Friday, July 13, 2012

Movies I've seen from June 1st to June 11th

I've been able to watch a few movies over the past couple of weeks but haven't had a chance to do my lame review type thing with them. Hey, at least I'm honest and direct to the point with my "reviews." So, on with it...

Chronicle (2012). This movie wasn't too bad. It was a little slow to begin and it didn't get much faster until almost the very end. The majority of the video was shot in the "Blair Witch" style—a character in the movie videotapes everything which essentially becomes the movie. The plot was somewhat predictable because the kid who gets picked on the most ends up not being able to be mature about his new-found powers and then all hell breaks loose.

I initially got a "Heroes" vibe from the movie with the kids getting their powers and having (trying) to stay incognito. With the previews and trailers that were shown up until the movie coming out, I expected a little more action, adventure and excitement. But instead I got more of a home video, amateur video, viewing experience...Oh, like that other movie with the alien thingy...um...Cloverfield. Yeah, lame like that. One of the few exciting parts was when the guys figured out how to fly. How cool would it be to do that? The way it was portrayed with the guys' excitement and all was very good.

Final verdict: Watch it if you have to but I wouldn't seek it out. It's a forgettable movie.

The Grey (2012). I don't know why but I've always liked Liam Neeson. Luckily, most of his movies have been decent and watchable. This was no different but it wasn't one of his best.

I've come to realize that Liam Neeson is a master of all things in many of his movies. In The Phantom Menace, he was a Jedi Master skilled in "hocus pocus." In Taken, he was a master in finding people, places and things when there is nothing more than a dust mite for a clue. In Unknown, he was a Billy Badass spy without a memory of that but was able to still find out who he really was (later) with nothing more than a dust mite for a clue.

In The Grey, Liam Neeson is a master of wolves. He knows their types and their habits and he kills them to protect those that work for the rich oil companies in the most barren places. The plane all these workers are on crashes in frozen Hell somewhere and it becomes a fight for survival against the elements but especially the overly intelligent wolves. I mean I know wolves or pack animals in general are pretty smart but these wolves were on steroids!

Anyway, the movie played out fairly well and one by one the survivors are killed. Throughout the movie though, it is mentioned that they are either hungry or feel threatened and that's why they are as vicious as they are. Well, the aren't really eating all the victims because when they attack one, they are ready to attack another instead of eating the first one. So, I guess this should lead to that fact they feel threatened and aren't hungry even though they are in the MIDDLE OF FUCKING NOWHERE BUT SNOW land.

The movie didn't really have a definitive ending. Liam's character is obviously the only one still alive and he decides to take a stand with broken bottles taped to his hands like brass knuckles. Yes, boy and girls, it the freezing depths of -40 below, electrical tape still adheres! The movie ends without knowing what really happened but there is an assumption that he died but not without taking a few of the wolfy bastards with him.

Final verdict: The movie was interesting enough. Almost thought it might become like Alive and a character actually mentioned this movie, but it was it's own storyline. It was overly or consistently exciting, some parts predictable and expected, but it also was dragged out too badly. I would say this is a pass unless you just want to quell your curiosity about how the movie is for yourself. If that's the case, borrow it from a friend or wait for it to be on Netflix so it'll fall under your already paid monthly fee.

The Woman in Black (2012). This movie was quite slow. It had its moments but overall it dragged. The storyline has been done before, if not exactly the same very similarly. It was interesting to see Daniel Radcliffe in something other than Harry Potter but I found myself expecting the other characters in the movie to call him "Harry" in the British accent. On more than one occasion my youngest and I were waiting for him to say, "Expelliarmus," "Lumos" or "Wingardium Leviosa."

The rating for this movie is PG-13 but I think I've seen worse in the Harry Potter movies or even in some made-for-TV SyFy channel flicks.

The movie is dark in filming and in nature. I think it depended too much on the lighting and the eerie music and just general shit like that. I think I imagine it as more of a book than a movie. I'd probably like the descriptive writing of the scenes in a book versus seeing it poorly done in the movie.

Final verdict: Wait until next time when "Harry" tries to depart from what he is known for because this isn't going to change that.

Against the Dark (2008). Curiosity got the better of me on this one. This kept popping up in my Netflix "recommendations." I guess the system has picked up on the fact that I watch random shit...and sometimes the movies are literally just that...SHIT! So, I took a stab in the "dark." Ha! See what I just did there?

Anyway, this is typical Steven Seagal fodder. I just realized his last name is sea gal. Is that some kind of mermaid or something? Oops! Back on focus. This is better than some of his latest but it still was bad! Seagal is part of a elite "cleaning crew"—when the government fucks up they go in and clean it up. What's funny is this elite team has two pretty hot chicks in 6-inch stilettos and Matrix-style clothing, two fairly hulking guys in cut-off shirts and then Seagal in typical Seagal regalia...black shirt, pants, boots and trench-type coat walking around with just a Samurai sword draped over his arm or shoulder.

Seagal and his team are sent to eliminate vampire-types from a quarantined area and only have so long to do it as well as find non-contaminated survivors. Everyone in Seagal's team is eventually eliminated (except for one guy, I think but can't remember for sure). I think the area was bombed and contamination spread was averted.

Final verdict: Like always and before, let me waste the 90-120 minutes of my life watching this so you don't have to. You can watch any Barney & Friends episode and get more entertainment and enjoyment out of it than watching this movie!

The Art of War III: Retribution (2009). This is a sad, sad follow-up to The Art of War I & II. I mean "II" was a downgrade from "I" but this is leaps and strides way worse. If I dare, and I do dare, this is on par with "Against the Dark."

The fighting, if you can call it that, was just horrible. I think I've seen worse fighting in cheesy 80s movies. This was made in 2009! I can't believe the amount of SHIT movies they produce even if it may be straight to DVD. I'd hire the salesman that pitched this movie to investors. He probably sold them some ocean front property in Arizona as well.

This movie was so freaking awesome that I can't remember a single scene. I remember the fight scenes were lame but I just don't remember what they were or any other scenes of the movie.

Final verdict: If the only thing you know about this movie is that I wrote up a half-assed 'review' of it, keep it that way.

The Air I Breathe (2008). This is one of those multiple characters, multiple stories and how they intertwine with and affect each other without knowing it. I didn't know what to expect with this movie but I figured it couldn't be too bad since it had some fairly well-known actors in it like Kevin Bacon, Brendan Fraser, Andy Garcia, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Forest Whitaker, and Kelly Hu. But sometimes that's not enough.

I would say that it was a decent movie. It wasn't overwhelming but it also wasn't underwhelming. It kept my attention but at times just barely. Just like many other movies that weave many stories into one, it did do a good job at that.

Final verdict: It had its moments. It wasn't consistently fast-paced nor did it drag. It had a decent interwoven storyline and might prove very interesting to others than me. I watched it in two sittings but that's just because I started watching it at work and then a day or so passed before I remembered that I was watching it and needed to complete it.

Blood & Chocolate (2007). The synopsis of this movie and falling under "horror" on Netflix made me think this would be a good (or okay) movie to watch. I was wrong. I thought that being a paranormal-type movie about wolves that it would at least have some female nudity but I was gravely mistaken! I felt like I was watching a made-for-tv Disney or Nickelodeon movie.

The acting was sub-par and the filming was just as bad. I gave this movie more chances than I typically do and it never came to change my disappointment. The graphics were terrible and did I mention that the acting was absolutely horrible?

Final verdict: Read the Twilight books or watch the Twilight movies. Hell, even watch the movie called Wolfen from the 80s and it is still better than this movie. So don't bother even taking a second glance at this movie.

Shark Night (2011). Still on my hunt for an interesting action "horror" movie, I ran across this little dingleberry on the anus of shit films!

I came to find out later when I looked for the movie link on IMDB that this was actually in "3D". Oh no, this movie was even greater shit than it was before!

I thought there were scenes that looked like they were meant for 3D but I didn't pay much attention to the movie title or description. What I thought was this: College kids going away for fun: TITS are sure to be flashed. College kids going to a lake house: hot chicks in bikinis and TITS are sure to be flashed. College kids swimming in the lake with girls in bikinis: TITS are sure to be flashed.

What actually came to pass? I was thoroughly disappointed because the closest we got to TITS being flashed were a little side boob and tits covered in bikini tops.

What's my philosophy? You can make a shitty movie a 1/2 to 1 star better if you show some gratuitous hot chick tits and ass. Therefore this movie completely failed all the way around.

This movie had a couple of recognizable actors, the male and femal leads, but I don't exactly recall what movies they played in. I'd have to IMDB them. I just do remember them in another movie or two. The acting and graphics were horrible. Again, not the CGI you'd expect from a 2011 movie. The sharks were way to intelligent for being just sharks that were released into a salt water lake without being some sort of laboratory experiment or such. There was this one part where the shark was following a guy on a waverunner that was hawling some serious ass. And I know they say sharks can swim fast but this guy was hauling and the shark was swimming with big side-to-side motions instead of more linear direction. All of a sudden the shark jumps out of the water in front of the guy, still hauling ass, and latches on him from head to about waist and goes back into the water with his catch. So, first of all the shark just ate a rider that was on the back of the waverunner, then it was smart enough to time it's jump perfectly to nail the driver without hitting anything else and the shark is big enough to deep throat the victim from his head to the waist. That's just total bullshit even for a movie.

I could go on but I digress.

Final verdict: Even if I had 3D glasses all I would have felt was the shitty movie splattering on my face. I've surely seen worse but this movie was a waste of time, money and film.

Dirty Deeds (2005). I went into this movie thinking it was along the lines of "Not Another Teen Movie"—I guess because they both have Lacey Chabert in them—or "The Rules of Attraction." I guess you could say it sort of follows along those cheesy-type teen high school movies.

It also has Milo Ventriloquist...it's funny how I can't spell his last name but I can spell "ventriloquist," huh? Anyway, this guy has always reminded me of a teenage/very young adult Sylvester Stallone. I guess they sort of had the same facial stroke or something. I don't know. Milo just reminds me a lot of Sylvester.

Back to the movie: I think this could have been a much better movie with some better writing...and maybe better acting. It wasn't horrible. It just didn't continuously grab my attention and make me WANT to continue to watch it. But I did anyway because I hate to not complete viewing the movie usually not matter how bad it is. It's very rare for me to quit watching one but it has happened. Anyway, it had some occasional funny parts along with some lulls. Just nothing overwhelmingly funny and interesting. I guess it could be more likened to the movie The Hollywood Knights but not as good even though it is a more recently made movie.

Final verdict: If you find yourself very, very bored or at someone's house who is already watching it, you might sit and watch it for a spell. Hopefully, it will be during the "good" parts of the movie. Otherwise, watch and episode of The Wiggles and you'll get a bit more entertainment value.

The Clinic (2010). This movie sort of intrigued me from the picture and movie description. Plus I was looking for some good/decent horror/suspense movie. This wasn't it. It also had Andy Whitfield in it and I wanted to see how he acted in something besides Spartacus.

It had some suspense but it wasn't really horror in my definition of the word. I'm thinking scary horror like zombies, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, etc. This was not quite there.

The concept of the film was interesting. It just wasn't executed very well. The movie dealt with pregnant women who were near term, were abducted , the babies were birthed via c-section, and then the ladies were left in tubs of ice to "heal" until they regained consciousness. I have experience with a woman after c-section and these women would not be able to do what they did immediately after "surgery." Yes, yes, I know it's a movie but some things should be kept "real" or as near to it as possible. These women were using their stomach muscles to sit up, roll over, sprint, jump...sounds like dog tricks, huh?

Basically, the women were removed of their offspring to see which of them would survive the attempts of the others and their own to find their child. They basically had to cut open the c-sections to find little colored tags that would match the tag of their baby because none of them have seen their baby and that's the only way to tell which one is theirs. There is some more plot info that I won't spoil because I know you're going to run out and rent it now.

Again, it's a novel concept. It just wasn't done well. It did show some nice boobies of the "main" female character which would add half a star to my rating.

Final verdict: You can pass. I wasn't impressed with this movie at all. It was pretty predictable up until the end when you find out why these women were kidnapped and their babies taken. I didn't expect that plot line but it isn't worth watching the entire movie.

Night Junkies (2007). This was another one of those I came across in my search for an enjoyable horror movie. It too was not it! In fact, I would pick watching The Clinic again versus watching this one the first time.

The acting was horrendous and no amount of tits and ass could have saved it. I don't know what the recent "trend" is for movies to be shot in a "Blair-Witch-home-video-camcorder" style but I don't think these people understand that this doesn't make the movie. This may make the movie seem a little more interesting if the movie is good and interesting itself. Otherwise, it just makes a shitty movie even more shitty and the grainy video becomes very distracting and irritating.

Final verdict: You would be wasting your time if you stopped to read the synopsis of this movie in Netflix or anywhere for that matter. I think the makers tried to ride on the whole Twilight vampire thing and they failed miserably!

More and more I'm beginning to wonder why Netflix is all the hype when they have a catalog of some of the worst movies ever made. I'm sure the ratio of bad to "good" movies on Netflix is like 2000 to 1. Good thing it's costing me under $10 because I would not continue with this mediocre catalog. That being said, they have had some recent additions that are good movies, in my opinion. However, I've already seen them via my Blockbuster Total Access Plan. Anyway...

No comments: