bobochildrunningwild Reviews

Wonder Woman (2017)

Just A Terrible Movie Unless You're A Fan With Blinders On

[3/10 · 27 May 2017]

Wonder Woman as a film is quite bad. Don't believe the fanboys or feminists who are trying to con you in to thinking otherwise. I think they wanted it to be good so badly that they may be even fooling themselves. While it's not as bad as BvS or Suicide Squad, it's still dreadful in its execution.

(spoiler-free) The bad:

• Almost every line uttered is a cliché with bad humor injected at all the wrong times.

• The movie is full of loud-music, blinding-colors, Zack Snyderesque slow-mo, and it follows Snyder's lead delivering truly cringe-worthy dialogue.

• The villain is shallow as can be. They try and set it up as some sort of huge twist in terms of who the villain is, but you can see it coming and when it's revealed it packs no punch at all.

• The plot is as dumb as the other DCEU efforts to date. Most if not all plot devices are shortcuts and are so badly introduced into the story that it honestly takes you out of the movie if you value story over whiz bang effects.

• Speaking of effects, the CGI is shockingly bad, especially the battle scenes. It's very unnatural, like the "wire-fu" or "Charlie's Angels" days of defying physics and gravity. Blurry background and shaky cam are the worst.

• The overall story telling is as stereotypical as it gets. I know it's a period piece but the big bad, the awkward love story and the hyper-feminist overtones all jumble in to one big mess.

• The attempted balance of humor and darkness fails. It had to be a result of orders from higher ups that wanted to try and inject some Marvel movie type sensibilities. Be a leader, not a follower.

• Gal Gadot was as bad as expected. SO wooden, she simply can't act.

• The movie could have cut 30 minutes and no one would have known.

The good:

• Chris Pine. Great acting and overall performance.

• The first act with life with the Amazons was interesting delivering a nice set up.

• Forced humor or not, a few jokes did land. Not a great batting average but it was something.

• Gal Gadot may not be able to act but she is sexy as can be and does deliver believable action.

Overall, I didn't like the movie and I doubt anyone but the rabid fanboy/girls will think very highly of this wasted effort of a movie.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

It's smart, intense, well acted and superbly done. AMAZING FILM!

[10/10 · 30 March 2014]

I'd have to rate Captain America The Winter Soldier as one of the best comic book movies ever made. It is as close to a perfect movie as you can get. Superman has generally held the title as most fondly remembered or nostalgic superhero film even though it has some campy flaws. Spider- Man has generally held the title as most beloved superhero film because of the character. Iron Man has generally held the most grounded and well liked superhero film. The Avengers has generally held the title as most highly rated and best film the genre has seen. Well, Captain America TWS can compete with them all in every category. It is IMO near perfect on every level. It's smart, intense, well acted, fun and superbly done.

The first film delivers a lot of action, a tantalizing and beautiful love interest, many humorous moments, powerful messages about internal fortitude and courage, a classic villain, fine acting and many of the basic essentials of any good action movie. This sequel adds an intriguing plot and does everything the first film did but does it BETTER. Including, incredible stunts, unbelievable feats and, not to be rude, but a climax that plays out like a multiple orgasm. The finish features one wave after another of edge of your seat moments. As fantastic of a movie that's ever been made in the genre and I'm not exaggerating one bit.

Justice League (2001–2004)

Laughably bad animation and major story misteps ruin this adaptation

[28 February 2006]

Justice League is guilty of criminally "kiddy-fying" an extremely average comic to start with, and thus losing everything that made the comic even remotely readable.

This should be obvious by the cover alone, on which we the entire gang lined up and drawn poorly. From there, things just get worse.

Batman came off as both an amazing leader and something of a self righteous jerk in DC comics, but in this movie all those things are glossed over, and he's just some Styrofoam, one dimensional character who's a pale shadow of what he should be and nothing else.

Superman is as dull here as he is in everything else. So, I guess that stayed the same.

The plot appears to be a mish mash of random tiny bits a pieces from the comics and made up ideas, none of which comes together cohesively.

But my main gripe is this: THE ANIMATION QUALITY IS TERRIBLE. The character designs look worse than most other Saturday morning cartoons. And the animation is incredibly childish. I don't know if I've seen a cartoon in the last 10 years where the animation lacked so much realism, especially in the poorly detailed characters.

So basically, these "movies" were extremely silly although probably faithful to its kiddy-friendly source material, painfully geared for a younger audience, and just down right looks low quality in terms of animation.

War of the Worlds (2005)

A complete and utter let down.

[1/10 · 1 July 2005]

Everyone who has been waiting so patiently for this movie has run out and seen it, even if people say it is terrible. Everyone will see the movie because of name recognition (Star, Story, Director) even though the final effort is not a movie that could stand on its own. Everyone will go and see it whether it is terrible or not – team Spielberg definitely has us all by the wallet.

A particular point of contention for me (aside from the lack a decent story and the complete lack of decent dialogue) was that they all but abandoned the story to focus on characters that are set up about as eloquently as a George Bush off the cuff speech. A complete and utter let down.

Sin City (2005)

mindless teenager movie = BIG Let Down

[2/10 · 1 April 2005]

I don't know if I'm more stunned right now or depressed. I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I knew nothing about this project going in and avoided all internet buzz because of the spoiler factor. I loved the previews and the cast. All of it came crashing down. I hated almost everything about Sin City.

The violence is very real but often made no sense. People die graphically but some people can somehow shake off multiple bullet wounds. This stuff made no sense. Between the graphic violence, cheesy acting and the general moronic nature of the film, it's definitely a disappointment to me. This violent boob-a-thon is clearly geared for mindless teenagers. I'm sure it will find it's audience even with the much deserved "R" rating but I was expecting so much more.

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

Assault on your brain - Beyond DUMB

[1/10 · 1 February 2005]

Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with.

SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR.

What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow.

The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.