113 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
DC Animation At Its Finest
28 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As an avid watcher and reader of all things DC Comics related, I can look back upon the DC Animated Universe (or DCAMU), and for all its many faults and shortcomings, view a certain, undeniable fondness that I can't shake no matter what I may do. Perhaps it's just simple yet blinding nostalgia--sense I followed this universe for about 5 years before its end, making them some of my first forays into "more mature, more adult" comics and comic book adaptations.

So with the semi-recent release of "Justice League Dark: Apokolips War," I have made the decision to review all the films in this universe, and see what I think about them, looking back at 7 years of content and 16 different films. So because I'm bored, and regardless of the fact that I'm 6 months late to the party, shall we begin with this universe's humble beginnings with "Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox."

And upon rewatching it for the first time in 3 years or so, I can 100% say, with no hints of dishonestly, that this one totally holds up.

One day Flash (Barry Allen), wakes in a world where he is not the Flash, and where everything's gone to crap. Aquaman and Wonder Woman are at war in Europe, Bruce Wayne is dead and Thomas Wayne is a Batman who murders people like no tomorrow, and other things gone awry. Of course, Flash needs to rally the heroes he can and figure out what exactly has gone down that created this unfavorable reality. And man, if this hour and 21 minutes doesn't satisfy even the most easily bored individual, you can shoot me on the spot, because this film truly knows HOW exactly to build the stakes. It first depicts the Flash's origin, and the personal stakes of that, as Barry is presented with the guilt of being unable to stop that, despite the great power his future would grant him. Then, once the world is changed for the worst, Flash is forced to face the people he once called his friends, now either different, or dead all together, with some becoming his enemies and other reluctant allies. Then, the entire world is caught in the balance thanks to his actions, as revealed later in the film by Reverse Flash the twist that it was Barry who caused everything by going back in time to save his mother and messing up the time stream. As Reverse Flash puts it: "Break the sound barrier and you cause a sonic boom. You broke the time barrier, time boom."

Then, it masterfully circles back around with Flash being forced to let his mother die to ensure the safety of the Earth, like any nobel superhero would do. This really puts a whole new meaning to the saying "You can't save everyone," doesn't it? Perfectly, it sums up that one quote in this film that is brought up again in JLDAW, "Accept the things you can't change. Have the courage to change what you can. And have the wisdom to know the difference." Great stuff.

Another thing I'd like to point out here is the voice cast, which is stellar to say the least. Justin Chambers as the Flash, Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern, Cary Elwes as Aquaman, Vanessa Marshall as Wonder Woman, C. Thomas Howell as Reverse Flash, who just gives me the chills with his every line delivery, the legendary Kevin Conroy as Batman (Bruce Wayne) for as small of a role he plays in this one, it's still good to his voice, Kevin McKidd as Batman (Thomas Wayne), Sam Daly as Superman, Michael B. Jordan as Cyborg, Dana Delany as Lois Lane, Jennifer Hale as Iris West, and so many others. It's really kind of a shame that most of them would be replaced after this film, even if they were good, too, which is the case for many of them. And yeah, I know the universe rebooted itself and all by the end, but how exactly does that change their voices to the point that it's noticeable? Like with Green Lantern, voiced by Justin Kirk in "Justice League: War," whose accent changed between films, as Fillion sounded a lot more southern than Kirk, and while I thought he did a great job in JLW, it's just kind of strange, especially considering how they would bring Fillion back for the film after that, "Justice League: Throne of Atlantis." But the amount of recastings in this universe is a whole can of worms.

The point is, this film has some great voice acting.

Also in the sound department, there's the excellent musical score by Friedrich Weidman, who beautifully expresses the urgency and bleakness of everything in the film with his piece that plays during the climax, "The Last Man Standing/Speed Force Theme." It just makes everything feel so damn cinematic. The only thing that makes its accompanying sequence better is the end of it, where Barry stops himself from changing the past and says "Mom, I'm so sorry."

Long story short, I love this movie. It's shocking. And it's surprisingly beautiful at times. It starts this universe on a strong foundation in which it would blossom to something that wasn't always perfect, but never failed to entertain. Aside from some strange moments, like Flash somehow inverting the colors on his suit without any real explanation, with superspeed--presumably? I don't know. It is a great way to kill time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Definition of Tonal Confusion
6 November 2019
Without a doubt, "The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot" is one of the worst films of the year. I found the film tonally confusing, stupid and WAY too serious. If this were an over the top comedy, it would be a much different story; however, the film doesn't label itself as that, and claims it's serious. And with a title like that, you're only laughing at it, not with it.

The film tries a deep, dramatic character study, but it's not remotely moving. The first-half of the story is about Sam Elliot's assassination of Adolf Hitler; for no reason, giving it out of order. Then in the second-half, some government agents discover he's immune to bigfoot. They ask him to kill it, and he does with basically effort. Bigfoot is pointless and goes on to be under explained and serve ZERO purpose.

And when he does kill bigfoot, the film goes on for another 20-minutes, providing more pointlessness and one of the dullest resolutions of any film. It's like "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King", a film infamous for its long ending. But even though this film is shorter, the ending is more torturous, because there was no way to get invested in anything. Overall, this film remains to leave no impact on me; and in it's attempts to be unique, the film only fell flat.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Assassin (2015)
4/10
Dull and Disappointing
6 November 2019
As my first Hou Hsiao-Hsien movie, "The Assassin" was not a good example of his work; and at first, it gave me the wrong impression of him. And although I don't consider him a great director, Hsien's has made some excellent movies, admittedly more bad than good, but still, "The Puppetmaster", "A City of Sadness", "Three Times" and "Millenium Mambo" prove he has talent. However, "The Assassin" is not in that group of his rare masterpieces.

For one thing: the film is only 1 hour and 45 minutes, but feels stretched out. The film is mostly talking about nothing, the dialogue is terrible and unmemorable, the characters are paper thin, and the film relies on it's beautiful visuals. And while those visuals are astonishing, it doesn't make up for an empty experience.

The film's only saving graces are the performances and visuals; however, they don't save the movie from being a boring mess. The idea's also admittedly interesting, but it's bogged down by repetitive storytelling and long instances of nothing happening for the sake of being "artsy".

This would've worked out a lot better as a short film; but sadly, it had to include many scenes of filler, and Hsien let his style get in the way of the story. If it was 40-minutes or so, it would have turned out a lot more interesting.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Dark, Strange and Dreamlike
24 September 2019
"Valerie and Her Week of Wonders" is a unique and fairytale inspired film; a dark, explicit and wonderful film. This 77 minutes is more than worth the time of any film buff or film snob.

Jaromil Jires has a way with film, his camera-work and the way he stands out brings so much to the film. He crafts a coming of age story like no other, mixing drama, fantasy and horror. It centers around Valerie (a 13-year-old girl) who's staying at her grandmother's while her parents away; during that time, she has many recurring dreams and fantasies, it explores her pleasures, fears and desires. And in those dreams, several lustful vampires and creatures prey upon her youth. This obscure film is simply a pleasure to watch.

It's an excellent story, and a gothic fairytale; one of the best films from Czechoslovakia, and a film that I won't forget anytime soon.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Number 23 (2007)
1/10
Joel Schumacher's Worst Movie!
16 September 2019
I am of the unpopular opinion that Joel Schumacher is actually a very talented filmmaker. I can defend "Batman Forever" all day, and "Phone Booth" as well as "Falling Down" are two of my favorite films. But--but--I can't defend this one. It's so bad. It's a good idea, a mysterious book, but it's executed in the worse way. Honestly, it's worse than "Batman and Robin", and I mean it.

The movie is really stupid, really boring, nonsensical and just a travesty. The twist is infamously ridiculous. Oh, it was Jim Carrey the whole time, he just forgot. What a load of stupidity.

This review is gonna be short, I usually write longer, but I'm done. I can't think about this movie without dying inside. So, it sucks. The end!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Most Unsettling Movies Ever Made
15 September 2019
"Tetsuo" or "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" is one of my favorite horror movies. One of the weirdest movies to come out of Japan no doubt, but a film that I think works off the weirdness.

Filmed in black and white, using experimental techniques and building a narrative that becomes stranger as the film goes on, from beginning to end, this movie is a train ride of strange visuals and horrifying spectacle, a narrative that twists completely out of control by the end of it's 1 hour and 7 minutes.

It takes a concept that isn't especially new (a man becoming machine), and makes a movie that really sticks out. It's a non-stop thrill ride that never loses momentum or falters.

It's definitely not a movie for everybody, but it's a movie for me. I really respect the people that put all they could into the low-budget and made a truly memorable and unique experience.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
John Truth (2015)
8/10
A Surreal,Mesmerizing and Thrilling Masterpiece
1 September 2019
"John Truth" is the definition of a film that is able to depart itself from other films in its genre. In an industry of so many Hollywood Blockbusters and studio films, where only the mainstream gets attention; it's nice to see independent filmmakers with talent craft a film that is so different from every other film, and so much better than 99% of films that come out today.

Now, I am not the kind of person that hates all mainstream films; after all, I'm a loyal fan of Marvel, and I'm always those films opening night. However, most of the MCU films are fairly forgettable, and that goes for most films released today. And while I have many fond memories of a lot of the films from Marvel, I can tell you that "John Truth" is infinitely more memorable than most movies I've watched.

Simply limited to an online release, this 2015 short film, art house, drama, thriller film tells the story of an unhappy janitor (John Truth), who takes a course in psychology, and after receiving unexplained visions, his perception of reality shifts and the film becomes stranger as the 36 mins moves along, and things go CRAZY.

The film with its style of writing and visuals keeps itself in a weird dream-like-state. Utilizing visual and allegorical storytelling, the film gives itself a feeling of its own. Also using its low-budget to make a surprisingly beautiful looking film.The films style also makes it feel unsettling, adding to the thriller elements. It's hard to explain how the style is unique, but you can definitely tell by just watching it.

It's not a film about the performances, the budget, or even to make money, it was made for a purpose, it was to give you an experience. It was an art house film, it carries depth beyond the surface.

It's a film about human psychology, and the illogical ways people act. Regardless, please, watch the film. It affected me greatly, and it may change the way you view films; because it did for me.

This movie took talent to make, and I hope the talented people that worked on the film, continue their work on films. This is one of the greatest movies of all time, it is truly comparable to the great art house films. It's so much better than most films that are twice as long, and its creativity is endless, and I aspire to make something on this level. I hope you feel the same way.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Edvard Munch (1974 TV Movie)
10/10
The Greatest Biopic of All Time! (No Exaggeration)
31 August 2019
Norwegian artist Edvard Munch is no doubt famous for "The Screaming Man" and other such incredible artwork, and in order to tell the unique story of this man from 1884-1894, who better than who I think the most underrated and overlooked filmmaker of all time, Peter Watkins. And Watkins with what he has, in 1974, was able to create one of the most memorable and unique movies of all time. In my opinion, this is easily the greatest TV movie, and the greatest biopic of all time. This mesmerizing 3 hrs, 30 mins is without a single doubt one of the greatest masterpieces of art house cinema.

"Well," you might ask, "what departs this film from others of its kind?" Well, the fact is, Peter Watkins has a unique style. All of his films are shown in a documentary style. Completely blurring the line of documentary and drama, this genius creates films that provide very interesting experiences for the audience watching. Weather it's pure fiction like "Punishment Park" or "The War Game", or based on a true story like "La Commune" and of course this film, all of them share that documentary feel and style.

And that is why this movie is able to be so different from others like it. The film uses a narrator to explain many of the events that occur in the film, and uses actors and sets to recreate the time period, but also to provide interviews, of course ones that never happened, however playing off as if they did happen.

The movie explains all the major things to happen to this interesting man from 1884-1894, all the loss and struggle, praise and criticism he went through, and showing how it was reflected in the art he made.

And instead of chronicling his entire life like most biopics do, this one only takes one part of his life and expands upon it. I mean, if the film is already 3 hours, well how long would it have been if it chronicled his whole life? The movie would be endless.

Anyway, it's also an amazing TV movie. There are no obvious commercial breaks, no obvious low production value. If you showed me this movie, and I didn't know what it was, I would think it got a theatrical release.

As an art house film, it also succeeds, giving the audience an experience, being a film that's more along the lines of an art piece, rather than anything else. The movie transcends the walls and barriers that separate genre, and by the end, completely tears them down. It's so incredibly made.

When I saw the 8.3/10 rating this movie had on IMDb, I was a little skeptical. "Really, the same rating as 'Citizen Kane'?" I ask myself. And discovering the 3 and a half hour runtime, I was more questioning.

However, when I found the film on YouTube, I watched it. And it changed my perspective on how films can be made. I looked up the director of the film, and I found his other films, I loved them as well. But "Edvard Munch" probably stands out the most to me.

Now, Peter Watkins is one of my favorite film directors, and "Edvard Munch" is one of my favorite films. I adore the work of Watkins and Munch, but I feel Watkins is more of an underdog. He never got as much recognition as I feel he deserves. Take this seriously when I say it, Watkins is easily comparable to Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa.

Please, watch the film, the full thing can be found on Youtube with English subtitles. Sure, it's 3 hrs, 30 mins; but it's more than worth it. I hope it changes your ideas on film like it did for me.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (2009 TV Movie)
10/10
Shakespeare at it's Finest
12 August 2019
For an iconic story that has been adapted into books and films, and other mediums of entertainment. And even though many film snobs like me complain about the lack of originality in cinema. The countless remakes and sequels being generated, especially with the Shakespeare classic Hamlet. However, among so many other adaptations of the classic, this 2009 TV movie aired on BBC, really stands out.

This 3 hour film surprisingly got Patrick Stuart in the role of Claudius/The Ghost of Hamlet's Father. And even though it's 3 hours, it's not boring. And though this film has a 3 hour runtime, it isn't too long.

It's the classic tale from Shakespeare in its purest form, a well written tragedy. More people might remember the 1948 version, or the 4 hour 1996 film, Mel Gibson's shot at it, as well as countless others. And while those are astonishingly good movies, this one is much better, and possibly the best ever Hamlet adaptation of all time. And not it's British, or only got a television release. It's because it was simply the best acted and written.

It's a chilling drama, that's able to keep you 100% invested. David Tennant adds so much to Prince Hamlet, he plays the character with such emotional range. Playing a man that was clearly broken on the inside by traumatic events, evident by the scene where the prince looked at his reflection in a broken mirror. But plays him with such lunacy, and such attention to his chaotic nature, jumping from one crazy thing to another with such effortlessness. Evident by lines of dialogue such as, "I do not understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?" The performance is down to Earth and believable. And at the same time, Tennant is able to never be boring, either in an over the top moment, or a quieter moment where he expressed more sadness in his acting. Whatever he was doing in the film, he always brought something to the film no other actor that has played Prince Hamlet of Denmark has done. Really helping in contributing to the movies different feel and style from other adaptations of its kind. Just look at other actors do it.

At the same time, Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Hamlet's father is also amazing. He is able to perform both roles with such ease. Delivering all his dialogue with astonishing attention to his emotions he's supposed to be feeling. I mean, watch this... Amazing, right? Now, look at him play Claudius... Again, the same great delivery, sometimes I just can't explain how stellar a performance is, and I can't just talk about it.

The movie is also, might I add, a visual spectacle. The sets are pristine, well crafted, and interesting to lay your eyes on. The shots are eye-catching and always something to rest your eyes on. Everything has a polished and stylized look to it, possibly representing Hamlet's view of the world. Seeing everything through that kind of lenses, but it collapsed as the film continued. Either way, it looks nice, and also convinces me this is the home of a king.

There's so much good in this film, that choosing my favorite scene in the film is a daunting task. There are scenes like The Death of Prince Hamlet, Patrick's Stewart's monologue to Hamlet in ghost form, or Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech. All these scenes feature acting, excellent visuals and great Shakespearean writing. Dialogue that sounds sophisticated, natural and on point. Characters I enjoyed watching, and a movie I adore.

The movie is heartbreaking, as well as of course...tragic. Ending on quite the downer with everyone dying. It keeps the themes of the story of Hamlet. Hamlet's iconic, and this film is iconic. What else can be said? It has compelling drama, stunning visuals, some of the best acting of any film period, and it adapts a Shakespearean tale with the utmost respect.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Essential Star Wars
10 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This 2016 short film from the minds of Star Wars fans, is easily comparable to the original trilogy and prequel films. "Darth Maul: Apprentice" was a fan-film released online, and it's one of the best pieces of Star Wars media... It's an impressive visual spectacle, and a film filled to the brim with a surprising amount of substance.

Praises:

1.) The Visuals: Okay, first I will discuss the less important aspects of the film, then move on to the writing and story. But first...the visuals. The film's visual style is...how do I put it...astounding. While the CGI effects don't look especially real, for a fan-film, they're pretty impressive. Along with that, the make-up and costumes are well made and clearly had put has a lot of effort put into it. The cinematography is perfect, and the film is shot on real location. And if the film had a bigger budget, or was made a few years earlier, it would look like a big budget blockbuster. And even still, just look at the film, and it would be hard to guess that it was a fan-project.

2.) The Characters: Now, into the more important parts of a movie. The characters are all excellently written. First I will discuss the two main Jedi, then the title character.

The two main characters of the film are, and the Jedi are very simple characters, but I like to say, less is more, and as this is a short film, these kinds of films value that saying. The master and apprentice relationship is pretty well demonstrated. Simply through visuals we can see the bond they share, by staying by each other's side and defending each other. And both actors (Mathis Landwehr and Svenja Jung) gave excellent performances (for a fan-film). But the two also contained flaws, as the Jedi master was too confident in his abilities to fight Maul, soon leading to his own demise. And the apprentice didn't have the confidence to fight him. Until she was cornered by the Sith at the end of the film, finally taking the courage to fight him, but it still wasn't enough. And she was killed as well.

However, the most interesting character in the film was Darth Maul. As he relentlessly hunted down the Jedi, we saw his compassion. As he kind of felt bad about killing every Jedi. Evident by the final confrontation, where he clearly hesitated in killing the Jedi apprentice. But sense his master was watching him, he mercilessly killed her. In a scene that was both heart-breaking and chilling to the bone. The film shows us a side we never saw to Darth Maul, his compassion and sorrow, a side that was killed by his master, Darth Sidious. As in just 18 minutes, we see the complete transformation and arc of this man. Loosing his softer side, soon being taken by the monster in him.

The only depiction of Maul I can compare it to is the one in "The Clone Wars" series. And in that, he is a much different person. This is early Maul, someone who didn't out as a demented person, but became one. It's very much a Nurture vs. Nature thing, Maul being turned into an evil person. At least, that's my interpretation.

3.) Story and Themes: The story of "Darth Maul: Apprentice" is a story of survival. The two main Jedi being ill-equipped to survive. And Darth Maul hunting them down. He was the hunter, and they were the hunted. Maul learning to embrace his status as the hunter, and do what he believed needed to be done. Even when it would have been a good choice to run, a suggestion the Jedi apprentice made to her master, but the master being too cocky. Believing he could be the hunter, but being dead wrong. And when the apprentice was cornered, she decided to survive, but wasn't equipped for the challenge.

Again, maybe I'm reading too deep, and it was just meant to be a cool fan-film. But I believe there was an overarching theme in this film. And the fact I was able to get all that from a short fan-film, still surprises me. And while this film is able to make me think like that, and write this review, some two or even three-hour films can't write this well, with more time than this film has to tell its story simply boggles my mind.

Well...to conclude, less is more. Sometimes, by having less your more creative, and you are able to craft something more interesting. This film is somehow better than the stuff Disney is making with Star Wars, because it's made by people who don't care, and have no passion for Star Wars. This on the other-hand, is made by people who like the franchise, and wanting to make a good film about Star Wars. It's a film that shows, art doesn't come from who has the most money, it comes from who has the most passion. And the force is strong with this one.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casey Jones (2011)
6/10
Good...but Could've Been Great...
9 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I like Casey Jones, he's one of my favorite TMNT characters, and when I heard about this fan-film, I was excited to watch. But I am not gonna lie, I was a little disappointed. Now, the first two thirds of the film were great, but by the climax, the film completely falls apart.

Okay, first I will praise the film, and explain it's merrits. First thing, for a fan-film, it's looks quite nice. Using its low budget to create a dirty and grimmy ascetic, really pulling you into this world.

And the action, as well as stunt-work, is excellently put together (for a fan-film). Using all practical effects.

Along with that, Casey is a surprisingly well written character, someone who claims to fight for justice, but hurts criminals to please his rage. The performance is also great. Along with that, even though she's barely in the film, Casey's mother is also well written, clearly the logical side in Casey's life, a person he constantly ignores. The writing all around was stellar...until the end.

Speaking of that, (spoilers) but the movie ended with Casey running into Michaelangelo of the Turtles. He told Casey about how he shouldn't hurt criminals, in an alright fight. But then the footclan, and he told Casey to knock himself out. They fought them, ran into Krang (for some reason), Casey almost died. Mikey took to the sewers (which looked amazing by the way, great set), and it ended with some thieves taking a pizza, and Casey beating them up.

The Fiotclan came out of nowhere, and never came back into the film. Casey took a backseat, and the film forgot about Casey's arc, and he's exactly the same as he was before. Running into the Turtles changed nothing, and the film was just being too ambitious. Sometimes less is more. And creativity doesn't come with making things big, sometimes it can be small. And fan-films (I'm sorry to say), shouldn't be bombastic.

Either way, I still enjoyed this film. It was a unique little fan-film, with lots of passion put into it. The characters are still compelling, the writing mostly works, and the visuals are impressive. Overall, I recommend it, even with it's problems.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Comparable to A Chinese Odyssey
9 August 2019
I love Stephen Chow's with action films and Hong Kong cinema. And my favorite film from him is easily "A Chinese Odyssey", one of my favorite movies. So, when I heard he returned to it in 2013, I was a little mixed on what I'd think about it. Reviews were pretty mixed, and I was just a little skeptacle. However, when I washed it, I surprisingly fell in love with it...

The first praises of mine are with the visuals. Although the CGI does not especially hold up, and looks a little off, but for the time they looked fine enough I guess. I think the film's cinematography looks incredible, allows the effects to blend in better. And along with that, a lot of the film is shot on real location, and when the backgrounds are CGI, they're surprisingly good. Stephen Chow is able to make the most out of the visuals, and craft a beautiful looking movie.

The film is also not boring. There's something constantly happening, and it's always entertaining to watch. Weather it's witty dialogue or amazing action. Speaking of that, the dialogue is on point and hilarious, providing barrels of laughs. And in my opinion, funnier than "A Chinese Odyssey". The action is also on point, utalizing CGI, and improving it from "A Chinese Odyssey". Also utalizing great action choreography and hilarious slapstick.

The characters in this film are also charming, likable and interesting. It centers around a demon hunter in ancient China who searches for the Monkey King, and comes across love and all that. The characters I found myself caring for. And while I don't like these people as much as the characters in "A Chinese Odyssey", but on their own, I think they're amazingly written.

I still prefer "A Chinese Odyssey", but this film is just on part with that film. They are both excellent adaptations of the classic fable, and both some of the best films of all time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Conqueror (1956)
2/10
The Conqueror: A Horrible Historical Film
8 August 2019
Genghis Khan was an interesting individual. A man who conquered so much territory, a genius who is still looked up to, a madmen who killed millions. Excellent material to make into a movie. I saw this movie, and it sucked.

Well...my first problem is something everybody has pointed out... The fact that John Wayne (an American actor) played Genghis Kham, a Mongolian man. I mean, they couldn't get someone that looked like him. Well, okay...is it like "Lawrence of Arabia", where the performance is at least good. No. Now, I never saw John Wayne as that good an actor, but this was by far his worse performance.

Aside from that, all the other actors are terrible, the film looks cheap, and it's notoriously bad. I mean, everyone else has talked about this film's lack of quality, so I don't have anything else to add.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
1492: How to Fail at Basic History
8 August 2019
Many people remember Ridley Scott's 1992 historical epic about the voyage of Christopher Columbus? No, I don't blame you. Well, before he made the masterpiece, "Gladiator" (2000). He made this historical travesty. A film that is outright dishonest about history.

This movie claims that Christopher Columbus priced the Earth is round. Even though by the middle ages, people already knew that it was round. And it portrays the man as some kind of visionary, even though he was most definitely a man of his time, and as we all know a genocidal maniac! It horribly exaugerates history.

The movie is like an elementary school lecture on Christopher Columbus. It's like "The Patriot", only worse. If this movie portrayed history like it actually happened, it could have been great. Ridley Scott is very talented.

Even though Columbus was a lying, cheating, madman, who killed hundreds of natives, and got no consequences for what he did. It misquotes the man, and treats him like a hero. It's disgusting as well, seeing him interact with native children is creepy, as he sold and gifted children for sex. So this movie is not only inaccurate, but offensive. And when atrocities are committed, they point the blame at other people.

Now, it only has two stars, and not one. Because there is two things I like, it looks nice, and the acting is fine, I guess. But it's not redeaming the film.

This movie just makes me sick. Columbus is a man that makes me sick. And the fact that he has a holiday, and this film tries to tell you he was a good person. That's why I can't watch this movie without feeling offended...
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chicken Run (2000)
7/10
It's Okay
7 August 2019
I like Dreamsworks and the work they did with Aardman Animation. "Flushed Away" is one of my favorite kids films, and a movie I grew up watching non-stop. And "Wallace and Gromitt: Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is another personal favorite. However, out of the three films they worked on together, "Chicken Run" is my least favorite.

It's not a bad movie (read the headline). It's just that my opinion, this would have benefitted from being shorter. Like a fifteen minute short or something. And along with that, this film uses way too many cliches, such as the liar revealed.

But along with the criticisms, there's a lot to enjoy. I think the villain is a lot of fun, the animation is great, and it's just a fun film. But to me, it just feels like this movie had no reason to be as long it was, let alone be a theatrical release. I think the movie has too much filler, and skretches out it's simple story too long.

"Chicken Run" is a good movie. I enjoy watching it, and despite it's problems, it's still a film I can watch many times. It's a fun little movie, and it's okay.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
300 (2006)
6/10
A Zach Snyder Film I Like
6 August 2019
I do not like Zach Snyder's films. Movies such as "Dawn of the Dead", "Batman V. Superman" and "Justice League" are all films I despise. And while enjoyed films like "Watchmen", and to a degree, "Man of Steel". "300" is easily in my opinion, Snyder's best movie.

For one thing, the film does a great job being an adaptation of the graphic novel. But the real highlight is the action and visuals. Snyder's visual style is really unique in this film, and you can tell it's from him. The movie is action packed, and the action is stellar, making it a great action film.

This is a film that is a little flash over substance, but the substance is still interesting. For one thing, it's historically accurate, portraying the Spartan people very similar to how they actually acted. And while I usually pelt films for being historically inaccurate, I can forgive this, because adapting Frank Miller's book.

In conclusion, "300" is a very enjoyable film, and a film I recommend.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Good Historical Film, and a Good Comedy!
6 August 2019
"The Death of Stalin" is a 2017 comedy about, what else, the death of Joseph Stalin. As well as the events that proceeded the dictator's death. It's a surprisingly accurate historical that doesn't overstay it's welcome, and adds a nice level of comedy to this important event in history.

To start, the movie has hilarious character interactions, and laugh out loud moments. While still respecting history, and the people involved in the history. The film follows the power struggle after Stalin's death, and shines light on the ridiculousness of the true story. Whileost historical films are very serious in their approach, it's refreshing to see a film that saterizes history, and the funny things that actually happened.

One thing that always makes me laugh is when Stalin suffers the stroke that ended his life. Two guards were standing outside of the room, and heard suspicious activity. But they too afraid to go inside, because Stalin didn't want to be disturbed, and the two feared being killed if they went inside. And this is 100% true, making it all the funnier. And there are so many other examples of the amazing comedy.

To cut it short, "The Death of Stalin" is one of the best comedies of all time, and maybe even one of my favorite movies. I highly recommend this one, and think it deserves a higher rating.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Haunting (1963)
8/10
The Haunting: Horror that Still Holds Up
6 August 2019
I love horror. But I've always found a large majority of classic horror films as very overrated, or not scary. Films like "The Exorcist", "The Blair Witch Project" or "Friday the 13th" are good examples for me. But I think "The Haunting" is a horror masterpiece.

The fillm centers around a cast of characters staying in a strange house, that the characters soon suspect is haunted. And this film really understands the concept of build up, with such perfect pacing ranking up the suspense and tension, which is really impressive for a horror film from the 1960's. As the paranoia is built up and becomes stronger, the explanations becoming less rational, and the characters becoming more convinced of the paranormal. All resulting in an insane and satisfying climax that was worth the wait.

I love the horror in this movie...but not really the main character. To me, she seemed very overly complaciant and jumped to conclusions way too fast. And parts of the film are a little rushed. However, it does not hinder the film's quality too much, I still adore the film's simplicity. And it's still one of the scariest movies of all time.

This is one of my favorite horror films of all time. I adore just about everything, and it deserves it's status as a horror classic. I love horror cinema, and I love this piece of cinema.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boyhood (I) (2014)
7/10
Overrated...
6 August 2019
"Boyhood" is a famous 2014 film. Famous because it took 12 years to make, and tells it's story of a boy growing up in real time. And it sounds interesting. I mean, 12 years, that has to be good. Well, if you ask me, it isn't.

Now, I know a lot of people like this movie. But that doesn't mean I have to. My problems lay mostly with the acting and the runtime. In the next few paragraphs I will list the problems and explain them all.

1.) Lack of realism. "Boyhood" is a movie that tries to be very realistic in it's portrayal of the struggles of growing and being a kid. But for a movie so adimate on realism, this film doesn't know how kids talk or act.

A good example of this are most of the scenes with the kid characters. It's clear that the writers don't know how kids talk and act around each other. Now, when they are around the adult characters, they're fine. But when interacting without them, it's cringe worthy. Like a scene with the kids in elementary school, where the girls gossip about lesbians, and boys argue about Star Wars, repeatively saying "Yoda". As a teenage boy, who to be that young, I can tell you, I never talked like that. But there's an even worse scene, where the kids are teenagers hanging out. The kids talk about sex and describe rape asking if they had "a piece of ass". And at that, the acting terrible, and such phrases as "true dat" are used. And it's I couldn't believe how bad the scenes was. "This has a 100% on Metacritic?" I asked myself.

2.) There's no conflict. If this film was 90 minutes, I would give it a pass. But it's almost 3 hours. And you feel every minute of it. And what makes it worse is the complete lack of conflict.

There's no overarching narrative, and it's just boring. The main character is just a normal kid, and he's so boring. The film feels like it has ADHD, it can't stay on one plot. First you have the abusive step-father, then not even an hour in, they leave him, and he's never seen again. Then unrelated events occur, and the movie just stops. And many may claim the movie's about the mondain things of life, but any interesting movie would focus on interesting things.

3.) It's forgettable. Okay, this movie took twelve years to make, do you remember anything else about the film? I really don't, I watched it not to long ago, and I'm starting to forget it. It's just boring and overly long, and people only remember it because it took so long to make. That's it's one gimick. And even though there are films like the "Up Series" (a much better film), a series documentaries about the lives of a group of British kids. And shows like "Roseanne" where the people get older, both much better and more memorable products. So the idea isn't even as original as you might think.

What I like: Okay, I actually did things in this movie. First off, the father played by Ethan Hawke is well written and memorable. Feeling like a normal father, a father that likes to spend time with his kids. And the movie is also shot very well. And the mother is also decent. But these praises don't make up for the flaws.

I can kind of understand why people like this. It's acted well (at least the adult actors), and is shot very well, but does that really make up for bad writing and an overly long runtime? My answer is no.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alexander (2004)
4/10
Alexander: A Really Disappointing Missed Oppertunity
6 August 2019
Oliver Stone's "Alexander" chronicles the life of the interesting Macedonian general, Alexander the Great. The movie really had potential, it has amazing visuals, and stays accurate to history. But the film is so bad. It's boring, badly acted, and just embarrassing.

Now, the movie almost three hours, and while I usually don't mind a long runtime. The film really feels like a drag at points, but what really makes this film bad, is the acting. It's beyond terrible. This movie's version of drama is yelling at each other. And it feels like a crappy stage-play, or a silent film with sound. As in a play, the actors have to scream so the audience can hear them, but this is a movie, so that's not an issue. And with a silent film, there was no luxory of sound to fully express the actors, but this movie isn't silent, so again, not an issue.

I can praise the film's attention to detail. The action is incredible, and the film is a beautiful spectacle, and it's clear that the film did it's research. But that doesn't make up for the bad acting and the shear bordum I felt watching it.

"Alexander" had the potential to be something truly amazing. But it was a seriously missed opportunity that really disappointed me.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Exorcist (1973)
7/10
The Exorcist: How to Not Craft Horror
6 August 2019
I like horror. It's possibly my favorite genre of entertainment, and "The Exorcist" is one of the most praised and famous pieces of horror cinema. But...I frankly hate it.

"But it's a classic." you might say. Yes, it is. But just because it's old, or widely praised, doesn't mean it's good. In fact, classic is a very loose term, and just because it's considered one, doesn't mean I am obligated to enjoy something I don't like. Maybe it was scary at the time, but the horror doesn't hold up. And it's not because it's old. Older films like "The Man Who Laughs" (1928) or "Psycho" (1960) are amazing films still scare, and some of the best to come out horror.

Now, what are my issues? Well, for one thing, it's not scary, and a lot of it is actually funny. I'm sorry, vomit and piss is not scary. And is also way too long, focussing on uninteresting subplots and dull characters. Also, scenes like the scene where the possessed girl mutilated herself is not frightening, way too over the top, and even a little offensive. And it tries way too hard to make the audience feel something with unnesary amounts of gore that just disgusts the audience.

Now, is there anything I like? Well, yes. I did like the performances, they are really believable and felt real. It's just the film fails in everything else.

This movie just has me asking myself - "Why does this have an 8/10 on this cite? Why do people like it? Why does it have a spot on the Top 250? How is it scary?" And so many other many other questions, questions that me confused. I've watched this so many times, trying to understand the love for this film, but I don't get it. If you like it, that's fine. But please, respect my opinion. And I will respect your's.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing Anime
6 August 2019
"A Silent Voice" is simply an astonishing film. A movie that deals with themes of bullying with serious maturity. And even though I wasn't bullied in school, I can still appreciate the movie for that.

The movie centers around a man who in elementary bullied a deaf girl (Shoko) until she moved away. Now, several years later, he attempts to redeam his actions. The movie deals in heavy themes of bullying and suicide in a way no other has, as well as in a very grounded and believable way. As we sympathize with the main character, following him on his journey. As in the beginning, he was simply unaware of how much damage he was doing to her, and not understanding her. But once he realized that, she had moved away. From there, his friends shun him, and he becomes an outcast, unable to look at people in the eyes, has trouble communicating with people, and even contimplating suicide.

It's a very real depiction of how actions can change people. And during his plan on suicide, he decides to tie up every loose end, including giving Shoko her notebook back (the one she communicated with), and also apologizing for everything, and asking they can be friends. However, after giving it back, his plans on suicide change.

The supporting characters are also great, but underdeveloped. And that's my only gripe.

I also really like the animation. From the character models, to the lighting, to the backgrounds, it's beautiful to look at, and doesn't dissapoint.

The movie is an emotional, heart-wrenching masterpiece. A movie that does something new by following the bully, and not the victim. As we follow his journey, his regret, and his tramatic expierences. And excellently unconventional romance, and just a damn good movie, a movie that really surprised me. It's a movie better than most, and in my opinion, maybe the best anime film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent War Film!
6 August 2019
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a nearly perfect historical epic. Centering around the events of Pearl Harbor, the film tells the story of that remembered day from the perspective of both the Americans and Japanese. Letting it stand out from other movies of it's kind. And creating a very memorable movie, that also stays accurate to history.

One thing I value a lot in a historical film, is accuracy to history, does the film respect the events it is based on, and will it paint a good picture to the audience. While in my opinion overrated films like "Braveheart", or more fitting "Pearl Harbor" don't, this one does. From little things, like having the Japanese speak their native language, to accurately bringing the battle to life. And big things, like including every individual involved in the attack in the movie.

The movie shines in the action department, giving us great fighting choreography, with entirely real stunts and real explosions. Really bringing that battle to life. Also supplying great cinematography along the way.

However, even with all that to praise. The movie is hated and slammed by critics. Holding a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes and 46% on Metacritic. With famous critic Roger Ebert saying "Tora! Tora! Tora! is one of the deadest, dullest blockbusters ever made. It no suspense at all because we know the Attack on Pearl Harbor is going to happen, and it does, and then the movie ends." And I say to that - well, if you're going to criticize that movie because we know how it's gonna end. Well, you should criticize every single historical film ever made. I mean, it's no spoiler that the Titanic sinks at the end of "Titanic", but that's still a great film. And yes, I know he dead, but that infuriates me. Especially since he gave it a 1/5, but gave Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor" a 1.5/5. Even though that film is longer and even worse!

Anyway, I went a little off track there. Any problems I have with the movie are very few, I still have a few issues. For one thing, the film is around two and a half hours, and half of that time is spent building up to the attack. While the second half is spent on the attack itself. But the first half is mostly talking, with the Japanese. And while the pay off is worth the build up, they do spend a lot of time building it up, a little too much time. But even with that criticism, the film is far from dull. Another problem I have, is with the acting, the acting is not bad, but not great. The film hired relatively unknown actors, and it's clear that they didn't have enough experience in their field. Now, their performances are fine, but they couldn't been improved. For one thing, a lot of the line-readings are really bland, and a little dull at times, and while they are able to keep it together most of the time. Some of them are really bad.

One thing I do love however, is the fact the film was a collaboration between both American and Japanese filmmakers, portraying an unbiased side of history.

I think critics should really reevaluate their gripes, and wonder if they're really judging it fairly. Because judging by Roger Ebert's review, I don't think they're being the most fair to the film. Maybe it was politics of the time (it was 1970), as the film made the Americans look unprepared for the battle (even though they were, it was a surprise attack after all). But why they still hate it, I don't know. But I can take comfort in the 7.5/10 rating on IMDb, but even then, I think it should be higher, maybe even have a spot on the Top 250. I highly respect and recommend this film.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stalingrad (1993)
9/10
Amazing Film About War!
6 August 2019
Many WWII movies depict German soldiers as blood-thirsty, heartless killing machine. But this film shows us that not all German soldiers during the war were bad people. "Stalingrad" is an excellent film that mostly centers around a group of German soldiers during the Battle of Stalingrad. While at the same time seeing the war from both sides, seeing both the good and evil people in the war. Not just saying the Germans were the only evil people. Seeing the side of the Germans from the very human perspective. Making it, what I think is...one of the best war movies ever made.

As I mentioned before, the movie tells the battle from a German perspective, creating very interesting characters I can sympathize with and find interesting. As we first see the characters on the way to Stalingrad, very confident in their own abilities, as by this point in the war, Germany was winning. But by the time they get to Stalingrad, they suffer through some of the worst conditions imaginable. And you find yourself caring for the characters, as they weren't bad people, just people fighting for the wrong side.

The action in this movie is also great, many may criticize the way it's shot and edited, but I like it. The way it's shot adds a certain degree of confusion and chaos to it all. As the battle was very chaotic and violent.

The film also stands out, because it has more of a heart and soul. While I appreciate films like Private Ryan a lot, but I think this one is better, because I felt more invested watching it. We understand the motives and flaws of everybody, and it's so interesting to watch. In most WWII movies, your wishing those pesky Germans die. But here, you actually route for these people, even though you know what happened in history.

"Stalingrad" is an excellent movie about war, and easily...my favorite film about war. "Saving Private Ryan" might be better known, or more of a classic, but this is better made and more interesting. This is a war that stands out among countless others like it, and one of my favorite films of all time.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great Historical Film!
5 August 2019
"Myeong-ryang" or "The Admiral" is a South Korean action film/historical epic, is a film about the military campaigns and incredible story of Admiral Yi Sun-sin. And this movie is a very underrated movie that shines light on the military genius, who during the Japanese Invasions of Korean, which lasted from 1592-1598, won every single battle without a casualty. And helped in preventing Korea from being taken by the Japanese. In my opinion, an underrated historical figure, this film shines light on the man's life, and does it quite well...

I was very invested in the movie and found it to be quite entertaining and well made. The production value is quite high, and the action scenes are incredible. The movie historically accurate, except for a few areas, which is something I will discuss in the next paragraph. The film also has wonderful visuals and cinematography, and the movie is something to be invested in.

Now, my flaws with the movie are few and far between, but still there. They lie in two things, I will get the minor flaw out of the way. The film depicts the battle with the naval battle with the Koreans only winning with the skin of their teeth. And loosing a lot of ships, when the battles were very one sided as I mentioned before, however I understand the reasoning for this creative liberty. I mean, if the film was the Koreans winning every battle with relative ease, you would loose investment. I mean, if they just won with ease, why care? But it's still a major inaccuracy, and the movie could have still worked without that change. My other criticism are the really cheesy scenes with the Korean people being inspired by the character's actions. They never really happened and it's obvious they didn't. Now, again, I see the reason, the people represent the country's spirit. But it's still very cheesy, and a little unneeded.

Regardless of the criticisms, I love this movie. The praises I mentioned before are all valid, and I think this is some of South Korea's best work in the filmmaking department. It's a great historical epic, and one of the best movies about history. And it's a movie that makes it's changes for a good reason, unlike movies like "Braveheart" that make so many changes 'till it's complete fiction. And it's a movie I highly recommend to anyone.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed