Reviews

14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
An absolutely atrocious insult to a beloved franchise.
14 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This new Ghostbusters movie may have worked if they had done one simple thing. Made it a "passing of the torch" continuation of the previous films with the surviving members of the old team training a new younger team to take over the business. But instead Paul Feig decided to sweep the originals under the rug in favor of his own retelling. The result was "Bridesmaids with Proton Packs", and that is most certainly not a compliment. In order to understand why this movie fails, it's best to look at each individual element. Starting with:

The Cast

The cast is unimpressive, to say the least. The breakout star is Kate McKinnon, who's character, a wacky engineer named Holtzmann, has gained somewhat of a cult following. While I did get a few chuckles out of the character here and there, her schtick did get old after awhile. Kristen Wiig can be funny in the right roles, but sadly this was not one of those roles. She often seemed uninterested like she did not want to be there, and honestly I wouldn't blame her. Melissa McCarthy was the same character she usually plays, and I personally have never found her funny. This was no exception. Leslie Jones, much like McKinnon, did get some chuckles from me at times, but as most could already tell from the trailers, she was basically just the "loud black woman" stereotype. The worst performance without a doubt was (unfortunately) provided by Chris Hemsworth as the brain dead receptionist, Kevin. I was really hoping, based on the trailers, that he might possibly be the best thing in the movie, but he was quite honestly the worst, not that I particularly hold Hemsworth accountable. His character was written poorly, and many of the things he did made me cringe more than laugh.

The Villain

The villain of this movie is a hotel handyman named Rowan, who his seeking revenge on humanity for having been bullied his whole life. He builds a device which brings spirits into our world, and he intends to wreak havoc with those spirits. Needless to say, Rowan is an extremely weak villain, especially when compared to the villains of the previous Ghostbusters films. The original film had Gozer, a powerful Sumerian god whose ultimate goal was the destruction of humanity. The second film had Vigo, a Carpathian warlock who intended to be reborn in order to seek world domination. These were both strong, developed villains, whereas Rowan just comes off as laughable, especially toward the climax, but more on that later.

The Visual Effects

The effects were cheesy and cartoonish. Words cannot be minced here. The various ghosts we see are unimpressive, and they all contain a strange hue of neon blue or green. Many have compared the effects to the ghosts in the live action Scooby Doo movies, but even that is giving it too much credit. In the original movies, the effects were done with puppets and the ghosts were made to look spectral as if they were really there on the set. Most of the original's effects still look great today, whereas in the reboot they already looked dated from day 1.

The Plot

*There will be spoilers in this section, but since I do not recommend this movie to my worst enemy, feel free to read ahead. Otherwise, stop right here. You have been warned.*

The movie follows the same basic plot outline of the original, but not done nearly as well. Three of the characters start off as normal paranormal scientist who are called upon to investigate the hauntings of an old mansion where a tour guide was recently spooked. Before that, we get some unfunny jokes about wonton soup and queefing. Eventually we get to the mansion, where they look at the ghost in a scene very reminiscent of the library scene, only instead of getting scared off by a sudden transformation, one of them gets barfed on with slime. They end up losing there jobs at the university to go into business for themselves. They take up headquarters in an apartment above a Chinese restaurant, where Holtzmann works on some new equipment. They try testing out their new equipment at a subway station where they try to catch a convict ghost, but the equipment doesn't work and the ghost gets away. The MTA worker who called them, played by Leslie Jones, joins the team as a fourth member due to her knowledge of the city's history. She also gets them a car, which is a hearse from her uncle's funeral home. They also hire an idiotic receptionist named Kevin. They get their first real call from a concert hall where they end up battling a dragon ghost (yeah, it's THAT ridiculous) during a metal concert. They capture the ghost, and we get a random Ozzy Osbourne cameo. This was around the point in the original where they had captured Slimer and become heroes overnight, followed by a montage of them catching ghosts all over the city. Here we get know such cameo as they only intend to study the ghost. Eventually they find out about Rowan and that he is the one responsible for bringing the ghosts into our world. Before he can be taken by the police, he electrocutes himself on his machine, killing himself. He becomes a ghost which eventually possesses Kevin, who then goes to reactivate the machine. Eventually, the city is being overrun by ghosts, and the Ghostbusters must get to work. What follows is a sequence of some rather dull action, and a display of all sorts of different weaponry that Holtzmann was somehow able to afford to develop. These include sidearm guns, ghost grenades, a ghost gauntlet, and (I kid you not) a ghost CHIPPER. Eventually they confront Rowan, who gives up possessing Kevin, and then turns into (get ready, because this is really gonna hurt) a giant version of the ghost from the Ghostbusters logo. I won't go into any further detail, but it gets really ridiculous, especially the way they defeat him.

The Bottom Line

Ghostbusters 2016 is a mess from start to finish. It should be worth noting that I have seen both the theatrical cut and the extended cut, and they are both terrible. The extended cut just has some altered dialogue and a ridiculous dance sequence involving the army. It does nothing to improve on the film, what little there was to improve anyway. Paul Feig clearly made this film with the intent to cater to people who like HIS films, and honestly I have not been a fan of his works. He clearly gave no consideration to fans of the franchise, and he and McCarthy even went so far as to insult the fans. That is not how you win an audience. This movie lacks everything that made the original a classic. Witty humor? Gone. Lovable characters? Gone. Believable chemistry among the actors? Gone. On top of that, it is played out as a straight up comedy. There are no attempts to be scary or taken seriously when necessary, unlike the original which had moments that can actually be terrifying to first time viewers. I didn't even mention the cameos, which honestly there isn't much to say about. The surviving cast members from the original make cameos as different characters than we are used to seeing them as, and they all seem forced and don't do much other than attempt to provide fan service (and fail miserably). There is even a bust of Harold Ramis at one point, and a tribute to him in the credits. But honestly, I think he was just rolling in his grave. This movie killed any chance the Ghostbusters franchise had of making a comeback, but we still have the originals to go back to at any time. Just cross the streams on this awful reboot. I give it one star, but that's just being generous. But hey, it is one more star than I gave "Jack & Jill", so it has that going for it.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Goosebumps (2015)
7/10
A Halloween treat for Goosebumps fans both old and new!
31 October 2015
I, like many other kids growing up in the 90s, loved to read R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" books, as well as watch the TV show. When I first heard that a movie was being made for 2015, I was a little worried. One part of me thought it was two decades too late for a movie, and the other part discovered a resurgence in popularity of the series for the new generation. My worries continued when I found out that Jack Black had been cast as R.L. Stine. I've always been mixed on Mr. Black. For every hit film he's had (e.g. School of Rock), he's had a couple of misses (e.g. Envy, Gulliver's Travels). When I saw the first trailer, I caught a glimpse of hope for it being decent, and boy were my hopes delivered.

The story involves a teen boy named Zach, who has just moved to a new town. As is typical of this cliché, he does not like it and wants to go back home. He does manage to make a couple of new friends. A strange dorky boy named Champ, and the girl next door named Hannah, who has a very mysterious father. Her father is later revealed to be none other than R.L. Stine, the world renowned author of Goosebumps. One night, when Zach and Champ sneak into the Stine house, they come across a bookshelf full of Goosebumps manuscripts. Upon opening one, they come to a startling conclusion: the stories are alive. This becomes a bigger problem when Slappy the living ventriloquist dummy (voiced by Jack Black) comes to life and begins to spread the manuscripts across town, unleashing many Goosebumps monsters to wreak havoc onto the town. What follows is a fun and exciting adventure to stop these monsters.

As far as the characters go, the teen characters are nothing really special. They are basically your cardboard teens, including the new kid in town and the dork who tries to be a hero. The actor who steals the show, however, is Jack Black. He portrays a funny fictional version of R.L. Stine, making him out to be an egomaniac who thrives on his success and despises Stephen King.

All in all, I was surprised at how much I really liked the movie. It was a fun nostalgia trip, and fans from the 90s will appreciate it for that reason. The newer fans will probably like it too.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pixels (2015)
7/10
Enjoyable, as long as you're in the target audience.
25 July 2015
So far this decade, Adam Sandler has churned out one awful movie after another. From "Jack & Jill" to "That's My Boy", his efforts at entertainment have been atrocious. Then along comes "Pixels", which shows possible signs of redemption for Mr. Sandler.

"Pixels" is simply an enjoyable and fun day at the cinema, and it does not try to be anything more. Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Josh Gad, and Peter Dinklage team up as four video game experts who come from different walks of life. Sandler is a TV installer, James is the president of the United States, Gad is a conspiracy theorist, and Dinklage is a criminal. They are called to order when an alien race sends down attack squadrons in the form of classic video game characters. From Pac-Man to Donkey Kong, it appears that the world is headed for a disaster of pixelated proportions. Can Sandler and his gang save the world, or is it game over?

Director Chris Columbus, who wrote classic 80s films like "Gremlins" and "The Goonies" and directed classics like "Home Alone" and the first two Harry Potter films, did a great job at bringing all these characters to life. The effects look pretty impressive, and the chemistry among the actors is certainly believable.

Bottom line, I enjoyed the film as both a gamer and a sucker for 80s pop-culture, which there is plenty of referenced. In the end, I would recommend it to those with these similar taste. It is certainly not a movie for everyone.
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ted 2 (2015)
6/10
Not as funny as the first one, but it does have a good message.
26 June 2015
The first Ted was a major surprise for me. I thought it looked stupid from the trailers, but when I saw it I couldn't stop laughing. Having been a fan of Family Guy for a long time, I was not sure what to make of Seth MacFarlane's feature film debut. It was a success, so a sequel was bound to happen at some point.

When I first walked into Ted 2, I wasn't sure what to expect. Would it be funnier than the original, or just a waste of time. Well it was actually neither. What it is, though, is a subtle commentary on civil rights.

In the film, Ted (voice by Seth MacFarlane) is seen by the US government as nothing more than a piece of property. With the help of his thunder buddy John (Mark Wahlberg) and a young lawyer named Sam (Amanda Seyfried), Ted goes to court to fight for his rights as a human being. This is the main plot point, but there are a few subplots thrown in, such as finding a sperm donor so Ted and his wife Tami can have a baby, and a return by creepy bear-o-phile Donny (Giovanni Rabisi).

I did not find myself laughing quite as much in this one as with the first. Some of the jokes were a bit predictable this time around, and some even seemed forced. Probably the highlight of the humor is a hysterical cameo which I will not divulge.

Bottom line, it has a good message to it if you like films with a moral, but if you're a fan of Seth MacFarlane who is hoping for nothing but non-stop laughs, then you may be a tad disappointed. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I'd say it's more worth a rental when the time comes. Not really anything to rush to the cinema for.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A fun-filled addition to a great franchise!
15 June 2015
22 years after John Hammond failed to receive endorsements for his new prehistoric theme park, the gates have officially opened. We return to Isla Nublar, home to the new and improved Jurassic World.

I admit that the first act of the film kind of had me board, as it was mostly people talking. Despite my boredom, it does serve the purpose of introducing us to new characters. One of these new characters is the "Raptor Whisperer" Owen Grady (played by the ever-so-awesome Chris Pratt). We are also introduced to a new dinosaur, the Indigenous Rex, a genetic hybrid who hunts purely for sport.

I do not want to give too much away, but I will say that despite some subpar CGI on the dinos, the action scenes are thrilling, and the final battle alone is worth the price of admission.

While I do not believe that "Jurassic World" is nearly as good as the original film, it is a tad better that "The Lost World" and "Jurassic Park 3". Like many, I was disappointed by the lack of familiar characters (i.e. Grant, Malcolm, Satler) but the new characters are welcome additions to the franchise, and if a sequel does happen, it would be pretty cool to see Owen team up with the likes of Grant and Malcolm. Check it out, as I think it's the most fun you'll have in the movies this summer.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just when I thought the Farrelly Brothers couldn't possibly be any dumber, they go and do something like this… and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES!
16 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
20 years ago, Peter and Bobby Farrelly released one of the most clever comedies of all time featuring the comedic talents of Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels. That movie was "Dumb & Dumber", which remains a classic to many. 20 years later, a much overdue sequel is released cleverly titled "Dumb & Dumber To". News of this sequel got many fans excited in the hopes that it would live up to its predecessor and erase all memory of that awful prequel "Dumb & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd", which lacked the two key ingredients that made the original classic. As far as I'm concerned, it does both those things… mostly.

"Dumb & Dumber To" brings back everybody's favorite dimwits, Harry Dunn (Daniels) and Lloyd Christmas (Carrey), the latter of which has spent the last 20 years in a mental home (as an apparent gag). The guys receive two pieces of news involving Harry: 1.) He needs a new kidney which can only be given by someone with his blood. 2.) He apparently had a daughter with Fraida Felcher (Kathleen Turner), who is now a grown woman who would be a perfect donor. They once again set out on the open road to find Harry's daughter, and as expected, many crazy things happen.

As far as the humor goes, most of the big laughs take place during the first act, in which there are some very cleverly written gags. At the point where they begin the road trip (with Rob Riggle as a passenger), it begins to enter rehash territory, using some of the same gags as the original. The laughs sort of die out there, but there are some clever plot twists which I honestly did not see coming.

Despite repeated gags and some ridiculously cartoonish moments (one of which involves nuclear waste), "Dumb and Dumber To" will satisfy the taste buds of fans of the original, and erase the sour tastes that may still be left behind from that awful prequel. It has also been almost a decade since the Farrelly Brothers have done a good movie, and they have a winner here. Check it out, and be sure to stay till after the credits for a little treat.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Now THIS is how you do a comedy sequel!
21 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When it comes to making a sequel to a smash hit comedy, it's never an easy task. Most of the time, a sequel will follow the exact same outline as its predecessor in hopes that it will bring forth as many laughs. Examples of such carbon copy sequels are "Home Alone 2" and "The Hangover Part 2". Such sequels very seldom succeed, as jokes are usually only funny the first time around. Phil Lord and Chris Miller knew this, and made "22 Jump Street" a complete satire of itself. Most of the gags are the same as the first movie, but the characters are aware and they emphasize it in a way that makes it hysterical. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum bring the same level of comedic energy to Schmidt and Jenko respectively as they did in the first movie, and Ice Cube is equally as scene stealing. Despite many recycled gags, there are also plenty of fresh new ones. The best part is during the end credits, when it jokes about the ridiculous amount of sequels which could make up the franchise.

Bottom line, "22 Jump Street" may not be as hilarious as the first one, but it is clever enough in its own right that it is worth recommending. It falls into the same category as other sequels like "Gremlins 2" and "Anchorman 2", where it satirizes itself for being a sequel. There are also some clever plot twists which even M. Night Shyamalan never would have seen coming. Check it out!
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as hilarious as expected, but funny and entertaining enough
7 June 2014
Seth MacFarlane has always been one of those individuals people either love or hate. Personally, I admire his style of humor, having watched "Family Guy" from the beginning, and found "Ted" to be a surprise hit. When I saw the first trailer for "A Million Ways to Die in the West", literally every scene made me laugh, which is why I was looking forward to this movie. After actually seeing it, I realized there were two different kind of laughs I got: legit laugh (where I found the scene naturally funny) and cringe laughs (where I was grossed out and amused at the same time).

Set in 1882 Arizona, MacFarlane and his rowdy posse, which includes the likes of Charlize Theron, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, Amanda Seyfried, and Neil Patrick Harris, provide plenty of laughs via contemporary dialogue in a Western setting. There are sex jokes and fart jokes aplenty, just the kind of stuff one would expect from MacFarlane. Thrown into the mix is Liam Neeson as the villain, who plays his role so straight it's as if he wasn't even aware he was doing a comedy. This makes him the perfect comic foil for MacFarlane and his gang. There are also a couple of hysterical cameos which I won't reveal.

Bottom line: It's not by any means the funniest movie of the year so far, or even the decade, but it has enough laughs to keep one entertained. Fans of Seth MacFarlane may enjoy it more than others, and everyone else may call it a hit-or-miss. It's no "Blazing Saddles", but it's funny in its own right. This is a case where I will say see it for yourself, and use your own judgement.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Godzilla (2014)
10/10
A thrilling (and at times emotional) thrill ride from beginning to end!
21 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Godzilla is back! Sure Roland Emmerich may have tried to resurrect the King of Monsters back in '98, but his efforts failed, and his lack of support from Toho may have been the cause. But Toho learned from their mistakes this time around, and it shoes. This blockbuster reminds us of why we love the Godzilla movies so much. Asides from Godzilla, there are also some well developed human characters, who (unlike the '98 film) we actually care about, thanks in part to wonderful performances by great actors, especially Bryan Cranston. What really makes this film worthwhile is the fact that Godzilla is not the only monster in it. That's right, two others appear, and we get a classic monster brawl much like in older Godzilla movies. If your a fan of Toho movies, check it out. It does not disappoint. I can definitely see a new franchise starting out with this film, and I can't wait to see where they go with future sequels. *insert Godzilla roar*
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than the first.
17 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This sequel to Marc Webb's Spidey reboot shares something in common with Raimi's second movie. It is better than its predecessor. Now while I didn't think The first "Amazing Spider- Man" was entirely bad, it took some getting used to these newer versions of established characters. But my biggest problem with Webb's reboot was that it dragged a bit too much, but this sequel did not waste anytime. It jumped right into the action, and was a roller coaster ride from beginning to end. Asides from returning actors such as Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Sally Field, there are a few new faces to introduce. Filling James Franco's shoes as Harry Osborne is Dane DeHaan, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Emo Peter from Raimi's third film. Appearance aside, his performance starts out a little weak, but gets much better as the movie progresses. When he actually becomes the Green Goblin, his acting really shines, despite a somewhat goofy look that put's Willem Dafoe's Power Ranger-esque suit to shame.

The main villain, however, is Electro, played greatly by Jamie Foxx. Now I, like many, laughed when the first image of Foxx's electro was revealed, but he turned in a performance that more than made up his appearance. He starts out as Oscorp employee Max Dillon, the stereotypical obsessed fan who looks up to Spidey after he saves his life. The way in which he is transformed into Electro is quite creative. Paul Giamatti briefly appears as Rhino, and I must be honest. He was not at his best here. Giamatti is a good actor, but he was beyond over the top in this one. It seems clear, though, that he will be in the next film, so he will have time to work on his performance.

Bottom line, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" exceeded my expectations. I honestly did not know if I would like it or hate it, but in the end, I found it to be quite an adrenaline rush, which is exactly how I like my superhero movies. Not since "Iron Man 3" have I felt myself sliding out of the seat so much. I am now really excited for the next one, where it is hinted that the Sinister Six will appear.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All around fun for the whole family.
9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
"The Lego Movie" is everything it was meant to be. Straight-up entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. The animation, which was a mix of CGI and stop-motion, was solid. One really cannot tell what blocks and sets are real and which ones are not. The voice acting is perfect, and all the actors give the right amount of personality to their respective characters. If there's one disappointment I had, it was the minor lack of humor. Being that this was directed by the geniuses behind "21 Jump Street" and "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs", I was expecting to laugh out loud from beginning to end. But the humor doesn't quite shift into gear until Batman enters, and then the film gets better and even pretty clever, especially towards the climax. Bottom line, "The Lego Movie" is all around fun for the whole family.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very enjoyable, and at times emotional.
12 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A good chunk of "Saving Mr. Banks" tells of the efforts made by Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) to purchase the rights of the "Mary Poppins" children's books from author P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson). However, we also get a look at Travers' childhood with a series of flashbacks, in which we get a look at moments in her life which inspired scenes in her books. For example, Mr. Banks, the father of the children in "Mary Poppins" was inspired in part by her own father, a banker named Travers Goff (Colin Farrell). Part of the conflict between Travers and Disney revolves around the fact that she considers her stories personal, and the Disney Studio would simply sugarcoat everything.

We get to see the pre-production process of "Mary Poppins", from character sketches to music composure courtesy of Robert and Richard Sherman. These scenes are very delightful, and just might have one singing along to the iconic songs, from "A Spoonful of Sugar" to "Let's Go Fly a Kite". Despite these happy moments, the film is not without it's dramatic moments. The flashbacks depict Travers' father as an alcoholic, which takes a toll on his life, as well as hers. The interactions between Travers and Disney also have their moments.

As far as performances, Emma Thompson was great as Travers. She depicted the author as a snotty British woman who despises America and its people, especially Walt Disney. Tom Hanks does a good job at bringing out the personality of Walt, but his Missouri drawl was a little distracting. Paul Giamatti also appears as Travers' chauffeur Ralph, and he gives a lot of depth to what would normally be a side character.

The only real complaint I have about the movie is flashback transitions, or lack there of. They cut back and forth without any warning. Fading of some sort could have been handy, but that's still just a minor complaint in what is otherwise a flawless picture. I highly recommend "Saving Mr. Banks". You don't have to be a Disney fanatic to enjoy it, but it might not hurt.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Funnier than the original!
23 December 2013
It is rare for a sequel to a hit comedy to come along and be as funny as its predecessor, but "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" manages to go the extra mile and excel above the original's humor. I found the jokes this time around to be a lot more funny and quotable. Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and the rest of his crew find themselves entering the 1980s, a decade when 24-hour news is on the rise. We see the team struggling to adjust to their new setting, as well as time frame. This new plot line is well done and keeps the movie from entering rehash territory… that is until the third act. There is a particular scene which is not only taken directly from the first movie, but it manages to be even more ridiculous, to the point where it bends the borders of reality. I will not say why, but it is worth seeing to find out. Bottom line, this is a very welcome sequel, and in my personal opinion, the funniest movie of 2013. Check it out! You won't regret it. Stay classy, IMDb!
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very interesting
21 December 2013
"Broken Side of Time" was an interesting little project by Gorman Bechard. It follows veteran model Dolce (Lynn Mancinelli) on a road trip to her home, stopping at different places along the way for various types of photoshoots. She is leaving the modeling business, and she intends for these shoots to be her last big "hoorah" before leaving. We see Dolce struggling with a variety of different issues, from relationships to drinking and smoking. Through her actions and expressions, it is easy to tell what she is going through at any given moment, and Mancinelli is so convincing in the role it is hard to believe she is even acting. There are many great scenes, including my favorite where she gets behind the camera to shoot a younger model named Viral (Audria Ayers). My favorite aspect of the film was the use of natural lighting. Whether it be the sun shining through a window, or a sliver of light coming from a door, it makes the film seem all the more realistic. Bottom line, this is a good film not only if you are into the aspects of modeling and photography, but also if you like character study. I must admit, I don't get to see many indie films, but I am glad I caught this one.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed