harbingerofapocalypse Reviews

Birds of Prey (2020)

The Mobius Strip of Cringe

[2/10 · 7 December 2020]

Joker in Suicide Squad was close to cringe, but not quite - just an overzealous actor, eager to put his own unique stamp on an iconic character. Didn't work for me, but I respect the effort.

This film took that near-cringe, elevated it to full-on cringe, turbo-charged it, slathered a bucket of mayo all over it, microwaved it, fed it to the dog, put the droppings in a bag, and ding-dong ditched it at some other dude's house because it didn't really care enough about you to realize it had the right last name but wrong first.

From the first frame, this film is so cringe that the word cringe was created specifically for this movie.

I know, I know... not possible. Yet here we are.

This film's cringe-density tore through time and space, its essence leaking through just enough to spill into the past and create the need for the word cringe to be invented. Then it lay in wait for hundreds of years until just the right time for it to take physical form, creating the greatest-yet example of cringe.

A cringe so unique that it requires its own branch of study: cringeometry.

A cringe so terrible that the application of the word to any other object or idea in the history of mankind seems unthinkable.

A cringe so pernicious that it forces me to use the word cringe repeatedly, even though the use of the word itself had become cringe long ago.

A cringe so utterly perfect that all other matter has been squeezed out and nothing else exists within it; creating a ball of cringe so dense that it tears through time and space. Its essence leaks through just enough to spill into the past and create the need for the word cringe to be invented. Then it lay in wait for hundreds...

omg it's only 10 minutes in... kill me now.

The Predator (2018)

Another fanboy casualty

[7/10 · 4 February 2019]

Yet another movie that has been eviscerated by sheltered, basement-dwelling, anime-addled, comic book cretins because it dared deviate from the epic expectations or tone that they'd built up in their narrow minds (see ~in derisive sneer mode~ "Disney" Star Wars) or have been warped by the Nolan-ization of all things action/comic/sci-fi.

I think the main intent behind this new Predator, tone-wise, was just to be 'fun'. Would I have preferred a back-to-basics, serious and intense thriller full of great action, like the first? YES. But I watched this one with an open mind, and it was indeed, FUN.

Anyone giving this film 1-star should just be disregarded completely and never paid attention to again. They're the kind of person that would reject Jesus at his second coming because His return wasn't flashy or exciting enough, or was too jokey.

Drugstore Cowboy (1989)

Near 30 Years Removed from the Hype

[5/10 · 30 April 2018]

I'm at a loss. I've been hearing about this movie since it came out - it's been in my to-see list since then. I finally watched it last weekend.

The opening robbery was just ok. It could have been presented with way more tension. That goes the same for the rest of the movie - bits and pieces here and there were better than average, but they were short and few, and you could see all over the place missed opportunities for greater drama, emotional impact, and excitement. Parts were just plain boring. But then something semi-interesting would come along and (barely) keep me from turning it off.

There are vastly superior drug movies out there - my favorite being Requiem for a Dream. I don't know why this is singled out as such a great film. It certainly was not the first to tackle the subject - Panic in Needle Park, among others that came before it. Do I regret watching it? No. Will I ever watch it again? Absolutely not.

I don't think this is a case of built-up expectations either. It's like I just knew there was something off about all the praise it was getting at the time - maybe that's why it's taken nearly 30 years to get around to watching it. I didn't think it was going to be a masterpiece, but I did think it was going to be much better than it was. Sometimes I think a prominent, popular critic ends up liking something that is actually mediocre and then everyone else just feels like they have to jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise, I just figure this one out.

Manhattan (1979)

Beyond Overrated

[3/10 · 18 February 2018]

Even setting aside Allen's personal history that inescapably boosts the creep factor of one of the central relationships, this movie is filled with utterly unlikeable people doing immoral things. Supposedly a love letter to the titular city, the only thing that rises even to admirability is the cinematography. Except for the romanticizing of the city via the look of the film, there is zero romance to any of these relationships. I will never be able to suspend disbelief at the idea, in many of Allen's films where he plays the main character, that he's somehow such an attractive Casanova that he gets himself into these predicaments to begin with. His characters are such annoying, whiny-voiced trolls. The humor is low-key, nothing laugh-out-loud funny, but a few chuckles. It's the kind of movie pseudo-intellectuals write and give glowing reviews of, but for the rest of us it's just a big shrug. If these are the types of people that are typical of Manhattanites, then screw Manhattan, and definitely this movie.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Hokey, Goofy, and Dumb

[3/10 · 1 December 2017]

I started this movie with an open mind, not expecting much based on reviews, but not certainly expecting a giant turd. But it had gone full turd by the 30 minute mark.

The effects are not near as spectacular as everyone says. I think they're all just wowed by all the colorfulness which is just unusual for a sci-fi film. Really, the vast majority of it looks like a competent video game cut scene, but no more. The Pearls could have been cousins of the blue Avatar aliens. The Converter (the alien pet thing) was just bad cgi, and they tried way too hard with phony 'cute' moments, trying to make you go 'awww', but it's impossible because it's just an ugly, bland lizard cgi thing with no personality. None of the creatures or landscapes or interactions with people felt natural or appeared truly real.

The two leads are decent actors, but they have ZERO chemistry. We're supposed to believe they're in love, but little gives you even much of an impression that they even really care about one another. Except I guess we're supposed to be convinced by the hint at the beginning of some bump- n-grind that has been going on (as usual in most movies, shorthand for showing/implying a deep, loving relationship is sexual intercourse), and some scattered banter between the two. But, I don't blame the actors. The script is totally at fault.

The dialog is weak. No memorable lines, full of goofiness and people saying things that don't really make sense or are supposed to be funny and are not. Near the end, Valerian is fighting and does an impressive take- down of one of the bad guys, and Laureline turns to the spectators and says proudly "I taught him how to do that." The way the line is read and scene presented, it's obviously supposed to be funny. Except I don't recall anything in the movie about her teaching him any kind of moves, or anything else, that would supply the context to make that line funny. It doesn't make sense. The movie has a number of these. The only thing I can think of is that Luc Besson was coming up with dialog/situations that might have been good in French, but not being native English in language and culture, didn't realize the funniness wasn't translating properly.

The final, and biggest, negative for me is just the overall hokey, naive childishness. I think this is also due to Besson, since he made The 5th Element as well, and this movie cribs a lot of that movie's style, themes, and elements (even has a similar scene of the visually impressive alien entertainer - blue tentacle-headed opera singer in 5th and shape-shifting cabaret dancer here played by Rihanna). I didn't care for 5th El much, but it was watchable and more entertaining, in spite of the dumb parts like the ending. This movie has the same 'love conquers all' ending in the form of an eye-rolling speech from Valerian, that on top of being goofy, seems to come out of nowhere and is totally out of place. Maybe it's because of the aforementioned failure of the script to plausibly form a deep connection between the two leads. And the fact that 'love' didn't really seem to be a major theme of most of the movie, but then suddenly is a vital part of why things are happening the way they are. There were a few scenes like that in this film that were intended to have some emotional impact (like Rihanna's alien death), but it didn't earn it at all.

Notice I haven't really commented much on the story itself. The reason is it's just not interesting. Nothing unique or new to a single aspect of it. I like Besson's action films - Leon is a masterpiece, but even his lesser ones are almost always entertaining - but I don't think he does sci- fi/fantasy well at all. By the end, I truly hated this movie. The wife thought it was OK, but then, she was hopped up on drugs from oral surgery the day before.

Anyway, take the worst elements of The 5th Element, ratchet them up a few notches, and you have Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.

The Orville (2017–2022)

Adjust your expectations

[7/10 · 14 September 2017]

Only seen the first episode so far, and it's not quite what the promos make it seem. It's got funny parts, but it's not the full-on spoof of Star Trek that I expected. It's really more of a riff. If you adjust your expectations, then it's still very good. It aims to be Trek with an above average humor quotient - mostly mild to hearty chuckles but no big belly-laughs, and not anywhere near as vulgar (so far) as MacFarlane's other work. My only real disappointment was seeing Norm Macdonald's name in the opening credits, then waiting and waiting, and he finally shows up, but only in a 5-second scene as the voice of an alien blob of goop. I'm sure he'll be back for more, but I would have liked to have seen him as a real character on the bridge - he would have made an awesome sarcastic Spock type. I guess you take what you can get of Norm these days. Anyway, it's worth checking out. Not something that makes me crazy with anticipation for the next episode, but if it at least stays at the same level as the opener, then it's a keeper.

Fantastic Four (2015)

Not Deserving of the Hate

[7/10 · 25 May 2017]

I didn't expect much and wasn't overly excited to see this, but I thought the trailers made it look cool and I go for the dark, brooding style over the more colorful, hyper style of something like Avengers. Another caveat is that I'm not a comic book purist by any means. If you can stick to the source material and make it good, awesome. But I also fully believe that not everything good in comic form (or any written material) makes a good transfer to film, and even if it's good, some change can make it better. So they made the human torch dude black, or altered this or that event in the storyline. Big f'ing deal, you gd children. It's a comic book - chill. Take all that into consideration I guess when I tell you I'm absolutely stunned at the level of vitriol heaped upon this film. It wasn't great, sure. But I truly have never seen a movie more undeserving of it horrid reputation. Yes, the ending was rushed and you could tell that, yet again, a bunch of studio suits and hacks thought they could put together a film better than real filmmakers. I do believe that Trank's original vision would likely have been great, from what I've heard and from what made it on screen. Even with the studio butchery though, it was more than passably entertaining. Actors were all fine, effects were up to snuff - even the Thing. Story-wise it was the first in a presumed series, so yeah, you expect a lot of set-up - giving back stories, bringing the team together, etc. It's really too bad that there won't be a second. I think what you have here mostly is a case Asperger/Autistic/Borderline Personality Disorder obsessives that have freaked out because it didn't adhere to the source material to the letter, so they complain and then make up all kinds of other invalid reasons to hate it on top of that. I don't care enough to be bogged down by that kind of bs, so I enjoyed it.

Grey's Anatomy (2005– )

Getting Progressively Worse

[4/10 · 11 April 2017]

Started out pretty good, but gets worse and worse each season. Becomes just another sex and liberal-issues obsessed show. Near every episode has people basically jumping into the closest closet or empty room to get it on - while at work in the hospital. In later seasons, they really push the lesbian relationships hard - over and over. If you binge watch, all the sex-at- work and alternative-lifestyles-presented-as-normal-and-widespread get much harder to overlook. And then on top of that, all the hardcore liberal political stories that start to get shoved in with zero subtlety or fairness. Another show where the creators take their initial success as an opportunity to cram their viewpoints and twisted morality down your throat instead of just keeping on with what they were doing good at. I'd say it started out as an 8, but last few have dropped to a 4 at best.

CHIPS (2017)

Bad sex-obsessed throwback to terrible 80's action 'comedies'

[2/10 · 26 March 2017]

This reminded me of garbage like 'Loose Cannons' or something like that. Ostensibly a comedy, but with few laughs, and lots of 'exciting' action scenes. There was only one single belly laugh - a physical comedy bit that, when compared to the dearth of humor in the rest of the film, just felt really easy and lazy, in spite of the laugh. Near every other attempt at humor in the film involved sex. I used to like Dax, but it seems every film that he's had a hand in writing or directing has been obsessed with sexual humor. Especially homosexual. He makes a lot of jokes about it, and just like in Hit & Run, he spends at least one long scene straining to make some ham-fisted point about homosexual acceptance. At least it was only one scene in this film, as opposed to Hit & Run. But OK, we get it. You think homosexuality is perfectly normal and we should all be cool and accept it. Stop hitting us over the head with it already. And get some help with your sex obsession and try to write some real humor next time.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

It really is as bad as the internet would have you believe.

[2/10 · 17 July 2016]

Don't believe the critics, who are mostly reviewing this in an effort to 'balance' the hate that they believe is solely due to its gender switching. The bulk of criticism of this film has absolutely nothing to do with that. This movie plain sucks, and sucks hard. It's just not funny. And with the people involved, it had the responsibility to be vastly better than it was. I love McKinnon, McCarthy, and especially Wiig, so it's not a matter of thinking that women can't be as funny as men. Jones is, in my opinion, one of the least funny SNL players though I don't think she's outright bad. Here though, she was embarrassing. Still, I don't totally blame her - her horrible character is mostly the writer's fault for her terrible lines and the director's fault for the awful performance. Even Wiig was so low-energy through the whole thing. None of the ladies had chemistry with each other. They just went through it, reading their lines, with very little spark. I was completely open-minded to the idea of an all-woman show, even though I thought it was totally unnecessary and felt gimmicky, but they really should not have made it a reboot or remake or whatever they want to call it. It should have been its own original story. As far as the cgi goes, I get why it looks bad. It's on purpose and is trying to be cheesy, the same way the original was. But it just comes off as cheap, not as a clever nod to the first. The biggest problem with it is it's just not funny. Aside from a few of Hemsworth's ditzy antics and one scene where the school dean comes up with a couple creative ways of flipping off Wiig and McCarthy's characters, I didn't put out more than a minor chuckle or two the entire movie. Even my wife, who was so very excited about this movie and primed to laugh at even the smallest joke, complained about how massively disappointing it was. There were so many missed opportunities and misjudgments in this that you really can't help but be angry. The end credits show a perfect example. During the film Hemsworth's character is possessed and temporarily takes control of a large group of military and other people in the street. He makes a motion and everyone in the group strikes a pose straight out of Michael Jackson's Thriller (one of the minor chuckles I spoke of). But that's it. Then during the end credits you see some of the entire sequence where Hemsworth directs the group in the full dance. All you can say is WTF were they thinking, not including at least some of that in the main film? That was actually funny. Instead, we get stuff like the millionth boring Exorcist reference with an over-the-top, unfunny shout and slap that drives out the demon. What you saw in the trailers really are the 'funniest' parts of the movie. If you hated the trailer, you will hate the movie. Do not believe the PC reviewers and critics who are saying different, just because they don't want to be accused of misogyny. This time the annoying internet fanboys who were hating on it before even seeing a single frame of it just happened to accidentally get it right.

Zoolander 2 (2016)

WTF did I just watch...

[7/10 · 30 May 2016]

...that is somehow so different from what everyone else seems to have seen? Admittedly not as good as the first one, but not by that much. The wife and I enjoyed this quite a bit. We rented it, but I have to say we would not have felt ripped off even if we paid full price to see it in the theater. I'm utterly baffled by all the hate for it. Maybe our expectations weren't as high as others', I don't know - but why would you have such high expectations for a movie like this anyway? I won't bother going into depth about the acting, plot, cinematography, etc. because it's irrelevant. It's just a silly movie, same as the first, designed to elicit some chuckles and provide a good time. It succeeded.

Vehicle 19 (2013)

A Stain on Walker's Career

[1/10 · 13 July 2015]

Horrible, horrible movie. I though Getaway, with Ethan Hawke and Selena Gomez, was the bottom of the barrel as far as car chase movies. But that mound of suck is Shakespeare comparatively. Very sad that this was one of Walker's last films. I understand that this was low-budget, and as stupid as some of the story and character actions are, they are not the main problem with this. Its main issue is technical. This is one of the worst-shot films I've ever seen. I've seen no-budget films that look better, have better camera placement and scene blocking, and easier-to-follow action. 3/4 of the shots are close-ups where one of the actor's head takes up half of the screen area. Action scenes are quick-cut nonsensically. Editing is horrible. I've read that the intention was to give a claustrophobic feel to the movie as it almost entirely takes place from inside a vehicle. But there are competent ways to give that feel and then there are incompetent ways. This film is big on incompetency.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Why the Hate?

[8/10 · 7 July 2015]

I truly don't get the hate for this movie, unless you're one of those types that goes to comicon and asks questions about insanely obscure trivia to flaunt your vast knowledge of the T universe or writes erotic terminator fan-fiction from your mom's basement.

It's the least of the three terminators, yes. But the least in a series of such high quality and entertainment value that to suggest this is one of the worst sequels ever is just plain hyperbolic stupidity. One of the things I keep seeing mentioned is the less serious parts. What is wrong with some humor? It was hardly even close to enough to call it a comedy and none of it was bad enough to induce groans. T2, and even T1, had humorous bits but I don't hear complaints about them. I don't know what people were expecting. They act like this is the Phantom Menace of the Terminator franchise. Please.

It's got solid action (including one of the best destructive car chase sequences ever imho), it's exciting, it's got decent acting and effects. Get over your butthurt fanboy gripes and just enjoy it.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (2015– )

Just Stupid

[1/10 · 9 June 2015]

Hate this show. Just rubs me the wrong way with all their constant namedropping of 'science'. This is nothing more than an excuse to do stupid stunts or destroy stuff. It has only the most insultingly threadbare relationship to anything 'scientific'. "Watch us launch these garbage pails with a homemade catapult. Oh by the way, it's 'scientific' because we (i.e. someone off-camera) used a simple 7th grade math formula to guess where they'd land." What else is there to say? Nothing, but I have to write 10 lines about this show. There's just nothing much to the show to begin with, so it's hard to come up with that much to say. There, finally did it.

Ghost Asylum (2014– )

Terrible

[2/10 · 26 April 2015]

I was pumped when I saw the ads for this one. Finally thought we might have a decent filler for between seasons of the gold-standard Ghost Adventures. I gave it four episodes and wanted it to work, but it just got worse and worse.

It follows the same idiotic formula of most of the other ghost shows (especially Ghost Hunters - so much so that I wonder maybe they have the same producers, I don't know). Each one opens with them on the drive to their next investigation, on walkie-talkies between vehicles (why? why not just use speaker on the cell?) telling each other about where they're going and some of the history or interesting facts - as if they all would not already know all that stuff before leaving.

Then they chat with some of the people at the place they're investigating, pick up some names of some of the people that used to live/work there. Then they investigate.

The investigations are generally pathetic. Most times it's all 5 of them, plus however many camera and sound men behind them, all in the same room, shuffling around, making noise, etc. Every time something happens they jump to conclusions and attach the event to whatever name they picked up in their interviews (e.g. John used to work there - one of them felt touched after asking John a question - therefor it was 'definitely' John that was trying to communicate with them). Every happening has to be followed by a cutaway of one of the guys, scripted but pretending to be a spontaneous interview, talking as if they are still onsite and it just occurred, pointlessly describing the event that we just watched happen not 15 seconds earlier. They don't use equipment properly or consistently, they fail to do even the most basic debunking most of the time (e.g. a cigarette burns hotter as if being puffed by a ghost, or birthday candle smoke drifts as if blown by one - in both instances while the items are surrounded by nearly all of them facing the items and talking. No test to make sure it wasn't the breath from one of them talking or movement or something, just a declaration of how 'amazing' that evidence was.)

Near the end of the investigation they start with the show's gimmick - building a 'trap' to catch a ghost in. They pretend like they come up with the idea for the trap on the spot and then go to the nearest Home Depot for the stuff to put it together. The trap ideas are ridiculous. The whole concept is just plain stupid.

At the end of the show they meet in their little office that looks more like a backyard shed and review the evidence. 95% of it is crap or personal experience that can't be corroborated. If they have an evp, most of the time they just tell you what they think is said and then play it real quick and then move on to the next piece of evidence, rarely cleaning it up or playing it slowly so we can hear clearly. I can't think of a single decent piece of video evidence (partly because they hardly use any cameras, or don't use them strategically - nearly all video is taken by the camera crew following them around) - the ones I can remember are from the FLIR camera and as usual, they appear to misinterpret or jump to conclusion.

There is only one single aspect of this entire show that I like - that their investigations span multiple nights. I wish GA would go multi-night. Aside from just being able to gather a higher quantity of evidence, I think it would lend more credibility to what is gathered if they continued to get the same evidence over multiple nights.

Anyway, they might be nice guys in real life, but in this show they come off as dunces and dooshbags. A massive disappointment and wasted opportunity.

Elysium (I) (2013)

Good Effects. That's it.

[3/10 · 2 January 2014]

Elysium could have been a great movie, but it doesn't have an ounce of sense to it.

The effects were very good. The robots looked real, Elysium itself was pretty to look at. Overall, nothing bad at all.

The acting was uniformly good. Even Copely. I really don't know why he gets crap over his performance here. The only one that falters in any way is Jodie Foster with that accent that she can't seem to nail down properly.

The big problem with Elysium is just the incredible stupidity of the story. I won't go into great detail as it's already been done in other posts and reviews, but there are so many unanswered questions and plot holes. Why is the healing bed only available on Elysium? We're never given any reason or purpose for withholding that technology from those on earth. Even if the mega-rich did obtain that tech and segregated themselves into an orbital gated community, we're supposed to believe that they would not allow the poor on earth access to that tech as well, just because? What purpose is there to keeping the poor on earth poor? The rich have their Eden and it's near completely inaccessible to those on earth. Why would they care what goes on down there? The only industry shown was involved in military hardware, so Elysium is obviously not dependent on the poor on earth for its survival. The only reason for the military hardware it sounded like was to keep the poor in line. But why? If the poor had better lives, they wouldn't keep trying to get into Elysium and Elysium wouldn't need the military hardware. It just doesn't make any sense. Also, they have robots capable of mimicking humans. Why wouldn't robots be doing most of the jobs? Why was it needed for Damon to do that job and then get irradiated? THERE ARE ROBOTS! Robots are expensive, yes. But robots could build robots. Robots could mine and create the materials for more robots. As more robots are built for menial or physical labor, costs would plummet because robots don't need a paycheck! Those are just two of many issues (including race/immigration politics) that seem like they were conceptualized by five-year-olds.

With all the story problems, it's evident that this film's purpose is simply to promote class and race warfare. It's so ill thought through that it was either written by idiots or it's that they think their viewers are idiots. I suspect it's a little of both, actually. Blomkamp's District 9 politics, while still obvious, were much less in-your-face and therefore didn't detract much from the entertainment value. It seems he at least had some understanding that others might not agree with him and so kept it relatively toned down. But it must have gone to his head with this one and he conflates success with agreement and so is unrestrained. Matt Damon on the other hand is a leftist tool and has demonstrated an incapacity to think through the idiocy he spouts to its logical conclusion.

Blomkamp is 1 and 1. I'm willing to give him a third try. Matt Damon is a lost cause and I won't pay theater money to see a movie with him as the star. Elysium has some nice images and a couple decent action scenes. The story is irredeemably asinine and childish.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Good, fun western. Bad Lone Ranger.

[7/10 · 28 December 2013]

I enjoyed this film quite a bit, and not even due to lowered expectations. I honestly don't think I'd have felt cheated if I had paid to see it in the theater.

I think most of the complaints about it were due to expectations around the mythology. This was really not a very good Lone Ranger film at all. If they had just called it something else and named the characters differently I think it would have done so much better and maybe they would have been able to create that second Depp/Verbinski franchise that will now never happen.

It was silly in spots (Depp jumps from a moving train about 2 stories down onto another moving train into a car filled with silver ore nuggets, lands without breaking a bone and rolls over the rocks without a bruise or scratch), but I think the trailers made it plain that this wasn't going to be very serious.

It did its job. Was it justifiable to spend over $200 mil on it? No. But it thoroughly satisfied the crowd at our post Christmas get-together.

Give it a chance and forget that it's about the Lone Ranger (which isn't really hard) and you'll enjoy.

RED 2 (2013)

Rotten Execrable Detritus

[2/10 · 21 December 2013]

Red was a bore that only barely managed to keep my interest up. Nearly all of the humor was premised upon the assumption that old people kicking butt is inherently funny. It's not. It can be funny. But just having some old folks winning physical fights with people less than half their age doesn't make me automatically burst out laughing. There has to be some effort put into it through dialog or story or character. Red was half-arsed at best.

Red 2 doesn't even try that much. I didn't even chuckle once. The writing was garbage. The story was stupid and convoluted. Convoluted, not intricate. It wasn't that way to be exciting and interesting, but to distract you from how stupid the rest of the movie was. It also has some of the worst editing I've ever seen in a major release. Scenes go from one location to another without any kind of transition. People and objects shift positions, action scenes are choppy and hard to follow, and cuts seem randomly made just to give the impression of exciting activity.

As far as acting, nothing stood out at all. Except Bruce Willis. And not in a good way. He has made plain his growing distaste for action films. He was once a joy to watch. The destruction and havoc he wrought, combined with humor and good acting, were a form of art. Now he's disgraced himself and brings down every film he's in (Looper being the only recent exception) because he's gotten bored, doesn't give a s**t about his audience that put him where he is, and seem too greedy to just quit. Instead he taunts us with each load of crap like Red 2 that he drags his feet through, giving us hope that someday we'll see another glimpse of his gloriously violent past that was so entertaining. Instead, he steals money from us, insulting our intelligence, and flipping us off for wanting to see him do what he used to do best.

Red 2 is a load of s**t, starring a load of s**t. F*** you Bruce Willis.

College (2008)

Witness the Decline of Western Civilization

[1/10 · 3 February 2009]

If you didn't believe we were on the far end of the downhill slope, this 'film' would utterly change your mind. It is grease on the rails of the rocket sled to oblivion.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a time and place for black, 'gross-out', or just plain stupid humor. This film is disgusting, but not in the way you think. Well, it is disgusting in the way you think. But that's not what's truly offensive about this filth. The offense here is the fact that this unimaginative, derivative, terribly cast and acted, horridly written, badly shot, intelligence-raping load of sub-direct-to-video effluence exists. Any one of those negative attributes alone in a film could be overlooked. But in this unholy vision they all exist at once, permeating every frame. I'm sure there are other things wrong with it as well, but my eyes began bleeding profusely after about 30 minutes and my psyche fractured not soon after, which is why I cannot describe this movie in more specific terms as I've blocked it from memory except for the above impressions. I assume that I didn't finish it, since I awoke some hours later in the fetal position in a dark corner of the garage. I would guess that if you checked the original negative you would find the edges blackened and singed - an indicator of its infernal origins.

This is the Anti-Film. I pray that you do not see it. And if you do, I pray for your soul for surely nobody connected with the creation of this 'movie' has one.