Joe Kenda is an amazing narrator. Very well done series in general as the re-enactments really place you in the moment. It has a modern feel with a twinge of nostalgia while Kenda provides a presence similar to what Humphrey Bogart is in Maltese Falcon or even Nick Charles from The Thin Man. I know the 9th season is its last but I hope one day Kenda will reconsider. Even if they are "simple" cases, it is not the content that intrigues, it is the man himself. That is a rare feat in today's surge of true-crime series popping up.
Reviews
29 Reviews
Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman
(1993–1998)
Let's be honest here...
3 November 2018
Taking off the nostalgic blinders from my childhood, I realized that Jessica Bowman completely changed the character. With Flores, Colleen had a presence and rather strong, stubborn personality. She whined of course like any pre-teen but she was able to shrug things off quickly. Bowman disappears; her take on the characters perpetually kept Colleen at a rather childish level - pouting, complaining, fearful, shy, and for some reason can't find a properly fitting jacket. Aesthetically, Bowman's Colleen resembled more of an actual blood relative of Dr. Mike's and acted accordingly. It just felt weird to see this once tough blossoming teenage girl with dreams and aspirations and who once cross trekked on a cattle drive, be turned into a simpering spoilt child.
Of course, the show is flawed in other areas but their flaws are also what makes them so relatable. Still a great show with surprisingly modern storylines but watching Colleen's complete 180 just flat out stinks. .
Of course, the show is flawed in other areas but their flaws are also what makes them so relatable. Still a great show with surprisingly modern storylines but watching Colleen's complete 180 just flat out stinks. .
The Open House
(2018)
Basic with a splash of uniqueness
27 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
At first, it's like the screenwriter forgot to answer to vital questions to complete the story: who and why, making it extremely frustrating to watch. Ironic since those answers usually nullify the terror and suspense that proceed the final act. Instead, it leaves us with far more questions than answers, an unusual approach to this genre. The best things about this one is its scenery and its acting - both above average for this kind of movie. But the lack of answers - ANY AT ALL - takes away from that. We get dropped into the middle of someone else's story but know nothing about them or their motives - an interesting concept. And when you get over that initial viewing, it's quite unnerving to think about going through what the family does. It's actually quite realistic in that way, a way most horror/suspense films can't touch. The twist in this one is that tragically, like most victims in real life, sometimes we just don't get the closure we want.
Unfortunately, there's just something about it that fails to satisfy. The acting is on par - nothing Oscar worthy of course but solid; the cinematography is solid but the natural setting more than holds it own. Yet there's something missing in its entirety. There are no answers, and I was okay with that after a few moments of me being really angry at whoever thought this was a good idea; the second act is where it falls into the Stupid Trap, where the cops are called and they stupidly think nothing's happened and everything goes just as you suspect. Perhaps that is where the movie loses its charm. The ending stands out - how well its received depends entirely on the viewer - but is again nullified by the typical genres go-to for everything: dumb down the characters inexplicably despite their previous actions.
Overall, there are way better movies that accomplish all of this and more without a Netflix budget.
Unfortunately, there's just something about it that fails to satisfy. The acting is on par - nothing Oscar worthy of course but solid; the cinematography is solid but the natural setting more than holds it own. Yet there's something missing in its entirety. There are no answers, and I was okay with that after a few moments of me being really angry at whoever thought this was a good idea; the second act is where it falls into the Stupid Trap, where the cops are called and they stupidly think nothing's happened and everything goes just as you suspect. Perhaps that is where the movie loses its charm. The ending stands out - how well its received depends entirely on the viewer - but is again nullified by the typical genres go-to for everything: dumb down the characters inexplicably despite their previous actions.
Overall, there are way better movies that accomplish all of this and more without a Netflix budget.
Penny Dreadful
(2014–2016)
An odd duck, this one.
12 May 2014
The pilot episode was a typical getting-to-know-you episode where it introduces most of the characters and some intriguing aspects. At first, I was like, "Oh gods above not another vampire show" - boy, was I wrong. By the end of the second episode, I was totally hooked by Eva Green's performance alone. Just stunning work by her in the séance scene. Totally blew me away.
Don't judge a show by it's pilot. Otherwise there would be none at all.
This show is definitely not your average telling of famous stories (vampires, Dorian Gray) as it takes the most gruesome aspects of those tales and incorporates them in whatever manner suits the storyline; Penny Dreadful does not shy away from the taboo, something that has been plaguing certain stories such as Frankenstein and Dorian Gray. This show loves the grotesque and downright sinister nature of storytelling and can depend on its actors to do the job right.
I am highly intrigued by what's to come. It's gritty, filthy, and utterly captivating. I can't see love triangles or any soap opera clichés on the horizon and that makes me optimistic.
Don't judge a show by it's pilot. Otherwise there would be none at all.
This show is definitely not your average telling of famous stories (vampires, Dorian Gray) as it takes the most gruesome aspects of those tales and incorporates them in whatever manner suits the storyline; Penny Dreadful does not shy away from the taboo, something that has been plaguing certain stories such as Frankenstein and Dorian Gray. This show loves the grotesque and downright sinister nature of storytelling and can depend on its actors to do the job right.
I am highly intrigued by what's to come. It's gritty, filthy, and utterly captivating. I can't see love triangles or any soap opera clichés on the horizon and that makes me optimistic.
Great finish to the season!
20 July 2013
Grimm is one of my favorite shows because it has such a dark twist to the fairy tales. Season 1 was all about finding out Nick's abilities and going through the complicated world of wesen for the first time. I really felt like season 2 - the latter half especially - really delved deeper into the mythology and how it affects the characters. By the end of the season, it's almost a completely different show in comparison to the first season (in a good way). It wasn't perfect but it was extremely engaging in multiple ways.
Here's what I hated: Juliette. Such a boring character even with the memory loss. It's almost like the writers tried to force her likability on viewers by making her seem sympathetic. But Bitsie is relatively wooden actress; a sharp contrast to her coworkers. Rosalee and Monroe are a great couple to watch for all sorts of reasons but mostly because they have natural chemistry - something Bitsie and David lack. Her memory loss just amplified the flaws of this character and showed just how unneeded she actually is.
Here's what I loved:
Everyone is in the loop now. The first half of the season was rather boring in comparison to the second half. Hank being included was bound to happen and in fact, it gives the show a little more humor since he is neither wesen nor a Grimm yet aware of both. Now that everyone knows Renard is who he is, it brings everyone together and having such different personalities in the same room gives viewers some great moments.
Nick has really grown as a Grimm and he relies heavily on his mismatched friends. Though 'Muse' was not my favorite episode, it gave a great insight into how well balanced the group actually is.
Rosalee/Monroe. Gah! This couple is so adorable I could watch their scenes all day.
Overall, it was a great second season that was carried mostly by the action and revelations in the second half. I can't wait till season 3!!!!
Here's what I hated: Juliette. Such a boring character even with the memory loss. It's almost like the writers tried to force her likability on viewers by making her seem sympathetic. But Bitsie is relatively wooden actress; a sharp contrast to her coworkers. Rosalee and Monroe are a great couple to watch for all sorts of reasons but mostly because they have natural chemistry - something Bitsie and David lack. Her memory loss just amplified the flaws of this character and showed just how unneeded she actually is.
Here's what I loved:
Everyone is in the loop now. The first half of the season was rather boring in comparison to the second half. Hank being included was bound to happen and in fact, it gives the show a little more humor since he is neither wesen nor a Grimm yet aware of both. Now that everyone knows Renard is who he is, it brings everyone together and having such different personalities in the same room gives viewers some great moments.
Nick has really grown as a Grimm and he relies heavily on his mismatched friends. Though 'Muse' was not my favorite episode, it gave a great insight into how well balanced the group actually is.
Rosalee/Monroe. Gah! This couple is so adorable I could watch their scenes all day.
Overall, it was a great second season that was carried mostly by the action and revelations in the second half. I can't wait till season 3!!!!
Who wants to be Bella when you can be Gretel?
10 June 2013
Is this movie Avengers quality? No. But it's not nearly as bad as people think. It's corny yes but in a good way. It's surprisingly violent and the fight scenes are really good. It doesn't take itself too seriously and I'm pretty sure that's what throws the majority people off. It's not meant to be an Oscar contender or even a summer blockbuster movie; it's a fun parody of an old tale.
Gemma Arterton and Jeremy Renner are pretty great to watch too as they get their butts kicked all over the place, which I really appreciate as most leads only get a few hits and then appear completely fine the next shot. Not so here. When Gretel gets beat, she gets hit hard and bears the wounds for several scenes.
So if you want to watch something fun and bloody, this is a great movie to just sit down and have a good time with.
Gemma Arterton and Jeremy Renner are pretty great to watch too as they get their butts kicked all over the place, which I really appreciate as most leads only get a few hits and then appear completely fine the next shot. Not so here. When Gretel gets beat, she gets hit hard and bears the wounds for several scenes.
So if you want to watch something fun and bloody, this is a great movie to just sit down and have a good time with.
Nothing will ever be the same
6 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had read the books so I knew what was coming. But I was still flabbergasted by the visceral images as the Red Wedding took place. The whole episode was teeming with suspense and you could feel the tension whether you had read the books or not. I can only imagine how it felt for people who hadn't picked up the subtle foreshadowing of previous episodes. It was spooky how chilling everything came together. But this episode had several more important things happening other than the RW: Jon and the wildlings (which I found boring even in the books) kicks up a notch; Bran experiences some seriously weird stuff that is extremely important to not just his story arc but the entire series. Dany's scenes were typical of her standing around letting the men do the fighting but Jorah is officially friendzoned for life.
Though it is tempting, don't skip over Bran or Jon's parts just to get to the end. The payoff of waiting is worth it and you get some character and plot development as well. But Rains of Castamere will go down as one of the most shocking episodes of any TV series ever. This proves that no other show can even touch this series. I can't find one thing wrong with it.
Though it is tempting, don't skip over Bran or Jon's parts just to get to the end. The payoff of waiting is worth it and you get some character and plot development as well. But Rains of Castamere will go down as one of the most shocking episodes of any TV series ever. This proves that no other show can even touch this series. I can't find one thing wrong with it.
The Family Stone
(2005)
Worst Holiday Movie I've Ever Seen
25 December 2012
Holiday movies are supposed to make you feel good. That is basically their only job. From classics such as Miracle on 34th Street, It's a Wonderful Life, and A Christmas Story to newer stories like Love, Actually, Elf, The Santa Clause etc., - they all have several common factors:
At first glance, this movie would seem like a gold mine. The casting is some of the most talented actors in Hollywood. But it isn't. In fact, it's downright horrible. None of the common factors that I said above are present in this movie. There is not ONE. SINGLE. Likable. CHARACTER. Yes, we all relatives that are embarrassing but I guarantee you that if a family acted that way, no one would bring their partner home.
The pacing of the movie was terrible. One moment one couple is in love and the next they're in love with each other's siblings. There are simply too many unlikeable characters in one place all bumping into each other with nothing worthy to show for it. The Stone family is also one of the most hateful families I've ever seen on screen. They are downright cruel to Meredith (Parker) from the start and are relentless in their pursuit to tear her down. They are akin to a pride of lionesses hunting down their prey. It's terrible to watch.
Um, excuse me, what part of this movie is supposed to fill me with holiday cheer? Or any kind of cheer for that matter? I never laughed at any time and the only note worthy scene is the dinner table. Many people have said that this movie was written by uptight republican conservatives. Have they not seen the cast? 9 out 10 of them are known for their liberal views. But I'm just as lost as anyone as to why any of these actors would want to be in this god awful movie.
The only reason I'm even giving this one star is because of Elisabeth Reaser of whom I am a major fan. Do yourself a favor and avoid this at all cost. It will not only kill your holiday spirit, but I'm pretty sure even Scrooge would be embarrassed that he pales in comparison to the Stone family.
- Love: whether it be friendship, family, or another kind.
- Feeling: They never take themselves too seriously. Whether the plots range from various interacting story lines, a man recounting his adventures as a child, or just a silly notion about an overgrown elf; none of these take themselves too seriously. They know exactly what they are - holiday movies that make the audience feel good.
- Characters: The characters must be likable! What is the point if the audience has no one to root for?
At first glance, this movie would seem like a gold mine. The casting is some of the most talented actors in Hollywood. But it isn't. In fact, it's downright horrible. None of the common factors that I said above are present in this movie. There is not ONE. SINGLE. Likable. CHARACTER. Yes, we all relatives that are embarrassing but I guarantee you that if a family acted that way, no one would bring their partner home.
The pacing of the movie was terrible. One moment one couple is in love and the next they're in love with each other's siblings. There are simply too many unlikeable characters in one place all bumping into each other with nothing worthy to show for it. The Stone family is also one of the most hateful families I've ever seen on screen. They are downright cruel to Meredith (Parker) from the start and are relentless in their pursuit to tear her down. They are akin to a pride of lionesses hunting down their prey. It's terrible to watch.
Um, excuse me, what part of this movie is supposed to fill me with holiday cheer? Or any kind of cheer for that matter? I never laughed at any time and the only note worthy scene is the dinner table. Many people have said that this movie was written by uptight republican conservatives. Have they not seen the cast? 9 out 10 of them are known for their liberal views. But I'm just as lost as anyone as to why any of these actors would want to be in this god awful movie.
The only reason I'm even giving this one star is because of Elisabeth Reaser of whom I am a major fan. Do yourself a favor and avoid this at all cost. It will not only kill your holiday spirit, but I'm pretty sure even Scrooge would be embarrassed that he pales in comparison to the Stone family.
The Watch
(I) (2012)
Don't take it seriously
18 November 2012
Like most comedies starring Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller and/or any of the Frat Pack, people are going to complain that this was gross, unfunny, ridiculous, etc.
But they clearly expect too much from these guys. If you go into this movie thinking that you'll fall on the floor laughing then yes, you will disappointed. But I expected nothing and I laughed my butt off. It's a silly movie with a silly plot and it knows this.
If you don't like Vince Vaughn or Ben Stiller, then don't see it. It's that simple. If you do like them, give it a try. I'll definitely watch it again because it was entertaining in the most over the top way.
But they clearly expect too much from these guys. If you go into this movie thinking that you'll fall on the floor laughing then yes, you will disappointed. But I expected nothing and I laughed my butt off. It's a silly movie with a silly plot and it knows this.
If you don't like Vince Vaughn or Ben Stiller, then don't see it. It's that simple. If you do like them, give it a try. I'll definitely watch it again because it was entertaining in the most over the top way.
Copper
(2012–2013)
Not like anything else
21 August 2012
When I first saw the trailer for Copper, I figured it would be like a continuation of 'Gangs of New York.' How wrong I was. Though the setting of Copper mimics that of 'Gangs,' it goes further beyond into the seedy underbelly of the Five Points. It focuses not on revenge or the Civil War, but rather what problems plagued the detectives that tried to keep order in a lawless town.
On its own, Copper is a unique perspective on how justice was done in America. Essentially, the show is about Kevin Corcoran, a detective in the Five Points who stops at nothing to get his man, even the ones that think they are above the law. He relies heavily on his partner, Francis Maguire, during the inevitable trouble that follows them wherever they go. Kevin also invokes the help of a black doctor, Matthew Freeman, whose brilliant mind helps the detectives identify certain characteristics of victims that will lead to the killer. But their relationship is tricky due to the fresh wounds that are present from a recovering nation after the Civil War.
This show is not at all shy or subtle in its approach as to how things were back then. From the issues of race, class, peer pressure, and the common practice of child prostitution, nothing is left untouched by Copper. This show is certainly not afraid of offending people and you know what? That's what makes it so good to watch.
Tom Weston-Jones commands the screen from the first glance and refuses to let go as we are introduced to more characters. He gives an air of mystery and respectability to his role as Kevin Corcoran. He and his co-stars are able to carry the load of heavy scenes that might otherwise make viewers uncomfortable in an understated way. The fact that the bulk of them are complete unknowns (at least in America) allows the audience to watch without any preconceived notions about what to expect.
Overall, I really liked the pilot. It has serious potential as it was able to balance a certain number of characters with intertwining story lines that make sense. It would be easy for the writers to back away from the uncomfortable situations that the characters get into, but I hope they don't. The raw talk and bold themes are what make this show unique.
On its own, Copper is a unique perspective on how justice was done in America. Essentially, the show is about Kevin Corcoran, a detective in the Five Points who stops at nothing to get his man, even the ones that think they are above the law. He relies heavily on his partner, Francis Maguire, during the inevitable trouble that follows them wherever they go. Kevin also invokes the help of a black doctor, Matthew Freeman, whose brilliant mind helps the detectives identify certain characteristics of victims that will lead to the killer. But their relationship is tricky due to the fresh wounds that are present from a recovering nation after the Civil War.
This show is not at all shy or subtle in its approach as to how things were back then. From the issues of race, class, peer pressure, and the common practice of child prostitution, nothing is left untouched by Copper. This show is certainly not afraid of offending people and you know what? That's what makes it so good to watch.
Tom Weston-Jones commands the screen from the first glance and refuses to let go as we are introduced to more characters. He gives an air of mystery and respectability to his role as Kevin Corcoran. He and his co-stars are able to carry the load of heavy scenes that might otherwise make viewers uncomfortable in an understated way. The fact that the bulk of them are complete unknowns (at least in America) allows the audience to watch without any preconceived notions about what to expect.
Overall, I really liked the pilot. It has serious potential as it was able to balance a certain number of characters with intertwining story lines that make sense. It would be easy for the writers to back away from the uncomfortable situations that the characters get into, but I hope they don't. The raw talk and bold themes are what make this show unique.
Wrath of the Titans
(2012)
Wow. Just...Wow
27 June 2012
This was really bad. I didn't want it to be because I enjoyed Clash of the Titans and thought the sequel, though unneeded, could be interesting.
This was a pretty weak movie. The editing is pretty horrible as it jumps from one scene with one group of characters with no segue and then jumps back in only to show us that they are somewhere else in their conversation (or in some cases, another place). The dialogue was horrendous and full of every cliché word in the book. The action scenes were short and oddly placed.
The worst part was Andromeda. In my opinion, Andromeda served her purpose in the first movie. To bring her back as a warrior princess who yells commands was embarrassing to watch. I couldn't take Rosamund Pike seriously in the role as she tried too hard to be both tough as a leader but soft enough to be Perseus's love interest - something Gemma Arteton did effortlessly as Io.
All in all, it was a typical sequel that tried to outdo the first (which was a remake to boot) and failed. It goes in the category of: forgotten sequels.
Not even Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes could save it. In fact, their story lines were the most confusing to me. The writers copped out of a real ending and a potentially great film by overdoing every single thing.
This was a pretty weak movie. The editing is pretty horrible as it jumps from one scene with one group of characters with no segue and then jumps back in only to show us that they are somewhere else in their conversation (or in some cases, another place). The dialogue was horrendous and full of every cliché word in the book. The action scenes were short and oddly placed.
The worst part was Andromeda. In my opinion, Andromeda served her purpose in the first movie. To bring her back as a warrior princess who yells commands was embarrassing to watch. I couldn't take Rosamund Pike seriously in the role as she tried too hard to be both tough as a leader but soft enough to be Perseus's love interest - something Gemma Arteton did effortlessly as Io.
All in all, it was a typical sequel that tried to outdo the first (which was a remake to boot) and failed. It goes in the category of: forgotten sequels.
Not even Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes could save it. In fact, their story lines were the most confusing to me. The writers copped out of a real ending and a potentially great film by overdoing every single thing.
Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files
(2010–2012)
So bad it's good
17 April 2012
The first five episodes of this show were really credible. They took one of the most interesting youtube videos (the car through the fence) and debunked it. But then, something happened after those five episodes.
The cases that are presented in the "Headquarters" portion are usually pretty good, but they always end up going for the most obvious cases. I think, for most fans, it was the obvious case of the CGI'd alien case where even a three year old could tell it was faked yet they spent half an episode trying to debunk it. Some of the cases are actually interesting, but the so called "experts" don't really show off their skills. Instead, it sounds like they repeating what real experts would say. And what exactly is Jael's job besides standing there looking pretty? This is a legitimate question. Austin is a "stuntmen", the other girl is a photographer as well as a former model, Devin is a "special effects expert" (something that fails to impress after the CGI alien),Ben is a former "FBI agent" (insert eye roll here) and Bill is a "scientist." Now, none of these people actually use their so called "expertise" but at least they have one next to their name.
Despite having a strong beginning of credible videos, the show has turned into a parody. Regardless of that fact, the show is silly and shouldn't be taken seriously so I still tune in. It's a guilty pleasure of mine and I'm only slightly embarrassed about that.
The cases that are presented in the "Headquarters" portion are usually pretty good, but they always end up going for the most obvious cases. I think, for most fans, it was the obvious case of the CGI'd alien case where even a three year old could tell it was faked yet they spent half an episode trying to debunk it. Some of the cases are actually interesting, but the so called "experts" don't really show off their skills. Instead, it sounds like they repeating what real experts would say. And what exactly is Jael's job besides standing there looking pretty? This is a legitimate question. Austin is a "stuntmen", the other girl is a photographer as well as a former model, Devin is a "special effects expert" (something that fails to impress after the CGI alien),Ben is a former "FBI agent" (insert eye roll here) and Bill is a "scientist." Now, none of these people actually use their so called "expertise" but at least they have one next to their name.
Despite having a strong beginning of credible videos, the show has turned into a parody. Regardless of that fact, the show is silly and shouldn't be taken seriously so I still tune in. It's a guilty pleasure of mine and I'm only slightly embarrassed about that.
Love Actually
(2003)
The only film that does it right
22 March 2012
I really, really hate large ensemble cast movies with intertwining story lines. The reason for this is because the characters in that kind of movie are usually one dimensional with one dimensional problems - and of course they're all beautiful and things are always alright at the end with the cheesy lines and bad chemistry. I can't bring myself to care about the characters because 1) I hate the actors in it or 2) the plot/story lines/acting/dialogue is god awful that it makes me want to hurl. In fact, romance is just not my area.
Love Actually is the only one of these kinds of movies that does it right. And does it very well. Somehow, the writers for this film found the perfect balance of the most amazing cast ever assembled and the the satirical trait that lurks in the background. Love Actually is light hearted with some heavy moments in it but it never takes itself too seriously. It has people making up, breaking up, coming, going, cheating, loving, and everything else that should utterly confuse the viewer. With other movies, things take too long or are too slow; the writers fixated on couple/actor A because they're more famous than couple/actor B.
Not so with Love Actually. Even if one gets more screen time than another, they make up for it in quality. There's a delicate balance between real situations that couples go through versus events that are just so not (*cough* Natalie and the Prime Minister *cough*). However, that's where the casting comes into play. Each actor portrays their character with just the right amount of sarcasm, mystery, or love that it needs so that even the silly story of Natalie and the Prime Minister seem plausible.
Sure the cast is great looking, but you don't notice really because you're so swept up in the magic of the dialogue, which is charming (then again, Brits did make this so I guess that's to be expected) and lighthearted.
This film separates itself simply because it's better than anything like America's put out in this genre. And yes, I am American.
For some reason, Love Actually struck a chord with audiences that won't go away, nor would we want it to. Almost ten years later and people still love this film. It's the only chick flick/holiday film I look forward to watching each and every time.
Love Actually is the only one of these kinds of movies that does it right. And does it very well. Somehow, the writers for this film found the perfect balance of the most amazing cast ever assembled and the the satirical trait that lurks in the background. Love Actually is light hearted with some heavy moments in it but it never takes itself too seriously. It has people making up, breaking up, coming, going, cheating, loving, and everything else that should utterly confuse the viewer. With other movies, things take too long or are too slow; the writers fixated on couple/actor A because they're more famous than couple/actor B.
Not so with Love Actually. Even if one gets more screen time than another, they make up for it in quality. There's a delicate balance between real situations that couples go through versus events that are just so not (*cough* Natalie and the Prime Minister *cough*). However, that's where the casting comes into play. Each actor portrays their character with just the right amount of sarcasm, mystery, or love that it needs so that even the silly story of Natalie and the Prime Minister seem plausible.
Sure the cast is great looking, but you don't notice really because you're so swept up in the magic of the dialogue, which is charming (then again, Brits did make this so I guess that's to be expected) and lighthearted.
This film separates itself simply because it's better than anything like America's put out in this genre. And yes, I am American.
For some reason, Love Actually struck a chord with audiences that won't go away, nor would we want it to. Almost ten years later and people still love this film. It's the only chick flick/holiday film I look forward to watching each and every time.
Alcatraz
(2012)
No spark
20 February 2012
This show is about a group of inmates and guards who disappeared from Alcatraz without a trace in the 60's. After a government cover-up, everyone believes that Alcatraz simply closed and the inmates transferred. Of course, that's not actually what happened. One by one the inmates have started to return and continue their killing ways. It is then left to an "elite" group of terrible characters to round them up.
The first thing I noticed about this show after numerous episodes is that there is no spark to it. The only thing interesting is the Alcatraz aspect and that's it.
The casting is good with Jorge Garcia and Sam Neill, but their characters are one dimensional. Neill's character is a flat, second rate knockoff of an "anti hero." He's in charge of the operation and as we learned, has a personal connection with Alcatraz. Of course, he doesn't tell his team this so he acts like a jerk the entire time. He's there for one liners and presence - the latter is great; the former...not so much.
Garcia plays a comic book guy who supposedly knows Alcatraz and its inmates better than anyone. Naturally, he's part of the team because every team needs a comic book nerd. Garcia's character is mainly there to say who the inmate/guard is and what crime he committed. That's about it.
Now for the female lead. I don't even remember the actresses' name and frankly, I don't care. Not only is the character unlikable in and of itself, but the actress does nothing to help the situation. The writer's wrote in a pretty, blonde haired blue eyed girl as a cop whose able to play with the big boys until her partner is killed. Then, she's "emotionally damaged." Then she gets recruited into this government branch to deal with the Alcatraz situation. She keeps repeating, "He killed my partner" at this one particular inmate, who just happens to be a big part of the puzzle. Anyway, her character is supposed to be a detective and so she's really clever and sees things: a female knockoff Sherlock Holmes if you will. Only...she isn't. Instead, the character and actress comes off as annoying and irritating. The actress tries to hard to be dramatic and falls flat.
Actually, the most interesting characters are the inmates. The actors are great and mysterious (as they should be). Often times, I find myself rooting for the inmates than the "heroes." Overall, this show tries far too hard to be a Lost knockoff and it fails. The premise is interesting and honestly, the only reason I stick around is to 1) see the actor who plays Jack Sylvane (an inmate) and 2) to find out what happened with the inmates and guards.
There is nothing interesting or different about the heroic characters and they fall into a cliché batch of ten million characters that have come before them. Unlike some other shows I watch religiously, this show hasn't gotten better and for the most part, I don't even remember there's a new episode until after its been aired. There's just nothing special to it.
The first thing I noticed about this show after numerous episodes is that there is no spark to it. The only thing interesting is the Alcatraz aspect and that's it.
The casting is good with Jorge Garcia and Sam Neill, but their characters are one dimensional. Neill's character is a flat, second rate knockoff of an "anti hero." He's in charge of the operation and as we learned, has a personal connection with Alcatraz. Of course, he doesn't tell his team this so he acts like a jerk the entire time. He's there for one liners and presence - the latter is great; the former...not so much.
Garcia plays a comic book guy who supposedly knows Alcatraz and its inmates better than anyone. Naturally, he's part of the team because every team needs a comic book nerd. Garcia's character is mainly there to say who the inmate/guard is and what crime he committed. That's about it.
Now for the female lead. I don't even remember the actresses' name and frankly, I don't care. Not only is the character unlikable in and of itself, but the actress does nothing to help the situation. The writer's wrote in a pretty, blonde haired blue eyed girl as a cop whose able to play with the big boys until her partner is killed. Then, she's "emotionally damaged." Then she gets recruited into this government branch to deal with the Alcatraz situation. She keeps repeating, "He killed my partner" at this one particular inmate, who just happens to be a big part of the puzzle. Anyway, her character is supposed to be a detective and so she's really clever and sees things: a female knockoff Sherlock Holmes if you will. Only...she isn't. Instead, the character and actress comes off as annoying and irritating. The actress tries to hard to be dramatic and falls flat.
Actually, the most interesting characters are the inmates. The actors are great and mysterious (as they should be). Often times, I find myself rooting for the inmates than the "heroes." Overall, this show tries far too hard to be a Lost knockoff and it fails. The premise is interesting and honestly, the only reason I stick around is to 1) see the actor who plays Jack Sylvane (an inmate) and 2) to find out what happened with the inmates and guards.
There is nothing interesting or different about the heroic characters and they fall into a cliché batch of ten million characters that have come before them. Unlike some other shows I watch religiously, this show hasn't gotten better and for the most part, I don't even remember there's a new episode until after its been aired. There's just nothing special to it.
The Woman in Black
(2012)
Where do I start?
17 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie scared the willyknockers out of me. There are the scenes with "jump scares" but there is so much more to this film.
The melancholic and depressing town, the mysterious and paranoid residents, the story of the "Woman in Black" and how she preys on children, the rainy weather that adds an ominous effect, and the Woman in Black's house all combine to create an intense atmosphere.
The foreboding nature of the setting is relentless on your nerves as the story starts out with three little girls and doesn't let up on the tragic consequences that accompany Arthur's (Radcliffe) arrival.
Lack of music amplifies the constant feeling that something bad is going to happen at any given time. Your ears search for anything to cover up what might scream, screech, or jump out at you but there's nothing. The naked feeling is unsettling as you wait for the inevitable piano bang or drum strike, but there's nothing.
The acting is solid as Daniel Radcliffe proves he's more than just a lucky boy who was cast in Harry Potter. He really gave it his all as most of the time, it was just him in the house. The other actors were just as great and lent to a real feeling of paranoia throughout the story.
This film reminds me as to why people get creeped out by looking at old photos from the Edwardian period. There's something otherworldy about this era in time - whether it's the clothes, the expressions on people's faces, the look of it all, I'm not sure what causes the unsettling feeling. But it was pure genius to set such a dark and suspenseful tale in the middle of this already creepy time.
There were far more scary moments than I thought there would be. It doesn't rely on cheap tricks such as Arthur turning around and there's someone in front of him. This is much more subtle, but in your face. I couldn't believe how scared I was! The creepy moments were constant and hardly left me time to process the first scare before the second came up.
Altogether, I still can't watch this movie. It is genuinely one of the scariest films I have ever seen.
The melancholic and depressing town, the mysterious and paranoid residents, the story of the "Woman in Black" and how she preys on children, the rainy weather that adds an ominous effect, and the Woman in Black's house all combine to create an intense atmosphere.
The foreboding nature of the setting is relentless on your nerves as the story starts out with three little girls and doesn't let up on the tragic consequences that accompany Arthur's (Radcliffe) arrival.
Lack of music amplifies the constant feeling that something bad is going to happen at any given time. Your ears search for anything to cover up what might scream, screech, or jump out at you but there's nothing. The naked feeling is unsettling as you wait for the inevitable piano bang or drum strike, but there's nothing.
The acting is solid as Daniel Radcliffe proves he's more than just a lucky boy who was cast in Harry Potter. He really gave it his all as most of the time, it was just him in the house. The other actors were just as great and lent to a real feeling of paranoia throughout the story.
This film reminds me as to why people get creeped out by looking at old photos from the Edwardian period. There's something otherworldy about this era in time - whether it's the clothes, the expressions on people's faces, the look of it all, I'm not sure what causes the unsettling feeling. But it was pure genius to set such a dark and suspenseful tale in the middle of this already creepy time.
There were far more scary moments than I thought there would be. It doesn't rely on cheap tricks such as Arthur turning around and there's someone in front of him. This is much more subtle, but in your face. I couldn't believe how scared I was! The creepy moments were constant and hardly left me time to process the first scare before the second came up.
Altogether, I still can't watch this movie. It is genuinely one of the scariest films I have ever seen.
Sex and the City 2
(2010)
How is this not in the bottom 100?
16 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I don't even know where to begin because this movie is so awful but let's start with the plot shall we? Carrie and Co. are so exhausted from their spoiled lives that they decide to have a girls vacation (all expense paid of course) by way of Samantha's business agenda. Where does this vacation take place? Why the only place where girls aren't allowed to show an ounce of skin, speak without permission, and wear burka's: AKA the Middle East.
There, the ladies insist on acting like spoiled brats, which they can't help considering that's exactly what they are. But let's consider what makes these women want to take a vacation.
1. Carrie is getting away from her terrible husband of 2 years who buys her TV's instead of jewelry, wants to come home and relax after a hard day while she wants to party like she's 20 instead of 45, eat Chinese food rather than go to some pricey restaurant, and lets her keep her apartment in order for her to "get away" from the pressures of her horrible life. Oh and he's so horrible that he decides to make her happy and go out anyway even though he's tired.
2. Samantha is aching for some new male attention after sleeping with the entire east coast and looking to expand her clientèle (the one that pays for her services with actual cash rather than nature's credit card).
3. Miranda needs to get away from her loving, attentive, and adoring husband and their child that she never sees, her boss who is sexist (of course), her terrible job that pays for her wonderful home, and her terrible nanny that takes care of her sick mother in law, child, and the house.
4. Ah Charlotte. We all know she's had it very rough over the past eight years in the course of the series and these 2 movies: her never ending trust fund, her Upper East Side (or one of those fancy places) apartment, her perfect husband that loves her more than the air he breathes, her two children that she wanted more than anything, and of course, her full time live in nanny. After a breakdown from having so much stress of this terrible life while baking cookies, Charlotte decides that her life is just *too* stressful with a perfect husband, full time nanny and all the time to herself to drink with her friends.
Yes indeed, these women have it ROUGH. I'm surprised they haven't complained to the government about the unfair turn of events their lives have taken. How dare those husbands give them everything and love them so much! How dare those hardworking husbands want to relax instead of reliving their youth! To alleviate their dreadful lives, they go to Abu Dabhi...because that's the Las Vegas section of the Middle East you see. Only, it's not.
Their perfect vacation goes awry when they learn that skimpy outfits, particularly midriff baring tops and fluffy skirts aren't considered cute especially on a middle aged woman. And who knew that having sex in public was against the law? Apparently not Samantha - she thought it was oppressive and sexist. So what does she do? She wears tiny outfits and yells "I HAVE SEX!" in the middle of a market place while humping the air.
I know, I know. Classy.
In the end, the ladies are kicked out for the lack of respect for another culture. Shocker right there. Oh! But not before Carrie conveniently runs into Aiden and kisses him because we all know that she needs drama to survive (we have six seasons and another movie as evidence). However, that lapse of judgment could be because she had an "argument" which Charlotte about something.
Now, this is the point where Miranda and Charlotte have a toast and bitch about their horrible lives with those pesty full time nannies. Keep in mind that Charlotte has no job and doesn't need one.
Samantha of course is trying to give a guy - who she barely knows - a hand job in the middle of dinner. She's then arrested and that brings us to when the girls are kicked out and Sam has her meltdown in the middle of a marketplace.
Somewhere between the bitching and non needed drama and the boredom is a lot of clothes changing that remind me why middle aged women should stop wearing clothes made for 20 yr olds.
I was a fan of the series, although looking at it now I'm not even sure why I am. The characters are selfish, materialistic, and spoiled; this film amplifies those characteristics to the point where I am genuinely embarrassed for the cast and crew of this...thing.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for these characters or something? Because all I felt was absolute disgust. These women have *everything*: full time nannies, husbands who love and worship them, wardrobes that cost more than a house, houses that cost more than country, jobs that earn them more in one week than I do in a year, and children who love them.
No wonder why foreigners have such a bad opinion of Americans! These women are so disrespectful and it's infuriating to see. How could anyone even be allowed to produce such a stupid movie? I'm not even talking about the "so over the top even Liberace would be embarrassed" gay wedding and a random but painful rendition of Single Ladies by Liza Minnelli (seriously, what is this? The "We pity over 40 yr old women" movie?).
Just...bad. It's almost traumatic to see.
There, the ladies insist on acting like spoiled brats, which they can't help considering that's exactly what they are. But let's consider what makes these women want to take a vacation.
1. Carrie is getting away from her terrible husband of 2 years who buys her TV's instead of jewelry, wants to come home and relax after a hard day while she wants to party like she's 20 instead of 45, eat Chinese food rather than go to some pricey restaurant, and lets her keep her apartment in order for her to "get away" from the pressures of her horrible life. Oh and he's so horrible that he decides to make her happy and go out anyway even though he's tired.
2. Samantha is aching for some new male attention after sleeping with the entire east coast and looking to expand her clientèle (the one that pays for her services with actual cash rather than nature's credit card).
3. Miranda needs to get away from her loving, attentive, and adoring husband and their child that she never sees, her boss who is sexist (of course), her terrible job that pays for her wonderful home, and her terrible nanny that takes care of her sick mother in law, child, and the house.
4. Ah Charlotte. We all know she's had it very rough over the past eight years in the course of the series and these 2 movies: her never ending trust fund, her Upper East Side (or one of those fancy places) apartment, her perfect husband that loves her more than the air he breathes, her two children that she wanted more than anything, and of course, her full time live in nanny. After a breakdown from having so much stress of this terrible life while baking cookies, Charlotte decides that her life is just *too* stressful with a perfect husband, full time nanny and all the time to herself to drink with her friends.
Yes indeed, these women have it ROUGH. I'm surprised they haven't complained to the government about the unfair turn of events their lives have taken. How dare those husbands give them everything and love them so much! How dare those hardworking husbands want to relax instead of reliving their youth! To alleviate their dreadful lives, they go to Abu Dabhi...because that's the Las Vegas section of the Middle East you see. Only, it's not.
Their perfect vacation goes awry when they learn that skimpy outfits, particularly midriff baring tops and fluffy skirts aren't considered cute especially on a middle aged woman. And who knew that having sex in public was against the law? Apparently not Samantha - she thought it was oppressive and sexist. So what does she do? She wears tiny outfits and yells "I HAVE SEX!" in the middle of a market place while humping the air.
I know, I know. Classy.
In the end, the ladies are kicked out for the lack of respect for another culture. Shocker right there. Oh! But not before Carrie conveniently runs into Aiden and kisses him because we all know that she needs drama to survive (we have six seasons and another movie as evidence). However, that lapse of judgment could be because she had an "argument" which Charlotte about something.
Now, this is the point where Miranda and Charlotte have a toast and bitch about their horrible lives with those pesty full time nannies. Keep in mind that Charlotte has no job and doesn't need one.
Samantha of course is trying to give a guy - who she barely knows - a hand job in the middle of dinner. She's then arrested and that brings us to when the girls are kicked out and Sam has her meltdown in the middle of a marketplace.
Somewhere between the bitching and non needed drama and the boredom is a lot of clothes changing that remind me why middle aged women should stop wearing clothes made for 20 yr olds.
I was a fan of the series, although looking at it now I'm not even sure why I am. The characters are selfish, materialistic, and spoiled; this film amplifies those characteristics to the point where I am genuinely embarrassed for the cast and crew of this...thing.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for these characters or something? Because all I felt was absolute disgust. These women have *everything*: full time nannies, husbands who love and worship them, wardrobes that cost more than a house, houses that cost more than country, jobs that earn them more in one week than I do in a year, and children who love them.
No wonder why foreigners have such a bad opinion of Americans! These women are so disrespectful and it's infuriating to see. How could anyone even be allowed to produce such a stupid movie? I'm not even talking about the "so over the top even Liberace would be embarrassed" gay wedding and a random but painful rendition of Single Ladies by Liza Minnelli (seriously, what is this? The "We pity over 40 yr old women" movie?).
Just...bad. It's almost traumatic to see.
Sucker Punch
(2011)
Best Music Video Ever
13 December 2011
The entire time I was watching this I kept thinking, "Oh my God! This should be honored as the longest and coolest music video of all time." Because that's basically what it is. There were more songs than lines of dialog.
The plot is pretty solid when you actually think about it. A young girl is put into an insane asylum (where apparently, they dress like young schoolgirls...) because her stepfather is evil.
The problem with this movie is the execution of that plot; it's all fluff and no substance. They had a great opportunity to really do something with the plot, but instead they go for a knock off of Inception - a fantasy within a fantasy within a movie.
Are we supposed to care about these characters? Because there is no indication that we should. Of course, there are the femenazi's out there who will complain that this is sexist and appeals only to men because the girls are cliché hot girls dressed in skimpy outfits with their stereotypical personalities (the innocent one, scared one, strong ass kicking one, etc.) and they're almost right. But the point of having them be so cliché is directly against the actual message. It's this opposition that makes the message of the movie stand out.
The fight scenes were pretty cool and turns out that Vanessa Hudgens can do more than sing silly songs and take nude pics of herself - she can kick ass. And I really want to like Emily Browning, but good lord she makes it difficult!
They should've stuck with the asylum plot and then have the second fantasy (the cool part in other words) only. The going back and forth was confusing and you often got a flash of the real world before going back to the first fantasy world. There was just so much wrong with this movie.
Just fast forward through all the crappy dialog (seriously, there's nothing important)and get straight to the 2nd fantasy. At least that part is entertaining.
Overall, this movie is so bad, it's good. It'll be in my "guilty pleasures" section of my movie collection.
The plot is pretty solid when you actually think about it. A young girl is put into an insane asylum (where apparently, they dress like young schoolgirls...) because her stepfather is evil.
The problem with this movie is the execution of that plot; it's all fluff and no substance. They had a great opportunity to really do something with the plot, but instead they go for a knock off of Inception - a fantasy within a fantasy within a movie.
Are we supposed to care about these characters? Because there is no indication that we should. Of course, there are the femenazi's out there who will complain that this is sexist and appeals only to men because the girls are cliché hot girls dressed in skimpy outfits with their stereotypical personalities (the innocent one, scared one, strong ass kicking one, etc.) and they're almost right. But the point of having them be so cliché is directly against the actual message. It's this opposition that makes the message of the movie stand out.
The fight scenes were pretty cool and turns out that Vanessa Hudgens can do more than sing silly songs and take nude pics of herself - she can kick ass. And I really want to like Emily Browning, but good lord she makes it difficult!
They should've stuck with the asylum plot and then have the second fantasy (the cool part in other words) only. The going back and forth was confusing and you often got a flash of the real world before going back to the first fantasy world. There was just so much wrong with this movie.
Just fast forward through all the crappy dialog (seriously, there's nothing important)and get straight to the 2nd fantasy. At least that part is entertaining.
Overall, this movie is so bad, it's good. It'll be in my "guilty pleasures" section of my movie collection.
Summer's Moon
(2009)
WTF did I just watch?
21 November 2011
I swear, I honestly don't know how these Twilight kids are going to survive in Hollywood if they lose their looks.
Next to Robert Pattinson's the Haunted Airman, this movie comes in 2nd as the worst movie with a Twilight cast in it. I know this because my friends decided to torture me by making me watch all the Twilight actors (pre-Twilight) after I had lost a bet.
This is a movie about a girl who seeks her long lost father (aw, sweet) but then ends up having a one night stand with a weird, but hot guy named Tom who saves her from the big bad sheriff after she's caught stealing (how romantic). When she attempts to leave the next morning, things get awkward as Tom basically kidnaps/keeps her hostage (not so romantic).
Of course, her capture eventually reveals just a whole bunch of traumatic stuff to watch and listen to as the viewer witnesses bad acting, more sex, daddy issues, and a garden of women in the basement. Yet none of that compares to the horrendous acting by Greene and everyone else. This is so B rated and belongs more to the "teenagers attempting to make a horror sexy flick during their free time" genre.
So basically, unless you have this intense desire to see Greene's back (she does no nudity. You'll have to go on a different website for that), skip this and save room in your memory for something that won't make you say, "WTF did I just watch?" or more importantly, "Why did I just watch that?"
Next to Robert Pattinson's the Haunted Airman, this movie comes in 2nd as the worst movie with a Twilight cast in it. I know this because my friends decided to torture me by making me watch all the Twilight actors (pre-Twilight) after I had lost a bet.
This is a movie about a girl who seeks her long lost father (aw, sweet) but then ends up having a one night stand with a weird, but hot guy named Tom who saves her from the big bad sheriff after she's caught stealing (how romantic). When she attempts to leave the next morning, things get awkward as Tom basically kidnaps/keeps her hostage (not so romantic).
Of course, her capture eventually reveals just a whole bunch of traumatic stuff to watch and listen to as the viewer witnesses bad acting, more sex, daddy issues, and a garden of women in the basement. Yet none of that compares to the horrendous acting by Greene and everyone else. This is so B rated and belongs more to the "teenagers attempting to make a horror sexy flick during their free time" genre.
So basically, unless you have this intense desire to see Greene's back (she does no nudity. You'll have to go on a different website for that), skip this and save room in your memory for something that won't make you say, "WTF did I just watch?" or more importantly, "Why did I just watch that?"
The Haunted Airman
(2006 TV Movie)
Give me my dollar back. NOW.
21 November 2011
First, let me say that I had not seen Twilight when I originally rented this back in 2009 (and the only reason I am writing this now is because this atrocity was on chiller last night). I got it out of Redbox and watched it with my brother for an annual movie night.
Second, I'm a huge movie watcher. There's rarely a movie I don't like because I can find something to like about it.
This is not one of those movies. In fact, can this even be considered a movie?? It's like someone in Britain said, "Hey, this guy is somewhat good looking so we need to make a movie with him in it that's based on a great book. While we're at it, let's throw the scrabble letters against the wall every time we want some dialogue in this 'movie' and that will be what the actors say." If this was the case...mission accomplished.
I honestly can't even begin to describe how horrible this movie is. To name the bad things that 1) happened in the movie, 2) how the movie was made, and 3) what the movie is about would be a massive list that I neither have the time nor the patience to write. If you want to know what's the worst part about it - cast wise to the direction, editing, script, etc.- I would answer you, "All of it. Literally." I actually asked my brother if he would turn if off because not only was I bored to near sleep, but I was incredibly confused at the ending. I kept waiting for a real one to come up.
Whoever thought this movie was a great idea not only needs to be banned for life from everything media but needs to be told not to base a concept of a movie from his drug - induced, scrabble letter throwing haze.
Second, I'm a huge movie watcher. There's rarely a movie I don't like because I can find something to like about it.
This is not one of those movies. In fact, can this even be considered a movie?? It's like someone in Britain said, "Hey, this guy is somewhat good looking so we need to make a movie with him in it that's based on a great book. While we're at it, let's throw the scrabble letters against the wall every time we want some dialogue in this 'movie' and that will be what the actors say." If this was the case...mission accomplished.
I honestly can't even begin to describe how horrible this movie is. To name the bad things that 1) happened in the movie, 2) how the movie was made, and 3) what the movie is about would be a massive list that I neither have the time nor the patience to write. If you want to know what's the worst part about it - cast wise to the direction, editing, script, etc.- I would answer you, "All of it. Literally." I actually asked my brother if he would turn if off because not only was I bored to near sleep, but I was incredibly confused at the ending. I kept waiting for a real one to come up.
Whoever thought this movie was a great idea not only needs to be banned for life from everything media but needs to be told not to base a concept of a movie from his drug - induced, scrabble letter throwing haze.
Paranormal Activity 3
(2011)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's another PA in the works...
31 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
That's all I could think after seeing this movie.
I'm not gonna lie, I had zero expectations with this film considering everything spooky that could've happened already did in the first one.
I got how the first two connected: the baby. Obviously, the demon wanted Hunter and used Katie to get him. That's great. We got an explanation as to why Katie wasn't killed in the first one and it tied nicely at the end to give us that, "Oh! So that's what happened after she killed Micah!" conclusion.
But why did the demon want Hunter to begin with? That was question. What did these two girls do in their childhood to make a demon want the first born boy? Both lead female characters (especially Katie) eluded to certain events from their childhood that might hold the answer, but nothing more came from those conversations.
So here we are 4 years later and we still only have half the puzzle. Everything we need to know to fully understand what happened is edited out! Please tell me why a director or writer would do a scene that explains something but then edit it out? It makes no sense and leaves the audience scratching their heads (people who have seen the movie know what I'm talking about).
The scares are not scary. In fact, the true scares would be in the trailers. I will say this though: there are 2 incidents (both in the kitchen. Again.) that had me go, "Oh that's kind of cool. I wonder how they did that?" But is that what you want an audience to ask themselves in the middle of a horror movie? Of course not! You want the audience to jump and say, "WTF just happened!" Granted, different things scare different people. What some find silly, others find terrifying. But there's really nothing here to scare. The formula in this film follows the other two, just less so. The only thing they improved was mounting a camera on top of a fan, which could've been a great advantage for this movie, but it was grossly underused. They might as well have had a stationary camera instead.
And we are still scratching our heads to try and figure out what happened to the mom? What happened to the supposed fire that both previous films refer to? Why is the mom so obtuse about everything? So many questions that have come from ambiguous answers. I left the theater thinking that this is just another way for them to make another PA movie to fill in the holes.
I'm not gonna lie, I had zero expectations with this film considering everything spooky that could've happened already did in the first one.
I got how the first two connected: the baby. Obviously, the demon wanted Hunter and used Katie to get him. That's great. We got an explanation as to why Katie wasn't killed in the first one and it tied nicely at the end to give us that, "Oh! So that's what happened after she killed Micah!" conclusion.
But why did the demon want Hunter to begin with? That was question. What did these two girls do in their childhood to make a demon want the first born boy? Both lead female characters (especially Katie) eluded to certain events from their childhood that might hold the answer, but nothing more came from those conversations.
So here we are 4 years later and we still only have half the puzzle. Everything we need to know to fully understand what happened is edited out! Please tell me why a director or writer would do a scene that explains something but then edit it out? It makes no sense and leaves the audience scratching their heads (people who have seen the movie know what I'm talking about).
The scares are not scary. In fact, the true scares would be in the trailers. I will say this though: there are 2 incidents (both in the kitchen. Again.) that had me go, "Oh that's kind of cool. I wonder how they did that?" But is that what you want an audience to ask themselves in the middle of a horror movie? Of course not! You want the audience to jump and say, "WTF just happened!" Granted, different things scare different people. What some find silly, others find terrifying. But there's really nothing here to scare. The formula in this film follows the other two, just less so. The only thing they improved was mounting a camera on top of a fan, which could've been a great advantage for this movie, but it was grossly underused. They might as well have had a stationary camera instead.
And we are still scratching our heads to try and figure out what happened to the mom? What happened to the supposed fire that both previous films refer to? Why is the mom so obtuse about everything? So many questions that have come from ambiguous answers. I left the theater thinking that this is just another way for them to make another PA movie to fill in the holes.
Sherlock
(2010–2017)
An updated version of an old story
14 October 2011
What can I say about Sherlock that hasn't been said already- both good and bad? The answer is...nothing. So I'll just give my opinion on why I choose to watch Sherlock.
The best thing I love about the show is the casting. Benedict Cumberbatch might just be the best actor to be cast as the legendary character (yes, even beating out the mighty Basil Rathbone). Benedict has a natural air of...something that you can't quite put your finger on that adds a certain freshness to a beaten role that has been done a dozen times and has inspired so many knockoffs. Rather than having a serious tone to it like so many other adaptations(save for Downey Jr.'s version), this show has a high paced,witty, and subtle humor about it. Most of my favorite lines come from Sherlock himself and it isn't the actual line, but the delivery of it. That's where Benedict truly shines. Sherlock Holmes has always been callous and indifferent toward people, in the novel, he's described as cold hearted, though as Moriarity says, "that's not quite true." And where would Sherlock be without his trusty sidekick and only friend,John Watson? Probably still out solving crimes but very, very lonely.Martin Freeman's expressions are hilarious and he nails the role of Watson. He's compassionate, warm hearted and extremely loyal to his friend. Freeman's version of Watson is wonderful and is the yang to Benedict's yin. I couldn't imagine either character being played by anyone else. The two men simply...fit.
Most people complain that this Sherlock is too mean, but that's what I love most about him. He's not meaning to be rude (except to a few people who truly annoy him), he's simply telling the truth in a very blunt way.
I also love that the series is a different story each time and though there are similarities to the stories the episodes are based on, there are enough differences to keep me interested and invested. Sherlock's observations are quick, the special effects are amazing and the humor is witty and often subtle. It's an updated version of Sherlock Holmes and I have to say that I am completely addicted. Even the weakest one (The Blind Banker)is better than most of what's on TV today.
My only complaint is that there are only 3 episodes! What is that about?! And then they keep fans waiting for like a year and a half for new ones!
The best thing I love about the show is the casting. Benedict Cumberbatch might just be the best actor to be cast as the legendary character (yes, even beating out the mighty Basil Rathbone). Benedict has a natural air of...something that you can't quite put your finger on that adds a certain freshness to a beaten role that has been done a dozen times and has inspired so many knockoffs. Rather than having a serious tone to it like so many other adaptations(save for Downey Jr.'s version), this show has a high paced,witty, and subtle humor about it. Most of my favorite lines come from Sherlock himself and it isn't the actual line, but the delivery of it. That's where Benedict truly shines. Sherlock Holmes has always been callous and indifferent toward people, in the novel, he's described as cold hearted, though as Moriarity says, "that's not quite true." And where would Sherlock be without his trusty sidekick and only friend,John Watson? Probably still out solving crimes but very, very lonely.Martin Freeman's expressions are hilarious and he nails the role of Watson. He's compassionate, warm hearted and extremely loyal to his friend. Freeman's version of Watson is wonderful and is the yang to Benedict's yin. I couldn't imagine either character being played by anyone else. The two men simply...fit.
Most people complain that this Sherlock is too mean, but that's what I love most about him. He's not meaning to be rude (except to a few people who truly annoy him), he's simply telling the truth in a very blunt way.
I also love that the series is a different story each time and though there are similarities to the stories the episodes are based on, there are enough differences to keep me interested and invested. Sherlock's observations are quick, the special effects are amazing and the humor is witty and often subtle. It's an updated version of Sherlock Holmes and I have to say that I am completely addicted. Even the weakest one (The Blind Banker)is better than most of what's on TV today.
My only complaint is that there are only 3 episodes! What is that about?! And then they keep fans waiting for like a year and a half for new ones!
X: First Class
(2011)
Mediocre Fun *slight spoilers*
20 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Overall, I could've really enjoyed this movie but there are too many confusing points. *minor spoilers*
First, let's go over what annoyed/confused me:
1. The ending.
Okay, we all know that Professor X is paralyzed eventually. Yet, in this film, he's supposed to be paralyzed at a young age but in X-Men: The Last Stand, he's seen walking with Magneto to Jean Grey's house and in X-Men: Wolverine, he's standing by the plane as the mutants come from the building. So which one is it?
2. Mystique and Professor X grew up together????
Where on earth did that come from? For two people who were so close in their youth/young adulthood, I find that to be yet another inconsistency that takes away from the story. The whole time I could only think, "Why does Professor X and Magneto have such a complicated bromance in the first trilogy if they knew each other for only a few weeks, but there is zero mention of Mystique and Professor X when they've known each other their whole lives?"
3. Um, what happened to the lifelong friendship between Professor X and Magneto?
In X-Men: The Last Stand, we see Professor X and Magneto are seen as still friends because they go to together to Jean Grey's house. Yet, the ending shows that the pair's friendship ended on the beach in 1962.
4. Emma Frost
I get January Jones' character in the film. Really, I do. Every film needs its cliché blonde bombshell that does nothing except run around in skimpy clothes. But! Wasn't Emma Frost in X-Men: Wolverine as a 17 yr old (give or take a year)? What happened to her sister? What happened to her after she was caught by Professor X and Magneto?
There are too many loose ends and not enough answers to questions that have been raised.
Okay, now let's get to the good points:
1. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy in the same movie? Yay!!!! To me, Michael Fassbender can do no wrong and the casting of these two were brilliant.
2. Miscellaneous.
Okay, the special affects were super cool(except Emma Frost's diamond effect is way different than in Origins) and the mutants were pretty awesome. Granted, I know these names are supposed to mean something, but I never got a chance to know them due to the massive amount of rushing through the story lines.
3. Cameos
There were several nice surprises from Hugh Jackman to Rebecca Romajin. They added a little something familiar to the story, even if they were totally unnecessary and added to the confusion of the timeline (Wolverine).
Overall, I liked the movie. But if the writers had actually watched the original trilogy and thought through the connections, I'm sure it would have been even better. I liked the casting, but the actual storyline went from an origin story, to a story that resembled a learning community(meaning, we got to see Professor X actually help these mutants and we saw them bond), to a cliché 'let's foil the villainous take over the world plan' and then rushed back to a 'this is why the x men/brotherhood have a love/hate relationship' story.
It could've been so much better if they had focused one of the three story lines. Personally, I found the best part of the movie was watching Xavier work with the mutants. They should have taken a different, less confusing road with the "First Class" idea.
I gave it 4 stars because the parts I did like, were brilliantly done but everything else came between them and ruined the fun. Now, I'm left scratching my head trying to piece together the connections.
First, let's go over what annoyed/confused me:
1. The ending.
Okay, we all know that Professor X is paralyzed eventually. Yet, in this film, he's supposed to be paralyzed at a young age but in X-Men: The Last Stand, he's seen walking with Magneto to Jean Grey's house and in X-Men: Wolverine, he's standing by the plane as the mutants come from the building. So which one is it?
2. Mystique and Professor X grew up together????
Where on earth did that come from? For two people who were so close in their youth/young adulthood, I find that to be yet another inconsistency that takes away from the story. The whole time I could only think, "Why does Professor X and Magneto have such a complicated bromance in the first trilogy if they knew each other for only a few weeks, but there is zero mention of Mystique and Professor X when they've known each other their whole lives?"
3. Um, what happened to the lifelong friendship between Professor X and Magneto?
In X-Men: The Last Stand, we see Professor X and Magneto are seen as still friends because they go to together to Jean Grey's house. Yet, the ending shows that the pair's friendship ended on the beach in 1962.
4. Emma Frost
I get January Jones' character in the film. Really, I do. Every film needs its cliché blonde bombshell that does nothing except run around in skimpy clothes. But! Wasn't Emma Frost in X-Men: Wolverine as a 17 yr old (give or take a year)? What happened to her sister? What happened to her after she was caught by Professor X and Magneto?
There are too many loose ends and not enough answers to questions that have been raised.
Okay, now let's get to the good points:
1. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy in the same movie? Yay!!!! To me, Michael Fassbender can do no wrong and the casting of these two were brilliant.
2. Miscellaneous.
Okay, the special affects were super cool(except Emma Frost's diamond effect is way different than in Origins) and the mutants were pretty awesome. Granted, I know these names are supposed to mean something, but I never got a chance to know them due to the massive amount of rushing through the story lines.
3. Cameos
There were several nice surprises from Hugh Jackman to Rebecca Romajin. They added a little something familiar to the story, even if they were totally unnecessary and added to the confusion of the timeline (Wolverine).
Overall, I liked the movie. But if the writers had actually watched the original trilogy and thought through the connections, I'm sure it would have been even better. I liked the casting, but the actual storyline went from an origin story, to a story that resembled a learning community(meaning, we got to see Professor X actually help these mutants and we saw them bond), to a cliché 'let's foil the villainous take over the world plan' and then rushed back to a 'this is why the x men/brotherhood have a love/hate relationship' story.
It could've been so much better if they had focused one of the three story lines. Personally, I found the best part of the movie was watching Xavier work with the mutants. They should have taken a different, less confusing road with the "First Class" idea.
I gave it 4 stars because the parts I did like, were brilliantly done but everything else came between them and ruined the fun. Now, I'm left scratching my head trying to piece together the connections.
The best season finale I have ever seen. Period.
19 August 2011
Spartacus: Blood and Sand was blessed with an amazing team of writers, producers, editors, sound mixers, special effects, and actors.
This series did what every show needs to do: build up from the ground and tie off loose ends while leaving the audience satisfied with the blood-lust that the Romans had coming since episode one.
Everything from the dialogue, the character development, character deaths and introductions, backstabbing, scheming, manipulation, honesty, miscommunication, pride combine to give the most amazing epic finale ever created.
The fight between Spartacus and Crixus was unbelievable! Especially that infamous shield tap Crixus does. It doesn't really answer the question of who's the better gladiator became they were evenly matched the entire time.
What a rush of emotions! You're happy, sad, elated and devastated all at once. The subtle metaphors add to the delight of the episode (for instance, Ashur hides under a body and then literally, slithers out from it- revealing the snake he really is.) Warning though: This is an episode that is mind blowing upon first viewing, but as time goes on and you watch it more and more, it loses its appeal and shock factor.
Watch only once in a while to retain mind blowing effect.
The only reason why I gave this a 9 instead of 10 is because overall, I think Revelations and Old Wounds are much better in terms of plot lines coming together and foreshadowing coming to fruition.
Still, Kill Them All is by far the best season finale. Ever.
Kudos to Andy Whitfield for a perfect performance for the season.
This series did what every show needs to do: build up from the ground and tie off loose ends while leaving the audience satisfied with the blood-lust that the Romans had coming since episode one.
Everything from the dialogue, the character development, character deaths and introductions, backstabbing, scheming, manipulation, honesty, miscommunication, pride combine to give the most amazing epic finale ever created.
The fight between Spartacus and Crixus was unbelievable! Especially that infamous shield tap Crixus does. It doesn't really answer the question of who's the better gladiator became they were evenly matched the entire time.
What a rush of emotions! You're happy, sad, elated and devastated all at once. The subtle metaphors add to the delight of the episode (for instance, Ashur hides under a body and then literally, slithers out from it- revealing the snake he really is.) Warning though: This is an episode that is mind blowing upon first viewing, but as time goes on and you watch it more and more, it loses its appeal and shock factor.
Watch only once in a while to retain mind blowing effect.
The only reason why I gave this a 9 instead of 10 is because overall, I think Revelations and Old Wounds are much better in terms of plot lines coming together and foreshadowing coming to fruition.
Still, Kill Them All is by far the best season finale. Ever.
Kudos to Andy Whitfield for a perfect performance for the season.
A threequel better than a sequel?
12 August 2011
I liked this movie.
It's grittier and darker than the first 2 and the fight scenes are pure badass.
We get to see the Autobots darker side which I felt was long overdue.
Of course, our hero has his typical cliché of a hot girlfriend who just happens to be hot enough to be a Victoria's Secret model (Oh wait! She is one.) Shia's acting never ceases to impress me. His hysterics, humor and ability to be dramatic at the same time cracks me up and makes me believe his character.
Rosie was so much better than I thought (of course I had extremely low expectations). She's running around in 8" heels and neat, tight clothes but her acting was quite believable, much better than Megan Fox's. Her character however was un-needed.
Do we always have to have a super hot girl running around and breathing hard enough to where her abundant chest takes center screen? Why can't average Sam have an average girl that can actually have a talent besides running behind him and then screaming his name? Overall, her character was nearly useless except to point out why Mikaela is no longer in the picture and to say, "Over there!" The storyline is the same of course (decipticons trying to take over blah blah blah) but this time, things finally come to a head.
Optimus, Bumblebee and the other Autobots, that we don't really care about, must dig deep within themselves and start getting dirty.
I, for one, loved the fight sequences. They were long yes, and sometimes chaotic but I felt like I was watching a different auto-bot fight. It was meaner, more desperate to the point where I was actually scared that Bumblebee might not make it! And that's my other complaint: I love Bumblebee and Sam's interactions. They're always funny or heartfelt but there was hardly any of that in here. All relationship (alien/human, alien/alien/, human/human) scenes were soley focused on Carly and Sam.
Overall, I liked it and it's definitely better than ROTF. But it lacks the human/alien interaction that made the first one so special.
And to those who complain about the phsyics...you do realize that this is a movie about machines transforming right? Phsyics and logic don't apply to a robotic alien movie.
It's grittier and darker than the first 2 and the fight scenes are pure badass.
We get to see the Autobots darker side which I felt was long overdue.
Of course, our hero has his typical cliché of a hot girlfriend who just happens to be hot enough to be a Victoria's Secret model (Oh wait! She is one.) Shia's acting never ceases to impress me. His hysterics, humor and ability to be dramatic at the same time cracks me up and makes me believe his character.
Rosie was so much better than I thought (of course I had extremely low expectations). She's running around in 8" heels and neat, tight clothes but her acting was quite believable, much better than Megan Fox's. Her character however was un-needed.
Do we always have to have a super hot girl running around and breathing hard enough to where her abundant chest takes center screen? Why can't average Sam have an average girl that can actually have a talent besides running behind him and then screaming his name? Overall, her character was nearly useless except to point out why Mikaela is no longer in the picture and to say, "Over there!" The storyline is the same of course (decipticons trying to take over blah blah blah) but this time, things finally come to a head.
Optimus, Bumblebee and the other Autobots, that we don't really care about, must dig deep within themselves and start getting dirty.
I, for one, loved the fight sequences. They were long yes, and sometimes chaotic but I felt like I was watching a different auto-bot fight. It was meaner, more desperate to the point where I was actually scared that Bumblebee might not make it! And that's my other complaint: I love Bumblebee and Sam's interactions. They're always funny or heartfelt but there was hardly any of that in here. All relationship (alien/human, alien/alien/, human/human) scenes were soley focused on Carly and Sam.
Overall, I liked it and it's definitely better than ROTF. But it lacks the human/alien interaction that made the first one so special.
And to those who complain about the phsyics...you do realize that this is a movie about machines transforming right? Phsyics and logic don't apply to a robotic alien movie.
Jane Eyre
(2011)
How can a fan of the book say this is the best?
5 August 2011
First off, I'm a huge fan of the book. I think it may be one of the most underrated books of all time.
Now for the movie.
Let's get to the good:
1) The casting- Michael Fassbender is perhaps the hottest Rochester I could ever imagine. He's got the "ugly" that the character needs while not bothering to try and hide his good looks. He brings a certain something to the character that wasn't in the books.
Mia...whatever her last name was okay. She's young so at least they kept that in the movie. But she's quiet and meek which is what Jane is really like.
But there is zero chemistry between them. And what there is, is forced.
2) The music- absolutely wonderful!! 3) The scenery- Gorgeous! Just the Thornfield I had imagined in my head come to life.
Now for the bad: 1) Pacing- The movie went by way to fast. It missed the whole buildup and friendship between Jane and Rochester so when it came to for them to declare their love, it was a WTF moment.
2) Lack of important parts- the whole book is focused on Jane's lack of family. Then, we find out that the Rivers family is actually her family as well.
The movie completely ignored this! And they made John into an admirer of Jane! WTF? Jane's background is barely touched on. Where is her friendship with Helen? And what about Lowood and the Reed girls? 3) Timing- Again, it was rushed. But the timing of the story is all over the place. I didn't mind that they told it as a backstory, but it was kind of distracting.
I've seen the deleted scenes and I think that if they were included, the story would've flowed smoother and made much more sense. And really, was it that hard to include a few extra scenes that are important (such as Adele and Rochester's connection)? Those scenes would've made the movie maybe 10-12 minutes longer, which the movie desperately could've used.
4) The Ending- Um...what? I thought I was watching Jane Eyre and not Pride and Prejudice. There was an epilogue at the end of the book which shows what happened to Rochester and Jane. Instead, the writers went for a Jane Austen ala P&P sequence that slowly fades out with them.
Boring and anti climatic to a very predictable movie based on a very harsh and real love story.
How can a true fan of the book say this is great? They leave out just about everything important! (ie. Bertha, Adele/Rochester connection, the Reeds, the Rivers, Lowood, Bessie, and so much more)
However, if you never read the book, then its great. Usually I have no problem separating book from film, but this was ridiculous. They filmed most of those parts that I mentioned then deleted them.
What a waste.
Now for the movie.
Let's get to the good:
1) The casting- Michael Fassbender is perhaps the hottest Rochester I could ever imagine. He's got the "ugly" that the character needs while not bothering to try and hide his good looks. He brings a certain something to the character that wasn't in the books.
Mia...whatever her last name was okay. She's young so at least they kept that in the movie. But she's quiet and meek which is what Jane is really like.
But there is zero chemistry between them. And what there is, is forced.
2) The music- absolutely wonderful!! 3) The scenery- Gorgeous! Just the Thornfield I had imagined in my head come to life.
Now for the bad: 1) Pacing- The movie went by way to fast. It missed the whole buildup and friendship between Jane and Rochester so when it came to for them to declare their love, it was a WTF moment.
2) Lack of important parts- the whole book is focused on Jane's lack of family. Then, we find out that the Rivers family is actually her family as well.
The movie completely ignored this! And they made John into an admirer of Jane! WTF? Jane's background is barely touched on. Where is her friendship with Helen? And what about Lowood and the Reed girls? 3) Timing- Again, it was rushed. But the timing of the story is all over the place. I didn't mind that they told it as a backstory, but it was kind of distracting.
I've seen the deleted scenes and I think that if they were included, the story would've flowed smoother and made much more sense. And really, was it that hard to include a few extra scenes that are important (such as Adele and Rochester's connection)? Those scenes would've made the movie maybe 10-12 minutes longer, which the movie desperately could've used.
4) The Ending- Um...what? I thought I was watching Jane Eyre and not Pride and Prejudice. There was an epilogue at the end of the book which shows what happened to Rochester and Jane. Instead, the writers went for a Jane Austen ala P&P sequence that slowly fades out with them.
Boring and anti climatic to a very predictable movie based on a very harsh and real love story.
How can a true fan of the book say this is great? They leave out just about everything important! (ie. Bertha, Adele/Rochester connection, the Reeds, the Rivers, Lowood, Bessie, and so much more)
However, if you never read the book, then its great. Usually I have no problem separating book from film, but this was ridiculous. They filmed most of those parts that I mentioned then deleted them.
What a waste.
Tell Your Friends