verdict on this movie is that it was alright. I mean that as It was not bad, but I didn't necessarily like it. I was gonna rate this movie as a 5/10, but I walked out thinking positively of it. I understand why someone wouldn't like this movie, though.

Tom Cruise has been called crazy and proved that he is crazy many, many times. It has been said that he is only good in one role: playing a guy with a gun that has a big situation. Sometimes it has been said that he is just flat out a bad actor. He proved to me in 'Oblivion' that either he's a good actor, or he's good at playing the role of a guy with a gun who has a big situation. This movie is very hard to follow, but good. It was enjoyable to me and kept me confused for a very long time. It's not an extremely complicated movie, like 'Inception', but you can't really figure out things in it. This movie almost completely pulled that off. With amazing scenery and very cool action, this movie very much deserves the rating I gave it.

It starts out with Tom Cruise narrating what's happened, what he's doing, and why he is where he is. I didn't like that it was Tom Cruise narrating, because I think that when in the beginning of a movie, to tell what has previously happened, they rely on characters narrating it. I think that it's cheap and if they want to tell us what's happened then they should just show us. Anyway, there's no figuring out what he does, because he just told you, so when he does it, it's kind of boring. That's one thing I wanted to talk about. The beginning, where they should have introduced the characters, they did a little bit, but mostly had boring things happen that no one cared about. I know that this is one of those movies where you figure out that the main characters were lied to and it needs to start out with them having no clue that they were lied to, but if you're going to do that, at least make it interesting and entertaining. This part is why I said the movie almost completely pulls the "hard to follow" type of movie off.

Later, there's action that's actually pretty entertaining. A few weird things happen that didn't make sense for the characters, which started pulling me into the story. I started liking the movie at that part. Some kind of confusing things happen, and you don't think they need to happen, but later you figure out why they happened. The story then is interesting and better than before. There's a little more character buildup, and there are some things that you can tell aren't quite right. I thought that it was a good idea to do that at this point, because it really made want to know what it was that was wrong, and what's going on.

Then, all kinds of weird things start happening and the movie gets better, but I had no idea what was going on and that it was extremely hard to follow. When I can't really figuring out what's going on in a movie, I think that the writing for it is good because of that, but sometimes I think that if you don't know what's going on, it could be bad, because it could have failed trying to give that information to you.

Anyway, it was exciting, but my mind was filled, so I kind of had no idea what to think. In this section of the movie the Morgan Freeman part that was in the trailer came, and I didn't really like that part. It kind of happened too fast and didn't really give off much information. It may have tried to give us more information, but it failed to, but I don't know. There was also something else wrong with it that I can't quite put my finger on.

Well, after that it starts getting even more complicated and I got completely lost in that part. Before it got even more complicated, it gave us a little information (that part was boring, though), and it explained a little bit of what had happened and what came up next, but I will still completely lost next. I had no idea what to think of the movie at all then. It wasn't boring, because I was confused, but I thought this movie needed to redeem itself, because I didn't really enjoy being lost, then. The things that happened in this section were clever, but very strange, and of course, complicated. Later, it is redeemed for, though.

Now it really starts getting good. A lot of the questions are answered and we're set strait on a lot of things. I really started enjoying the movie there. This wasn't exactly the end, but it was leading up to it. Their explanations were very smart in the writing, and are acted very well. There weren't many big things that happened in that part, but I don't really think you can have big events happening what you're trying to explain why all of these crazy things have been happening in a movie, but I think it would be cool to see a movie pull that off, though. So, now we have most of the answers, but not all. The end is coming up, and we're ready to figure everything out!

The end of 'Oblivion' is here now, and it is amazing. It starts by huge action buildup, then to a very sudden but completely awesome and intense action sequence that blew my mind. This scene was the main reason this movie got an 8/10. It kept me on the edge of my seat with hardcore action, then emotional scenes, then back to more hardcore action. This movie completely pulled off that scene. Later comes the resolution, and the answers to the rest of the questions, some of them with flashbacks, which I thought were shown nicely. My 8/10 rating means that the movie was really good, and I will want to own it.

Producer of 'Paranormal Activity' movies, 'Insidious', 'Sinister', and 'Dark Skies', Jason Blum (my favorite producer) decides to team up with writer and director James DeMonaco to produce 'The Purge'. The movie stars Ethan Hawke (main character in Jason Blum's biggest movie, 'Sinister'), as the main character, James Sandin, Lena Headey, who plays his wife, Mary Sandin. I thought that the Casting Department in this movie did a good job, because these actors worked well. The movie has a great idea and good characters, but does this movie execute itself well? I thought so.

'The Purge' jumps into the story very fast. I don't think it's very long before the purge in the movie starts. That short time slot is the time used to introduce the characters. So, we don't really know the characters very well. I understood that, though, because we don't need a boring beginning to introduce the characters, when we just want all of the action to start. You think it's cool when it shows all of this futuristic technology, but sadly that's the top of the hill of the very beginning of the purge section of the movie. There were a few things that happened, but they were predictable to me. That part was very different than I expected it to be. You saw in the trailer that one of the kids let this random guy who's calling for help into the house. That was part of this section of the movie: the beginning of the purge part. It was a little entertaining of the family having to do a few things because of him, but it could have been better. So, the movie hasn't gone very well so far. It would have to redeem itself with very cool action later. It did that very thing.

After the boring part ended, the thriller part of the movie started. There were people invading the house and trying to kill the family. This was the part of the movie that they executed well. There were many action and thriller sequences that were very cool, intense, and enjoyable. Yes, some of them were very predictable, but some of them weren't. The weird thing is, this part of the movie wasn't very long. Well, the whole movie wasn't very long. It was only about eighty minutes long. I wondered if the movie were longer if it would be worse or better. I thought that they made it that short so that it wouldn't be boring and it wouldn't have that much time to make itself bad. Anyway, when it got closer to the end of the movie, some very unpredictable things happened. Some were good, and some were bad. Well, I actually thought near the end only one or two of those things were bad.

So, the movie, as a whole, was good. It was enjoyable, thrilling, and a little intense. My 7/10 means that this movie is good and I liked it, but this movie could have gone in a different direction and it would have been better. The idea of 'The Purge' is very good. I thought if it didn't focus on just one family or not gone in the direction of a slasher movie, it could have been really good. It also could have been done a little better, too.