edenney01 Reviews

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

The magic of the first movie is gone...

[3/10 · 10 September 2022]

This movie really seems like just another example of the decline in the quality of films and writing over the last several years. No originality, no subtlety, a weak plot/story, and the characters are largely bland and boring including Ralph. It also seems that the target audience has completely changed, possibly just because of the terrible writing these days. Those of us who grew up in the hay day of the arcades really enjoyed the first movie, and I'm sure young kids did too for different reasons. This movie seems more targeted towards millennials, which is fine, except it's not funny or entertaining no matter your age.

I question the validity of the 7.0 IMDB rating that it currently enjoys. The entire first page of reviews that I see are all 5s or lower, except for one 6. I can see someone maybe giving it a 6, but a 5 average seems much more likely and appropriate. But then having witnessed what IMDB recently did with the Rings Of Power reviews, hiding ANYTHING that was below a 6, it's hard to have any trust in IMDB's ratings anymore.

The Spanish Prisoner (1997)

An impossibly complex Rube Goldberg device

[5/10 · 3 November 2020]

I like off beat movies, movies that make you think and have you guessing. However I do not like movies that are completely impossible to figure out and who all of the bad guys and good guys are until they spell it out for you at the very end. This is one of those movies, but it's really so confusing that you won't even care about the questions left unanswered, you'll just be happy that it's over. The dialogue is very weird and awkward, for no particular reason. It does however keep your attention if you're patient, so perhaps worth watching once, and only once. If you've seen "Duplicity" (for better or worse), I would put it in the same category, but with a much lower budget.

Twin Peaks (2017)

Might be worse than a 20 hour root canal

[1/10 · 28 July 2020]

Pains me to write this review, because for the most part I liked the original Twin Peaks, especially early on. It had a great cast, quirky characters, mystery and intrigue. I liked the weird dream/vision sequences, especially the first one. Then it inexplicably went all X-Files, and by the final episode it was completely off the rails. It seemed as if Lynch was just taking shrooms daily, and someone was transcribing his experiences into a completely disjointed script and visuals. Then the movie came along and it was all of that, on steroids. To say that it left you with more new questions than answers would be a huge understatement.

And that brings us to the 2017 revival. They managed to do the seemingly impossible, and bring back in some form or another almost the entire original cast after a 25 year hiatus, plus some great new additions. Fans of the show were undoubtedly over the moon at the prospect. Unfortunately, Lynch's self indulgence got in the way and completely ruined something that had true potential. The revival show is about 45% Eraserhead, 45% 2001 A Space Odyssey (the really weird parts), and 10% the original Twin Peaks, and by original I mean the second half of the second season when things had gotten completely bizarre. 5 minutes of watching the original psychiatrist spray paint 4 shovels gold. 10 minutes of staring at a large translucent box in a NY high rise apartment. Hours of watching Agent Cooper acting like Rain Man but far worse. Etc. Etc. If Lynch was on shrooms the entire first two seasons, he must've been on shrooms, peyote, acid, and heavy anti-psychotics for the revival. The only redeeming quality is being reunited with original cast after so many years, but their characters are mostly squandered and irrelevant.

My advice for anyone who hasn't watched it yet, but enjoyed the original series: Probably no review or opinion is going to stop you from watching this, but rest assured that if you don't like the first 2 or 3 episodes, the show DOESN'T get any better or tie the myriad of pointless scenes together later in the season, much less answer any old questions or the countless new ones from this season. Maybe you'll only waste a few hours of your life instead of 18.

Doctor Sleep (2019)

Not The Shining by any means, but a decent movie in its own right.

[7/10 · 28 June 2020]

I was very reluctant to watch this from the moment I heard they were making the movie, and I wouldn't have paid to see it in theaters, but I watched it on cable last night and it wasn't entirely bad. It's only loosely connected to The Shining, and honestly could've been a stand alone movie with no connection whatsoever with a modest re-writing of the script. In fact it kind of felt like a completely separate movie that just cashed in on the name of the original, and wove a little bit of that plot into this one.

Rebecca Ferguson did a great job in the lead role as Rose the Hat, Ewan McGregor was okay in the role of the adult Danny, and the girl who played Abra was fine. The other roles were all pretty forgettable imo. What I didn't like about the movie was the recasting of so many of the principle roles from The Shining with actors you just couldn't accept as replacements for such a legendary movie. There's only one Jack Nicholson, and nobody is like Shelly Duvall (though this actress did her best) or Scatman Cruthers. Also didn't like the boy they cast as the young Danny. Even the smaller roles from The Shining, such as the twin girls, Grady, the crazy decomposing woman in the bathtub, are all so ingrained in our heads after seeing The Shining so many times over the years, it's just impossible to replace them and make it feel right. Apparently they didn't have the budget needed to replace those actors faces digitally. If they had at least done it with Jack and he'd lent his voice for the movie in the brief scene that he had, it would've helped a lot.

Because of all of those things, and the lack of dread and suspense that the original movie brought so well, I can't give Doctor Sleep more than 7 stars. It is worth watching though imo, if you can try not to focus too much on comparing it to The Shining.

Westworld (2016–2022)

Season one was great, season two, not so much

[6/10 · 1 June 2018]

If I had rated this show after season one it would probably be an 8, but I'd give season two 4 or 5 stars, so I'll average it out to a 6. The first season was intriguing, but the second season is absolutely scattered all over the place. It's literally a chore to watch it and try to figure out where and the heck all of this is going. With very few exceptions, I have no idea anymore who's a host or who's a human, yet hosts can be resurrected ad infinitum, so it's hard to feel bad or shocked when someone gets brutally killed. Obviously all of these disjointed story lines are going somewhere, but as with any television series, it's all about the journey (the episodes), not the destination. Frankly, this season's journey is starting to feel like it's not worth taking.

Cobra Kai (2018–2025)

If you grew up in the 80s and loved The Karate Kid, you'll love Cobra Kai

[9/10 · 21 May 2018]

When I first heard they were producing a television series sequel to the original Karate Kid, like most people I was highly skeptical to say the least, and really had no intention of even watching it. None of the Karate Kid sequels even remotely captured the magic of the first one, so a lower budget television series set almost 35 years later certainly couldn't be any good, right? Wrong.

This series completely flips the script, focusing a little more on Johnny's perspective than on Daniel's. The writers do a great job of making you empathize and relate to him and the direction his life took after losing the tournament. He's still stuck in the 80s, still agonizing over his loss in the tournament, and reminiscing about Ali. He drives the same mid to late 80s Firebird that he's probably been driving for the last 30 years. When he talks about his relationship with Ali and how Daniel actually came along and messed everything up, you actually do see it from his point of view and feel kind of bad for him. Did I mention that the writing was really good?

I don't want to give out any spoilers, the first season is full of twists and turns that will keep you watching. The best part is that every single episode has just the right amount of 80s/Karate Kid nostalgia in it, and lots of flashbacks (they clearly got the rights to use any clips they wanted from the original movie). Awesome 80s music, including music directly from The Karate Kid, and LOTS of subtle references to the original film, like when Daniel's daughter asks for "Bananarama pancakes". If you love 80s music and the original film, you should definitely get that reference. There's also a scene where Daniel's daughter takes her date to the same "Golf n Stuff" that Daniel went to with Ali.

I have a couple minor complaints from the last couple episodes and how things play out, but nothing major. I kind of feel like everything has run its course in the first season, and the writers will be stretching to find good material for future seasons. The best way they can really keep things interesting is to bring back Elizabeth Shue as Ali. I'm sure it didn't cost them a fortune to get Ralph Maccio and Willam Zabka, but with the success of season 1 (something like 54 million viewers) they should have a considerably better budget that could allow them to bring in Shue. All of the A list actors are doing TV series these days, so it could be a good thing for everyone involved.

Anyway, if you haven't seen this yet, seriously go watch it!

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Not perfect, but a very worthy sequel

[8/10 · 31 December 2017]

A good sequel is a very rare thing in Hollywoood, and a good sequel made decades after the original movie is as rare as a four leaf clover, but this movie almost lives up to the original (heaven knows The Force Awakens sure didn't). It captures the mood, visuals, atmosphere, and score of the original perfectly, which is quite an achievement for a movie as extraordinary as the original Blade Runner was, particularly considering when it was filmed. That said, the characters in this movie are lacking the depth and emotional connectivity that you had for them in the first movie. In short, they're just not as compelling, and it's hard to get emotionally invested in any of them. I also think they didn't put enough effort into the story, compared with how much they put into trying to recapure the look and feel of the original. I gave it an 8, and I'd give the original a 9 (considering when it was flimed). I would VERY strongly recommend that everyone see the original before watching this. I can't see too many people really enjoying this movie if they didn't see and like the original.

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Entertaining and pretty scary, until the last 10 minutes.

[7/10 · 7 July 2017]

I won't go into a full review, since there are countless others and they all say about the same thing, which is that the movie is actually pretty good until the last 5 or 10 minutes, and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys scary movies. It really has a nice mix of suspense, horror, gore, and levity, without overdoing it on any of those, or with the special effects (except for the ending). The score is also pretty good, and I liked the use of Marilyn Manson's eerie remake of "Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This".

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough for the filmmakers that the house just be evil or haunted... someone involved with the film decided the "evil" should have some sort of actual form. I think that was a very bad idea, but it was a bad idea made much MUCH worse by some very cheesy fractal/mirrored CGI effects. Maybe they blew their budget on the set and the actors (quite possible), and didn't have enough left over to properly give form to the "evil" with CGI, so they just settled for what they could get. IMO it would've been much better if they'd never given any form to it at all.

I gave this movie a rating of 7 in this review, but I'd really give it a 6.5 if I could. If not for the horrible turn the movie takes in the last 10 minutes, with the absurd mirrored fractal CGI effects, I'd actually have given it a 7.5 to an 8. Everybody's comments about the ending are spot on.... it's just a huge let down.

Btw, that sun rising over the ocean at the end is a pretty big goof. The movie is set on the west coast, where the sun SETS over the ocean.

Arrival (II) (2016)

One of the worst movies I've seen

[1/10 · 19 January 2017]

There isn't much to say that hasn't already been said in the myriad of other 1 and 2 star reviews. This movie is quite simply a complete and total waste of 2 hours. I'm an avid moviegoer, and I particularly like movies that exercise your brain as well as entertain, but this completely uninteresting, boring movie just puts you to sleep. I'd liken it to an extremely pretentious, ridiculously overpriced piece of abstract art in a gallery, to which everyone ascribes their own motivations to the artist, but in actuality was just a bunch of cockroaches walking through spilled paint and on to a canvas that was laying on the floor. If you want to watch a couple semi-visible squid-like finger puppets stand in fog for 2 hours while painting circular ink blots in the air, then ignore what I've said, this is the movie for you.

Now as to the absurd IMDb rating, I'm convinced that IMDb ratings have recently started being greatly inflated by some overseas company that's paid by the studios to submit very high IMDb ratings through bogus accounts, much like those companies that advertise on TV that they'll create your company's Facebook page for you, then fill it with positive reviews. Obviously that's completely dishonest, but for the moment it's legal. I reached this conclusion after recently watching another highly overrated steaming pile of feces (Nocturnal Animals), ironically also starring Amy Adams, who I happen to like. In both cases, the average rating of people who wrote out a review was substantially lower and much more realistic than the IMDb rating. With Nocturnal Animals I was so shocked that the rating could be so high while noticing so many horrible reviews, that I went through all of the reviews (there were 163 at the time) and calculated the average rating. It was a very mediocre 6.3, which is a number you'd associate with a so-so movie that you may or may not like, whereas the IMDb rating for it was (at the time) 7.8, a number you'd associate with a very good movie that most people would enjoy watching. I haven't taken the time to calculate the average reviewer's rating for Arrival, it's simply not worth wasting even more of my life, but again, having looked through 3 or 4 pages of the most recent reviews, it's painfully obvious that the average reviewer's rating is WELL below the absolutely ridiculous IMDb rating of 8.3, and probably in the neighborhood of 5.5 to 6.5, much like Nocturnal Animals.

Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Garbage, don't trust the rating.

[5/10 · 2 January 2017]

*This review doesn't contain actual spoilers, but you can inference what DOESN'T happen at the end of the movie from this review, and that could be a spoiler in and of itself* After wasting 2 hours watching this, I was so shocked by the (current) 7.8 IMDb rating that I decided to waste another 15 minutes of my life and add up the ratings of the 164 people who had left a review and rating, and compare that to the anonymous ratings left by supposedly real people. I strongly felt, and feel, that the IMDb ballot box for this movie is being stuffed so to speak. Not surprising in an age where companies unabashedly advertise on TV that they will build your website for you and then fill it with good (fake) reviews. The result of my find, was that the average rating for all 164 people who left a review was 6.5, which is a pretty far cry from a 7.8 on IMDb when it comes to movie quality. A movie approaching 8 stars is generally considered a must-see, whereas a movie with 6.5 stars is rather mediocre. That said, I still feel that even the 6.5 rating is skewed, because as a newer movie that won't even hit home video for some time, it's stacked with an initially high percentage of movie critic reviews as opposed to actual moviegoers, and we all know how critics love pointless, artsy fartsy movies by snobbish directors who don't feel like there has to be any point or meaningful conclusion to a movie. As I skimmed through the reviews, it was apparent to me that the 9 and 10 star reviews were largely from critics and art lovers, where as the plethora of 1 and 2 star reviews were from average moviegoers.

On that note, IMHO this movie is utter garbage with little to no redeeming qualities, and a complete waste of 2 hours of your life. As someone else aptly titled their review, it's like sex without the orgasm, however that's being far too generous to this movie since at least sex is enjoyable, if not fulfilling, without the orgasm lol. The writing, screenplay, pacing, acting, and especially directing, were among the worst I've ever seen, which is sad because there are a few very good actors in it (and some very bad ones) who have turned in very compelling performances in the past. I honestly don't know what this movie bills itself as. I know what I was expecting beforehand and as I was watching it, and that's a suspenseful, psychological thriller that must be building up to some really great plot twist. But nope, it simply flat lined, literally and figuratively.

Separate out the stories within the story, and there's no way in hell a studio would've ever made a movie about either of them. The real life of Amy Adams character was insanely boring, commonplace, and pointless. The story within the manuscript was very drawn out with poor dialogue, poor acting, poor direction, and absolutely no meaningful or redeeming conclusion. It's like some real life writer wrote a short story (which is all the manuscript inside this movie really is), and then desperately tried to stretch that out into a full length movie. Ever seen the "The Box" with Cameron Diaz, which was based on a short story? That movie had a kernel of an interesting idea, along with two or three good actors, but those elements aren't enough to make a good, full length movie, and the result was a hot mess. That's exactly what happened here. The real lives of Amy and Jake's characters are completely and totally pointless if they don't in some meaningful way tie in to the story of the manuscript (which they don't), so why even bother with that side of the movie if that story isn't compelling and doesn't even lead anywhere? The answer is simple, because without it, much like "The Box", you have maybe 30-40 minutes of an incredibly humdrum screenplay consisting only of the manuscript itself, with an immensely unfulfilling and unimaginative conclusion.

Honestly, as it progressed, I was fully expecting this movie to have a sort of "Jacob's Ladder" type ending, with the audience discovering that TONY had actually killed Susan and his daughter in real life many years ago, for whatever reason, and that perhaps he was now in prison or an institution etc., creating a sort of fantasy world for himself, imagining that he's finally become a successful writer and that their deaths were just a story in one of his books, in which he ends up avenging them and sacrifices himself in the process, while meanwhile his wife and daughter are alive and well and living out their lives without him. IMHO that certainly could've been spun into a much more compelling ending than this pile of garbage.

If you haven't seen "Jacob's Ladder", and you want to see a GOOD psychological thriller that actually deserves the 9 and 10 star ratings that so many people inexplicably have given this, rent it on Netflix or whatever now. If you like an intriguing movie that makes you THINK about what's real and what isn't, yet entertains as well as scares you, and also makes you feel like you need to watching it another time or two to really understand it, THAT'S the movie for you. You'd be far better served watching it twice than watching this movie once. Also, for the Jake Gyllenhaal fans out there, watch Zodiac if you haven't already. Again, a suspenseful thriller that is far more deserving of some of the ratings and reviews this movie has gotten.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

Highly recommend for Terminator fans

[8/10 · 4 July 2015]

If you're a Terminator fan and enjoyed Terminator 2: Judgement Day, then it's hard to imagine you not liking this movie. It was very well written, with a great script and story, and the visual effects are what you'd expect from a modern Terminator movie. There are a lot of unexpected twists and turns that will keep even the most astute viewers unsure of what's going to happen next. Arnold unquestionably steals the show and brings a LOT of laughs in his role as "Pops" (aka The Guardian), and the script did a good job of accounting for his multiple age difference(s) in this movie. Like they did in Salvation, there are countless homages paid to previous Terminator movies throughout Genisys. So much so that it gets to be a ridiculously obvious what the director was doing. Almost every significant scene from the first two movies plays out again in some fashion in Genisys... you name, it they snuck it in (literally at least 30-50 subtle and not-so-subtle homages). About the only thing missing was GNR playing "You Could Be Mine", and the classic "*f**k you a**hole" from the original movie". I suspect the PG-13 rating was the only reason the latter was left out, and was instead replaced by a few "Bite me"s.

While there have been some seriously questionable casting choices in the previous Terminator movies, and it's difficult to keep adjusting to new actors in nearly all of the major roles, the casting choices in Genisys were almost all very good. Emilia Clarke does an outstanding job as a young (and sexy) Sarah Connor, and her eyes/facial features look so much like a young Linda Hamilton that it made me curious whether they were related. The other casting choices are almost all good as well, except for John Connor. I hated him about as much as I hated the casting choice for John Connor in T3, which is to say a LOT. I fail to understand why they always seem to make at least one or two really horrible casting choices in the Terminator movies. Kyle Reese and his stupid little sidekick in Salvation top my list or extremely irritating casting choices.

To sum up, this movie will absolutely find a home in my collection as soon as it's available, and I highly recommend you see it in the theater if you enjoyed the first two Terminator movies. Two thumbs up!

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

2001 A Space Odyssey meets Species

[7/10 · 16 August 2014]

Really, the summary says it all. It was so blatantly obvious the the director was channeling/mimicking Stanley Kubrick, that anybody who sees this movie and has seen 2001 couldn't possibly help but draw the same conclusion. That's not necessarily a bad thing by any means, but 2001 isn't for everybody. Personally, I more or less liked the movie, about as much as I liked 2001 I suppose, with the obvious added benefit of seeing Scarlett Johansson in her birthday suit for the first time (which garnered an extra point from a 6 to a 7 when I rated the film ;)). It certainly keeps your attention, even though the pace is very slow and it's VERY confusing. That's probably why it keeps your attention, since you're spending so much time trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I'll have to watch it again, because I never did get what the deal was with the motorcycle guy. In short, if you liked 2001 and if you liked Species, you should like this movie, especially if you like Scarlett Johansson ;). You may not be thrilled with the ending however.

Survival Island (I) (2005)

Almost no redeeming qualities

[3/10 · 7 February 2014]

(I really wouldn't consider anything in this post as a spoiler, certainly nothing that would ruin the movie, but some editor from IMDb might disagree and blacklist me, so here's your spoiler warning to cover my rear end. That said, nothing in my review is going to spoil anything or give away the ending, so feel free to read on if you haven't seen the movie yet. Certainly the short, one sentence tag line for the movie on IMDb gives a LOT more away!) This movie has virtually no redeeming qualities, except Billy Zane's acting and Kelly Brooks' natural "gifts" (and I'm certainly not referring to her acting ability). If you want to see a movie that makes you feel gross and dirty, where the "bad guy" (metaphorically) wins, then this is the movie for you. Aside from being well endowed and great to look at, Kelly Brooks' character just totally disgusts me, as does the worthless Latin lover that conveniently winds up on the island with her and her husband. I definitely did NOT like the ending at all, and it no doubt contributes to the barely 5.0 rating it currently has on IMDb. It should've ended about 10 minutes sooner when the slut and her new beau try to leave her husband stranded alone on the island, after he'd seemingly worked for hours and hours on a means of escape (no spoilers here). The whole voodoo thing was just absurd and contributed nothing at all to the movie.

The only character that I can empathize with is Billy Zane's character, but somehow he's made out to be a villain, apparently because he's not screwing anybody's else's wife, doesn't want anybody else screwing his, and has the gall to be upset when his wife quite willingly and intentionally bangs another guy right in front of him. Who needs wedding vows anyway right? I can only imagine that the script (or book if there was one) was written by some jilted woman that was cheated on by her ex husband, dreamed of getting even, and loves Harlequin Romance novels. That's the way it plays out... like a Harlequin romance novel on a desert island, with an inconvenient husband getting in the way of a wife that dreams of banging a hot, young, Latin guy.

Oh and by the way, apparently people on desert islands don't need nearly as much water as people living on the rest of the planet, but they do need an awful lot of food, since they only take a few swigs off of some coconuts, and drink a little rain water that they catch the ONE time it rains on the island in the entire movie. In the real world they'd each need at least 15-20 coconuts a day without any fresh water, and I certainly didn't see them fashioning a simple desalinization still. From that standpoint the movie was about as realistic as Gilligan's Island. Someone might say that's just nitpicking, but then they shouldn't have devoted roughly half the movie to finding food if such things didn't really matter, and after all it IS titled "Survival Island". In short, if you just was to see Kelly Brooks topless and don't care about a good script, good acting, or a good ending, then by all means watch this. Otherwise, find something else. And if you still want to see Kelly Brooks topless, you can just save yourself about an hour and a half by just Googling the phrase. No doubt there are plenty of screen caps from the movie readily available.

Her (2013)

Fell WAY short of expectations, and not appropriate for all agess

[6/10 · 2 February 2014]

Joaquin Phoenix unfortunately committed career suicide several years ago, and after 5 or so years of consuming mass quantities of alcohol and illegal substances, and giving Hollywood the middle finger, it looked like he was ready to make nice and put his acting talent back to good use. Although I've enjoyed most of his past movies, I really didn't miss him much while he was gone, particularly since he did it all to himself. Still, when I saw the previews for this movie and what it was about, it looked intriguing and I thought it had a good premise that would make for a cute, offbeat romantic comedy of sorts. I decided to see it with my 24yo daughter, which quickly became a little awkward for both of us when JP started visually fantasizing about having sex with a near full-term pregnant woman, and another chick that got off by being beaten with a dead cat during sex. Oh yeah, and let's not forget his operating system (voice by Scarlett Johannson) that pondered what @n@l sex would look like. There was also a lot of gratuitous use of explicit words and imagery that just totally didn't fit in at all with the theme of the movie, but that's the least of the issues I had with it. The list just goes on and on. Cute romantic comedy suitable for watching with the entire family??? Not so much!!! It just dumbfounds me that anybody would think those things belong in a movie such as this, or at least the way the previews/trailers projected the movie to be. It was all as out of place as it would've been in something like Sleepless In Seattle. I'm hardly a prude by any measure, but none of that stuff had any place in this movie, and some of it had no place in almost any other movie I can think of, except perhaps the documentary that Casey Affleck made when Joaquin Phoenix decided to quit acting ("I'm Still Here"). Having your "friend" cr@p into your mouth while you're sleeping fits right in with some of the stuff that was in this movie. It really makes no sense, because the middle half of the movie is exactly what you'd expect it to be... a slightly zany, offbeat romantic comedy (though with very little comedy) about a guy that falls in love with his computer and his smart phone's operating system. Aside from the wildly inappropriate content earlier on in the movie, the ending was absolutely HORRIBLE. I won't give out any spoilers of course, but it was completely as if the writers just had NO IDEA of where to go with the story and how to wind it up!!! The ending was just totally nonsensical and empty! The sort of ending where you're watching a scene and you say to yourself "Don't EVEN tell me this is the end of the movie?!?!". My advice, DEFINITELY wait until it's out on DVD/Blu-Ray and spend $1 or $2 to rent it from Redbox or watch it on Netflix. I certainly wouldn't suggest anybody spend $20-$40+ to see it in theaters, and I definitely wouldn't recommend taking any children younger than mid teens to see it solely due to those few scenes. It's really too bad, because those scenes added NOTHING to the movie, weren't funny imho, and did nothing but take a movie that should've been appropriate for almost all ages, and make it completely inappropriate for children under 13-15.

John Dies at the End (2012)

Bizarre, unusual, fairly entertaining, and worth watching

[7/10 · 15 January 2014]

If I could I'd give this a 6.5. 7 is just a little too high and 6 a little too low, but I'll round up since I think the movie is worth watching. It's pretty hard to label or define this movie, it's really pretty unusual and bizarre. It's sort of a cross between Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and Shawn of the Dead. If you liked either or both of those movies then you'll probably find this worth watching, and if you didn't then you probably won't. I won't try to explain or summarize the movie in this review, it's been done plenty of times in many different ways by others already. If you've got a couple hours to kill and just want a little mindless humor (which shockingly isn't overly crude or vulgar, unlike almost every single comedy made in the last 10+ years), then rent this and plop yourself down on the couch with a bag of popcorn.

Mr. Brooks (2007)

Not sure how I missed this before now, must be the title...

[9/10 · 15 January 2014]

I'm guessing this movie must not have done too well at the box office since I'm pretty big into movies and I never heard of it before yesterday. I can only speculate that it must have been due to the title, which hardly evokes thoughts of suspense, drama, and serial killers. It's amazing how much a title can help or hurt at the box office and with home video.

With that out of the way, I finally watched this movie today, 6 years after its release, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie is very unique, and what I really enjoyed was that the movie doesn't play out predictably, as most movies made in the last 10-20 years do. Even when it seems fairly obvious what's going to happen next, the movie throws you a curve ball. About the only thing that I was slightly disappointed about **very slight spoiler alert follows**, is that the writer/director missed a big opportunity with the daughter. They should have waited until very late in the movie to surprise us with daughter's affliction, and then should have revealed her own alter ego talking to her and coaxing her on. **end of slight spoiler alert** I would recommend this movie to anybody that likes dramatic thrillers, unless you outright hate Kevin Costner, who in my opinion does a good job in this role. Dane Cook, who I'm not super crazy about, was certainly cast in an a-typical role for him, but he does surprisingly well in it. The only actors/actresses that I really didn't care for in the movie were Demi Moore and whatever moron played her ex, which was thankfully a very small role. It seems like she's ALWAYS PO'd and angry in the very few roles I have seen her in in the last 20 years. Whether it was "Disclosure" with Michael Douglas, "GI Jane" with Ed Harris, or "Striptease" with Burt Reynolds, the common thread is she plays a tough as nails, PO'd chick with a HUGE chip on her shoulder and something to prove to the entire male species. It's very obvious that those characters come very naturally to her, and require very little acting. I feel very sorry for the men in her life because I'm sure she wears the pants in those relationships.

It's sad really, because I grew up as a teenager in the 80's and liked Moore in movies like St. Elmo's Fire, One Crazy Summer, Wisdom, Ghost, and A Few Good Men, but although she still has the body of a 30 year old, her acting career is over in my humble opinion. Fortunately for this movie, Moore's role is relatively minor, and her acting isn't bad enough to ruin anything. I just think they would have been much better served with almost any other actor or actress in that role. Perhaps the Producer or Director owed her a favor, or she did the movie for peanuts to try and get her foot back in the door in Hollywood.

Anyway, I give the movie two thumbs up and highly recommend it.

About Time (I) (2013)

Worth watching, but it wasn't as good as I expected

[6/10 · 27 November 2013]

I'd probably have to give this 6 out of 10 (I downgraded it from a 7 after further consideration). Girls will probably like this somewhat more than men, but it's not entirely a chick flick. I really enjoyed Love Actually, and I love Rachel McAdams (what guy wouldn't), so coupled with the generally very good reviews I expected to really like this.

The movie is certainly worth seeing and I'm sure some will like it more than others, but overall I just felt like it definitely didn't reach its potential, due in large part to a very poor soundtrack and musical score. I'm 43 and I like a very broad range of music, but I can only think of one song in the entire movie that I was even familiar ("Friday I'm In Love" by the Cure). Because it played early in the movie and it's a great song, and also because Love Actually had a great soundtrack, I was expecting a lot more. Everybody knows a good score and/or a good soundtrack can make or break a movie, and for me at least, this was just one of those movies where it largely broke it.

I'm guessing I wasn't alone in being somewhat disappointed by the movie, since we were literally the ONLY two people in the theater for a 10:20PM showing in a medium sized Southern California town. That's a little bit late, but certainly not so late that the theater should've been 100% empty. I think I'd have to recommend this one for a Redbox rental when it comes out in 6 months rather than overpaying to see it at the theater.

The Vow (2012)

Perfect date movie for all ages, I enjoyed it

[8/10 · 4 September 2013]

I really enjoyed this movie, more than I enjoyed The Notebook which it gets a lot of comparisons to. It's a little more of a chick flick, but not so much that most guys won't enjoy it too. Personally I liked the fact that it doesn't have a perfect, happily ever after ending, wrapped up nicely with a bow, but it still has a happy ending of sorts. The fact that it's inspired by a true story makes it that much better. Both Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum give great performances, and it has a pretty good supporting cast. As a guy I loved Rachel McAdams in it, she has an amazing smile and is incredibly sexy, in a girl-next-door sort of way. If you're looking for a good date night movie, look no further!

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

7.0 IMDb rating? Seriously?

[4/10 · 23 May 2013]

I can't believe this movie has 3 stars on the cable guide and a 7.0 rating on IMDb. This isn't normally the kind of movie I'd watch, particularly from the esoteric title and the fact that I'd never heard of it before. But, since it had 3 stars and nothing else was on, I regretfully took a leap of faith and watched it.

This is one of those slooow paced movies that compels you to keep watching, in anticipation that some important bit of information is going to be revealed in the next drawn out scene, since nothing important was revealed in the current drawn out scene or the previous one. Surely there has to be something of substance just around the corner or the movie wouldn't have such a decent rating. Unfortunately, NOTHING ever develops (until the last 60 seconds I suppose), and not very much of substance is revealed about the lead character's experiences with the cult or prior to finding herself there, other than what you'd expect from such an experience. IMO the movie just created more questions than it answered, particularly with respect to the girl's past before she wound up with the cult/abusive boyfriend. It was so vague that I assumed for most of the movie that the girl was staying with her mother and new father-in-law, and I was pretty surprised to find out it was actually her sister (that's no a spoiler btw, it's all irrelevant anyway).

I can't say too much more or be specific without spoilers (if it's even possible to spoil anything about this movie), so I'll refrain. If the movie was aiming to be a psychological suspenseful thriller about a girl who's trying to escape an abusive relationship, a la Sleeping With The Enemy, it falls pitifully short. I enjoy psychological thrillers, but this just doesn't even fall into that category. Don't even get me started about the flippin ending, which was just a sellout and beyond annoying. My suggestion for anyone who's thinking about watching this movie is to forget it and watch Sleeping With The Enemy again, or for the first time if you're lucky enough never to have seen it yet.

Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)

Garbage

[4/10 · 22 December 2012]

This movie was made for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only... to squeeze a few more dollars out of a very tired franchise, and to cash in on the ridiculous 3D craze that's been inexplicably sweeping globe. Few things annoy me more than scenes that are in a movie for the sole purpose of showing off a 3D effect, and this movie is chock full of them (a distant second to The Harold & Kumar Christmas movie however, which was shot almost entirely for the purpose of dazzling the audience with pointless 3D effects).

The movie was almost entirely devoid of a script or plot, the writing was amateurish, and the acting matched the writing. There's no emotional investment in whether a character lives or dies anymore, because at this point in the franchise characters can be resurrected and interchangeably turned into a good or bad guy, or in some cases the characters can't die at all. You don't have to worry about zombies infecting people, because now there are cures for the T-Cell virus as we saw from the previous movie, and they can simply re-infect people when they want.

If you're a die hard Res Evil fan you probably don't care about any of that and will enjoy the movie, but if, like me, you enjoyed the first movie but felt that they've just been getting worse and worse with each successive sequel, then I suggest you spend your time doing or watching almost anything else. The good news is that this short 95 minute movie is actually only 84 minutes long, with an almost record setting 11 minutes of credits. Amazing for a movie that only has about a dozen roles with any spoken lines. Probably 10 of those 11 minutes are dedicated to those responsible for the special effects and CGI. My suggestion is to skip to the last minute or so of the movie, which just sets up the next crappy sequel, since it's probably the best scene of the entire flick (and that isn't saying much).

Romeo + Juliet (1996)

One of the worst movies ever

[1/10 · 16 October 2012]

I like most of Leo's work and Claire Danes is a halfway decent actress, but this movie is just complete garbage. Not sure who's bright idea it was to do this pseudo modern day interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, but it was a horrible idea, or at least a horrible implementation. 2 teenagers running around Southern California beaches in the late 1990's while reciting Romeo and Juliet in The King's English, just does NOT work. No surprise that it got decent treatment by movie critics, it has plenty of men singing and dancing around in drag in the party scene, which looked more like your typical San Francisco party than anything else. The movie critics just eat that up with a spoon, all the while calling it avant-garde. Do yourself a favor and just re-read the book, or watch the 1968 adaptation if you want to see a movie. Or if you're a Leo fan, you could always just re-watch James Cameron's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, if you actually want to ENJOY a movie.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

This movie requires incredible suspension of disbelief

[5/10 · 1 October 2012]

The elements were largely here to produce a very nice prequel to the original "Alien", and it would've made for a nice fresh spin on a very, VERY tired series of movies. Unfortunately this wasn't actually a prequel, and the elements I'm referring to have really confused a lot of people that have seen Alien and some of the sequels, but don't necessarily live and breathe the Alien movies. Personally I really liked the tie-ins to the original Alien movie. In fact those tie-ins, coupled with some beautiful cinematography and good CGI were the only things I really DID like about this.

The characters were heavily underdeveloped, leaving viewers with no real attachment to any of them or anybody to really root for. There was VERY little suspense of the nature that made the original "Alien" movie so successful. The script was disjointed and just seemed to be thrown together from bits of ideas, almost as if the editor was just handed all of the footage and told to edit it into a movie, without having ever read the script or even conversing with the Director.

And finally, the most ridiculously irritating thing about the movie was the completely implausible actions by just about every single crew member on board the ship. I doubt that I need to rehash all of the specifics... I'm sure it's already been covered countless times in the hundreds and hundreds of reviews. Basically they all just acted like a bunch of stoned teenagers exploring some abandoned building or cave, with no respect for the fact that they were in one of the most inhospitable environments known to man and dealing with multiple unknown alien species.

As an adult, it was incredibly difficult to watch this movie in the theater. Every 30 seconds I was thinking "oh give me a break", or "yeah right, as if anybody would be that stupid". And we're talking about engineers, scientists, archaeologists, and highly trained crew members that went on a mission that was SO important to them that they were willing to leave their family and friends behind, knowing at the VERY least they wouldn't see them for several years, IF they ever made it back. It's not like these were idiots that just picked up the "Help Wanted" sign in a store window and took a 9 to 5 job, but that's definitely the way they all acted.

Perhaps teenagers and/or those with sub 50 IQ's might find this movie much more believable and enjoyable, but personally I found it very difficult to sit through. I would however say that for fans of the Alien movies it IS worth watching at least once...

The Invention of Lying (2009)

A largely unfunny comedy

[5/10 · 25 July 2012]

If you had even halfway decent writers and marginally funny actors, it's hard to imagine how you couldn't make a hilarious movie based on the concept of a world in which people cannot tell a lie, except for one person. Yet, somehow they managed to pull off the seemingly impossible in The Invention Of Lying, even with a largely comedic cast.

Yes, there are a few funny lines or moments sparsely scattered about, but as a whole the movie just is NOT very funny. Perhaps that's because in addition to the lead role, Ricky Gervais enjoys top billing for the writing, along with Matthew Robinson, and I just don't find Ricky Gervais overly funny to begin with as an actor. Stands to reason his writing wouldn't be any funnier. Personally I've never found Tina Fey or Jonah Hill very funny in anything I've seen them in either up to that point.

The much bigger problem I have with this flick though is that the central premise of the movie is completely screwed up. As it states in the trailer, the promotional materials, and in the opening credits, it's CLEARLY supposed to be a town/world in which people cannot tell a lie (except for one person), or even have the capacity to form that thought. That's a VERY different concept from a town/world in which people must spontaneously say whatever random thoughts are in their head the moment they encounter someone else, or in some cases even when nobody else is around. Doesn't matter that they haven't even been asked a question, they just blurt out whatever stupid, random (in some cases gross) thoughts are on their mind. Sounds much more like a world in which everyone has Turrets syndrome.

Sorry, it's one thing to have plot holes or goofs in a movie, it's another thing entirely when the central premise of the movie doesn't match up at all with the movie itself. It's a shame really, because there's so much room for comedy and laughs in the original premise of the movie you could drive a Mac truck through it. If you love the comedic style of Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey and Jonah Hill though, you'll probably like this movie too.

Undertow (2004)

You can pass on this without any regrets

[4/10 · 23 April 2012]

6.7 IMDb rating? Seriously? It must be getting one compulsory extra rating point for each A-List actor/actress that was in it, and half point for Kristin Stewart. This would definitely have a 4 - 4.5 rating without the cast boost. I also need to make a point of remembering the director, editor, and whoever did the score, so I can avoid their movies in the future. The movie somehow managed to keep my interest long enough to watch the whole thing, but only just barely.

And what's with the totally bizarre ending?! Flashing back and forth between the boy in the hospital bed with his grandpa (with tons of rouge on his cheeks) talking about his grandmother's cooking, to his brother standing in the hallway in a rather odd stance and holding a green balloon for some reason, to boy #1 fully dressed and wading in the ocean. Then the brother pops his balloon for no particular reason, and has no visible reaction to popping it. Fade to black. Huh??? Would've made sense if it was just the grandfather talking to the boy or boys.

Love Never Dies (II) (2012)

Starts a little rough, but definitely doesn't disappoint

[8/10 · 13 March 2012]

First let me say that the primary review on the IMDb page is pretty much spot on. I agree with everything the author said, particularly about the constant close-ups that deny you the audience's perspective and reveal flaws that the audience would otherwise never notice. I was particularly irritated by the way the cast's Mics were worn, giving the appearance that each person had a large birth defect at the peak of their forehead. I'm sure the audience couldn't even see the Mics from their seats when worn in this fashion so I understand why they did this for the live stage performances, but the camera close-ups made it particularly unpleasant (for me at least).

More importantly though, the close ups and the overhead angles provided a view that was just never meant to be seen, and I can tell it took away from the overall performance even though I've never seen it live. I'm pretty sure the rotating stage and sets would've been much more impressive from the audience perspective, rather than the top down view where you clearly saw the separation in the floor and don't get to see the sets shifting the way you should. I would've preferred the majority of the shots to be wider with an occasional close-up, so you can take in the sets and scenery not to mention the other cast members.

I consider myself a pretty big Phantom Phan, having seen POTO on tour in multiple cities over the last 15 years, and having watched the movie and listened to the soundtrack countless times. I'd already heard a little bit of the LND soundtrack, so I was a little excited but very skeptical when I sat down to watch the Blu-Ray, like most Phantom Phans would be I'm sure. IMHO the opening song and 1st Act is MUCH weaker than POTO (one of my biggest criticisms of LND), but it gets better and better with each passing minute and delivers with a 3rd Act that very much lives up to its predecessor. In the end I really enjoyed LND and I'd definitely watch it again.

Since I hadn't listened to much of the soundtrack before I watched the movie, the best part for me was not knowing how the sequel was going to play out, particularly the third act and the ending. If I'd known the whole story before I watched/listened to the Blu-Ray, I would've been hugely disappointed (so I recommend not listening to it beforehand if you haven't already). Most of the songs themselves are just OK IMHO, but aren't nearly up to par with POTO (how could they be?). There are a few diamonds in the rough however, and there are some distinct nods to some of the original POTO scores sprinkled throughout. Unlike POTO I'm fairly sure I won't find myself listening to the soundtrack very often if at all, but I'll definitely watch the live performance on Blu-Ray again.

I think people that are fans of musicals in general will like LND, but as far as Phantom Phans go I think it's safe to say the results will be mixed, just as they were with the POTO motion picture (something that I happened to like). There are a LOT of Phans that just don't want the original story and music touched, period, while there are others who have always wanted more, and in particular for the Phantom to "get the girl". The way I see it, the purists that liked the original don't have to watch the movie or LND, and there's a phenomenal Blu-Ray available from the 25th anniversary performance at Royal Albert Hall that they can watch over and over again. For those that have longed for the story to continue (or end differently perhaps), LND offers them this. I certainly wouldn't spoil LND by giving any hints about how it plays out, but I will say that it's not at all predictable and the ending definitely delivers.