Change Your Image
gspencley
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Roadkill (2024)
Hot Chicks, Fast Cars & Violence
I think that 5 is the right score for this movie. It reminds me of late night B movies from the 90s. You don't go into it expecting life changing performances and deep commentary. It's just fun, mindless entertainment to enjoy some popcorn with.
The big negative I will give it is the horrendous dialogue. I almost hope that the screenwriter intentionally wrote the dialogue as they did in order to simulate the B movie, made for tv style that the film was obviously going for, because the actors certainly did not have much to work with. People don't talk like that.
I will also say that in the era of streaming services where you have unlimited options for something to throw on when you're bored, you probably have better options. Still, I found it fun and enjoyable and I'm glad I watched it even though I probably will never watch it again. As a child of the 80s, it gave me a bit of nostalgia, some eye candy and a fun 90 minutes of sex appeal, drugs and violence.
If you're in the mood for that type of flick then give it a watch. If you're looking for better dialogue and something that doesn't try to feel like a budget, made for tv movie from the early 90s then you want to pass.
No One Will Save You (2023)
I can't decide if I love it or hate it
I think this movie's biggest problem is marketing. I went in expecting a sci-fi / horror / thriller and I did not get that. But that's a problem with my expectations, not with the movie itself.
What I really liked was the performance by the lead actress, as well as the character she portrayed, Brynn, and the lack of dialogue that forces the film to do what films ought to do best: visual story-telling.
I cared about Brynn's past and the trauma that was haunting her in the present. Discovering who the character Maude was and what happened to her was the real thread of suspense that kept me watching until the end.
What I didn't like was everything that the movie was sold and marketed as. Which is ironic because that's what I had signed up for. As a sci-fi / horror / alien thriller it was BAD. The aliens were not even a little bit scary. They looked cartoonish and cliche. There were also a lot of events that didn't make sense at all.
But what really annoyed me was that you never really find out what the aliens want. Another reviewer left a theory as to what the ending was supposed to mean .. at least for Brynn, in terms of what she wants. And that theory makes a lot of sense to me, and I think I agree with it. But why are the aliens there? What do they want? What is the point of invading earth? And why is it so important to them that they "succeed" with Brynn? Why do they care about one troublesome human that is proving a pain? Why not just leave her to the elements and move on to the easier targets?
Those questions don't even get hints for answers. Which means that the answer is the worst one possible: The aliens are a McGuffin. A plot device that is never explained and exists just to keep the movie moving.
There is a good story in No Will Save You. A really good one. It's about guilt, shame, trauma, living as an outcast and the longing for our deepest desires that seem so impossible to attain. Unfortunately that story is completely distracted from by stupid green men from outer space.
Black Widow (2021)
I'm Shocked How Much I Liked It
I went into this movie having read the reviews and I had very low expectations. I think the reason I liked this movie is that I'm not at all a fan of the newer MCU movies.
I am, or was, a fan of super-hero movies. I think the best era was 2000 - 2012. I loved the first two X-Men, the Sam Raimi Spider-Man, the Nolan Trilogy, the first Iron Man & Captain America movies from Marvel Studios.
Around the time that the first Avengers movie came out is when I started to think the MCU movies were going downhill fast. The DC movies were no better but I'm only going to talk about Marvel for obvious reasons. They turned into mindless CGI team mash-ups with no character development, no back story and way too many cheesy & unfunny one liners. I honestly started to wonder why these movies kept making money at all.
Black Widow feels like a return to the style of super-hero movie that I enjoy. It had back story, character development, characters pursuing real values rather than just "good vs evil" with endless drawn-out boring CGI action sequences. The humour was mostly well placed. The action sequences, while over the top at the climax, were actually enjoyable throughout the film since they furthered the plot and didn't drag on too long. A lot of the action reminded me of The Bourne Identity films which I loved.
I can't believe that Marvel managed to put out a film that I absolutely loved after a decade of mediocrity but here it is alas. Great job.
The Movies That Made Us (2019)
Fun Nostalgia & Informative but Annoying Delivery
As other reviewers have already pointed out, the narration is extremely irritating and unnecessary. It is not the narrator's voice per se, it is his script / writing style and the editing. The show delivers a lot of unnecessary & unfunny one-liners, plays cut-away games between the narrator and those being interviewed, there is far too much narration (it feels constant, as if he is talking more than those being interviewed) and this aesthetic style really detracts from what would otherwise be a great documentary TV show.
The show will make you nostalgic if you grew up watching these movies and if you're into behind-the-scenes / making of documentaries then the information is great.
I took off one star because the aesthetic choices of the show's producers and writers is obnoxious and detracts. The show is un-binge-able for me because I can only stomach the delivery style in very small doses.
Big Trick Energy (2021)
Obnoxious, Not Funny and the Tricks are Really Bad
Had the tricks been stronger and more creative I would have been more forgiving, but I think this is the type of material that gives people a poor taste in their mouths about magic. For example (no spoilers) they approach a group of basketball players as if the situation is organic and the players act as if there isn't a camera crew filming. The climax of that trick is meant to have us believe that the players don't suspect there are multiple people involved? I'm sorry but this is the type of "magic" that insults peoples' intelligence. The methods are so transparent but the reactions are played up as if we are supposed to be blown away.
And it keeps on like that. A beer tap with the biggest handle I have ever seen in my life is supposed to have us scratching our heads wondering where the beer could have possibly come from? This is the type of bad magic that makes people hate magicians because it conveys the message that the magicians think the audience is stupid.
And so the show feels like Jackass with a cheesy magic gimmick to it.
No originality. No surprises. Lots of obnoxiousness for the sake of obnoxiousness.
Just bad. Really bad. I don't think the negative reviews are being that harsh or extreme at all.
Glass (2019)
Boring
A few things first: I had no idea this was the 3rd instalment in a trilogy until I read the other reviews. So I have not seen Unbreakable or Split. Also, I like a superhero movie if it puts characters and plot first. IMO the best era for superhero movies was the early 2000s (the first X-Men, Sam Raimi Spider-Man, Nolan Trilogy etc.) and I don't care for the newer Marvel or DC movies at all. I say that so that you don't dismiss my review thinking that I just want action - that's not me. I played this movie on Netflix on a bored Saturday afternoon because it looked interesting, I adore Anya Taylor-Joy after The Queen's Gambit, and you can never go wrong with Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson (or so I thought). I watched about half of it before I just couldn't take any more and turned it off.
This movie was just boring. To say that it was a slow burn is an understatement. Here are my detailed critiques:
- I had no investment in the characters. Maybe it's because their exposition was provided in the earlier movies, but I had no reason to feel connected or like them or care about them at all.
- The plot is so slow moving that I just kept waiting for something, anything to happen. And it never did.
- Sarah Paulson plays the same character as always. I know she has a lot of accolades and people really like her. I liked her when she played Sarah Paulson in the first couple seasons of American Horror Story but I'm bored of the Sarah Paulson character now.
- There were no stakes. No reason to feel suspense or want to keep watching. I think this is because of my first point: I wasn't invested in the characters so I couldn't feel anything regardless of what happened to them.
Maybe if I'd have seen Unbreakable and Split I could have been more invested in this movie. Although based on the other reviews it might not have done the trilogy justice anyway.
The Haunting of Bly Manor (2020)
Not a ghost story, a love story
The title of my review explains why I'm mixed and, please don't get me wrong, this is not a negative review. You might love this show. I'm on the fence. I will go into detail about what I disliked below, but bear in mind that what I enjoyed is strong enough to make having watched the series worthwhile.
I'm a huge fan of The Innocents; the 1961 classic horror movie that this series was based upon. What I loved about that movie was it's creepiness. It lets your own imagination terrify you. That strongly informs my opinion of this series.
If you're looking for that type of show and, if like me, you love a good psychological horror movie - this show is going to disappoint in many regards.
If, on the other hand, you're looking for a show about human beings and the various ways that humans can love each other, then you might absolutely love this show.
What I liked:
- Acting, cinematography, production value - all top notch.
- Much of the story. But I take issue with some of it which I'll explain below.
- Character development. Masterful character development. I can't praise it enough.
- A great love story. Not just romance but love in general. Parental / familial love, romantic love, platonic love, even love for material possessions. That's this show's central theme and it explores it brilliantly.
What I didn't like:
- An over-reliance on the "Mirror Scare" trope. And by "over-reliance" I mean multiple times per episode and all the variants thereof. This is a universally loathed trope and I don't understand why it is still used at all ever.
- Also an over-reliance on Jump Scares. Just trope after trope after trope.
- Such a slow burn that for the first 4 or 5 episodes it feels like nothing at all happens. The Innocents was as slow burn too, so I wasn't expecting fast action by any mean, but more needed to develop in the first half.
- Ghosts? What ghosts? I'm being slightly hyperbolic but this speaks to both the slow burn point as well as the fact that this series, to me at least, was not even the tiniest bit creepy or scary. When the ghosts do show up they're more cheesy and comical to me than anything else.
- Largely predicable. Your mileage will vary here and I won't go into details for risk of spoilers but many of the plot twists and revelations, and even much of how it ended, I had predicted towards the beginning.
- One of the ghosts is given a backstory that is so thoroughly unsatisfying and robs you of any hope that this show will have scary moments. I'm a firm believer that when it comes to horror, you can't do better than the viewer's own imagination. The Innocents got that. That's what made it so creepy. Once you reveal what the monster "is", you remove the element of fear. That's my opinion anyway. I wish they would have left certain things a mystery. But remember, it's not a ghost story it's a love story. I just wish the writers would have established that in the first episode so that horror fans would not have their expectations shattered.
The Social Dilemma (2020)
Very One Sided. Ends With Call To Action.
What do you call a "documentary" that takes a firm stance on one side of an issue, does not bother to interview a single person with a contrary opinion and then ends by asking you to do something?
I have no love for social media companies. I don't even have a Twitter account. And there are legitimate social issues that need to be discussed, such as increased suicide rates amongst teenagers etc.
But while this movie is claiming that social media companies are manipulating you into behaving differently than you otherwise would, the film itself sets out to scare the living daylights out of you immediately before ending with a request that you do something you otherwise would not have done. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.
Don't trust film makers or Netflix any more than you trust Facebook or Instagram.
Full disclosure: I work in tech (but not for any social media company), I hear these same claims on a daily basis and what the film does not tell you is that there are a lot of activist groups with different agendas trying to lobby the government into passing various laws at the moment. Not all of these groups are on the same page, or want the same things and they are not necessarily looking for the same results that you are. None the less, various individuals from these groups were featured in the documentary and edited such that it looks like they have a common goal and a common interest when they don't. For example: maybe you are concerned with the mental health of children as related to social media consumption, and an activist group - knowing that's something people care about - will give lip service to that issue while what they're really wanting to do is pass censorship laws because they want the power to control what can and can't be posted on social media.
Just beware that this "documentary" was manipulative in itself, very one sided and does not accurately represent the disparate, nuanced and occasionally contradictory views of the various people represented.
The Man in the High Castle (2015)
Can't Get Past the Pilot
This show will not allow me to suspend my disbelief. For a dystopian premise there doesn't seem to be much dystopia.
Characters *talk* about being oppressed. There is mention that being Jewish during this occupation would be bad news. But what is *shown* is:
People living lavish lifestyles...
Watching colour television (in 1962!) while sipping tea out of fine china in a large home occupied only by members of their immediate family.
Women taking martial arts classes for leisure.
People drinking pints of beer in beautiful bars surrounded by their friends.
Store shops full of goods on streets full of stores.
People with access to film projectors and cinemas.
The police even stop to help a civilian with a blown tire (and that officer it turns out fought against the occupation in the war ... does it not seem absurd that an evil dictatorial regime would let an enemy become an officer of the law?)
Everything is clean and well kept. The atmosphere resembles typical American existence but with Japanese and German text on signs.
The only people treated with any sort of brutality and unfairness are people involved in resiting the occupation. I.e: people who are, from the point of view of the established government, technically treasonous criminals and terrorists.
2 stars for cinematography and acting. -8 for plot, realism, believability and because my eyes hurt from rolling so much.
The Spy Who Dumped Me (2018)
Couldn't Sit Through It
I've been known to enjoy a simple comedy or two. Obviously this is meant to be a fun, light-hearted movie and not be taken seriously. I'm judging it for what it is.
My main issue is that the two lead characters are unlikable, because the film did not bother to establish their characters at all. All I know about Mila Kunis' character is that her boyfriend just dumped her, she works retail and she has an annoying loud and obnoxious friend (who I also know next to nothing about). What does she want out of life other than to not feel hurt because her bf dumped her? I don't know. Maybe the bf thing was supposed to be enough. But it doesn't do anything to make her relateable to me. I need something more ... anything ... to make her not just an avatar on a screen.
I watched about half of the movie and it was just two women that I know and care nothing about having things happen to them. I never once got the sense that they were driving any of the action, or making choices or pursuing goals (other than not dying). Just boring.
Game of Thrones (2011)
Amazing start, slow middle, terrible end
Seasons 1 through 3 were AMAZING. 10/10.
Seasons 4 through 7 became slow and felt lacking in direction at times, but there were hints of it starting to come back which kept me invested.
Season 8 was so awful that I can no longer call myself a Game of Thrones fan.
Season 8 introduced continuity errors and lazy writing. Worse still, the central theme that was established in the very first episode of the series and built up throughout the whole show was concluded in the THIRD episode of the last season in the most anti-climactic way I have ever seen!
However, I don't think we should be *too* hard on Season 8. After all, it has saved me hundreds of dollars on a Blu-Ray box set, merchandise and celeb autographs at conventions. I can't think of any other TV show that has saved me money by watching it.
How I calculated my score:
S1: 10
S2: 10
S3: 10
S4: 5
S5: 5
S6: 5
S7: 5
S8: -10
= 40 / 8 = 5
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Wonderful
I saw this movie in theatres 7 years ago when it came out. At the time I think there was so much anticipation, and the memory of The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger's legendary performance as Joker was so fresh that the final instalment had an impossible bar to live up to.
I walked out of that theatre with mixed feelings, thinking the movie was the weakest of the Nolan Trilogy.
This weekend another Marvel movie was released. The 78th one this week. I'm so jaded by current year superhero movies. I loved them 10 years ago but today I can't sit through them. Last night I tried watching the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy on Netflix and got 45 minutes before I turned it off.
Tonight I put on The Dark Knight Rises and, despite having seen it already and thinking it was the weakest in it's trilogy, I sat through the entire 2 hours and 45 minutes without pausing once, without picking up my laptop, without leaving the edge of my seat once.
Judging the movie on it's own merits - without comparing to Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, without comparing Bane to Joker ... it is a masterpiece of cinema and it is everything that superhero movies should be.
Anne Hathaway is my favourite Catwoman of all time.
Every single character has a rich backstory and develops.
Bruce Wayne begins the movie a broken man and Alfred wants desperately to save him but doesn't know how. The story is as much Bruce's inner journey as it is fighting the bad guy - which is so important to good story telling. This is what today's movies are lacking.
Commissioner Gordon struggles to cope with a morally questionable decision that he has to live with.
The villains are relatable and you can understand why they do what they do - which is the test of a good bad guy (the heroes in their own story). And boy do they ever raise the stakes!
Everything about this movie is spot on and I desperately miss superhero movies like this.
Jessica Jones (2015)
Season 1 was a MASTERPIECE / Season 2 was terrible
This review pains me to write, because I genuinely think that Season 1 was the pinnacle of serialized television. It had amazing plotting, a satisfying ending, a terrifying villain, characters that I loved, nothing superfluous, beautiful cinematography and tone. It delivered on every promise that it made.
I could not wait for Season 2. And those two years were tough. Alas it finally arrived. I knew going in that it had a tough act to follow and so I made a concerted effort to judge it on it's own merits and not to dismiss it just for failing to achieve the impossible by living up to the first.
What went wrong. Plotting: All over the place with little focus. A terrifying villain? Try NO villain. Characters that I love? Yes but the two leads are mostly kept separate from each other for some strange reason. Nothing superfluous? Carrie Ann Moss and her entire sub-plot was boring and irrelevant. Jessica's rival PI was a flat plot device. A satisfying ending? I wouldn't know, I couldn't get past episode 8. It was putting me to sleep. The season did continue to have beautiful cinematography and tone/atmosphere, but that gets no points from me if the writing is dull. Nutmeg can make good egg nog great, but it's not appetizing when eaten on it's own.
I think the biggest problem with Season 2 is that it fails to deliver on Jessica Jones' core promise: it is a sci-fi super-hero show about a tortured loner who does not want to be a superhero but is, none-the-less, forced to fight super-villains because they are threatening her and the people she loves.
In other words, Season 2 was Jurassic Park without Dinosaurs.
I'm giving the show a 5. A perfect 10 for the first season, and a 0 for the second.
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore. (2017)
All over the place
Ruth our protagonist (played by Melanie Lynskey) wants people to "not be jerks*" That is what this movie is about.
I watched the entire film from beginning to end, and I kept hoping that it would get better. It constantly gave me the sense that something was about to pick up in the next scene, but alas the credits rolled and I sat there wondering: "why did I dislike like this movie so much?"
It was not the cast or the acting, which was superb. The cinematography and atmosphere was excellent. It was the lack of direction that I had a problem with. It felt random, pointless and all over the place.
I believe that the reason it lacked direction is because if, as our protagonist states, the goal is for people to "not be jerks" then what the movie needs is a strong "anti-jerk" hero to contrast. But I didn't like any of the characters. Ruth herself was certainly not an example of "good person." She wasn't bad, but she wasn't fit to demonstrate what "not being a jerk" entails. She could have learned that throughout the movie. If that was intentionally (an "unlikely hero" perhaps?) then she could have had an epiphany along her journey and realized "whoa, it turns out that I'm actually a jerk too? So what does not being one look like and how can I achieve that?" Instead she was just a bumbling idiot that experienced a series of unfortunate events and never really developed all that much. She was never given that crucial moment (usually placed towards the beginning of a story) that wins the viewer, gets them on her side and has them rooting for her the rest of the movie. I found myself not caring one way or the other whether she succeeded.
The bad guys didn't seem particularly menacing to me either, probably because of how stupid they were. Rather than being sinister "jerks" for the hero to fight, they were idiotic drugged out addicts. Again not supporting the movie's stated theme.
Elijah Wood's character was interesting, and perhaps the most likable for me ... but he didn't seem to serve much of a purpose other than to be a plot device.
In the end I found the movie rather boring and pointless. 3 stars for acting and cinematography. -7 for not knowing how to stay on point and effectively tell a story with a strong central theme.
* (Ruth's actual wording was slightly different, but IMDb's guidelines request that we refrain from profanity so I'm erring on the side of caution).
MythBusters: The Search (2017)
Horrible
I am a huge fan of the original Mythbusters: I've seen every episode, I took my family to see Adam and Jamie live during their "Behind the Myths Tour", I have bought Mythbusters merchandise / collectibles that sit proudly in my living room. If any Discovery Channel executives read this review, if a BluRay box set of the entire original Mythbusters TV show with specials and extras were to come out I would pre-order it without thinking twice.
I gave "The Search" an honest chance. I went into the first episode with an open mind and tried to have as few expectations as possible.
I came out realizing that Discovery has no idea who the Mythbusters demographic is. This is a show that was made for someone who is not me.
What made Mythbusters special was that it was a science show wrapped in an entertaining package. Jamie and Adam formed hypotheses by using common myths and urban legends, and found creative ways to falsify those hypotheses in entertaining ways.
The Search seems to think that it can reach it's demographic with the following:
1) Nostalgia: rather than present new myths to the teams, they borrow premises from past episodes and think that we will somehow care about watching competing teams reinvent the wheel. What we miss is the people: Adam, Jamie, Kari, Grant, Tori ... the myths themselves are not something we're really all that interested in seeing busted again. Give us something new.
2) The Reality TV Trend: most Mythbusters fans that I know, myself included, do not like reality television at all. We are not the same people that watch Dancing with the Stars or The Voice. We are people who grew up on Bill Nye The Science Guy and Beakman's World. We don't want to see teams of people compete. We're not "people" people. Reality shows are about interpersonal conflict and drama. We are the type of people who stay home and read books about history and science fiction... we avoid interpersonal drama like the plague.
3) Kyle Hill: I can't understand for the life of me why this guy is the host of anything science-related. He claims he has a science background and I don't want to challenge that, he probably does, but I don't get that impression from watching or listening to him. As an on-air personality he comes across like he should have been cast to play Thor. Too much "surfer dude" and "super model", too little of anything else. In my opinion he brings nothing to the show. I think Discovery figured that by casting a male super-model they can market the show to a broader demographic. Again, a demographic that does not include fans of Mythbusters.
This show is making Mythbusters fans worried. We get it, it's not meant to "be" Mythbusters. It's a competition to find the hosts of a new show. But this show is evidence that Discovery either a) does not understand the demographic that Mythbusters appealed to or b) they don't care and they intend to use the brand to market to a demographic that does not include fans of the original show.
Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Horrible
In my review I discuss the general plot, but I try not to give away any specific events or spoilers. However, I marked the review as "containing" spoilers just in case my discussion of the plot details is too much for those wanting to watch "completely fresh."
I had the feeling while watching this movie is that Luther Krank (Tim Allen) is supposed to be a version of Scrooge. In Dicken's classic novel, Scrooge is both the villain and protagonist. He is mean and you dislike him, but he learns a lesson and ultimately changes.
However, unlike with Scrooge, I sympathized very strongly with Luther Krank. After years of celebrating Christmas with his daughter, all he wants to do is take a vacation with his wife now that she has grown up and moved away. But his neighbours and peers, who are some sort of weird cult-like Christmas version of the Stepford Wives, harass and bully him to no end.
Therefore watching this movie I didn't want Luther Krank to change. I didn't want him to give in and bend to the wishes of his horrifically creepy and annoying neighbours (who should have been charged for trespassing and harassment). I completely recognized his right to be "selfish" and live his life for his own sake rather than the sake of his community who have no business interfering with his desires.
I do not think it is a spoiler to say that, predictably, Luther Krank learns a lesson and changes his ways at the end of the movie. However it is the wrong lesson. In Christmas with the Kranks the bad-guys win. I think the movie might have been originally intended as a horror movie instead of a family Christmas movie, a theory supported by both the evil neighbourhood and the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis was cast as co- star. Perhaps if you watch it as such, it won't be so awful.
Pixels (2015)
Fun 80s nostalgia
So many people seemed determined to hate this movie before it was even released. I think it was mostly those who dislike Adam Sandler. Both the hate towards this movie and towards Adam Sandler are undeserved.
Sandler has made some flops (Little Nicky, Jack & Jill), but he was also responsible for some comedy classics (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer) and has shown that he's capable of more serious roles as well (Spanglish, Funny People). As far as Adam Sandler in this movie goes, it falls somewhere in the middle. Far removed from either his worst or his best roles. He wasn't the primary reason I enjoyed the movie, but he took nothing away from my enjoyment either. And perhaps that's how it should be. I don't remember feeling like I was being reminded that I was watching an Adam Sandler flick.
We all know this movie was not intended as fine art and it's almost cliché to point that out when reviewing light-hearted comedies. The point is, I had a good time watching. The short Internet clip that inspired this movie was incredible, and seeing the idea expanded on was good fun. It won't change your life, but it will transport you back to 80s and give you some fun eye candy. One thing of note: I usually get to bored by long, drawn-out CGI action sequences, especially during climaxes. This is the first movie in a long time that had such a sequence during the climax that actually entertained me, and I think that means a lot.
For me the movie would have been better had it's intended audience been adults. Some of the attempts at "double entendre" humour (i.e: jokes intended to entertain the adults yet be "safe" for kids) fell flat for me. But I understand that they wanted to make a family friendly movie, and that's what they did.
Peter Dinklage was comedy gold. If you like video games and Game of Thrones it's worth seeing just for those two things alone.
Masters of Illusion (2014)
The background music makes this show unwatchable
I checked out an episode because magicians Barry and Stuart were on it and I'm a huge fan. While some of the acts are decent (others seem like they're stuck in the 80s) I could not get past the constant background music that played through the entire episode. Not only was it mixed WAY too loudly, to the point of actually making it difficult to follow what the acts were saying, but it was cheesy; it killed the mood; it was distracting and was completely unnecessary in the first place.
It's a shame because this show could do a lot to promote magic, especially new and fresh acts, but the execution is just terrible. They need to fire their sound editor. It's OK to kill the music during a performance, and pick music that is more appropriate and less cheesy when there's a reason to have it.
Breaking Bad (2008)
Breaking Bad is the most overrated television show
I'm giving Breaking Bad a 5 / 10 because it is an example of superb acting and production quality, but very weak and bland story-telling.
The essence of drama is conflict, and Breaking Bad has had one or two moments in 5 seasons. The problem is that every character is beyond reproach. Without a single likable character, the conflict gets sucked out. You're left without any reason to care about the outcome.
If the main character, Walt, were an anti-hero and the story told the tale of a bad-guy who was trying to escape being caught by the good guys, the show would succeed as compelling drama. The problem is that the good guys are nowhere to be found. Walt's "nemesis", his brother in-law Hank, was portrayed in the first season as a power-hungry bully of a cop who loved to toss perpetrators around and verbally assault them. Throughout the series he was utterly vile to his well-meaning wife who wanted to take care of him during an injury, and he has proved himself in later seasons to be every bit as manipulative and dishonest as Walt.
I've watched every episode mostly for lack of anything else to watch, and because it has had a moment or two where the story became compelling (mostly having to do with a drug lord named Gustavo, when the show peaked in my opinion). It is not a bad show, but it does not deserve anywhere near the 9.4 stars it currently has on IMDb.
When every character is a loser who ends up losing in the end, the show becomes reminiscent of a PBS after-school special warning children about the dangers of drugs thinly disguised as drama.
If I were rating the show on acting alone it would get 10 stars. Production value: 10 stars. Writing / story-telling: 1 or 2 stars at best.
Ringu (1998)
Very disappointing
I have to admit that I saw the American version first, and that I feel that it was far superior.
I also need to point out that my review is mostly a rant of confusion inspired by my disappointment after reading the rave reviews (including those who recommended watching this film even though I saw the American version first, claiming this one is "sooo much better"). As a result MY REVIEW SPOILS JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRETY OF BOTH VERSIONS.
With that said, I'm trying to be objective with my evaluation of the original. I do believe that had I not seen the American version first I would have liked this one better.
So doing my best to put the American version out of my mind, where did the original fall flat ? For me the male character all of a sudden having psychic abilities half-way through the movie had me seriously considering turning the movie off. It was extremely poor script writing and pretty much killed the entire film for me. Then there were the visions seen by the female character that started around the same time.
So I'm giving the movie 5/10 as my "objective" review. The psychic abilities made this movie a "cheese fest" for me. Still entertaining but really not scary, and actually rather lame. If I consider all of the changes that the American version made that worked for me I would give it a 1 or 2.
What were those changes ? For starters, when the existence of the child is revealed, you know that there's something "not quite right" about her, but it's also suggested that she's a victim. The fact that she's kept in a barn with nothing but a TV makes you feel like she's being abused, and you sympathize with her. You don't know who to feel sorry for. Her mother, who's she's driving insane, or her. You wonder if maybe she can't help what she's doing to those around her, and is being treated unfairly. But you also ask yourself "how would I deal with such a child?"
The insane asylum scenes worked beautifully for me. I read some of the other reviews and I can appreciate how some people preferred the silent ghost in the original. But when Samara was asked by the doctor "You don't want to hurt people do you ?" and she answers "but I do and I'm SORRY" that just sent chills down my spine. I think I enjoyed the thrill from that one line more than "THE SCENE" at the end (not to downplay that climactic scene, I just loved that one line from Samara so much).
Which brings me to the "well scene". Some people in their reviews said they felt that Ringu had a better well scene. I disagree. For the sole reason that in the original they CHOSE to descend the well! (talk about killing the entire scene) In the remake Naomi Watts character was pushed into the well and she had no means of escape. That created an extremely helpless situation for her character that really scared the crap out of me. I could picture myself wetting my pants if I was trapped down there. It was very claustrophobic and terrifying, for the sole reason that the situation was involuntary. I was also disappointed that the Japanese version had the ghost's arm reach out from the water and grab the character. It felt very cliché. I was expecting that in the American version and was very relieved that they didn't do that (and very creeped out by what they did do!) Also, in the American version they didn't go to the cabin with the intention of digging for a dead body. They were searching for clues and happened to find the well, which succeeded in creating a much creepier atmosphere for me.
I also felt that "the video" in the remake was way creepier. The fly, the mother diving off of the cliff, the finger nail breaking in the well, the ladder and, well THE RING! But I guess that's also a testament to the added story in the remake which created a much richer atmosphere and more compelling story that didn't need to use cheesy psychic abilities to explain everything away in a single scene or two and instead slowly reveal what was going on in a far more suspenseful and plausible manner (I know a ghost story isn't going for "realism" but I guess when everyone's got supernatural powers the evil bad guy just isn't as scary because it is no longer "supernatural" to have powers, it's "natural" in the universe of the story. So I felt like I was watching something like X-Men, not a horror movie).
So really, I felt that the American version was far less cheesier, more plausible (with regards to the characters motivations), had a much richer story-line and because Samara was a complete enigma (i.e: she was adopted and her mother didn't have "powers") Samara was far more terrifying for me and became my all time favourite horror villain. I just didn't like the ghost in the original. In fact, there was nothing really to like or dislike. No sympathy for her or her parents. No asking myself how I would act if I were her parents. No feeling bad that she was murdered (in fact, the fact that it was pretty much conclusive that she had murdered someone else kind of justified her murder which was yet another disappointment). The original was simply psychic-power cliché cheese (she's got powers because her mother has powers only hers are slightly more ... "powerful"). Not an absolutely horrible movie when judged on it's own (without considering the awesome superiority of the remake), but extremely overrated none-the-less.
Star Trek (2009)
Unoriginal and broke canon BADLY
I gave this movie a 5/10 because if you go into this movie having never been exposed to Star Trek before it is a fairly entertaining action flick. For the Trekkie, however, it was absolutely horrible. I suppose that I might fit in with the "hardcore trekkie" crowd who is very hard to please, but I've never been to a convention, I didn't care much for TOS or Enterprise. I can't quote every single episode. I was a pretty big fan of TNG and DS9 and I've seen all of the movies. Anyway ... the movie involves time travel. I figured by now anyone to ever touch Star Trek would have it figured out that time travel is the Trekkie's nemesis. If your plot requires time travel, the movie (or TV episode) will suck. That's pretty much a rule just like the even/odd movie rule (while Nemesis broke that rule, this movie puts it back on track). Eric Bana plays the villain, Nero, who was superfluous and totally unoriginal. He's a Romulan (btw - for no reason what-so-ever they decided to change the appearance of Romulans. They're now bald and have paint on their faces) that survived the destruction of Romulus when their star went nova, killing his wife along with most Rolumans. Spock was supposed to save the planet but failed. Nero blames Spock and decides to take vengeance by traveling back in time to destroy Vulcan and earth. The plot reminded me of the two-part Voyager episode "Year of Hell" starring Kurtwood Smith. I'm pretty sure that episode involved time travel, and the basic premise (wife gets killed, guy goes bad and starts destroying planets) is almost exactly the same! So the plot is lame and ripped off from other cheesy Star Trek plots from past episodes. But there's other extremely lame elements as well: o Spotty has a cheesy, annoying and unnecessary side-kick that reminds me of Jar Jar Binks (though he doesn't speak as much so it's not quite as bad). o Spock and Uhura have a love affair. o At the end of the movie they leave the "star trek universe" in such a manner that destroys all future Star Trek events. Basically TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise ... never happen. I suppose this might not matter if you accept the time travel premise and "alternate time-lines" etc. but that's basically an excuse to ignore canon and do whatever the hell you want. In other words if you go down that path you're deciding from the beginning that you're going to write a bad script. o There's a freakin' sword fighting scene!!!! Why don't they just pull out a phaser and shoot the bad guy!?!? o As someone else said, Kirk was unlikeable as a character. He was made out to be completely infallible and didn't care about anything. He was that "sexy rebel without a cause, that finds his cause" Hollywood cliché. Overall this movie was a "Big Hollywood Blockbuster Action Flick" and not a Star Trek movie. I gave it a 5 because if that's what you're looking for, it doesn't fail. The story is lame but unimportant if what you want is lots of explosions and unnecessary, drawn-out fight scenes. In terms of acting, dialogue and the script this movie could be one of those "so bad it's good in a funny kind of way" films.
WALL·E (2008)
Extremely Disappointing Coming From Pixar
I have absolutely adored every single Pixar movie to date. The Incredibles and Cars were extraordinarily entertaining to me and perhaps two of my favourite movies of all time. Consequently I was really looking forward to seeing this film. Unfortunately I was also extremely disappointed.
The movie left me curious as to IMDBs rating and I'm even more disappointed that I'm such as odds with IMDb. Usually my opinion of films are pretty consistent with the IMDb crowd.
So why didn't I like this film ? For starters, virtually every single scene had something extremely hard to swallow. First there's the plot. Humans fill the planet so full of garbage that we not only relocate to giant space ships but we send them way outside of our solar system. Not only that but we become so fat that we literally can't do anything, including stand up and walk. Yet for 700 years we somehow manage to reproduce and maintain the technology that keeps us alive.
The main character is, obviously, Wall-E. A trash compactor that somehow has the full range of human emotion (fear, embarrassment, physical attachment etc.) yet he can't speak coherent English. Wall-E falls in love with EVA. EVA also develops feelings for Wall-E yet also can't say anything but "Wall-E" and "Directive".
The two characters communicate only by reciting each other's names over and over again (which becomes very annoying after a while) and the movie is very light on dialogue. I didn't have a problem with the lack of dialogue (in fact I consider mime to be one of the most challenging forms of acting since we communicate via body language far more than verbally. If executed properly a character that never speaks can be far more powerful than one that does) but I did feel that the movie was extremely slow to develop and actually felt longer than it really was.
There were a few "cute" scenes where the various robot characters would get into trouble and I did let out the occasional chuckle but after a while I was dying to see some kind of story develop. I will admit that the last 1/3 delivered a bit of relief in the story section but it was too little too late (I won't spoil the ending).
Animation-wise the movie is a hit. Technically-speaking it is a visually-stunning piece. However, in my opinion story always comes first.
I gave the movie a 3/10 for the animation. The story was extremely weak and was basically a love story with an environmental message. I have a feeling that most people loved this movie because love stories and "cute things" are always a hit (Wall-E was very cute and the movie was definitely a love story). The movie also came across as an attempt at an artistic piece and I think that hit home with some people. I can get into art films but if I judge Wall-E as an art piece it fails on every level except the aesthetics. It didn't challenge conventional thinking. It didn't offer an original story. It took the environmental message to the farthest extremes possible and the main characters were very hard to like.