Polonius85 Reviews

One Royal Holiday (2020 TV Movie)

It's a Hallmark movie. That's all you need to know.

[3/10 · 8 November 2020]

I only watched this movie because it was filmed in my hometown. It was cool to see my old high school and various buildings and places on screen that I see everyday. The actors appear to have the talent to do well on screen, and I understand they're well regarded on Broadway. But, they didn't have much to work with, because this is a Hallmark movie.

Pretty much every plot is the same: Pull the lever on the slot machine of Hallmark movie tropes and this was the result for this go around: 1) Girl working in the big city returns home to her small town 2) Meets a prince 3) Gets him to lighten up by being warm and kind 4) They fall in love in the end. Lucky for the happy couple, they don't have to split time between his country and her small Connecticut town, because the royal castle is actually located in the northern part of her town (Seriously, Google "Chrismark Castle" which is in Woodstock, CT, where the movie was filmed).

All the usual tropes are present throughout, including the obligatory use of the line "Open up your heart!". All the townsfolk are WAY friendlier than real life New Englanders. We're not mean, but we're reserved and we keep to ourselves. We don't go randomly shaking hands with strangers in donut shops and then inviting them to stay the weekend as depicted in the movie.

If you're looking for a new Christmas classic, this isn't one. I was too busy groaning, laughing, and rolling my eyes to have my heart warmed.

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within (2004 Video Game)

My all time favorite game...albeit with flaws

[8/10 · 29 February 2016]

I don't know how many times I've played Warrior Within in the past decade. When this game came out, it was my Netflix series before Netflix series were a thing: I had to binge play so that I could see what was going to happen next. The game play is dynamic and it doesn't get old quickly like Sands of Time did. The graphics were excellent for its day, and it wasn't so hard you constantly got stuck, but not so easy that you could necessarily breeze through it and be done in just a single afternoon (plus, unlike some video gamers, I like to go outside and get exercise, so that extended the time in which I was involved with this game!). Plus, like a good movie, you want to do it over and over again even after you've gotten to the end.

The storyline was excellent, really fit for a good film! It followed the first game very well in terms of continuity all things considered, and character development was very good. The Prince is much darker and brooding than he was in the first game, but he's not yet an anti-hero, or a villainous protagonist like Kratos from the God of War series. He's still good, though now selfish and humorless. Kaileena, voiced by the beautiful and famous Monica Bellucci, acts as both a powerful antagonist and a conflicted love interest of the Prince. Throughout the game, it's left unclear whether your job is to save or kill her, and different choices made by the Prince will ultimately decide which one you'll do (kill or save). The Dahaka chases were always intense, especially when they dragged on for long periods of time; one little mistake like a missed jump or a hesitation and you're dead. All in all, this story-driven game keeps your interest and is often very intense and emotional.

Now, this game isn't perfect, and if it ever got rebooted, there's some glaring issues that need to be resolved. First, the game play can be glitchy; this was unfortunately made in the days before instant updates and patches, so the glitches have stuck around. It's not a constant problem, and I've gotten through a good number of games without a freeze or a glitch, but it's happened enough times that it's noticeable.

The other problem is in the dialog and the female characters. First, the dialog is very poorly written compared to the first game. Everything is rigid and characters reply to one another in an almost non sequitur fashion. I also groaned loudly when the Prince declared "At first the Dahaka filled me with fear, but now, it fills me with RAGE!!" Even Monica Bellucci and Robin Atkin Downes, accomplished actors, couldn't really make the script not sound amateurish.

Now, for the women in the game: It's possible to have a female character be beautiful and sexy without having them be obnoxiously sexualized. But having the Empress's henchwoman, Shahdee, fighting in a metal thong and bustier is not doing that very well. That was less powerful woman and more sexual fantasy roll play. And Kaileena, an immensely powerful woman, chooses to wear a revealing tunic that appears to be more like a designer Sports Illustrated swimsuit than a tunic...with high heeled knee boots? Really? In Ancient Persia? C'mon man! I'm a red blooded heterosexual male, but this was too much! They could have animated the women to be sexy without being exploitative...but they didn't.

The final problem: The end of the game in the 2nd ending (if you get the Water Sword) was confusing, and Ubisoft didn't really clear it up in the next game.

Okay, so I gave a few complaints about this game, but it's because I've had a lot of time with it. But my 8 of 10 star rating should be a hint of where I stand. One of my favorites, and one that brings back a lot of good memories!

Unbroken (I) (2014)

Wanted to like this more because of the book

[5/10 · 23 March 2015]

I know, it's what EVERYONE says about every movie based on a book: The book was better; don't see the movie till you read the book. Generally, I hate that pretentious attitude. However, in this case, I have to break my own rule and say, forget the movie, read the book.

Now, this movie wasn't Razzie terrible; the acting and the action sequences were good. But there was WAY too much left out, there was no chemistry between any of the characters, and the movie just seemed to drag at many points. There's very, very little dialog and for a movie that is supposed to be about overcoming, the tone was very unemotional and depressing throughout. They failed to show the camaraderie among the prisoners, the subtle insurgency against the sadistic guards, or just how The Bird affected Louis. I also was disappointed to see that they cut out Louis' whirlwind marriage, battle with PTSD, coming to faith in God, and recovery from his demons when he came home. We are treated to a brief epilogue explaining quickly that all this happened.

It was a very long, detailed book, and Laura Hillenbrand did an excellent job developing the story of who Louis was and the importance of just about everyone with whom he came in contact. When I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't fathom how they could fit it into a 2 to 3 hour movie. To tell you the truth, I was right. They couldn't, and didn't. It's really a pity; the story on which this is based has "best picture" written all over it, but the filmmakers just fell short. As I said, a very difficult task considering their source material. In all honesty, it would have been better to adapt Unbroken to an HBO miniseries, ala Band of Brothers.

All in all, not a horrible movie, but a disappointment nonetheless. Read the book.

The Land Before Time (1988)

Very heavy for a kids movie, but good

[8/10 · 19 August 2013]

I remember the first time I saw this movie, I was four and in preschool. We were on a dinosaur segment, much to the delight of just about every boy in the class including myself. So, this movie was part of the curriculum. I still remember thinking the tragic death of Littlefoot's mother and Littlefoot subsequently wandering alone through the wastelands was pretty sad and quite intense for a little kid to watch. Then, Littlefoot, looking for sympathy, meets the old dinosaur and is basically told that "life is cruel, pal. Deal with it". I barely had a concept of the finality and severity of death until I saw this movie...no joke. Not that I wouldn't recommend the movie for young kids, but one should take note for their kids that this is not like a Disney movie, which is typically made from the ground up for kids. Don Bluth usually takes pretty mature themes and packages them in a medium that kids can understand. His movies tend to be quite a bit darker than most animated Disney movies and Land Before Time is no exception.

With that intro let me say, having just watched this movie again recently, I forgot how well done it is. It's a very well thought out story that explores many important themes and delivers many deep messages beyond the usually fluffy "follow your dream and marry a prince" that you often see in kids' movies. This is one of the few animated films that I've seen that really conveys a feeling of anxiety and hopelessness throughout and brings the main characters through very obvious desperation and survival needs. You never really know if all five characters really are going to make it. Some may say, "It's a kids movie. They wouldn't kill off any of the main characters!" Think again. Take a look at some of Don Bluth's other stuff. He's never been opposed to killing of characters you wouldn't expect...and on screen. Also in the original script, NONE of the dinosaurs made it to the Great Valley; all died along the away. Obviously, that would have been hard to package. However, the film is very harsh and dark until the last 2-5 minutes when all five do in fact make it to the Great Valley alive.

All this talk about how dark this film is for an animated kids movie is not a criticism. I think that depth of the film makes it great and I wish more films like this were made for kids. I actually sometimes wished that some of the Disney Renaissance films (Little Mermaid, Aladdin, etc) as good as they are, were a bit darker and harsher in tone. Obviously, I think, especially with a kids movie, you need a happy ending, but that doesn't mean you have to constantly make it fluffy. It's too bad that this film didn't have a greater impact on cinema other than spawning a bunch of direct to video shmaltzy sequels with dumb musical numbers. All in all, great movie if you're a kid or an adult.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

What do People See in This Movie??

[3/10 · 3 March 2013]

I saw this movie at running camp when I ran cross country in high school...that makes it about 9 or 10 years ago. I thought it was horrible, depressing, and depraved then. I saw the movie recently when it was on TV and, being one who likes to dissect movies, even ones that I don't care about, I watched a bit. It was every bit as bad as I remembered when I first saw it.

The characters are poorly conceived, the character development is empty at best, and there really isn't a single likable person in the entire movie. Everyone is a rich, over privileged, shallow psychopath. Not even the "good" and "pure" characters are all that likable or anyone that one can relate to. Every bad thing that happened to anyone in this movie, I thought, "Well, that's what you get for being an idiot and/or jerk. Action=Consequence." Plus, the acting and the script were laughable; it was as though this movie was written and acted as a group project in a high school drama class. Every last one of them, Phillipe, Witherspoon, Geller, Blair, all of them, while having little to work with, did not pull off their roles at all. Really sad for actors who already had pretty established careers. I thought Hayden Chrstiansen was better in Star Wars than Ryan Phillipe was in Cruel Intentions.

This movie was Mystery Science Theater bad.

The Words (2012)

It's about writing and books, so it has to be good...right?

[3/10 · 17 February 2013]

What was no doubt intended to be a deep, intellectual, quasi-indie film really ends up being no more than a shaggy dog story. The acting by Jeremy Irons was very good, but the rest of the cast really didn't seem to connect with one another. There was no explained connection between the Dennis Quaid/Olivia Wilde storyline and the rest of the movie, other than the inference that Quaid's character's book was autobiographical. Wilde's character's significance is never explained and it appears that she has no connection to the story at all other than the fact that she's there. None of the story lines weave together and there's no closure on anything. Maybe that was the intent, but even if it was, it just didn't seem to work.

This is a directorial debut by both the directors, and I can see that they have potential; the truth is, this movie had a LOT of potential and it just failed to deliver. It really felt rushed and unfinished. Considering how long these guys have supposedly had this idea, I would have expected more from them. Perhaps it worked differently in their heads than it actually appeared in the movie. At any rate, it was a good first try for a film and I hope to see them improve. But as for The Words, the final page of their book was apparently torn out.

Red State (2011)

Unbiased, well acted, dark, and gritty

[7/10 · 15 October 2012]

I'll start by saying that find it kind of odd that this film is billed as a horror flick. I'd say it's more of an action/drama with some horror movie elements. The beginning plays out like Hostel meets the Westboro Baptist Church, but pretty quickly turns into a political thriller/crime drama.

Here's a basic outline of the story: Three teens meet a woman they found on the internet for sex. The woman drugs and kidnaps them; it turns out the woman is a member of the Five Points Church: A cult/domestic terrorist organization that believes they have been called by God to judge the corrupt United States by capturing and murdering those they deem to be sinners (namely homosexuals). We also find out that this organization is in the process of planning bombings and attacks on government buildings, synagogues, and churches they deem apostate. Basically, The Five Points is a combination of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Branch Davidians, and the Sovereign Citizens movement, among other things. While being held hostage, the teens witness the execution-murder of a gay man the cult captured earlier. In the ensuing confusion after the murder, two of the teens escape, resulting in a shootout overheard by a sheriff's deputy. The shots-fired call gets forwarded to the BATFE, which sends agents to surround the cult's compound. A shootout between the agents and the cultists, based very heavily on the infamous Waco, Texas siege, ensues.

I admit, being a conservative/libertarian, Christian NRA member, I was a bit leery of watching a movie about Christian extremists entitled, "Red State". I was ready for a movie that was going to try and paint all conservative Christians as radical nut jobs. This was not at ALL the case. This movie was not anti-conservative, anti-Christian, or anti-gun rights as far as I can tell. It's emphasized early in the film by a teacher that this group is so extreme that even Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK distance themselves from them. Agent Keenan (John Goodman) mentions that Five Points has much of the same ideology as the Westboro Baptist Church (which exists in this movie's universe; Five Points doesn't "replace" it). However, Five Points is violent and dangerous while Westboro is more just annoying and insulting. It's driven home that this does not represent even ideologies that director Kevin Smith might disagree with; the movie shows violent extremism is evil no matter what views it claims to fight for.

However, the Five Points Church is not the only bad guy in this movie. Red State also decries the denial of constitutional rights in the name of anti-terrorism. Agent Keenan's commander orders that the ATF agents on scene slaughter EVERY cultist, even those that surrender, and then falsely report that each dead cultist was killed in self defense. An unarmed surrendering cultist, as well as an escaping hostage, are executed in cold blood by an ATF agent, according to their orders. Agent Keenan's superiors chide him for disobeying the illegal orders and taking surrendering survivors into custody. They also tell him, off the record, that the arrested survivors will be locked up for life without a trial. When asked for justification of denying Americans their constitutional rights, the ATF supervisor responds, "Because *bleep* them." It's post-9/11 and the constitution no longer applies to those the government deems enemies. Basically, in this movie, no matter who wins the fight, we all lose.

Kevin Smith obviously did a LOT of research for this movie. An ATF agent announces a search warrant of the compound for violations of the National Firearms Act. This particular violation was the illegal modification of a semi-automatic firearm to fire fully automatic. Not too many people know what the NFA was, let alone what it says. It also mentions that the ATF was tipped off by firearms salesmen who were suspicious when members of the cult had consulted them, wanting to know how to make full auto modifications to semi-autos. The movie also correctly identifies various firearms, shows agents using them properly, and shooting accuracy is realistic: Most cultists "spray and pray" and very few bullets hit their targets. Only shots lined up by the shooter are shown to be accurate.

Most chilling of all was the dialog and the ideology espoused by the Five Points pastor; it was radical, but not cheesy and over the top. Having dealt with hateful, fundamentalist so-called "Christians" many times before, I can tell you from first hand experience, that Smith was SPOT ON with his portrayal of extremist, apocalyptic churches. The wording, theology, tone of voice...everything, was horrifyingly accurate.

All in all, a gritty, dark, chillingly realistic movie that surprising takes a stance that pretty much every level-headed person, whether religious, non-religious, liberal or conservative, can agree on: Extremism in the name of anything, whether terrorism or anti-terrorism, is wrong. Good job, Kevin Smith, on a well written, well researched movie.

Insidious (I) (2010)

A Scary Version of Poltergeist

[7/10 · 11 July 2012]

Yikes! I haven't seen a movie in awhile that both jolted me multiple times AND creeped me out for a long time, simply with it's worldview! (The worldview being that pretty much everyone goes to a dark, creepy hell after death and there is no God). Also, the scares do not let up from the opening title screen to the end of the credits. Plus, the soundtrack, including the use of Tiny Tim's annoying but innocent sounding "Tiptoe Through the Tulips", shot my blood pressure up for most of the film.

Quick summery: Josh and Renai find their son, Dalton, in an unexplainable coma. Immediately after this, the hauntings begin, and become increasing violent, evil, and horrifying. They hire a medium who tells that that Dalton is not in a coma, but has had an astral projection (out-of-body experience) and his spirit has wandered too far from his body and is lost in the netherworld (or "The Further" as it's called in the film). As such, Dalton's body is unoccupied but alive, tempting spirits and demons to possess him in order to enter the world of the living; some to simply live again, and some to wreck havoc. Josh is told that he also possesses the ability for astral projection and thus, he must be the one to enter the netherworld to find Dalton.

I agree that there are two "halves" to the film, but I strongly disagree that the second half killed the first. The first half is a typical haunting film (slamming doors, strange figures moving around at night, malevolent spirits, etc). The second half goes beyond strange phenomena and has Josh actually go to the other side to get Dalton. This sounds a lot like Poltergeist, but The Further is not a bright light filled with creepy clown dolls and giant skulls. No, this a completed dark parallel universe filled with creepy corpses in suspended animation...until they are disturbed by the living and attack. There is also a demon that I think is the weak point of the film: The face looks like Darth Maul (like spitting image...look it up), but he has a long forked tongue like Venom from Spiderman, and a body like the Hell Knight from Doom and Doom II (look it up). Not that scary. But the lack of lighting and music are creepy enough that it makes up for Darth Maul/Venom.

All in all, a very scary movie that I probably won't watch again...it makes you jumpy and uncomfortable from beginning to end. If you need a good fright night movie, this a good choice.

Moonstruck (1987)

One of the most quoted movies in my house; Masterpiece

[10/10 · 24 May 2012]

Every big full moon my family sees gets dubbed "Cosmo's moon." When I worked in sales, I would stick in a Moonstruck reference when trying to convince someone to buy the step up, saying "This is pretty good, unless something goes wrong. And something ALWAYS goes wrong." When cooking in our house, the request for someone to hand the cook the butcher knife is always, "CHRISSY, BRING ME THE BIG KNIFE!" (and there's no one named Chrissy in my family). If anyone says the word "temporary" someone will inevitably say, "EVERYTHING IS TEMPORARY!" Yes, we've seen Moonstruck a lot! Awesome movie. Great acting, great cast, likable characters...and it's not even a movie that needed to have a twisted storyline or absolute angst. It's one of those rare movies that really doesn't have much in the way of weaknesses. It's a simple slice of life film about two Italian families in Brooklyn. Simple as that. With the lovably passionate, eccentric personalities that come from such a culture as New York Italian, there's little need to insert "jokes" into this movie. The reality of the almost poetic communication among the family members is funny (at times hilarious!) enough. Plus, anyone who is passionate about Italian food like I am gets the urge the take a day trip to Little Italy to pick up a good loaf of bread every time they see the bread Ronny takes out of his bakery's old coal-fired brick oven!

Every character is believable and likable, flaws and all. Loretta is a superstitious, but smart and level-headed widow who, in a rare loss of self-control, makes a passionate decision that causes a riotous chain of events within her family. Cosmo, Loretta's father, is a successful plumber who, now in his mid to late 60s, has begun to feel he has done nothing with his life and fears death. He turns to extramarital affairs in order to fill gaps he feels are in his life. Rose, the cynical, dry-witted wife of Cosmo and mother of Loretta, remains supportive and loving of her husband and daughter despite their moral failings. There's Johnny, Loretta's soft-spoken fiancé, is still controlled emotionally by his mother, who lives in Sicily. Ronny, Johnny's estranged brother, is an impulsive and tortured man who developed a vendetta against happiness ever since he lost his hand in a bread slicer (causing his then-fiancé, who did not want to be with a crippled man, to leave him). That is, until he meets Loretta. There's Raymond, Rose's brother, and his wife, Rita, who are still madly in love even after being married for many, many years. And there's the Old Man, Cosmo's immigrant father who spends most of his time sneaking table food to his many dogs (much to Rose's dismay), scolding them in Italian, and grunting his displeasure and exasperation with his family's chaos and morally questionable activities. Despite being frail and old, he is shown to still be very wise and authoritative, condemning Cosmo for breaking the family and demanding that Cosmo pay for Loretta's wedding.

All these personalities come together and make a very ordinary story interesting and funny.

All in all, I offer one piece of advice: See this movie. It's unforgettable.

Courageous (I) (2011)

Christian movies: take notes of this movie!

[8/10 · 17 February 2012]

FINALLY, a Christian movie that is really well made, well acted, and with a good plot! The movie was unapologetic about being Christian, and did not water down anything about what they (and I) believe. At the same time, this was not a groan-inducing, in your face, fire and brimstone story. There are many scenes of overt faith and witnessing and they are done in a loving and very realistic manner. Nothing feels forced in the movie.

Unlike most films of this type (church produced), Courageous did not shy away from real world issues such as drugs, crime, consequences of promiscuity, police corruption, and violence. There is a shootout, many chases, hand-to-hand combat, and various arrests. This happens in police work and the makers of the movie realize it. With the exception of profanity (there is none in the movie), nothing really is watered down. Guns are fired and bullets wound. Gangsters attempt to murder police officers. A young man is 'jumped' into a gang (that is, he endures a beating from the veteran members as an initiation to joining); kudos to the producers for researching gang recruitment methods and rituals. This movie did not come across as a "Christian version" of a cop movie. Rather, it was a cop movie made by people who are Christians and, as such, their beliefs and morals are expressed in what they made. They don't try to show life looking out from a protective Christian bubble; rather, they show reality for what it is. Also, the movie shows what a real Christian life is (or can be) like. Sometimes, the movie is less than flattering. Some Christians are shown to lack integrity and/or forgiveness and mercy. Why? Because it's the truth. People, regardless of their beliefs, can be like that. Once again, the producers went for realism, rather than idealism.

My only real complaints: Some of the tactics. The actors should have spent some time with advisers and trainers on how to safely hold a weapon. In a church as big as Sherwood Baptist, there's got to be some soldiers, police officers, or firearms instructors who could have taught them some basic gun safety and shooting drills. Too many of the officers were running around with their fingers on the trigger when not ready to shoot (keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot is one of the MAIN rules of carrying a gun). Also, during a scene with a traffic stop, two officers stand in the space between their cruiser and the car they stopped. That's pretty much rule number one of what NOT to do on a traffic stop! All the guy has to do is back up fast and boom! Dead cop. Also, during that scene, which was in broad daylight, I can't believe that none of the officers noticed any suspicious movement from within the vehicle and gave an exit order. Also, when an armed and dangerous criminal, who has just made multiple attempts to kill police officers, is trying to flee, for the sake of safety, it is considered reasonable to use deadly force while they are running away (basically, if they're dangerous and running: Shoot them in the back). So, yeah, there were a few tactical errors, but I can't fault this movie any more than I can fault about 99% of movies released every year.

All in all, excellent movie. Now, I've left out the main point of the movie until now. It's about men (four cops and a hard working day-laborer) who vow before God and their families to be dedicated fathers and husbands. Nothing, no job, no hobby, nothing, should take away the priority of honoring God and your family. Even if you are not a Christian, if you have a family, you can probably relate to this. Courageous calls for people to stop and take a look at what they're missing not as much because of a judgmental condemnation of fire and brimstone if it is not done, but because if one does not stop for a moment, they may miss what they will never get back.

It's a heartfelt, touching, exciting, high quality movie. I'd recommend it to anyone, Christian and non-Christian.

The Godfather (1972)

Easily lives up to its reputation as one of the greatest films ever

[10/10 · 17 February 2012]

The Godfather is one of those movies that could be considered perfect or near perfect. It's a perfect ten in just about every category of what makes a great film: Cinematography, story, character development, action sequences, acting, plot twists...this movie is an absolute masterpiece. There's no clichés or corny moments, no annoying, useless characters, and its about as original as it comes in all aspects of story. The Corleone family is both evil and moral, both sympathetic and begging for hatred, both understandable and from another world. Vito Corleone is a ruthless crime boss, but at the same time, has standards and a sense of right and wrong. Michael Corleone goes from being a war hero who claims that he is not his family, to a mafia don more ruthless than his father. Sonny, his older brother, is a loose cannon, but with method to his madness. Every time I watch this movie, I ask myself: How did Coppola and Puzo do it? How can this movie be described as anything except perfect? If I have ANY gripe with The Godfather, at the toll booth, there's no way that somebody could take that many rounds and still not be incapacitated. Yeah, people don't always drop with one round in real life, but fifteen guys opening up on full auto with .45 ACP rounds from a Tommy Gun is going to kill pretty damn quickly! But I'm a gun nut, so that's a nit pick. That, I guess knocks the Godfather down to about a 9.999999999999999999 out of 10!

The Lazarus Project (2008)

Good acting, but too many questions and plot holes

[4/10 · 27 January 2012]

Well, Paul Walker, who is more known for his high speed, low quality movies like the Fast and the Furious series, finally has a more serious, thought provoking role. He joins an ensemble cast that gives the movie one of its redeeming features: Good, realistic acting. The other redeeming factors are the camera work, the concept, and the intrigue that keeps the audience wanting to find out just what is going on.

From there, the movie fails to deliver. The problem is, they set up a lot of questions that were either never answered, answered only very indirectly, or in such a way that it didn't make a lick of sense. Okay, so the the name "Lazarus Project" is a dead giveaway that it has something to do with bringing people back to life.

So, did they actually execute Ben and then resuscitate him? Or did they just put him to sleep and transport him to Oregon? What was up with the snake? There was no answer to that question.

Why did the priest think that making Ben think that what happened to him was an illusion would somehow rehabilitate him? Why are they taking death row inmates and putting them in a mental hospital for life? Isn't that kind of what life without parole is supposed to be? An alternative to the death penalty? How is this project doing any good? Why was his wife only slightly surprised to see him at the end? As was stated in another review, she approached him as though he had just been away on a long trip, or at war, or something. Think about it though. She's essentially seeing a ghost! Where was the look of disbelief, the absolute shock? The only explanation I have is that she possibly was told about the Lazarus Project and knew he was still alive. But even if that was supposed to be the case, the fact that it wasn't revealed that she knew made for a weak ending.

All in all, there were a lot of twists that could have made the movie better: He was dead and in heaven, hell, or purgatory. Or it WAS all in his mind (though that's a bit overused). Or he was framed for everything. Or his wife and daughter were being held hostage and they would be killed if he escaped...or whatever. I don't know. This movie had a lot to work with, but it faltered. Too bad.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

FINALLY, a good video game-based movie!

[6/10 · 23 January 2012]

Okay, so this movie wasn't as successful as it was hoping to be, and it wasn't the absolute greatest acted or written movie...but for once, I'm judging this by mainstream, A-movie standards rather than the usual B-movie nonsense that comes with movie adaptions of video games. PoP: SoT has truly broken the mold of 20+ years of attempted video game movies that produced class-A failures like Mario Brothers, Alone in the Dark, Blood Rayne, and the Resident Evil series. Even as a big fan of the Sands of Time game series who was disappointed that the story and characters from the game were scrapped completely, I enjoyed the film. It was fun, there were good sword fights, good special effects, and it kept my attention. The storyline of the movie is more of a mash up of all the Prince of Persia games, not just the Sands of Time series. I get the impression that the writer of the movie and the games, Jordan Mechner, was always disappointed that his first PoP series was not as successful as it could have been and by combining that story with the more successful Sands of Time series, he created this movie (though this is a bit of speculation on my part). Usually doing things like that become trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but Mechner did it pretty nicely.

Okay, the cons of this movie. First, Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton, had very little chemistry. It was painful and awkward to watch, and did not have the playful flirtation, nor the character development, found in their counterparts in the game, The Prince and Princess Farah. Alfred Molina's quasi-libertarian character as well as the thinly veiled anti-Iraq War message (going to war under false pretenses to seize weapons that don't exist) inserted politics in a movie that did not call for it. Political messages in movies have been done to death. Also, while a straight adaption of the Sands of Time game would essentially have produced a zombie movie set in Persia, there was very little attention paid to the actual Sands of Time and the dagger, and the movie is basically following the dagger as it changes hands over and over while the Prince is being chased based on wrongful accusation of murdering his father...it sort of feels like a mix of The Fugitive and What's Up Doc? but with swords and sandals. The writers of the movie could have found a middle ground.

Finally, as I said, I was disappointed to find out that the Sands of Time movie would NOT be following the Prince and Farah through the Palace of Azad as they tried to return the sands to the hourglass, all the while, slowly falling in the love. As I said before, a straight adaption would have resulted in another zombie movie, but rather than strip the story to its basic structure and pillars (that is, leaving the characters, setting, and basic story), the movie strips the story down all the way to its concept (a prince, a princess, and a dagger) and building from there. I don't think this was necessary as the game offered a lot more to work with in making a movie than what was used. I'm hoping perhaps in the future, another Prince of Persia movie will be made that sticks closer to the Sands of Time game's story (perhaps with THAT prince being the great-grandson of Dastan or something). But that's a pipe dream.

All in all though, I do recommend this movie. It's a good party movie, and it's one you can watch with most kids over age 10.

Modern Family (2009–2020)

Easily one of the funniest shows I've seen!

[10/10 · 19 January 2012]

Modern Family is one of the best shows currently on TV. The producers and writers of the show came out swinging from the very first episode, and rarely, if ever, has there been an episode that has fallen flat. The show both admires and pokes fun at all types of modern families. There is very little, if any, political or social preaching, and the entire show is very politically incorrect. This is a breath of fresh air in a time when shows are either trying to force certain views on the audience, or are so raunchy and disrespectful of everything that the audience spends more time cringing than laughing. Whether you are male, female, young, old, gay, straight, liberal, conservative, married, or single, you'll enjoy this show and find something to relate to.

The characters are eccentric and over the top, but not at all hard to believe. The jokes are not in-your-face slapstick (usually) and are delivered subtly and dry as a bone. It is a perfect blend.

Modern Family really is modern America. No matter what your view is, this is a show that comes as close to reality as any show on TV. As such, it has a HUGE reservoir of material that all audiences can laugh at. If you haven't seen this show yet, you are missing out!

Troy (2004)

Entertaining but irritating

[6/10 · 10 January 2012]

It's tough having majored in history, with a concentration on Ancient Greek and Near Eastern culture, and saying too much good about this movie. I do like it on one hand as it's action packed, has great fight scenes, and very good acting. The story moves along at a good pace and the characters are well done. It's an entertaining movie no doubt, and one that can be watched over and over and enjoyed.

On the other hand, Troy is about as much about the Iliad as The Crucible was about the Salem Witch Trials. This movie is really just a thinly veiled allegory about the Iraq War with a bunch of barbs thrown at then-President Bush ("Imagine a king that fights his own battles," and "20 thousand men come to fight for one man's greed,"). The story of poor men forced to fight an unjust war under false pretenses for one corrupt leader's greed doesn't need a genius to unravel what point it's trying to get across.

Also included in the movie is the typical Hollywood disdain for religion. Every character who claims strong belief in the gods is shown to either be misguided, foolish, or vicious while Hector and Achilles, who claim they believe in the gods but largely scoff at them, are shown as wise and having the best grip on reality. The movie also throws a barb at the idea of afterlife, suggesting that the idea of a temporary, though flawed, existence is more attractive than the idea of living eternally, which Achilles claims would cause moments to lose their preciousness. The embrace of death and the devaluing of life is prevalent throughout. Whatever a viewer's personal philosophy is on religion, the world view shown in this movie is so far removed from Ancient Greek and Near Eastern thought that it's hard to take the movie seriously at many points.

It's already been discussed in many other reviews where the movie deviated from the original story, or which characters should have been more prominent, so I won't go into that. My issue with the movie was that the creators were unable to divorce from their own world view enough to create a more authentic setting. Even if the creators wanted to make a movie without the gods as characters, it could have been done if the world view was more accurate.

All that being said, I will conclude with the way I started: It's a fun movie that, if you turn off your intellectual side, you will enjoy.

Bully (2001)

Brutal, explicit, but very well done

[7/10 · 6 January 2012]

Bully is a chilling movie that shows just how low humanity can stoop. That a group of people can devalue human life so much as to see murder as a perfectly acceptable way to rid themselves of a problematic person in their life is an eerily true, and tragic occurrence that we see all too often. Bully explores the worlds of both the murderers and victim in one such a case from a no nonsense, blunt point of view.

I was surprised that I liked this film as much as I did. The acting was very good, the character development was extremely well rounded, and the story progressed at just the right pace. The film subtly shows all the options the Broward County Seven had other than murder. They could have walked away from Bobby, they could have reported him to the police, they could have talked to him...they could have even scared him or threatened him. But, lacking any true moral compass, they decided that killing him was the acceptable answer.

The way the characters were portrayed was very realistic. They were neither complete stone-faced, horror movie villains nor were they shown as heroes ridding the world of the scum that was Bobby Kent. The audience both hated and sympathized with both Kent and the Broward Seven.

Now, the downside. I think that there was too much explicit sex that was unneeded in the movie. It really didn't enhance the story to show full body nudity, and I found it distracting. Yes, it did help to show that the Broward Seven were indeed lowlifes themselves, but still...anyway, I guess I just won't watch this movie with my kids! All in all, a great true crime movie. According to interviews with the real Broward Seven, it was pretty accurate, so kudos to Hollywood for getting things right. If you've got thick skin and a strong stomach, it's a very interesting movie.

S.W.A.T.: Firefight (2011 Video)

Some fun stuff, but overall, not good

[4/10 · 30 December 2011]

Okay, I think I summed up the movie relatively well in the title line. There were some good action scenes and for a B-list ensemble, the acting wasn't horrible. There was also an attempt to have the story drive the movie, rather than have it be a vehicle for off the wall, Michael Bay-esque explosions and groan inducing, Steven Seagal type fire and fistfights.

Now the negative. Basically, this movie is another one of those "unconventional teacher takes a job at an inner city school and uses tough love and creative methods to teach all the rough, gangster wannabe kids that they DO have a future and can make something of themselves," type of movies...only it's with a SWAT Team.

Okay, so not the worst story in the world. Overused, obviously, but not the worst. The things that got me were the unanswered questions and glaring factual errors. I've already added a few in the goofs section, but here are a bunch of things that made me not like the movie:

-Detroit PD's SRT (not SWAT, as they are in the movie) is a VERY top notch unit, equal to LAPD SWAT in terms of quality officers, training, and equipment. That they needed to learn from the "more" elite LAPD unit is silly and a bit insulting. It also seems unlikely that Detroit wouldn't be on the FBI's short list for HRT certification alongside LA rather than after.

-They really didn't seem to learn anything special in the training course that a CIVILIAN couldn't learn at a shooting class. (see: Frontsight, Gunsite, etc). FBI HRT is a top tier, counterterrorist unit that trains alongside Delta Force and DEVGRU (SEAL Team Six) for a LONG list of missions. That they shoot on the move rather than standing still is NOT what sets them apart from police SWAT teams.

-The fact that they called it "Detroit SWAT" rather than "SRT" shows a lack of attention to detail, IMO. A little thing, but it annoyed me. "But not everyone knows what SRT is," yeah, they wear tactical armor and carry M4 rifles and take down hostage takers, we would have figured it out.

-I didn't understand why they had an LAPD officer training DPD officers in supposed HRT tactics. If DPD's team wanted to be HRT certified, why didn't the FBI send HRT operators to certify them?

-Why was Cutler armed with that stupid Bushmaster ACR the whole time? Yeah, it looks cool, but it's all bark and no bite. Obviously, they were trying to attract the Modern Warfare crowd with that.

-Cutler picks an old army buddy to be his assistant, even though she (Cutler's friend) doesn't have any law enforcement experience. Being a SWAT officer is very different than being a solider. Sure, they have some of the same tactics in terms of shooting and room clearing, but there's also different rules of engagement, and SWAT officers are still police officers, not soldiers. Doesn't matter if you were a Navy SEAL or you worked at McDonald's before you became a cop, you still go through the same academy and you still work patrol for a few years before you can even apply to your department's tactical unit. That somebody, just because they were in the army, would immediately be assigned to a SWAT team without having even attended a police academy, is just stupid. I know it's a movie, but it's stupid. Cutler hand picks a buddy to help in the certification process and he doesn't even pick a fellow cop? C'mon man!

-And of course, my favorite thing (and they do this even in the good cop movies) the fact that police officers gun down the bad guys, and that's that. Clean your gun, get some chow, and get ready for the next call out. No administrative leave, no mountain of OIS (officer involved shooting) paperwork, no media asking "why didn't they just shoot him in the leg? Did they say 'please' when they asked him to drop the gun?"

I could go on for hours, but overall, the movie was dumb, and I'll leave it at that.

Terra Nova (I) (2011)

Don't understand the hatred; show is fun

[7 November 2011]

I really don't think the creators of the show were going for groundbreaking, mind boggling, or engrossing. I'll admit, it's not the most original sci-fi show ever devised. It is a bit cliché at parts, acting isn't top notch but really, I think the show has succeeded in what it's trying to be: A fun show. It's generally lighthearted, interesting, and with likable characters. For a TV show, the special effects aren't too bad either.

Seriously, some people need to chill out and enjoy some TV that doesn't make you feel like you need a long shower after you're done watching. It's a nice adventure with a little intrigue. I recommend it to anyone who needs to unwind on Monday night.

3 Ninjas (1992)

Good for what it is

[5/10 · 9 May 2011]

I remember I loved this movie as 7 year old karate kid wannabe back in 92. While not as timeless as other movies in this genre such as Home Alone, it's a good, safe (for content) movie for kids to enjoy. It's no Oscar winner, but it wasn't trying to be (obviously). Yes, the dialog is stupid, the plot is amateurish, and if you're over the age of 11, you'll be unamused by most of the humor. Everyone knows that three kids outnumbered 10 to 1 by professional criminals with extensive martial arts training AND who have guns wouldn't stand a chance, but this is a kids' fantasy movie. Every little boy dreams of fighting bad guys and kicking their butts; 3 Ninjas just plays it out on screen. I find it funny that so many find THAT aspect of the movie to be its "downfall." If you're planning on having a sleepover party for you 6-10 year old son, this is a good movie for him and his friends.

Tosh.0 (2009–2020)

One of the funniest shows on TV!

[9/10 · 30 December 2010]

I liked Daniel Tosh's comedy before anyone had heard of him. My sides hurt from laughing after listening to his first act, "True Stories I Made Up." He upped the bar with "Completely Serious." So I was pretty excited when I heard he was getting a show...then was disappointed when it was yet another Soup variation, especially with Web Soup already running. I was in for a pleasant surprise. Tosh excels at social commentary, and the goofy grin that shows on his face as he nonchalantly spouts off the most politically incorrect and tongue in cheek remarks you could dream up will just about have you dying.

From time to time, an episode falls flat, and sometimes the show can get a little TOO gross (I can't take looking at compound fractures or people squeezing pus out of boils). Occasionally I'll be offended by something he says, but overall, Tosh is very consistent. Awesome show!

Bad Girls Club (2006– )

Pure Trash TV...but entertaining in a sick way

[5/10 · 21 April 2010]

The premise of this show is that a group of girls with emotional and personality disorders thrown together with little moderation will somehow moderate themselves. HA! Notice, however, that all the girls here are gorgeous, seem to be coming from privileged backgrounds, and are promiscuous beyond imagination (yes, a few cast members allegedly even entered the porn industry after the show). These girls cover just about the entire spectrum of personality disorders and mood disorders in the DSM-IV. This show allows for the narcissists to grab the spotlight, the antisocial girls to have a whole menu of people to manipulate, sabotage, and exploit, and an environment for bipolar girls to go absolutely out of control. There is absolutely nothing therapeutic about this show. It encourages the worst behavior of our society.

That said, if you ever want to feel better about yourself, watch this show.

Disney's Doug (1996–1999)

Wanted to Like it When it Came out...but Disney Ruined it

[4/10 · 29 July 2009]

To this day, I don't see why Disney felt the need to completely gut everything about Nickelodeon's first Nicktoon. I understand, they feel that they can do anything better than anyone else...but in this case they were very wrong.

First, there were so many things that were unnecessary. Why did they have to break the Beets up? Everyone loved them! Hell, I still have some of their songs on my iPhone! Second, why did they close the Honker Burger? Those two things just showed that the new writers felt intimidated and were so desperate to do the show better rather than even just trying to do it justice. It failed on both accounts.

The story lines were 30 minutes, which I did like (I would have liked longer than 10 minute episodes in the original series). However, they became increasingly bizarre and unrealistic with each passing episode. One of the charming things about the original series was that, aside from some cartoon slapstick comedy, Doug was not at all unrealistic. Disney decided to put the show on acid and leave the viewers scratching their heads at the end of each episode, asking, "What was that all about?" This version of Doug jumped the shark the moment it began. It could have just stuck to the original format with some chronological updates and allowed the show to evolve a bit, but instead Disney ripped it up by the roots to begin with, leaving a show that was only slightly connected with the original series.

Doug (1991–1994)

One of My All Time Favorites!

[9/10 · 29 July 2009]

Doug was great: Good lessons without being preachy, subtle pokes at pop culture, and likable, all-too realistic characters (what school didn't have an overachieving Chalky Studebaker type, or a pair of nerdy Sleech brothers? My school sure did!). I don't think there's any age group or demographic who can't sit and watch and enjoy Doug over and over. From Doug's daydreaming about being Quailman or Smash Adams to solve his dilemmas, to trying to find ways to woo Patti Mayonnaise, I think everyone one of us can relate to excitement of the average world seen through the eyes of an 11 year old.

My only complaints about Doug: I wish the episodes were longer and that there had been more seasons. That's it though.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008–2009)

Show started great but has since lost it's way

[6/10 · 19 February 2009]

When I saw previews for the show back in late 2007, I laughed it off. Then, I became intrigued and read up on it. It seemed like it had a good storyline and followed the preceding movies pretty well, while at the same time, being original. So, I watched the show starting with the first episode online, and I was very impressed. Being a big fan of T2 when I was a kid, that's a feat. It had a linear, easy to follow story that proceeded well from one episode to the next (with a few hiccups and loose ends, but nothing that marred the show badly). John and Sarah very much followed the logical evolution of their personalities as we saw them in T2 to the beginning of the show. The concept of a young, attractive, nearly human female terminator was very smart, especially with the hint of some possible forbidden romance between her and John gave another element to the show that many viewers were interesting in following. The show basically revolved completely around the main characters and their lives, and if there was anything distracting from the overall goal, it was to develop their relationships. Finally, the thing I liked a LOT was that it had the "feel" of Terminator 2 and kept a lot of the same elements, references, and even minor characters (the Dysons, Dr. Silberman, Enrique, etc) as the movie to keep the connection alive.

Then, after the first episode of season 2, it began to go downhill. Plot holes opened up, and there were glaring continuity errors (SPOILER!!! It has been acknowledged in many episodes that Derek was aware that he was John's uncle, then in the episode "The Good Wound", suddenly, he is surprised to discover this). Unresolved questions and stories (What happened to Silberman after being locked up, and what was the deal with John's lab partner, Cheri) from the first season were thrown out and completely forgotten. The linear series was discarded largely for somewhat stand alone episodes, though not quite, leaving the overall storyline in limbo. Too many characters were introduced, some of whom had absolutely no impact on the storyline whatsoever, and some (Katherine Weaver, Riley, Jessie) that just distracted from the core characters (The Connors, Cameron, Derek, and Ellison). The focus of the show was changed from the stopping of Skynet's creation to Sarah's mental descent into chaos, trying to take an uncomfortable philosophical edge and failing miserably. John turned from a maturing leader into a brooding, ungrateful teenager with an annoying girlfriend. Finally, worst of all, the development of John and Cameron's relationship, romantic or otherwise, was all but completely discarded.

All in all, this show started out great, then went wrong somewhere, completely leaving its roots and veering off into a road to nowhere. There is still ample time to fix all this in theory, but the dropping number of viewers indicates that this show is probably doomed.

Scary Movie 4 (2006)

Zucker and Abrams saved this movie from being a total flop

[5/10 · 17 August 2008]

The geniuses who brought us Hot Shots, Airplane, and the Naked Gun series team up, once again, with the idiots who wasted film on Not Another Teen Movie, Scary Movies 1 and 2, Date Movie, Epic Movie, and Meet the Spartans, bring elements from both styles to create a mediocre movie. The original story parodies of film genres that Zucker and Abrams are famous for are instead sadly replaced by Seltzer and Friedberg's scene for scene mockery of various films in the horror genre with various sight gags thrown in (with War of the Worlds, The Village, The Grudge, and Saw taking the major brunt of the punches). However, thanks to Z and A, many of the hit in the groin jokes are replaced by funny dialogs or other, more intelligent sight gags.

All in all, however, Zucker and Abrams would have done a lot better had they done this on their own, though.