Reviews

Total Frat Movie is a 2016 teen sex-comedy and I don't think I even need to clarify the premise. There's really nothing in this movie we haven't seen before: a bunch of frat boys have a party with alcohol and, of course, lots of T&A.

Now to be perfectly honest, this wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. A lot of the comedy is hit or miss or just repetitive. But the one scene that crossed the line is when the main character gets drugged, r4ped, and filmed in the process; not to mention, one of the culprits turns out to be a p0rn$tar. What's even worse is that the main character gets VICTIM BLAMED by (one of) his peers in the aftermath!

On the bright side, one of the characters (specifically the love-interest) does confront the girl who instigated this felony and puts the latter in her place, literally and figuratively. George Carlin once said, and I quote, "Can you joke about r4pe? Of course you can! The real question is Can you make it FUNNY?"

Overall, TFM is a stupid raunchy comedy with only a couple redeeming qualities. Oh, and I forgot to mention, TOM GREEN is in this; he plays the dean!

Oh boy, where do I even begin? First of all, you cannot be anymore unoriginal with the title 20-YEAR-OLD VIRGINS! What's even more ironic is that the two main "characters" look and act like they're still in HIGH SCHOOL!

Second, these two dimwits make Beavis and Butthead look like SAINTS. There is, not one, but TWO instances in which these two morons spy on a young woman skinny-dipping; and if that's not creepy enough, one of them RECORDS her with a camera in the process!!! Thankfully enough, she catches them. But how does she react?

A. She screams, runs into the house to call the cops, and has the two creeps arrested for trespassing and voyeurism.

B. She smiles at them and walks out of the pool wearing nothing but a towel around her head.

Even Tinto Brass would scoff at how (weirdly) sexualized the women are in this flick! Speaking of the latter, I'm convinced that at least one of these "actresses" thought that she was filming a P0rN0; otherwise they were all paid butt-ton of money! Why else would they willingly degrade and OBJECTIFY themselves the way they did!? :/

All in all, I'm giving this garbage 2/10 stars. Not even hot naked women can save it from being an awful excuse for a comedy! This is not a movie, it is an involuntary celibate's wet dream!! -_-

Written and directed by Ti West, X is an exploitation horror film that stars Mia Goth, Brittany Snow, and Jenna Ortega. It is set in the late 1970s and centers around an adult film crew who go on a road trip to a creepy farm to shoot a p0rn0. During their stay, they find themselves being stalked by a disturbed elderly couple.

The characters are of course your typical slasher archetypes: we have the egotistical leader, the blonde bimbo, the token black guy, the nerdy guy, the shy loner girl, and (last but not least) the care-free sk4nk. With the exception of the main heroine, Maxine, all of the "victims" are morons, almost neither of whom we have any reason to care about! Screenwriter 101: If you're going to make a slasher, the least you can do is make the audience care about the people who're likely going to die!

Not only is it tonally inconsistent, it has a serious identity crisis! This is basically The Texas Chainsaw Massacre if it revolved around a P0RN crew. And instead of a chainsaw-wielding maniac and his cannibalistic family, the villains are a deranged old couple murdering people for no real reason!

But the biggest nail in the coffin for me was the fate of Jenna Ortega's character, Lorraine. Now don't get me wrong, I figured she was gonna die. But out of all the victims, she was killed off in the worst fashion imaginable! I can understand her being horrified and freaked out by the ordeal. But just after she's freed from the basement, she lashes out at Maxine and immediately runs out of the house, screaming like a dumb4$$; she is then shot dead by the old husband on the spot. Case-in-point, Jenna Ortega was WASTED in this flick!!!

Mia Goth is the only saving grace of this (overrated) dumpster fire and is the reason I'm giving it 4.4/10 stars!

Directed by Gilles Marchand, Black Heaven is a 2010 French film that stars Louise Bourgoin and an actor whose name is too long for me to even write.

According to Wikipedia (and I quote), "It tells the story of Gaspard, who is lured by a beautiful girl into an obsessive, deadly video game." With a premise like that, you have to TRY to make the execution vapid.

The writing falls flat (literally and figuratively) and the characters are either bland or one-dimensional. The leading lady was especially the latter, serving only as EYE-CANDY for the majority of the film, up until the climax.

Long story short, the brother of the blonde lady forces the protagonist up a building with the intention of pushing him off (something about a s8!c4de pact), which leads the blonde lady to jump off the building instead; the next thing we know, she's Humpty Dumpty. Now you could argue that she only did it to save the protagonist. But the way I see it, this was scraping the bottom of the barrel on the writers' part and their (sick) attempt to romanticize the S-word!

For my verdict, this film had potential to be interesting. But because of the dreadful script, it falls flat on its face. And the one person who really deserved better was the leading actress, Louise Bourgoin, since she had practically nothing to work off of; do yourself a favor and watch her in The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec instead!

I'm giving Black Heaven 4.7/10.

Directed by Rob Cohen, The Boy Next Door centers around Claire, a high school English dealing with a troubled marriage caused by her unfaithful husband. It is not long before a young attractive man named Noah enters the picture and seduces her soon after, much to her reluctance. Things soon escalate from then on as Claire dismisses their entire physical interaction as a mistake, but Noah keeps insisting otherwise. This leads her trying desperately to avoid him, but he refuses to leave her alone.

If the premise of this movie sounds familiar, then it should go without saying that it is. Let me just say that that didn't completely feel the need to review this movie, but there's just one thing about it that I just can't get off my chest, and I'm going to touch on that ASAP.

First of all, there's no denying that J-Low (even for her age) is a POA, but let's be honest with ourselves and admit that she's not that great an actress. She's is constantly overacting throughout the majority of the film, if that makes any sense.

The leading male, Ryan Gusman (whom he may recall as the hot-shot from Step-Up: All In) is really no better. Now don't get me wrong, he did come across as intimidating half-way through the film. But as soon as the third act starts, he practically turns into a mustache-twirling CARTOON VILLAIN!

I'm not gonna dive into the ending, because there's nothing about it that hasn't already been done in other (far better) thrillers prior. But I will bring up one specific thing, however. The reason I wrote this review in the first place is because of one specific arc in the movie involving the main character's son and a blonde girl he blatantly has a crush on. What frustrates me the most about this character (if you can even call her that) is not so much what they did with her, but what they DIDN't do! After this one scene where the son asks her out to Prom (or Homecoming or whatever), what follows is a pretty shocking scene: both the blonde girl and the male lead are shown in his bedroom, they're both out in the open through his window (where the main character can see them), and ... let's just say that blonde immediately begins PLE@$UR! NG him ...! :/ It's bad enough that this happens behind the son's back (which would lead the viewers to believe that he'd find out sooner or later, creating conflict between him and the male lead), but the worst part is that the blonde girl is never seen nor even MENTIONED again after this scene takes place!! -_-

I can't help but wonder if anyone else was as p!$$ed off as I was (and still am) when I watched it. Basically, the blonde girl wasn't a character, she was a PLOT-DEVICE. She was used by the male lead in a pathetic attempt to make the main character JEALOUS!! Case-in-point, if there's any actor in this tripe who was OBJECTIFIED, it was the actress playing her, Lexi Atkins!

All I gotta say is DON'T WAIST YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS GARBAGE FLICK, unless you're a pathetic loser who just wants to see a half-naked Jennifer Lopez!!! :/

First and foremost, it's been practically a year (and-a-half) since I've written a review, so this may very well be my first one in a while!

Eastern Promises is a (so-called) crime thriller that stars Viggo Mortenson, Naomie Watts, and Vincent Cassel. Based on reading the title, you might presume that this is based off of a NOVEL (or something like that). But oddly enough, this was (according to Wikipedia) an original screenplay conceived by screenwriter Steven Knight.

Despite its dark premise, this movie looks and feels like a COMEDY, with the way it's directed and ACTED; and don't get me started on the stereotypical Russian gangsters! I'm fully convinced that Vincent Cassel was under the impression that this was just that, a comedy, because he hams it up to eleven in almost every scene he's in!

Naomi watts his fine to say the least, which is far more than what could be said for Viggo Mortensen's performance ... or lack-there-of. I'm gonna be blunt and say that Mortensen sucks in this role. By the looks of it, he keeps the same (blank) facial-expression every time he's onscreen! And weirdly enough, he actually received an OSCAR-NOMINATION!

To be completely honest, I think that nomination should've gone to Mortensen's p3n15. Yeah, long-story-short, there's a scene in the third act involving a bath-house in which Mortensen fights off (and kills) to gangsters sent to ambush him and ... does it while in his birthday suit. Basically, his one-eyed monster is practically exposed for about 20-seconds in the one and only action scene in the entire movie and probably the most homo-erotic one in film-history! :/

My verdict? Eastern Promises is an overrated, ridiculous, gangster flick that's barely ever on point I'm giving it a 4.5/10-star-rating!!

Directed by Damien Leone, Terrifier is a B-slasher film based off of a segment in the 2013 anthology film, All Hallow's Eve. Let me start off by saying that my expectations for this were slightly high to say the least. That being said, I gave it a watch, and I honestly found myself quite intrigued; at least, during the first fifteen minutes. But after the second act, I virtually stopped giving a damn.

From what I've heard, there was quite a lot of hype surrounding this flick. But after having watched the whole thing, I really can't see how that's possible. All it is is an hour-long splatter-fest. Don't get me wrong though, I didn't hate it ... at first, and that had to do with the two central girls, Tara and Dawn. Now I will agree with everyone on the platform that Dawn was pretty annoying, and I knew the moment she appeared onscreen that she was going to get axed off. Tara on the other hand was the one who stood out the most for me. I was in fact rooting for her every time she appeared onscreen. But as soon as she herself got put to rest, I (like many others) felt completely cheated.

So right after Tara gets axed off, the rest of the film focuses on her sister, Vicky, whom (believe it or not) we no jack about. She of course survives at the end as the only thing she contributes to is being the hideously disfigured young woman shown in the very beginning.

And last but certainly not least is David H. Thornton as Art the Clown. All I can say is that this man clearly gave it his all in this role, especially during the restaurant scene. That being said though, as menacing as Art was, he isn't interesting ... at all. I will go so far as to compare him to the titular clown from Stitches. As boring and dumb as that movie was, said character at least had some funny one-liners and used his special CLOWN POWERS to murder all of his victims. This is more than I can say for Art as all he does is walk and sit around with that stupid creepy smile and uses the generic serial-killer tools to chop up and slice his victims; he also uses a gun at one point which is apparently more significant than I make it out to be.

All that being said, do yourself a favor and avoid this one, unless you're an edgy teen or adult who just wants to see a bunch of pointless dimwits get sliced and diced. I'm not even exaggerating when I say that this is literally a gorno. After all, I've seen a whole bunch of reviewers praise it simply for it's bloody effects and sadistic killer and nothing else.

I've also seen comments arguing that "It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek" and "It's a throwback to the 70s-80s slasher films." Again, do yourself a favor and watch Scream instead. When I watch a slasher film, I'm not watching it just to see helpless people get stabbed to death. I want to see depth, I want someone to root for. And if you seriously say that you were rooting for Art the clown the whole time, I seriously question your mentality.

All in all, the people calling this the "best slasher and/or scariest movie to date" just for its GRUESOME CONTENT (and/or simply because of its antagonist) really need to learn the difference between horror and SHOCK VALUE. With that said, I rate it 3.5/10.

Directed by Ritchie Moore, Who's Watching Oliver is an indie horror film that stars Sarah M. Lane, Margaret Roche, and Russel G. Banks as the titular character. Now I'm going to be completely honest and say that Sarah M. Lane is in fact the reason that I watched this flick. When it came to that point, I began to wonder what she'd bring to the table. And as the film went on, she, surprisingly enough, did not disappoint. She was full of charisma in almost every scene she was in as the love-interest, Sophia.

Now with said actress out of the way, I should obviously share my thoughts on the star himself. I'm not too familiar with him, but Russel G. Banks was (again, surprisingly) beyond spot-on as the titular character. When he first appeared onscreen, I didn't know what to expect from him. At first, he seemed like the typical modern-day incel. But as the film went on, I actually grew to sympathize with him; I'll even go as far as to say that I was actually rooting for him at one point.

Now with all of that said, my one and only critisism with the film lies with the after-credit-scene. I mean, come on, the film (at least, to me) had the perfect conclusion. During the climax, Oliver contemplates on taking the life of Sophia by his own mother's orders; she, of course, was pulling the strings throughout. Even Sophia herself gives in and encourages Oliver to do it. But said character (seemingly enough) puts his foot down and refuses to commit the act, leading both him and her to close the laptop (which he and his mother have been using to communicate with) down. It then (seemingly) ends with the couple making sweet, sweet love. And as soon as the credits started rolling, that was enough for me to give it a solid 8/10.

I then went to use the bathroom, but when I got back, I was quite shocked to find out that there was actually an after-credit-scene, and that is where my biggest gripe lands. Now, if you haven't seen the film (all the way through), let's just say that it is one of the biggest middle-finger-to-the-audience-moments I have ever seen on screen; had it not been for those last fifteen seconds, I would've given the film said rating.

My final verdict, 7.5/10

The Kissing Booth is a Netflix original that stars Joey King, Jacob Elordi, and Joel Courtney and revolves around Elle and her BFF Lee who were born in the exact same room at the exact same time and have been inseparable ever since. But they soon hit a curb as Elle begins falling for Lee's older brother, Noah, after her encounter with him in the titular kissing booth. As according to Elle and Lee's friendship pact, dating Noah is strictly off-limits. This puts Elle in an incredibly awkward position as she must choose to maintain her friendship with Lee or have a romantic relationship with Noah.

Let me start by saying that I in fact have a Wattpad account. And if it hadn't been for this movie, I doubt that that would be the case as of now. With that said, I of course owe all my thanks to said movie.

Now with that out of the way, I will be completely honest and say that this may be this best Netflix teen movie I've ever seen. The adorable Joey King gives one of the best performances that I've seen from her. Not only that, she and Joel Courtney have incredible chemistry with one-another. Jacob Elordi was also good, nothing great.

Now if I have one gripe with the film, it would involve a certain scene or two. One of the scenes is of course the short-skirt at school one. Not that it was bad or anything, it was kind of the payoff that rubbed me off the wrong way. Specifically speaking, there is a guy at the school who flat-out sexually harasses Elle in front of Lee. And as soon as the two of them (that being Elle and the guy who did it) are given detention, Elle came off as way too forgiving of the ordeal.

It really baffles me that this just so happens to have the exact same rating as Swiped does on Rotten Tomatoes. Not only that, it flat-out aggravates me that many people have favored To All The Boys I Loved Before over this. Yeah, I did not like that movie then and I certainly do not like it now.

Overall, The Kissing Booth is a criminally underrated teen-flick and I rate it a solid 9/10 for the third time in a row.

Once again directed by David Yates, The Crimes of Grindlewald is the direct sequel to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them. Eddie Redmayne returns as New Scamander, as does Katherine Waterston as Tina Goldstein, Dan Foglar as Jacob Kowalski, Alison Sudol as Queenie, and Ezra Millar as Credence Barebone. Johnny Depp (my #1 favorite actor of all time) reprises his role from the previous film as the titular character, along with new faces including Zoe Kravitz as Leta Lestrange, Claudia Kim as Nagini, Callum Turner as Newt's brother, Theseus, and Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore.

First thing's first, did I like this film? The short answer is hell yes! Why you might ask? Well let me start by saying it actually has a coherent narrative, unlike the previous film. It also has character development, and I mean ACTUAL development. Many reviewers have said otherwise, but I'll get to that in a little bit. Reviewers have also said that this film has no plot, but I highly beg to differ; again, I will get to that in a little bit.

First, I should talk about the direction. Yeah, one of my biggest gripes with the previous film was, ironically enough, the direction. That is definitely not the case with this film though, as everything about said direction is more than spot on, including the cinematography and, of course, the CGI.

I've also seen countless reviews calling the film as a whole BORING. And honestly, that baffles me to no end. I mean, seriously, what was so boring about the whole thing? Was it because it had too much dialogue? I mean, that's understandable. But let's not kid ourselves and ignore the fact the previous film was littered with cheap exposition. There have also been some (if not, many) saying that the characters in which they loved from the first film were "ruined" in this one. Um, okay, so giving the characters ARCS is problematic apparently.

Last but not least, the film does not a have a plot, or so many have said. To which, I ask, where were all of you during the scenes with Nagini and Credence when they try to find out who he really is? The scene with Newt, Tina, and Leta Lestrange when they fight off those ugly cat-like creatures? Or what about the climax? I guess the mass majority were so bored that those parts must have slipped their minds.

All that being said, I have to ask, what did the first movie have that this one doesn't? Why do the critics favor this one less than the first one? Was it because they were misled by the trailer? I'm not entirely sure. But that's the thing, the movie itself is not at fault, it is the fault of the audience and their expectations. Sure, they'll call the film as a whole bad, but they'll say that about any movie that does not live up to their expectations.

All in all, The Crimes of Grindelwald is a sequel, not that the first film deserved, but the one that it needed. It one of the most underrated sequels in movie history, I'm definitely looking forward to the third installment, and I'm giving 9.1/10.

Written by JK Rowling and directed by David Yates, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is film set in the Harry Potter universe and serves as a spinoff prequel to said universe.

Let me start off by saying that I am not a die-hard HP fan. I've seen each and every one of the movies, but have hardly read any of the books; long story short though, I had a friend from elementary school and he was literally obsessed with the HP franchise, but I've not heard from or spoken to him since then. With that said, the HP franchise does in fact hold a place in my childhood. I've played two of the video games, that being Quidditch World Cup and The Prizoner of Azkaban, so there's that.

That being said, I don't recall how exactly I felt about there being a direct spinoff of said franchise. But what I do know is that, upon my first time watching it, I wanted simply to be entertained. Unfortunately, that was not the case; at least, not at first. Upon my second viewing, my opinion on it soon changed. Upon my third viewing though, that soon began to where off.

Now with all of that out of the way, do I think this is a good movie? The short answer is not really. Did I at least enjoy it? The short answer is ... kinda.

Here are the things that I liked:

The scenes with the Niffler - All I can really say is that that little creature was the best character in the entire movie.

Dan Fogler as Jacob - When I first read about Foglar being cast in this film, I was pretty psyched. But after watching it the first time, I found myself to be pretty underwhelmed. It seemed to me that the man was pretty much type-cast as the dimwitted comic-relief-side-kick. But because of that, I was apparently oblivious to the performance that was given by the actor. I mean, when the script doesn't require him to look and act like a buffoon, Foglar seemed to have been giving the character more emotional depth than said script had called for.

The makeup and costume designs looked spot-on, that's all I have to say about that.

Now here are the things that I didn't like:

The writing - I have to be honest and say that the story and plot-structure in this could not have been any clunkier in this.

The main story focuses on Newt Scamander trying to retrieve each and every one of the titular beasts that he accidentally unleashed while in the city of New York.

There are at least two subplots: one involving a troubled young boy is abused by his adopted stepmother and turns out to be more powerful than meets the eye, and the other involving a wealthy family of some king.

This was J.K. Rowling's first time as a screenwriter and boy did it show; well not so much show as it did tell most of the time. This film was littered with dull exposition.

And I'm not exaggerating as one of the characters literally spells out that the term "no-maj" is used to referrer to people who are 'non magic.' I mean seriously Rowling, you came up with the term "muggle" when referring to English people who are non-magic, but thinking of a word for the 'Americans' was apparently too difficult?

The direction - I know I'm not the only one thinking this because I've read other reviews complaining about how grey and gloomy this film looked for most of the time.

Yes, I completely agree, but must also mention how inconsistent the tone itself came across as. Within every twenty seconds, it would shift from being light-hearted and humorous to being dark and depressing a moment later.

Last but certainly not least is the CGI. I could not sanction how cheap the special effects looked in this. I mean, when Newt shows Jacop the creatures for the first time, the movie tries to convince us audience that it is a whimsical scene. But honestly, I found it really hard to grasp as the creatures looked too distractingly fake.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the big twist. When I first watched that scene alone, I was like "What ...? Um ... okay then."

All in all, Fantastic Beasts was hyped by critics as a fun magical spinoff of the Harry Potter franchise. It was magical, but only by design, and it was barely fun to say the least. With all that said, I'm rating it 5.2/10.

Directed by Terry Zwigoff, Art School Confidential is a film adaptation of a four-page comic book of the same name by Daniel Clowes (whom also wrote the screenplay) and tells the story of a struggling artist who tries desperately to make a name for himself. Let me start off by saying that this was my second time viewing this film. Upon my first time watching it, it left me kinda underwhelmed for some reason. That being said, after watching it again last night, I did not realize how much I actually disliked the film until having seen it said time.

My biggest gripe, if it's not already obvious, is the leading character himself, Jerome. If this guy is not the biggest stick-in-the-mud ever put onscreen, then I don't know who is. I swear that this kid had the personality of a deflating balloon. Throughout the film, he acts as though the entire world owes him something. Not only that, the guy comes off mostly as a creepy d-bag, as he spends the majority of the film obsessing over a young female model, but I guess that that was the point? I will go further by saying that he and the lead female (that of course being said model) have next to no chemistry. But again, maybe that was the point?

Another huge gripe I have with the film is that it feels downright cluttered. First, we follow the main character through his struggles of being disregarded through his artwork, then we follow a roommate of his who's dream is to become a filmmaker. We then continue following the main character as he desperately tries seeking the attention of the female lead, which involves another subplot with an FBI agent posing as an art student while stealing the main character's spot. Another subplot involves a mysterious killer who strangles each of his victims; there's also yet another subplot involving a roommate of the main character who just so happens to be gay and it as pointless as you would expect.

If I have any positives to say about the film, it would be the supporting cast ... most of them ... or some of them. John Malkovich basically played himself, Angelica Huston was completely wasted (as was Steve Buscemi, but only by a mile), but Jim Broadbent definitely stood out; he pretty much stole every scene that he was in. Last but not least, the character that I found to be the most interesting was the cocky filmmaker dude. From how I saw it, he had the most depth out of all the others.

This film received mixed reviews upon its release and I can definitely see why. However, it has apparently been praised by some since then and God knows why. I've read reviews saying that it was a funny satire. First of all, aside from the scenes with Broadbent, when, where, and how exactly was it funny? What was even the joke? Second of all, what exactly was satirizing? Was it satirizing art school in general? Was it trying to say 'dreams come true, whether they work out the way you want them to or not'? Or was it mocking concept involving 'dorky guy meets girl, girl is out of his league, but that doesn't matter because they get together anyway'? Yeah, I'm completely lost.

To the those who actually like this movie, more power to you. But as someone who's numerous art classes during his preteen years, I honestly cannot see the appeal, and I rate it 3.8/10.

As you may know, I've covered CM before. And having done so, I actually found myself to enjoy, unlike most of the mass majority. That being said, I'm sorry to say that I still had a lot of fun watching it upon second viewing. And the reason I'm covering it again is because of the endless comparison between it and another superhero movie that came out two years earlier, but I'll get to that in a little bit.

Now before I begin, it is necessary for me to address the elephant in the room. The main star (that of course being Brie Larson) has received endless backlash for some ... comments that she made a while back. Since then, the actress's reputation has been in boiling hot water, with people across the internet (cough right-wing cough) chastising her; some have even gone out of their way to mocking her.

I, as a conservative white male, really couldn't care less about the mediocre impressions Larson has made in recent years. Sure, technically she verbally attacked a massive group of people. But must I remind everyone that it was only that one time? I assure you all that Brie Larson does not Hate "white men" and everyone (left and right) should know this.

Now with all of that being said, let me flat-out say that Brie Larson KILLED IT as the titular character. She was assertive, a wise-cracker, and took no nonsense from anyone. Many of said that Larson lacked emotion which is flat-out BS if you ask me. 1. Perhaps everyone focused to much on her facial expressions and not enough on the expressions from her EYES. 2. The character was told on multiple occasions by Jude Law's character, Yon-Rogg, that it was necessary to shelf all forms of emotion, as I recall it being a code of theirs.

Samuel L. Jackson was fine as Nick Fury, but he was not as great as he was in all the previous films. The gripe that I had was that he seemed to be played mostly for comic-relief. Many have also taken issue on the fashion in which he loses his eye. I (no pun intended), on the other hand, didn't mind it all that much. The thing is though, Fury said in CA: Winter Soldier, and I quote "Last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye." I guess some (if not most, including me) assumed that it'd be in a more SERIOUS fashion. But surprisingly enough, that wasn't exactly the case; spoiler, Fury gets clawed by Goose.

I've seen a lot of reviews saying that the movie was boring. Yeah, next you'll be telling me that Ad Astra was ENTERTAINING. There are also reviews saying that there was little to no character development. Um ... did you people even WATCH the damn film!? There have even appeared to be reviews saying that Carol Danvers is a Mary Sue ... Yeah, allow me to go over this, and I quate, "Mary Sue is a term used to describe a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws." Now what flaws does Carol Danvers have exactly? Well at the start of the film, she is basically the odd one out, being held back and ridiculed constantly by her "mentor" Yong-Rogg. Even after arriving on Earth, she is gawked at by numerous bystanders. She is powerful alright. But for the majority of the film, she has slight trouble controlling said power.

The point is that Captain Marvel has been condemned moviegoers for all the wrong reason, while Wonder Woman was flat-out PRAISED for all the wrong reasons. There have also been people comparing Brie Larson to Gal Gadot; specifically, the majority of them pretty much favor Gadot over Larson. Let me just say what the difference is between the two is that Brie Larson is an actress while Gal Gadot is a model. Larson might not be as attractive as Gadot, but she has been acting since she was at least 7-years old. Gadot, despite having served in the military, has been "acting" for only about 15 years, and her assets are nothing more than physical.

Overall, Captain Marvel is an underrated gem, and the fact that people all over the internet call it inferior to Wonder Woman drives me nuts. It may not be great, but it is nowhere near to being a bad film, and hopefully it'll gain more respect in the future.

Directed by Patty Jenkins, Wonder Woman stars Israeli model Gal Gadot as the titular character, along with Chris Pine as Steve Trevor, her love-interest. Let me start off by saying that I was incredibly underwhelmed the first time I saw this film. My second viewing was no better, and the third ... yeah.

One of my biggest gripes with the film is its tone. I don't know how, but it just felt uneven to me. It might have actually been because of the mostly cringy humor scattered throughout; mostly being the key word as there were some scenes that did get a few chuckles out of me.

Another huge gripe I had was the three supporting supposed characters: there's a Scotsman who is frequently described as a professional sniper, a French man who often flirts with the main heroine, and some Native-American dude who had absolutely no depth whatsoever; then again, the other two seemed to have virtually none either. All three of them were there simply to serve as plot-devices, as well as mostly comic-relief.

One other gripe that a lot of people seem to have is the villains. Yes, I will sincerely agree that they were cartoonish at bast, but I honestly could care less. But the main issue that I have with the film is none other than the star herself Gal Gadot. I still do not get why this woman has gotten so much praise. Besides being nice to look at, she had absolutely nothing of value to offer. Her acting was completely wooden as she gives only 2-3 facial expressions in the whole film. And her line delivery, beyond mediocre.

The only saving grace of the film was none other than Chris Pine. While far from perfect, he clearly gave it all his best.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Captain Marvel is far superior to this movie. Hate me all you want, send me death threats for all I care, I am sticking by what I said, I liked Captain Marvel way more than this tripe.

Written and directed by Martin McDonagh, Seven Psychopaths stars Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, and Christopher Walken. The film revolves around Marty, a struggling screenwriter who is close friends with Billy, a secretly homicidal maniac, who, along with Hans (played by Walken), profits off of stealing dogs and returning them to their rightful owners. The trio soon hit a dead end after Billy steals a Shih Tzu that just so happens to belong to a crime-boss (played by Harrelson) named Charlie.

The stuff that I liked about the film were Rockwell and Harrelson, I also loved the pitch meeting with Rockwell, Farrell, and Walken during the campfire scene in the desert; the climactic scene wasn't half bad either. Now that I've talked about my likes, it's now onto the dislikes. I'm obviously in the minority, but I found the writing in the direction in this film incredibly mediocre.

My biggest gripe with the film is its treatment of the women. Now, you can argue that Walken's character does bring this up with Farrell in one scene. The thing is though, they do barely anything to improve upon this. I mean, come on, two of the actress were featured on the theatrical poster with the main cast. They were even numbered as one of the psychopaths in which the title had implyed. Having watched the movie twice though, I now know that that is in no way the case; hardley either of the actress were even in the movie. I can only describe it as false advertising.

The acting itself is honestly hit or miss. Tom Waits (I can't recall what occupant his character was) spends the majority of the film whisper-mumbling, Christopher Walken looked like he was half-asleep for the most part, and Colin Farrell ... I really don't know what to make of his performance in this.

Overall, Seven Psychopaths is a film that is not as funny, nor as well written, as it's been made out to be, so I'm giving it 4.7/10 stars.

I'm gonna just start off by saying that this is not the first Marian Dora "film" I watched, it's not even the first one that I've heard of, that would all go to his previous cinematic tripe "Melancholie der Engel." Having watched it countless times, all I really have to say is that it was incredibly grotesque, and not in a good way. With that said, this latest one by Dora is, how do I put it, worse in almost every way. Granted it is shorter than said film, it is way more mean-spirited.

The story, non-existent. Characters, what characters? The acting? Compared to the other film I've mentioned, it's not terrible. The ending? it has to be seen to be believed. The plot itself? Well, to tell you the truth, there really isn't one. The majority of this film is pretty much a couple (mostly the male) torturing a young girl they met earlier, both physically and mentally, purely for their (and/or his) own personal pleasure. I finished watching it on YouTube (big surprise) which had absolutely no subtitles, so couldn't figure out why everything that was happening was happening.

As for the direction, it is some of the worst that I have ever seen in my entire life. Every single shot either zooms into the actors' faces, is tilted to the side, or is just too darn shaky. On the bright side, the two women were nice to look at, and the effects do look genuine at best. But if I wanted to see either of those things, it would in no way be from this, nor any of the other stuff made by Dora.

All in all, Marian Dora is a talentless nobody and always has been. And to those who've likely said otherwise, I highly recommend that you seek some serious help.

My rating, 1.9/10.

Written and directed by Pascal Laugier, Martyrs is a French (horror) film that tells the story about a young woman who was held captive and brutally tortured as a child. Her mental instability from this leads her take revenge on the people (or the person, specifically) who put her in the position she's in. Upon arriving at the house, the victim's friend, Anna, is in shock to find out that said victim has executed, not just the person responsible, but her family as well; that being her husband and two children. Anna tries talking some sense into her, but soon realizes that Lucie (the victim) is far too unstable to ease, even to herself.

Having watched it a second time, this film did not piss me off as much as it did the first. But that does not mean that my opinion on it has changed either. The first act was pretty good, the second act wasn't half-bad either, the third act though ... yeah. The main problem that I had was that the whole thing felt like two (short) films spliced into one; one of them was a psychological revenge thriller, and then the other one was ... well ... let's just say it was a virtual snuff film.

The tone is mildly inconstant, and the acting is, there I say, questionable at times, but the last 30-40 minutes are, in all honesty, incredibly depressing. From what I've read, Pascal Laugier "didn't want to make the film rely on suffering, but more so on pain." Well I'll give him this, the climax was a real pain to sit through (again).

I'm making this review as fair as I possibly can. As said before, my second viewing of this film was slightly better than my first, but that does not mean that I like it as a whole, so I'm rating it 3.9/10.