Change Your Image
Eightiesjunkie
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again(Note- 28 days/weeks later, Zombieland, Warm Bodies, and The Evil Dead Trilogy, will NOT be on this list. I do not consider them zombie films.
Reviews
Jingle All the Way (1996)
Christmas Classic?
That's right folks, I have heard people use the term "Christmas Classic" to describe this film! Why? God only knows! Not to mention the fact that this film's director: Brian Levant, has made the most God-awful films in the history of cinema! Including, but not limited to: Problem Child 2, A Christmas Story 2, The Flintstones, and The Flintstones in viva rock Vegas. One of the worst things about this film is that there was a LOT of comedic talent involved with this film. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sinbad, Jim Belushi, Phil Hartman, and Curtis Armstrong. Unfortunately, no one is funny in this! The plot of the film is: The "Supposedly" Good-hearted workaholic Howard, (Schwarzenegger) has been neglecting his family. Particularly his son, Jamie. Played by Jake Lloyd. (You know, that annoying little brat that played Anakin Skywalker in Phantom Menace? AKA Episode one of those God-awful prequel films, that all of us TRUE Star Wars fans wanna forget and pretend like they never existed?) So anyway, Howard misses his son's Karate class, which leaves his son very upset angry with him. Howard apologizes for his actions, and asks Jamie what he could do to make it up to him. Jamie then asks his father to get him a Turbo-Man action figure for Christmas. Which as it turns out, is the Hot-selling toy that year. Therefore, Howard must go to extreme measures, and overcome every obstacle to get his son the toy. I can only guess at what the film is trying to say here, but the message is buried so deep underneath this convoluted plot, that you can just barely make it out. I assume that the film is trying to say that we shouldn't let the over commercialization of Christmas overshadow it's true meaning, but the film never spends ANY time showing us the true meaning! The film inadvertently glorifies the commercialism of Christmas which is the antithesis of it's attempted message! However, that's not what REALLY bothers me about this film. What DOES bother me are 2 things: 1, With the exceptions of Jamie, Jamie's Mom, and Jamie's best friend Johnny, there are NO good people in this film! Sure the film TRIES to make Howard and Myron (Sinbad's character) look like good people, but none of them do good things, or behave like good people do. Myron endangers the lives of policeman, and almost gets Jamie killed! Let's also not forget that Howard, broke into his neighbors house, and attempted to STEAL a Turbo-Man action figure that belonged to Jamie's best friend! The guy may have been desperate, but stealing from a child is where I draw the line! All of the things I said previously are just the tip of the iceberg folks, Here's why this film really sucks: No one LEARNS anything! No one learns the true meaning of Christmas, No one is better person by the end of the story, no one changes! By the end of the film, everyone is exactly the same way as the were before! Look, if you are one of the people who enjoys this film, and call it "A Christmas Classic" then great, more power to you. If you want my opinion however, I'd suggest you stay away from it.
Daredevil (2015)
What are ya'll Smoking?
'Cause you gotta be smokin' something, for this God-awful show to get a rating above 1! Jeez! Talk about deja-@#$%-ing-vu! It's friggin' "Fury Road" all over again! Once more, I hear people ranting and raving about how "Awesome" this is, and once more, I'm left scratching my head! Either the whole world has lost it's mind, or I've caught the affliction that Stan Marsh had in that one particular episode of "South Park". For reasons that I cannot fathom, The Daredevil movie from 2003, has become the most hated, and ridiculed comic book movie of the last ten years. Why? Because Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner were in it? Because it had humor? Because it had a Black man playing The Kingpin? Talk all the trash you want on it, you still have to give credit where it's due. At least Daredevil had a deep, moving, and compelling story. A story that wasn't a typical, paint-by-numbers, playing it safe, story that plagues A LOT of the current comic book movies today. I've liked some of the comic book movies of the last few years, but out of all the comic book films from 2002 to 2015, I've only LOVED 5 of them. In case you're wondering, here they are: #1 Daredevil. #2. Spider-Man. #3. Spider-Man 2. #4 Captain America: The First Avenger. #5 Captain America: The Winter Soldier. All the rest (in my opinion) are just cheap entertainment. Is the netflix Daredevil just cheap entertainment? Well, yes. However, that's not the only reason I didn't like it. I didn't like this show for the same reason I didn't like the TV show Gotham, or the fantastic four films, The Blade films, the X-Men films, and The "Amazing" Spider-man films: It doesn't feel like a comic book! There's a reason why comics aren't realistic: They'd be boring! When I read a comic, or a book, or sit down and watch a movie, I wanna escape to a place where the impossible is possible, and good always triumphs over evil. When I'm about to watch something based on a comic book, I expect the same thing. No more, no less! To me, this show just feels like a Law & Order rip-off (and a bad one at that!) with a costumed crime-fighter thrown in, just for the sake of it. If you like this series BECAUSE of the crime-drama feel to it, fine. To each their own. If this series turned you into a Daredevil fan, great. But If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you pick up a Daredevil comic before you watch the next season. (Preferably some of Frank Miller's issues) That is, if you really wanna understand the core of the character of Matt Murdock/Daredevil. Because this show does NOT and will NOT give you that! As for me, If I need a Daredevil fix, I'll crack open one of my graphic novels, or go back and watch the 2003 film, and view it as I always have for so many years: An underrated, misunderstood, gem of a film. Which I'll always hold close to my heart.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
THIS is being called "The Best Movie of the Year"?
I mean sure, as far as summer blockbusters go, we have had a bit of a dry spell this year. (At least in my opinion.) However, to call this "The Best Movie of the Year" or "A Masterpiece" that's kinda stretching it isn't it? Seriously, what's so great about this movie? Were the critics watching a different movie from the one than I did? Originally, I wasn't going to write a review for this movie, but after seeing so many raving reviews for this film on the internet, and seeing the absurdly high rating this movie has here on IMDb, I felt that I had to say SOMETHING! Even if my hopes of knocking this movie down a point or two are completely moot, then at least I would've accomplished something by saying how much I hated this film, and add my voice to the small minority of people on this site that believe that this movie is nothing more than an over-hyped, overrated snore-fest. While watching this movie I fell asleep. Yes! This movie, with it's "Thrilling action scenes!" and "Provocative visuals!" Actually put me to sleep! I would go into the plot now, but I don't think this movie has one. At least not while I was awake. Furthermore, Mad Max, the supposed "Main Character" in this film, has no reason for even being in the film! Why call this film "Mad Max: Fury Road", if Mad Max himself has no motivations, or stake into what's going on? And for that matter, why even use the character of Mad Max at all? If you were gonna go that way with it, why not have Mel Gibson appear in a 10-15 minute cameo as an older Mad Max? From what I saw, there was nothing good about this movie. I probably would've been more entertained staring at a wall for two hours. Congratulations George Miller, you've accomplished something that only Rob Zombie and M. Night Shyamalan have been able to do: Cure my insomnia! I present to you, your awards: My middle finger, and a long, loud, raspberry! Bravo A$$hole!
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
Oz the Great A$$hole!
A while back, a friend of mine recommended to me that I should watch this movie. So a few hours ago while channel surfing, I come across this movie playing on Syfy, due to my friends recommendation, I decided to check it out. Man, am I regretting that decision! Because aside from the visual effects, there was nothing good about this film! I didn't mind the fact that The Wizard (James Franco's character) started out as a sleazy magician/con man, or the fact that the wicked witch of the west started out as a kind hearted, innocent, girl. I don't mind the tweaking of a character's back story as long as it serves a purpose. Which is the film's biggest problem. There IS no purpose. As for the story and characters: There IS no story, There ARE no characters! Evanora and Theodora (Who become the wicked witches of the east and west) are two of the worst villains I've ever seen in my life. They're not scary, creepy, intimidating, or charismatic. (And that goes double for Mila Kunis's wicked witch of the west, who doesn't have so much as one tiny iota of the presence that Margaret Hamilton's wicked witch of the west had. However, that's just the tip of the iceberg. By far, the worst "Character" in this film is James Franco's Oz. From beginning to end, he is never even the LEAST bit likable! It would've have been fine had Franco's Oz been a washed-up magician, and his experiences in the land of Oz make him more confident in himself and his abilities, and therefore make him better than he ever thought he could be, but that's not what happens here. In fact, the only reason he goes along with the charade of being a "Great and powerful Wizard" is because he thinks it will get him somewhere. In the end, he does decide to help the defenseless people of Oz, but there is no reason for him to do it, nor is there a lead up to him becoming a better person and choosing to help Oz's citizens. He just does it, because the plot needs him to. This film is such a disappointment, and it's a shame! The visual effects are breathtakingly beautiful, most of the actors are extremely talented, and Sam Raimi is a brilliant filmmaker. He's made many films that I absolutely adore! Unfortunately, this isn't one of them. It's not Spider-Man 3 bad, but it's pretty close. Perhaps the next time I go DVD/Blu-Ray shopping, I'll pick up "The Wizard of Oz" and wash this movie's bad taste out of my mouth!
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spectacular Sequel!
It's not uncommon for successful films to spawn sequels, some are just thrown together simply because a certain film drew large amounts of money at the box office. However, there are exceptions. This film is a perfect example of that. When I watch the first two Spider-Man films, it becomes clear to me that Sam Raimi had a deep understanding and love for the character. There are certain things that I want and expect to see in a sequel: I want to see the story arc(s) continue, and I want to see the characters grow. A good sequel will, and should always have these! To make a long story short, this is what I got with Spider-Man 2. The story borrows elements from the film "Superman II" and "The Amazing Spider-Man #50" (Spider-Man no more) In which the hero struggles with what he wants, and what is right for the people that he protects. Without a doubt, it's a great story for a comic book/superhero film to have. The returning cast are still excellent in their roles, as well as the new actors. This also goes for Alfred Molina as Otto Octavius/Dr. Octopus. It's just an excellent film all-around. So you may be wondering why I love these first two films, (I won't be reviewing Spider-Man 3.) and why I detest the reboot films? well here's why:
Reason #1: There was no heart put into the reboot films. To me, the reboot films just felt like a quick cash-grab. A slapped-together attempt to keep Spider-Man from transferring back to Marvel.
Reason #2: The supporting characters had no depth. In Amazing Spider-Man 1&2, we never get a sense of who Captain Stacy, Gwen Stacy, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and Harry Osborn are. The films just move way too fast to let these characters develop!
Reason #3: The Villains have no charisma. The only things that The Lizard, Electro, and "Green Goblin", do in the reboot films is this: Fight Spider-Man, get defeated, get incarcerated. The villains in the first two Sam Raimi films on the other hand, have memorable lines of dialogue, intense fight scenes, and iconic looks. The original villains leave an impact on you, the only thing that the new villains leave you with, is a desire to fall asleep.
Reason #4: Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is a horrible person! Whether he's in the costume or not, Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker comes off as a complete douche! He acts like he's above everyone else, never keeps his word, and only cares about himself. A FAR cry from the good-hearted hero from the comics. Tobey Maguire on the other hand, personifies the character of Peter Parker. As Peter, He's an awkward, shy, nerd, but also, he genuinely loves and cares about the people in his life. As Spider-Man, he's the underdog. Even if the odds may not be stacked in his favor, he'll still do whatever it takes to defeat the villain, and protect those that can't protect themselves. These are my reasons as to why I don't like the reboot films. In my opinion, the original two Spider-Man films were perfect. It took me a while to see it that way, but sometimes it takes something really bad to make you appreciate something really good.
Spider-Man (2002)
A silver-age comic book come to life!
I know that many people were dissatisfied with Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films. I'm sure most of them were expecting something with a dark/harder edge to it, rather than the lighthearted, action-adventure film that was presented. I know because upon seeing the film for the first time, I felt the exact same way. You see, I grew up with the 90's animated series which had a bit of a darker take on the character of Spider-Man. At first I regarded the film as "good" but not "GREAT" or "FANTASTIC" because it wasn't what I was expecting. Now however, after many years, (and two God-awful reboot films!) I find the film to be excellent! I finally understand the director's intention for this film, and I've read a bunch of the original silver-age comics, to which the the film is based on. In my opinion, this film succeeds on all levels! The main plot of the film is based on Spider-Man's origin story (From Amazing Fantasy 15) and the climax of the film is partially based on Amazing Spider-Man #121. a.k.a (The night Gwen Stacey died) Although, some changes were made. The story, characters, and look of the film work extremely well. All of the actors were excellent! They fully understood the core of their characters, and made them come alive. Many people have complained about the silly lines of dialogue, and the corny jokes said by certain characters in the film. I no longer have a problem with this, and here's why: In the original 60's comics, there were silly lines and corny jokes, but that was all part of their charm, and atmosphere. Which is what this movie beautifully re-creates, the charm and atmosphere of the original 60's and 70's Spider-Man comics. I liked this movie back in the summer of '02, but now I LOVE it! Sam Raimi has made the two best Spider-Man films of all time, and I don't think anyone will ever come remotely close to topping them.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Sony, did you learn ANYTHING from Spider-Man 3?!
Obviously not, because that's the impression I get from watching this cinematic abortion! Like I said before, I really don't think anyone cared about these movies. At least that's the way it seems to me. I'm really trying to understand the motive behind these reboot films, I've racked my brain trying to somewhat comprehend the reasoning as to why Sony decided to reboot the Spider-Man franchise. Keep in mind, that the Sam Raimi films brought in a lot of money for Sony studios, and while Spider-Man 3 was indeed panned by critics and fans alike, it was by no means a financial flop. Worldwide, it brought in a whopping Nine-hundred million dollars! In fact, both Sam Raimi and Sony studios were all-set to make a Spider-Man 4. However, Sony insisted that Spider-Man 4 would be done by the summer of 2011. Sam Raimi did not want to rush into making the film, and make the same mistake as Spider-Man 3. (Which wasn't his fault by the way!) So Sony scrapped Spider-Man 4, and began making the reboot film(s). That's one reason why, but it's not the only reason. Sony obviously saw the massive success and profits that Disney/Marvel studios was raking in with their Marvel cinematic universe, and decided to try the same thing with Spider-Man. I think everyone knows, that duplicating someone ELSE'S success, won't make YOU successful. The plot of this film, or should I say what little plot there is, isn't very good either. The films just jumps around from one thing to the next, and loses all focus on the story. The villains of the film lack charisma, and their motivations are paper thin. To sum it all up, "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Don't feel like comic book movies. (at least not to me.) They feel like romance movies. I don't know about anyone else, but when I go see a movie with the name "Spider-Man" that's the last thing I want.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Same old song and dance
Call me a Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi fan-boy all you want, but at least Sam Raimi had a lot of love and respect for the character! Clearly no one had any when they were making these two God-awful movies! To begin with, I've been a fan of Spider-Man pretty much all my life, and to call THIS a Spider-Man movie is like calling a pile of dog vomit "abstract art"! What I've come to realize, is that that these movies were just poorly put together so that Sony could hold onto to the rights to Spider-Man, and squeeze out whatever money that the character could make for them. I would usually start out a review with things I liked about the film, but that's the problem, there weren't any! I couldn't stand Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man! To me, he came off as a giant douche, and not at all like the shy, awkward, but lovable character was in the comics! Martin Sheen and Sally Field were okay as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. The problem is however, that they're barely used! That's right, Uncle Ben and Aunt May, arguably the most important characters in the Spider-Man mythology, ARE JUST BACKGROUND CHARACTERS!! Not to mention, the phrase: "With great power comes great responsibility." is heard nowhere in the film. Emma Stone's "Gwen Stacy" has no depth to her character. She's just Peter's Girlfriend and eye candy. As for "The Lizard" he plans on turning everyone in New York into Lizards. Why? Just because. I'm not even gonna go into the plot, because aside from a few tweaks here and there, it's the exact same plot from Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie. I was hoping for so much more from this film, I'd hoped that by starting anew, that Sony would break new ground with Spider-Man. Unfortunately, all I got was the same old story with a new coat of paint slapped on it. This movie was a huge disappointment, but the biggest disappointment would be it's sequel. (Review coming soon!)
Trucks (1997)
The worst Stephen King adaptation I've ever seen in my life!
Let me start off by saying this: I love Stephen King! He's one of my all-time favorite writers, and no one else can match his imagination. Now, many of his novels and short stories have been turned into films. Some are great, some are so-so, some are bad, and some are horrifically bad. Unfortunately, this film falls into the latter category. Both this film, and 1986's "Maximum Overdrive" were based on a short story that King had published. Many, many people have claimed that "Maximum Overdrive" is the all-time worst Stephen King adaptation ever made. In my personal opinion however, that's really unfair. Because trust me, you can do a WHOLE lot worse than "Maximum Overdrive". I've seen many Stephen King movies over the years, and I must say: this movie is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the worst one I've ever seen in my life! Worse than "It", worse than "The Tommyknockers", worse than "Sleepwalkers", worse than "Golden years", worse than "Thinner", worse than all those movies combined! If you think that "Maximum Overdrive" is King's worst, then you clearly haven't seen any of the movies I mentioned previously, or this movie. comparing "Maximum Overdrive" to this film, is like comparing a Calzone to a Totino's pizza roll! The reason why "Trucks" fails where "Maximum Overdrive" succeeds, is because "Max" doesn't take itself seriously. The concept is ridiculous, so it just has has fun with it. which is basically what the movie is, a "turn your brain off" fun movie. "Trucks" is about as "fun" as watching paint dry! "Trucks" also plays the concept totally straight. I suppose they were trying to make it scary, but it's not, it's just stupid! Not to mention the fact, that the film lacks everything that made "Max" good. No good actors, no intriguing characters, no awesome soundtrack, and no big bad killer truck! I can only guess what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with this movie. Maybe they thought "Maximum Overdrive" was a mistake, and were trying to make up for it, but you can't make up for a "mistake", by making a bigger, far worse, one!
The Stand (1994)
One of, if not THE best Stephen King adaptation out there!
Before I give my review, I'd like to state that "The Stand" is my all- time favorite book. Unlike most fans of the book however, I didn't read the book until about seven or eight years ago. I had seen the mini- series a few times on television a few years prior to reading the book, and had really enjoyed it. One day while reading up on the film, I clicked on the IMDb movie message board. Fellow fans of the film were discussing how good the film was, and how well it followed the novel. Needless to say, I was intrigued by this. Therefore, I scraped together fifteen bucks, gave it to my Aunt, (who I live with) and told her to pick me up a copy at the local bookstore. Soon after she gave it to me, I began reading it. I couldn't put it down after that, so I took it with me everywhere! After reading the book, I decided to give the mini-series another watch, and surprisingly, I still liked it! Even more so than I had before. It took a long time for an adaptation of "The Stand" to get made. After filming "Creepshow" George Romero and Stephen King were going to collaborate again, on a film adaptation of "The Stand" Unfortunately, trimming the novel down into one screenplay proved to be too difficult a task for King, therefore Screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg was brought in to write a new script. After the script was finished, and filming was to begin, Warner Brothers backed out of the project at the last minute. Some time after, ABC offered Stephen King the chance to turn his novel into an epic four-part TV Mini-series. King accepted, The Mini-series was made, and premiered on May 8th 1994. It received critical praise, and has even acquired a large fan base. As for the screenplay for the film that never was: It's not bad. However in my opinion, it fails to capture the depths of the many characters. If you're curious, it's definitely worth a read though. Do a Google search, and you'll find it somewhere. As for the TV Mini-series: This was much better! It's well written, well shot, and well acted! Granted, some of the dark, intense, scenes in the novel are cut or trimmed, (It was a Made-for-Television production after all.) but it is still highly enjoyable, and very well done. I also must give it high praise for it's usage of certain music. Including, but not limited to: "Don't fear the reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult and "Don't dream it's over" by A Crowded House. Whether you've read the novel and never seen the mini-series before, or if you're just interested in watching a dark, apocalyptic, tale of good versus evil, give this a watch. I'd suggest you read the novel first, but even if you haven't, you'll enjoy this either way.
The Lords of Salem (2012)
Rob Zombie just doesn't have it anymore
If the box office failure of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 was any indication that Rob was losing his touch, this film confirms it. I loved house of 1000 corpses and The Devil's Rejects, but when he made his Halloween movies, the uniqueness of his "style" began to wear off. It had simply become a commonplace horror trend. I hated his Halloween movies, but not just for the fact that they were bad remakes. They were nothing new, it was just the same old stuff that Rob had done before. All of this would of been fine if they had been his first films, but now that his film making style has been so often imitated, it wasn't new, exciting, or unique anymore. After Rob had finished with his Halloween films, I just thought to myself: "Okay, Rob's just not good at properties that aren't his own. Maybe his next project will be better." Well...it isn't! I have no idea what Rob was going for with this film, but all I can say, is that this film is without a doubt his worst! His Halloween films were awful, but at least with those I'd be able to stay awake! You read that last sentence correctly, this film was so painfully boring, that I couldn't even keep my eyes open while watching it! It's not that the film has a slow pace, the problem is that the main character isn't interesting at all. No matter what kind of horror film you're making, you have to have interesting characters! The main character/characters must have something about them that makes us the audience, sympathize with them! That's the reason as to why this film was so boring and forgettable to me. Now, the core plot or idea of this film is actually really good. During the notorious "Salem witch trials" A coven of Witches place a curse on the reverend that plans to have them executed, and the descendant of the reverend is the target of this curse. As interesting as the film's premise may be, The film's protagonist(The reverend's descendant) is what kills it. She does nothing to make us care about her. If we don't care about her, then we don't care about what happens to her in the film. This is a huge problem! Characters and story are what drives a film, and if your film doesn't have anything to drive it, then what's the point of watching it? Rob Zombie's prior films (at least some of the time.) had good, well written characters. Not here however, in fact, I couldn't care less! I'm sorry Rob, as a former fan, I just have to say that you just don't have it anymore. You're more than welcome to try again and prove me wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, just stick to music from now on.
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Alien Regurgitation
As much as I'd love to do two in-depth reviews of Alien 3 and Resurrection, I'm afraid I just don't have the time and patience for that. However, since I detest both films with the fury of an F5 Tornado, I decided it would be therapeutic to vent my anger in a scathing, uninhibited, unfriendly, rage filled review of both films. Not to mention, rant on how each sequel, crossover, or prequel released after James Cameron's Aliens, has severely tarnished the legacy of the first two magnificent films. Let's begin with Alien 3. After the box office smash that was "Aliens" 20th century fox immediately rushed a second sequel into production. Screenplays were written and thrown out, directors were hired and fired, simply put: The production was troubled from the very beginning. No one knew what to do, or where they wanted to take this film. So after languishing in development hell for a while, The Head Mother f*cker(s) in charge at Fox decided to take two plot lines from two discarded screenplays and mush them together. Director David Fincher was hired and was basically told to make something out of those two plot lines. So here we have of Alien 3, and everything is just plain poor. However, it's not just simply the fact that the film is poor, it's also that the film is such a depressing experience! We learn that somehow, two alien eggs got aboard the Sulaco, the characters that we loved and cheered for: Hicks and Newt have died, and that Ripley is not only the sole survivor of the crash, but also is the only woman on a prison planet consisting of murderers and rapists! Who in their right mind thought that this was a good idea? Who thought that a bunch of murderers and rapists would make for good protagonists?! So to make a long story short, Ripley has discovered an alien inside of her, the prisoners kill the other alien that's been killing them, the company wants the alien that's inside of her, Ripley won't have it, and so she kills herself. So fast forward a few years later, and another alien film is announced. All of us alien fans collectively breathe a sigh of relief, and we think to ourselves: "Okay great, they know that the last film was awful, and now they're going to make up for it." Unfortunately, with the next film, we're all let down even more. But what baffles me, is that people all over defend the fourth film by saying: "Well yeah, the fourth film was bad, but everyone knew that it was just a cheap cash grab anyway, so they just walked through it and didn't even try." But isn't the whole point of film making to try to make a great film for people and fans to enjoy? I'm insulted by the philosophy that "Resurrection was better than 3, because they weren't even trying anyway." Yes, Alien 3 was, and still is a horrible film, but at least the people involved actually tried to make something good out of what they had to work with. With Resurrection, the people involved had a golden opportunity to make a great film, and to please the fans, and rectify their mistake. Instead, this film is nothing more than an excuse to make money. Everyone involved was just looking for a quick paycheck! No care or thought was given to the fans of the franchise, and that's heartbreaking. Sadly, it only got worse after that. Clearly no one cared with AVP, AVP:R, or Prometheus either. Still, we have these excellent, ground-breaking films in "Alien" and "Aliens" and no matter what they do with the franchise from now on, Nothing can, or will ever take anything away from their individual greatness!
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Should've been titled: X-Men days of future plot holes!
(Spoiler Warning) I'm really scratching my head on this one guys, this movie's been hailed as "The best x-men movie ever!" I'm sorry, but I REALLY have to disagree on this one. Before I state all the reasons why I hated this movie, let me start off with two positive comments: Hugh Jackman is still good as Wolverine, and the character of Quicksilver, was pretty cool. Now for the numerous reasons as to why I hated this film. So we start off looking at a destroyed, post apocalyptic, landscape that looks like it was ripped off from the first two Terminator movies. We then get some narration from Charles Xavier. He explains that most of the mutant population has been enslaved or killed by these killer machines known as sentinels. Then we see a small group of mutants who are both hiding, and trying to fight the sentinels. Xavier tells them that the only chance for the mutant race to survive, is to go back in time to try to prevent the assassination of a government scientist, which in turn prevents the deployment of the sentinels. So Wolverine is sent back through time, and must prevent fellow mutant Mystique, from doing the deed. You would think that a plot involving time travel would be intriguing and interesting right? Well not in this movie! There's almost no action, The actors are bland, and you couldn't care less for any of the characters! That's only the tip of the iceberg folks! What really kills it is the fact the the plot has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese! Before I talk about that though, let me back up a bit. When "X-men first class" came out, I thought to myself: Okay cool, they're rebooting the x-men franchise and making a whole new series." Turns out they weren't, the only reason why "X-Men first class was made, was so that they could create a whole new continuity that they could smash together with the old continuity. The result of this, is a clusterf*cked mess! This film won't leave you feeling good or entertained, it will only leave you with a head full of questions. Such as these: Why is Xavier alive in the future, when we clearly saw him being killed by the phoenix in part 3? Why does Wolverine have bone claws in the past, but metal claws in the future? Why does Xavier claim to have known Mystique since she was a child, when there was no indication of that in the original films? Why does Wolverine claim that in the future he and Hank McCoy (Beast) are friends when there was no previous indication of that? In the climax of the film, the sentinels have already been built. Even though they succeed in their mission, what's there to stop someone else from using them? How does Wolverine survive for so long underwater? Did Mystique perform the adamantium experiments on Wolverine? Why and how are Cyclops and Jean Grey alive again at the end? This movie doesn't even so much as attempt to answer any of the questions that it leaves the viewer with! Frankly, it would be easier to solve a Rubik's cube on LSD than it would be be to figure this movie out! So far, I've never been impressed with ANY of the X-men films. 1 and 2 were lame, 3 was garbage, and this one was even worse! I'm done with this franchise! I don't care what they do with the next film, I've put up with all the incompetence I can take! From now on, it's just the x-men comics and cartoons for me. Sorry 20th century fox, but you guys blew it!
The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)
These bogus Dukes make me wanna puke!
There are a lot of movies that I hate, but none that I despise more than this one! This is, without a shadow of a doubt, "The worst movie I have ever seen in my life" and trust me, that is saying a lot! Before I explain why I hate this movie with the intensity of an F-5 Tornado, let me first explain what "The Dukes of Hazzard" was, and what it meant to me personally. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was a very popular, and beloved television show that ran from 1979 to 1985 on CBS. It was the type of television show that both children and adults could enjoy. Although it only ran for seven seasons, the series was a smashing success and immensely popular! It also sold a ton merchandise. From RC cars, to action figures, to pretty much anything you could think of, "The Dukes of Hazzard" remains to this very day, one of the most fondly remembered television shows of all time. Children all across the country, (and perhaps all across the globe.) grew up watching this show. (Myself very much included!) Sure, some could say that it wasn't "smartest" show on TV at the time, but it was never trying to be. It was just simply a good wholesome show, about a good-natured family helping themselves and other good folks out, and trying to right the wrongs that occurred in their community. "The Dukes of Hazzard" is a show that I love, and one that I still hold close to my heart. So when a film remake was announced, needless to say I had my doubts, and a sinking feeling that it would be another TV show, heartlessly butchered by a horrendous remake. In the end, it turned out that I would be right. I had no idea however, how bad it would turn out to be! In a lot of internet reviews, you often hear the phrase: "This film has taken two hours of my life that sadly, I will never get back." no other words can describe my displeasure better than that. So, what all was wrong with this film? Putting it simply: EVERYTHING! Let me explain why this movie fails on all fronts. #1 The Cast. Out of all the actors that they could've chosen for this film, they chose the absolute worst! I've never liked Seann William Scott, Willie Nelson, Jessica Simpson (as an actress or singer!) and Johnny Knoxville couldn't act if his life depended on it! #2 The Characters, or lack thereof! The people in this film are not characters! They don't grow, they don't change, and we never learn anything about them! #3 The Story. The story revolves around "The bogus Dukes" finding out about "bogus Boss Hogg's" plan to destroy "The bogus Hazzard" for coal mining. Which sounds eerily similar to the plot in the incredibly poor video game, "The Dukes of Hazzard: Return of the General Lee." Anyway, they all find about the plan, and have to stop it. So there ya go, there's the plot in a nutshell, and the reasons why I despise the film. Before I end this however, let me go a little deeper into why this film was such a bitter disappointment for me. This movie, took everything that made the original show great, and poured it all down the drain. It breaks my heart, that they took a beloved and very well known television series and turned it into mindless trash. Bo and Luke Duke, who were once good natured, hard working couple of country boys, have been turned into immature womanizing jerks. Daisy, who was once a sweet kind, caring, and gentle southern belle, has been turned into a whore. Uncle Jesse, who was once a loving, honest, and moral father figure, has been turned into a pervert. They even have a scene in the film that says that the rebel flag on the roof of the General Lee is racist, and politically incorrect. I'm sorry, but people like that are Ignorant and wrong for thinking that way! (The flag is not racist and has never represented racism or white superiority) I have no idea what the writer and director was trying to accomplish, or who the film was made for, but I can tell you one thing: It wasn't the fan base of the show. Which begs the question, Why was this called "Dukes of Hazzard"? Thankfully, this movie was quickly forgotten after its release. I can only hope that Hollywood has given up on TV-to-movie adaptations. Because more often than not, they're not that profitable or memorable, and most of the time they're hated by both critics and fans. The TV show, "The Dukes of Hazzard" will always be remembered and loved by its fans, and nothing will ever change that.
The Beverly Hillbillies (1993)
Great cast, Lame script.
"The Beverly Hillbillies" was a very well known and popular sixties TV show, that many people grew up with, and still enjoy to this very day. The show was about a very rural, and country family, who strike oil on there land, become immensely wealthy, and move out to the big city in California. Basically, it was "a fish out of water" story. However, the problem with this TV to movie adaptation is this: "What works in a TV show, won't work in a movie." You can't have a movie run on just one premise! A film's plot requires much more than that. The plot of the film is this: a sleazy con-man finds out about The Clampett's massive fortune, and he and his girlfriend devise a plan to steal all of their money, and The Clampetts and their friends must stop them. I really don't need to say anything else, because that's all that goes on in this movie. The plot is nothing new, and as a matter of fact, this movie, "The Addams Family", and "Addams Family Values" have the exact same plot! many of the jokes are flat, and unfunny. Not to mention, the film is as predictable as can be. It's a shame how the movie turned out. Especially considering how extremely talented the cast is! Jim Varney, Diedrich Bader, Erika Eleniak, Dabney Coleman, Lea Thompson, and Rob Schneider, all give very good performances. The film fails, because of its weak script, and rehashed plot. Despite all its flaws however, I will give the film a few positive accolades: The cameo with Buddy Ebsen (Who was the original Jed Clampett by the way.) was very funny. But most of all, the film did not make a mockery of what the original series was, nor did the film parody the original show. Which many TV- to-film remakes do. I'm very thankful that the writer/writers and director chose not to go with either of those options, and I tip my hat to them for that! So, here's what it all comes down to: "Is The Beverly Hillbillies a bad film?" No. "Is it a great film?" No. It had a lot of potential to be a great film, but it suffered from very poor writing. The best thing that I can say about this film, is that out of all the recent TV-to-film remakes, this one is the least bad. None of the TV-to-film remakes have ever come close to capturing the spirit or magic of the original series, and this film failed as well, but I must give credit to this film for actually trying.
RoboCop 3 (1993)
RoboCop 3: The franchise killer!
It seems that every movie franchise has one, a movie so bad that it kills the series. RoboCop 3 sadly, is no exception. OCP has begun to move forward in their master plan to create a better Detroit, this plan is known as "Delta City". Unfortunately for the citizens of Detroit, this means destroying their homes. There is strong opposition to this, so OCP deploys armed mercenaries known as "Rehabs". Their job is remove people from their homes by force. One of these people, is a computer whiz kid named Nikko. After her parents are arrested by the rehabs, she is found and taken in by the leader of the resistance movement. Meanwhile, it is revealed that OCP has been bought out by a Japanese corporation. (This comes into play later) So a short time later, RoboCop and Lewis track Nikko down at an old church. Unfortunately so have the rehabs and their leader, McDaggett. He and the rest of the rehabs have orders to kill all the people in the church, but RoboCop and Lewis refuse to stand down. RoboCop can't fire on the rehabs because of "Directive 4" (I'll explain what this is later.) McDaggett and the rest of the rehabs open fire on them and thus, Officer Anne Lewis is killed. I'm sure many of you can guess why this infuriates me on multiple levels! Not only does RoboCop do absolutely NOTHING to save the life of his friend and partner, but the biggest problem, is that her death has zero meaning or purpose! This is one of my favorite things to complain about in a bad movie or sequel. If you're going to have a main character die, IT MUST HAVE A PURPOSE!!! For example: in Star Trek II, Spock dies to save the lives of The Enterprise's crew. In Aliens, Gorman dies to atone for his mistake. In Cruel Intentions, Sebastian dies to save the woman he loves. In RoboCop 3 however, Lewis dies only to get her out of the film, and to add a cheap revenge motive for RoboCop to get the bad guy. So...anyway, RoboCop takes a bazooka to the chest, McDaggett and the rest of the rehabs leave him for dead, He joins the resistance and decides to fight for their cause, the Japanese corporation dispatches a robot samurai to deal with RoboCop and the resistance, the cops all quit when they're forced to work with the rehabs, RoboCop takes out McDaggett and the rest of the rehabs, and of course, saves the day. Now let me explain what that "Directive Four" crap was, and why it makes no sense here. In the original film, Directive four was a fail-safe put in by OCP's corrupt vice president. Which meant that RoboCop could not apprehend, or act against any member of OCP. Here's why it makes no sense: First of all you would think, that after the events of the first film, that RoboCop's designers would've taken that out, so something like that wouldn't happen again. Second, after being left for dead by the rehabs, RoboCop simply deletes the directive. If he could do that at any time, why didn't he just do that earlier, and why couldn't he do that in one of the previous films? To sum it all up, RoboCop 3 pretty much sucks all around. The climax was halfway decent, but the rest just sucked. The lead actor doesn't even come remotely close to filling Peter Weller's shoes, the humor isn't funny, Anne Lewis dies for no reason, the main villain isn't even the least bit threatening, and 90% of the time RoboCop is always getting his a$$ kicked! I don't blame Frank Miller for the movie being bad, everyone knows that the studio determines how a movie is made, and how it will turn out. In fact, If you're a fan of RoboCop, and want to see "What could've been." I recommend you pick up one of Frank Miller's RoboCop graphic novels. I've read one of them myself, and it was excellent! You'll get much more entertainment from reading one of them, than you'll get out of this cinematic pile of crap! Like most poorly done sequels, RoboCop 3 could've been great, but all it turned out to be was a last-ditch effort to squeeze out more money for the studio. If you haven't seen it, skip it. If you have, do yourself a favor and pretend it never existed!
RoboCop 2 (1990)
Not quite as good as the first, but still incredibly entertaining!
After the massive success of RoboCop, a sequel was immediately rushed into production. The first script written by the original film's screenwriters was thrown out by Orion pictures for being too far-fetched. So the producer of the first film then contacted famed graphic novelist Frank Miller, to write the screenplay. Miller agreed, and wrote a first draft. The studio declared Miller's screenplay "unfilmable", so another screenwriter was brought in to rewrite the script. Some of the main cast members from the original film reprise their roles, this includes Peter Weller as RoboCop, and Nancy Allen as Officer Anne Lewis. The film takes place about a year after the first, and things have only gotten worse for the motor city. The majority of the police force have gone on strike. Ergo, crime is at an all-time high. A new designer drug known as "Nuke" has made a large number of citizens become drug addicts, and an almost cult-like group, are responsible for the manufacturing and distribution of this narcotic. They're leader is a man named Cain, a dangerous individual, whose soul desire is to use the drug to create a perfect society. He will stop at nothing to achieve his ultimate goal, and will not let anyone or anything get in his way. Meanwhile, OCP has seen how despotic and destitute the city has become, and has decided to create a second RoboCop. A monstrous, super cyborg is created, and soon it grows beyond the control of OCP. Now it's up to RoboCop to destroy this evil creation, and once again protect the innocent citizens of Detroit. So how does RoboCop 2 stack up? In my opinion, pretty well. All of the things that made the original film great are still there. The violence, the satire, the humor, and the issue of RoboCop's humanity. Even though it's not explored as deeply as in the original, it's still there. Many critics complained that the use of children swearing, and being drug dealers was too mean spirited. However the sad truth is, there are children like that in this world. Besides, wouldn't you expect to see that in a city that's gone to the dogs? There were many things that were left on the cutting room floor that shouldn't have been, and perhaps Robocop 2 could've have been better that it was. All things considered however, RoboCop 2 is STILL a very good and entertaining film. The acting is great, and there's more than enough action to keep you on the edge of your seat. If you ask me, this film does not deserve ANY of the hatred it receives! Watch it, and decide for yourself.
RoboCop (1987)
One of the best science-fiction films of all time!
I was about seven or eight, when My Mom picked this movie up at one my town's local video stores. Immediately after watching it, I loved it, and on subsequent returns to that video store, I had to incessantly beg my mother to re- rent it for me. Ever since the day I first watched the film, it has been one of my favorite movies. The idea of RoboCop isn't particularly new, many movies, comic books, pulp magazines, short stories, and TV shows, have had more or less the same plot. However RoboCop takes it in a new direction. The plot is this: Things have gone to hell in Detroit, and a mega-corporation known as Omni Consumer Products or O.C.P., has taken control. Crime runs rampant all over the city, and one of the head members of O.C.P., must somehow find a solution to this problem. We then meet the main character: Officer Alex Murphy, who has just transferred to the roughest part of the city. Murphy and his new partner: Officer Anne Lewis, hear of a bank robbery that was committed by a local street gang. Murphy and Lewis pursue them to their hideout. The two police officers get separated, and Murphy is then cornered by the gang members and brutally shot to death. Sometime later, Murphy is resurrected by O.C.P. as the crime fighting cyborg, RoboCop! At first, Murphy has no knowledge or recollection of his life or of his family, but slowly his memories return, and RoboCop/Murphy must rediscover his humanity and seek vengeance for his brutal murder. RoboCop not only has stellar acting, outstanding special effects, but also an excellent and compelling story. This film has one of the most memorable scores, and a brilliant use of satire with its clever "commercials". Without a doubt, it is one of the best science- fiction films of all time, and definitely one of the best films to come out of the eighties. Check it out, and see it for yourself!
Titanic (1997)
How low the mighty have fallen!
To begin with, I liked James Cameron as a director. As a matter of fact, Aliens is my all-time favorite movie. Throughout the 80's and mid 90's James Cameron could do no wrong, then it happened: Christmas 1997 James Cameron released the most overrated, over-hyped piece of garbage that the world has ever known: Titanic! I don't buy for a second, that Cameron cared about the real tragedy, the victims, or the heroes! I firmly believe that Cameron's sole intention for making this movie was to fatten his wallet! Critics praised it as a masterpiece, Teen and preteen girls swooned, and before you knew it, this rancid, vomit inducing, cinematic travesty became the highest grossing movie of all time! Before I begin, let me just clarify one thing: I don't hate this movie because it was a hit, I hate this movie for much more than that! So the film begins with treasure hunters exploring the wreck of the Titanic. They're searching for something, but we don't know what that exactly is yet. They find an old safe, and decide to bring it up to the surface. They cheer, pop champagne bottles, and celebrate that they've found what they've been looking for. However, once the safe is opened, they only find an old drawing of a woman wearing a diamond necklace. Some time later, a local news station does a story on the treasure hunters' expedition. An old woman watching the news story recognizes the drawing, contacts the leader of the expedition, and they bring her to where they are. We find out that they are searching for that lost diamond necklace, and that she is the woman in the drawing. So the film then goes into her story, and to sum it all up, we get the same old cliché-ridden love story, we've all seen before! Two people from two different worlds fall in love, and everything is working against their union. Some of you out there might be thinking that I hate this movie because I'm a guy, and generally, guys hate love stories. but that's not the case. I liked the movie Moulin Rouge, and I loved the movie The Notebook. The difference between those movies and this movie is: They actually did something NEW with that basic plot! Unlike Titanic, in which the only thing "new" is that that it happens on the Titanic. In the story, we meet characters that have the names of real people. These people include: Captain E.J. Smith, Designer Thomas Andrews, Builder Bruce Ismay, Crewman William Murdoch, and passengers, John Jacob Astor and "The Unsinkable" Molly Brown. Do we learn anything about these people or what happened to them? NO! These Characters are nothing more than plot devices! THIS, is the reason why I hate this movie! It is an insult to these people's family and memory to portray them this way! Specifically, William Murdoch's and Molly Brown's. In reality, these people were heroes! In this film however, Molly Brown is used as a comic relief, and William Murdoch, is made into a villain! James Cameron, How dare you!! In 2001, the movie Pearl Harbor was released, and everyone hated it. People have said that the movie was poorly written, the plot was horribly cliché, and that it makes a cheap mockery of a real life tragedy. What people fail to realize is: This is exactly what Titanic was! Why is Pearl Harbor labeled as cinematic tripe and garbage, while a few years earlier, Titanic did the EXACT same thing and it's labeled a masterpiece! If you're going to hold Michael Bay's feet to the fire for Pearl Harbor, you might as well do the same to James Cameron. I know a lot of people still love this movie, and that's fine, to each their own. In my opinion however, there will never be enough hatred for this film, Even if everyone in the world turned around and suddenly hated it, it still wouldn't be enough!
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
"Your future's whatever you make it, so make it a good one."
So we finally come to the conclusion of the back to the future trilogy, and is this film better than part II? Yes, definitely! Is it as good as the first? No...but it comes close. The plot is this: After seeing the delorean struck by lightning at the end of part II, Marty receives a letter from Doc. In the letter, Doc tells Marty that the lightning strike sent him back to 1885. Shortly afterward, Marty and the 1955 Doc find out that the future Doc was murdered in 1885. Ergo, Marty must also travel to 1885 to save his friend's life. Here's what I liked: I liked the setting of the old west Hill Valley, I liked the character of Clara, and I thought that she added a nice new element to the story. Christopher Lloyd and Mary Steenburgen had an excellent chemistry together, and they played off each other very well. Once again, there were great performances all around, and unlike part II, this film had heart! As with the first film, it has a signature song "Double back" that fits the film perfectly. (ZZ Top is one of my all-time favorite bands!) Here's what I didn't like: I didn't like some of the actors playing their original character's son, daughter, grandson or great-grandfather. (This also goes for part II.) It was too cheesy. To me, it just felt like a lame, cheap joke. Why does the villain always have to be Biff, or Biff's grandson, or great grandfather? I think the series would've fared better if there had been new villains for parts II and III. It would've been a step in the right direction, and not just a rehash every time. (Spoilers ahead) I really HATED Marty's "Chicken" complex! It just came out of nowhere, and it's only there to add another problem to the story. In part II, Doc tells Marty that the event with his son in 2015, will destroy his entire family. This however, is only the surface problem! In 2015 we learn that the future Marty is a wash-up. This sole problem, is a direct result of his "Chicken" complex. In part III, Doc tells him that this complex, is what causes him to get into an accident in the future. Marty asks what's wrong with his future, and what does Doc do? NOTHING! Furthermore, why didn't Doc tell Marty about this previously?! Marty knew that Doc was going to be shot in the future, so he warned him about it. Here however, Doc doesn't even so much as warn Marty about this event that destroys his future! I gotta call B.S. on that! As for the whole experience, Back to the future II was garbage, but III was very enjoyable and entertaining. As with many sequels, III falls short of capturing the original's magic, but it was a much more valiant effort this time around.
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Dull as dishwater
The above title is how movie critic Gene Siskel, described the film. Now I've never been one to agree with the critics, but I have to side with Gene on this one. This movie was dull, and there's one thing that the original has, that this first sequel doesn't have: Heart. The plot is this: Doc returns from the future, and tells Marty that he must accompany him to the future to prevent a future catastrophe that involves his kids, Marty complies, and once they're in the future, Doc tells Marty that his future son will be arrested, and that this one event will cause a chain reaction and destroy his entire family. (Which is a falsehood, but I'll elaborate on this, when I review part III.) While in the future Hill Valley, Marty visits an antique store and buys a magazine that will tell him the results of every sporting event until the end of the century. Doc finds the magazine, scolds Marty for buying it, and throws it away. Unfortunately, an older version of Biff hears this, retrieves the magazine, steals the time machine, (and somehow knows how to use it.) travels back in time, and gives the magazine to himself in 1955. Upon doing this, the present changes, and Hill Valley becomes a despotic, hell on earth. Therefore, Marty and Doc must travel back to 1955 and put things right. I've never cared for this movie. While I can watch it as a time waster, the film desperately lacks the magic that the first film had. As with the first film, there are great performances all around, but the story is where the film fails. If their goal was to tell a story about how time travel can be misused, that's fine, but why does this film have to re-hash everything that the previous film did? For example: Marty's confrontation with Griff (Biff's son) in The Cafe 80's, and the following hover-board scene, are exact copies of the confrontation with Biff,and the skateboard scene from the previous film! When Doc and Marty are in 1955, what do we see? The exact same things from the first film! Maybe I'm in the minority here, but when I go into a sequel, I don't wanna see the same thing over again, I wanna see something new! I would say that this film was a huge step down from the previous film, but it wasn't. It was actually a whole flight of stairs down from the previous film! So after all that, you may be wondering why I gave the film three stars instead of one. Well the reason for that is, I liked the 2015 Hill Valley setting. It was the one and only time that the film was fun. Even though it was a blatant rip- off, the hover-board scene was still fun. I only wish that the whole film could have taken place in the 2015 setting. As a sequel, Back to the future II fails. On its own, it still fails. Which is what I've always seen Back to the future II as, one utterly disappointing failure.
Back to the Future (1985)
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything."
When you're reviewing a film that you love, it's hard sometimes to describe all the things that you love about it. Which is the greatest challenge I have in reviewing this. I'll try not to go into too much detail, but I will also try to go in as deep as possible as to why I love the film. When the film opens we're introduced to the Character of Marty McFly. He's a typical 80's teen, but also good natured at heart. Marty has dreams and aspirations of being a rock star, but is too unsure of himself to pursue them. He is best friends with the eccentric but lovable, Dr. Emmett Brown. We don't know how Marty and Doc became friends, but we can understand why they are. Doc is always guiding Marty to do what is right, and indirectly showing him to never give up. Their relationship in the film is one I really love, Because Doc is not just a mentor to Marty, he's also a somewhat surrogate parent. The plot is simply this: Doc calls Marty up, and asks him to come help him with his new invention: A Delorean time machine. Things go wrong, and Marty ends up sending himself back in time to 1955. Shortly afterward, Marty accidentally interferes with his parents meeting. So Marty must now try to repair the damage he caused, while Doc tries to find a way to send Marty back home. So, what do I love about the film? To begin with, everything! I love the film's concept: If I knew my parents in high school, would I be friends with them? When you're a kid, the only way to find out how your parents acted when they were your age was to ask a grandparent or relative, but think how different and exciting it would be to actually see it! I love the film's message: "Never give up, and never stop trying." I love the performances that all the actors give, and I love the re-creation of the '50's atmosphere. (I'm a big fan of '50's movies, music, and TV shows.) I just love the film all around. Would I recommend this to someone who hasn't seen it? YES, absolutely! Back to the future is one of those movies that you can watch multiple times, and with each time, it still holds as much magic as the first.
Batman & Robin (1997)
Batman's death rattle
Two years after the success of Batman Forever, a new Batman film is released, and...it went over like a floating turd in a swimming pool. Why? Because this is a classic, textbook case of what happens when studios stop caring about making good films. This is precisely what happened here. Batman Forever was a huge hit, so naturally, Warner Brothers believed that making the next film even more lighthearted, would make double of what Batman Forever grossed. They also wanted the film to be more "Toyetic" so they could make more money by selling more toys. To begin with, Michael Gough's performance as Alfred is good as always, and in the film, we finally get a glimpse of what his and Bruce's relationship is like, also he has the best line of dialog in the film. "There is no defeat in death, victory comes by defending what we know is right." I also liked the setting up of Robin and Batgirl's relationship. Sadly, these were the only moments of enjoyment I received from the film. Most of the main cast members are all excellent actors, but with the exception of Michael Gough, no one gives a good performance! To be fair however, I can't put the blame on the cast. Because not even the best actors in the world could've done well with such a horrible and shoddy script. In this case, no one came out unscathed, not even director Joel Schumacher. I can't put all the blame on him either, he did what he had been paid to do. However, I CAN blame him for certain things. It was his idea to make the film an homage to the 60's Batman TV show, which was the reason why the film was so hated and poorly received by both fans and critics. No one going into this film was expecting a comedy. This may have been what the studio wanted, but it was the furthest thing that what we, the fans wanted! At the end of the day though, I have to tip my hat to Schumacher, and give him credit. Not only did he admit that the film was junk, but he also apologized for disappointing the fans, which is something I really wish other filmmakers would do. (I'm looking at you George Lucas!) As for the whole experience: am I saddened that this was the last film in the franchise? Yes. Had the film been good, would I have liked to have seen a fifth Batman movie and a possible Robin or Nightwing spin-off? Yes. In the end, whether it's films or in any other case, when money is the only concern, things will always end badly.
Batman Forever (1995)
Almost great...almost!
So after Batman Returns, I wasn't exactly anticipating another Batman movie. However, when I heard that Tim Burton had been given the boot as director, and that they were taking the series in a new direction, my interest was somewhat piqued. Now don't get me wrong I like Tim Burton, When he's good, he's great, but when he's bad, he's awful. Apparently, many other people agreed with my opinion that Batman Returns was a dud, including Warner Brothers. Joel Schumacher was hired to replace Tim Burton, and Val Kilmer was chosen to replace Michael Keaton. Keaton reportedly did not like the new direction the series was heading, and decided not to reprise his role. Although I respect his decision, I was disappointed that he wouldn't be returning. The character of Robin finally makes his appearance in the series, which I really liked. Robin has always been one of my favorite characters in the Batman comics, and I thought Chris O'Donnell played the role rather well, and I give the screenwriter credit for putting characteristics of all three Robins from the comics into this film's robin. But in the film, he's not given much to do. Jim Carrey portrays The Riddler, and he's the highlight of film! He's fun to watch, and you can tell he's enjoying every minute of the experience! Val Kilmer portrays The Dark Knight this time around, and while he does very well with the character of Bruce Wayne, he doesn't bring anything new to the character of Batman. Then, there's Tommy Lee Jones as Two-face. He's one of my favorite villains from the comics, so I was excited to see him in the film, but Jones doesn't even come close to capturing the character's essence or complexity. However, I can't put the blame all on him, Schumacher seems to only understand the bare minimum of the character. He's scarred on one half of his face, he wears clothes with two different colors, and he flips a two headed coin that's scratched on one side. This film's Two-face just sucks! What really kills the film for me, is that the film feels incomplete and uneven. Several scenes were cut from the film that shouldn't have been. These scenes elaborated on Bruce's interior struggle, and supposedly delved deep into the psychology of Batman. From what I understand, this was the film's intended goal. I hope one day we'll see a director's cut of the film. Maybe then, we can finally see Schumacher's original vision, But as the film is, it's just so-so. In my last review, I said that going from Batman to Batman Returns was like chasing champagne with sewer water. Now we've gone from sewer water to diet soda, it's much better than sewer water, but it's definitely not champagne.
Batman Returns (1992)
What Happened?
That's the question I kept asking myself after I finished watching this film. I know I'll be stepping on many peoples' toes by writing this review. I know a lot of people loved this film when it was released in '92, and I know a lot of people still love the film to this day. However, I'd like to ask all those people to keep an open mind, and to try to see this from my perspective. I never liked this movie! Not even after I first saw it. I wanna put all of you in my shoes: Your eight years old, Batman comes out, you go see it, and afterwords, you're blown away by its sheer greatness. Shortly after, a sequel is announced, and you're ecstatic! You can't wait for it, you expect it to be all that the previous film was and more, then, a few years pass, the film comes out, you see it, and its a complete dud! That's exactly how I felt when I saw Batman Returns. Batman Returns didn't even feel like it was in the same series as Batman! Where as Batman was exciting and fun, Batman Returns was dreary and depressing. None of the villains were charismatic, or fun to watch like Nicholson's Joker, they were all one dimensional and had no motivations! Keaton still plays Batman fairly well, but nothing at all is done with his Bruce Wayne persona. Which in and of itself, presents a huge problem when a semi love interest is interjected into the film. As with Kim Basinger's Vicki Vale, Michelle Pfeiffer does a decent job with what she's given, but that's the problem with her character. You don't know what kind of person Selina Kyle really is, and we have no idea what her agenda is as Catwoman. Why does she want Penguin to frame Batman? We don't know and we never find out. The Biggest problem of the film however, is Danny Devito as The Penguin. Aside from the fact that he rides around in a motorized rubber duck, and that the image of his army of rocket pack penguins is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever seen, The Penguin has to be one of the most poorly done comic book villains ever! The problem is, that The Penguin is done in such an inconsistent way. One minute Tim Burton wants us all to feel sorry for him, and then the next, he wants us all to detest him as the evil villain. As for my experience with the film: It didn't leave me in a good mood or hungry for more, as the first film did. It left me feeling dreary, sick, and empty. For me, going from Batman to Batman Returns felt like chasing Champagne with sewer water. The first drink was great, but the second just left a bad taste in my mouth.