Change Your Image
mjf_722
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Opinions Will Vary, But This Was Entertaining Whether You Call Yourself a Star Wars Fan Or Not
First to get this out of the way - just like Episodes I, II, & III - if anyone was expecting this to match the original trilogy (IV, V, VI), then you're fooling yourself. Self professed Star Wars fans attacked the prequels (and some foolishly act like they don't exist) because they thought they were going to match the previous trilogy, when anyone with half a brain could tell they wouldn't no matter what Lucas did. While Episode I was the weakest with some questionable content, it was in no way "garbage" or "the worst movie ever" like some self righteous "fans" or movie goers complain about. If you're one of those people who say, "worst movie ever" in regards to Phantom Menace, my only advice would be to either stop watching movies for the headaches they give you or watch more than 10 movies in your lifetime before you make ridiculous statements. Episode II had some weakness and Episode III was good. The point is, that the newer trilogy would never match the magic of the original - no matter what Lucas did. Different time and anyone seeing all the altering he did to those with the numerous "special editions" (some cosmetic add-ons were decent, while others were absolutely terrible) could see how Episodes I, II, & III would be. All good, but certainly different. But this is not about Episodes I, II, & III - just mainly to make a point.
Anyway, Episode VII The Force Awakens as well was never going to match the original trilogy for similar reasons. It was after Episode VI and George Lucas was no longer involved - plus this is now a Disney property. You can never appease these self professed Star Wars "fans" or the ones who take movies too seriously that they give themselves nosebleeds. There are those who use similar arguments about I, II, & III that will say is the problem with VII - and those arguments are ridiculous. I'm a longtime Star Wars fan and can tell the difference. All those others will give this review a "not helpful" vote, but it's perfectly fine with me. I laugh at that and those people actually.
As far as the movie goes, it was about as expected with some weaknesses obviously. It was always apparent that once Disney took over and Lucas was totally out, there were going to be some changes, some new Disney-ish involvement, and different writing altogether. There was an adequate amount of action, decent enough story, and some of the newer characters are OK - some. Gone are those little Lucas moments that fans would be used to by now, but that's expected.
The most questionable for me besides some of the writing was some of the casting. I'll admit that I questioned several of the castings based off the trailer alone. Daisy Ridley as Rey was something that annoyed me from the trailers, but she was good as her character and looks like someone who belongs in the Star Wars universe. John Boyega as Finn was similar, but his character and the actor were fine. No disrespect to Oscar Issac, but both he and his character Poe Dameron (thanks for bringing your personal life to this movie JJ) were bland but tolerable. I'll pass final judgment for a sequel since his character wasn't in the movie as long as others - but from this movie, blandness all around. The biggest problem was Adam Driver as Kylo Ren. The Ren character itself was a bit strange - and not in a good way. Adam Driver was certainly miscast in this role. When Ren took the mask off, on both occasions I wished he just kept it on. What a complete disappointment with both character and actor. They missed the mark with Kylo Ren.
Assuming that certain things will be explained (some will - others you'll have to find them) in Episodes VIII & IX, there were some plot holes here and several things not explained. The basic storytelling was fine and the movie flowed somewhat decently. As far as a movie as a whole, it was entertaining. As far as a Star Wars movie, it was entertaining and one that would be on par with Episodes II & possibly III. I came in with realistic expectations and was not disappointed.
The one thing that people seemed mixed on was the Solo death. Besides Ford wanting this since Return of the Jedi, they needed to do something big in this movie. Solo was my favorite character in Star Wars and I had no issues with it. I thought the writing behind it was on the weak side and they didn't execute it in the best of ways. There's plenty they could have and should have probably done differently - but there's no sense in crying over spilt milk. What's done is done and they have at least 2 more chances to get things better. They left some mysteries for the next two movies and any good movie looking to make more will do that.
So opinions will vary. Some self proclaimed Star Wars "fans" or "experts" will say this is the 4th best movie of all the Star Wars movies or will claim it's on par with IV, V, & VI (lol) while not acknowledging I, II, & III or crapping unnecessarily on them. Some of those very same will just say The Force Awakens was garbage. I say don't listen to the "critics" - judge the movie for yourself. If you're someone who goes to the movies/watches movies to be entertained, then you won't be disappointed. This was entertaining - which is exactly what movies should be.
Star Wars is in new hands now and thus far, it's fine.
RoboCop (2014)
Not as bad as "experts" or "critics" claim that it is - Entertaining even if it is a reboot.
OK, so it's a reboot. There are people who are going to hate reboots/remakes no matter if they see the film or not. Even if the reboot/remake is better than the original, there are those who will hate with their closed minds. There's no point in stressing yourself out - no matter what anyone says or thinks, they (the studios) will always put out remakes/reboots due to lack of original ideas or to make a quick buck.
I am by no means an IMDb troll or wannabe "expert" like several on this site seem to think they are. I'm a movie fan who has seen more than 10 movies and can objectively state whether a movie is good or not good. Yes at the end, it's all opinion and no one is correct - but there are some opinions that are as crappy as they claim the movie is and they are usually mistaken. Movies are meant to entertain, not to be taken so seriously.
Anyway.
I wanted to hate this movie. I hated the idea of a remake/reboot like so many others do and upon first hearing about this, I was already not happy about it - but in a way, sort of expected this to come out in a reboot/remake form eventually. When I first saw the picture or what this version of Robocop looked like, I didn't care. The first trailer I saw, made me think it was garbage (some trailers are just poor). Of course being a fan of the first and even the second original Robocop movies, I didn't care for it even before it came out - but resigned to the fact that I love movies and would eventually see this out of curiosity sometime down the line. And I did.
The film does look better than the original as far special effects go and whatnot, and that's expected when comparing a 1987 movie to a 2014 movie. Joel Kinnaman wasn't a great casting choice here. I know they wanted to cast a fresh face to the role similarly how Peter Weller was cast in the 1987 version, but unlike Weller, Kinnaman just didn't take to the role. He did fine and nothing against the actor, but it would have been better with a different actor. I didn't feel sorry for him like I did with Weller's Alex Murphy character.
The Lewis character is now a male and the captain is now a female. Gary Oldman does an excellent job as always and Michael Keaton is always welcome as a bad guy. Samuel L Jackson plays an interesting character.
There's more focus on Alex Murphy's family unlike in the original where you never saw them really aside from flashbacks. This movie gives you their perspective a bit and that was a decent change. Future Detroit is not nearly the hellhole it was in the 1987 version, though there is of course the element of crime. In this movie, Robocop does have the silver but it's eventually changed to a sleeker black - though it probably wasn't the best idea in a marketing aspect. This movie also gives you a bit more with Murphy's emotions when first waking up and realizing he's barely human anymore - the 1987 original had him slowly realize this, so there is the differences there. This version certainly lacked the campy quality and humor of the original, but that isn't a bad thing and separates the movies. This version doesn't have memorable characters as the original had (Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith...etc). Aside from other minor details that is pretty much where differences between the 1987 version and this version end.
The fight/shootout action sequences are better in this version naturally. There isn't the gore or level of violence as the original, but this movie is PG-13 as most studios like to do these days to cash in as much as possible with a wider audience.
Really, if you take out anything RoboCop prior to 2014, this isn't a bad movie at all and is quite entertaining on it's own. I doubt they'll do a sequel at this point, but if they do and it's on the same level as this one, I'll surely see it. Movies are not supposed to be taken seriously and they're there to entertain - and this movie does that.
There are some bad remakes granted (Total Recall) and some really good ones (The Thing 1982), but while this one is sort of in the middle, it's arrow is point towards good. If you have an open mind and don't take movies so seriously and just watch them to be entertained, then give this a shot. If you like the idea of the original, give this a shot. If you are one of those couch "experts" who only watch movies to dissect them and generally hate everything but the same 5 movies you compare everything to, then don't watch this. If you think every other movies that comes out is "the worst of all time" (meaning you haven't seen nearly enough to know what worst actually is), then don't watch.
Honestly, I wanted to not like this movie. But I gave it a chance and was pleasantly surprised. I think most with an open mind will be too. While not the best movie to come down the pike, it certainly not as bad as people say and worth a watch for sure.
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Entertaining. Judge for yourself, don't listen to the so called "experts".
Firstly I am a longtime fan of the original and it's sequel. I don't take movies as seriously as some do on sites like this, so I also liked part 3 and Salvation - though they weren't on the same level as the first two. I was irritated when Cameron never came back for a 3rd, but accepted it and accepted that any new Terminator movie from that point on wouldn't be on par. I'm not like the Star Wars fans who think that each new movie past the original trilogy will have that same magic and then bashes anything that comes out. If you come to see this movie or any Terminator movie past the first two expecting it to match the originals, you'll be only disappointing yourself. With that said, I found part 3 and Salvation entertaining and fine entries to the franchise. This latest movie is also a fine entry to the Terminator universe.
I wasn't a fan of yet another reboot, but instead of judging it before it's release, I decided to just accept it because they were doing it anyway.
It was entertaining - like a movie is supposed to be. Of course it doesn't match to the original 2 movies and it was never going to. I went to see it with an open mind and not like a troll (like the many who inhabit this site) does.
It was about what was expected for a Terminator movie, even a reboot. They did the "alternate time-line" storyline to appease the fans of the original like they have done with other franchises (like Star Trek). They had the car chase scene which is a staple of all the Terminator movies. They paid a pretty good homage to the original and hard fans of that movie will surely notice that. Overall action is about what you'd expect these days.
Of course Schwarzenegger was cast to tie this set of movies to the last set. They explained the flesh aging just fine, even if they had this Terminator a little more "human" than it's predecessors. The cast was fine especially Emila Clarke, who was nicely cast as Sarah Connor and did a great job. The only major casting flaw was Jason Clarke (no relation) as John Connor - pretty weak casting altogether for that character. He didn't fit that role whatsoever. I would have rather had Michael Edwards (T2) back or even Edward Furlong over Jason Clarke. Jai Courtney generally bores me, but was fine here for this movie's version of that character. I would have cast a different actor for Kyle Reese, but it could have been worse.
They left some questions unanswered, but I assume they'll answer those questions in the sequels. They really should have not had loose ends with this release since sequels are not guaranteed if the movie doesn't make as much as they hope.
If you're a fan of the franchise and don't take movies so seriously to the point where you give yourself a headache, then I would recommend seeing it. If you want to get entertained like movies are supposed to do, then I would recommend it. If you're going to dissect every minute down and rant about how they "got it wrong" and all that babble - skip it. Just stay home and stop watching movies altogether. If you're one of those who'll say "this is the worst movie of all time" or "this is garbage" - well get out more and actually watch more movies, because you have absolutely no clue about movies period.
Superman Returns (2006)
Good idea, but could've used a stronger plot.
Everything these days is a reboot. I like most comic book movies generally, but at times having to sit through the whole origin story- line yet again can be trying after a while. Spider-Man, Batman, Hulk......the list goes on.
Being that there was really nothing wrong with Superman I and II, I thought Singer had a pretty unique and novel idea to just continue the franchise by just tweaking it a little. Of course, Christopher Reeve (the best Superman on screen) wasn't able to do it, but the casting of Brandon Routh was pretty decent as far as looks and aura of Reeve's Superman. By all accounts, he wasn't a bad Superman whether it would've been a reboot or not (Henry Cavill looks the part as well, but that's another story). While Gene Hackman made Lex Luther pretty campy at times, the character was entertaining enough and Spacey did a good job with the role. Instead of getting the same old back-story of Kal-el coming from Krypton, landing on earth, because raised by the Kents, starting the Daily Planet, meeting Lois, and establishing himself to the public, we were spared all that and were supposed to get right into the action so to speak. In that aspect, it was a welcome change from the constant rebooting and remaking of comic movies.
Then came the plot and that is where Superman Returns dropped the ball. There was nothing wrong with Lex in the movie, but they should have really just concentrated on some action (maybe a supervillian like Zod, or even Doomsday from the comic - which would've changed people's tune to the movie). Superman having a son was also pretty dumb and not needed in the general story and obviously didn't work here. There was nothing wrong with Routh, but of course he gets the heat from fan-boys.
I do believe that if Singer was allowed to do a second movie with Routh, they would have succeeded and satisfied some people - but I generally felt a little let down that Singer didn't deliver a more exciting plot, because THAT was the problem here.
Either way, if you're a Superman I & II fan, it's worth checking out because they did do a great job in catching the essence of Reeve's Superman. Just prepare to be feeling flat due to the dull plot.
Gigli (2003)
Not as bad as "critics" claim that it is.
As mentioned, not as bad as critics claim - and for those who claim it's the "worst movie ever", I suggest you watch more movies because there are certainly a LOT worse than this.
Just because this movie's expectations were high due to the whole "Bennifer" thing, this movie got nailed (as well as Jersey Girl which also had them both - Jersey Girl was actually a cute movie) very unfairly.
Is it a good movie - of course not, but it was moderately entertaining at times and judging from other movies I've seen, it really wasn't all that bad nor does it deserve the title of "worst movie ever". The people who say that past "critics" have no clue what a "bad" movie is. As far as "critics" go, they often take themselves too seriously to begin with and most of the time they are incorrect in their assessments anyway.
The plot was weak, the character arc wasn't there, the dialogue was borderline at times, and some of the jokes fell flat - but the movie wasn't meant to be taken seriously to begin with. It was just meant to be a somewhat entertaining movie and delivered what it was supposed to. This wouldn't be the first "stupid" comedy out there either.
Gigli does have entertaining cameos from Al Pacino and Christopher Walken. Justin Bartha's performance as a mentally challenged person was actually good and underrated - lost among all the harsh criticism of this movie.
Bottom line, if you watch moves for entertainment and can do so without taking things too seriously, then I would suggest watching it at least once. It may not be for everyone of course, but that would be generally every movie out there. If you actually do like to watch movies and watch them often enough, I think you'd find that this movie was certainly not as bad as the people caught up in the hype think. Don't expect a classic comedy either, but by no means is this the "worst movie of all time" - because it's certainly not.
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
Not as bad as others in the series, but series does need a serious reboot.
I've read a lot of reviews about this movie and as a fan of the game series and as someone who's watched all the Resident Evil movies, this is NOT as bad as others in the series.
That being said, I've sat through all the movies since the first. After the first of course, they've all went downhill. The second and fourth movies were pretty bad, boring, and didn't make much sense. The third was probably the best out of the sequels, but that isn't saying much when all the sequels past the first one were garbage anyway. After hearing how "awful" this movie was, I was prepared as I watched it and really, it wasn't that terrible - and certainly not as bad as some reviews claim that it is. I'd go as far as to say this was probably the second best out of all the movies or at least tied with the third movie.
To say this was one of the "worst films of all time" is utterly ridiculous and the people who say that really need to watch more movies, because there are plenty of terrible movies that would be more deserving of that title. Expand your movie library maybe before you make such comments. Then again, these are some of the people who said that John Carter was "one of the worst movies of all time" and were also wrong about that. Yes, opinions.......but pretty poor ones. Believe me, there are plenty of garbage titles out there. At the very least, the action in this movie best other "action" movies' actual action. Yes this is my opinion only, but I've watched more than 10 movies unlike some of the "experts" out there who give such garbage and unjust reviews.
Anyway, I sat through this expecting the worst and was able to follow the story through. They've already made a mess of this franchise with the other movies, so there was no redeeming it at this point. The action was of course entertaining and I like the idea of all the environments and clones. At least in this one, they had some zombies and references to aspects of some of the games, like Las Plagas. Again, comparing to the other sequels in this franchise, this wasn't bad. Just don't expect a masterpiece and allow yourself an open mind when watching this. If you're a fan of the franchise, I'd say watch it but don't expect something like the first one.
The franchise as a whole does need to be rebooted badly though. Another director/writer needs to take over. They've rebooted (or are attempting to) a lot of titles whether they needed to or not and with the plump Resident Evil universe, there is plenty of material to start over with an not even come close to this. Anderson needs to go - and he needs to understand that he's not doing a great job with this franchise. Yes, it was nice of him to add known characters, but being that this is the fifth movie after all the damage done, it's too little too late now.
Soldier (1998)
I personally liked it, but can see why others didn't......
Soldier was a very good idea, which wasn't executed to the best of it's ability. While I did find this to be entertaining, I can see why some wouldn't like it. I personally like the movie, even though I can see it wasn't a great movie.
Kurt Russell plays the role of Todd very well. He undoubtedly got into excellent shape for his role and it shows. Sure, other actors could have played Todd as well, but Russell was a good choice here. The premise of this movie was a good one, though some parts could have been trimmed and concentrated a little more on the character from birth until his abandonment. The movie at times seems rushed and in some cases, poorly edited.
Jason Isaacs (before his career making turn in the Patriot) shows up here in an almost generically campy role of Col. Mekum. He's supposed to be weaselly and cowardly, but generally Isaacs did a good job with the material he was given. Gary Busey was wasted a little here as Church - he should have been shown with Todd and the old soldiers a little more before the introduction of the new breed, to show his loyalties to the old soldiers. Sean Pertwee (along w/ Isaacs in Anderson's Event Horizon) is OK in his part of Mace, Connie Nielsen does OK in her limiting role as Sandra - both are not given enough screen time to care about their characters in my opinion, but the point is there. A pre-Shield Michael Chiklis shows up as Jimmy Pig. Jason Scott Lee is fitting as Caine 607.
The basic premise of men trained since birth to become the ideal soldiers, only to be replaced by newer, genetically enhanced soldiers was a good one, though of course not original. Certainly this movie was better than both Solo and Universal Soldier, which were along the lines of the same idea. Had Russell not taken this role, easily this would have probably faltered a lot more if Van Damme or someone like that been cast instead. Generally, I thought the movie could have been a little longer on both the training and arrival of the "new" soldiers, and Todd's time on the planet.
As mentioned previously, at times the movie seems rushed and at other times, it's poorly edited. Some scenes are looped and there are completely visible mistakes in the movie. It's predictable enough, but a lot of movies are generally. None of these 'issues' ruined it for me. I've watched this movie several times & own the DVD and am entertained every time I watch it.
In my opinion, it's worth a watch if you're an action or sci-fi fan. Form your own judgment. As long as you don't expect a masterpiece, I think you'll enjoy it for the most part. Everyone has their own opinions and while I do enjoy the movie for what it is, I can see what's weak about it and it is certainly not one of Anderson's best, nor is it overall "great", but I like it enough to stand by it. Try it.....you might be pleasantly surprised.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Not as terrible as people claim......
OK, firstly, I'm a huge Star Wars fan (huge, but not one of those convention freaks, but could easily hold my own in a movie trivia contest and have most of the dialogs memorized)- I grew up with the original trilogy and they're among my most personal and favorite movies ever. Nothing can ever compare with those movies, as they were made at a certain time - a sequel, prequel, or remake could NEVER duplicate those movies, no matter how good they were.
That being said, obviously I was not alone in my excitement over the news that 3 prequels being released. I never thought I'd see that day as a child, but they were now coming. Even then, I remember telling people that no matter how this movie is, it's never going to be in the same pedestal as parts 4,5, & 6. Never.
Naturally the movie came out and with it, the complaints. Complaints after complaints from supposed fans, the closed-minded, and just general complaints (ie, the movie was racist - it was not by the way).
Some of the "complaints" are definitely warranted: Jar Jar Binks was a very annoying character and ruined most scenes, though I know why Lucas put that character in the movie. Binks was probably the worst thing about the movie. Even in repeated viewings, I still can't bring myself to like the character, but it is what it is. I didn't care for the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi, but they're in the movie and there's nothing I can do about it. The Binks complaint is pretty universal among most people and I agree.
I've also heard complaints about the pod racing scene. I personally didn't care for that scene either, as it was a little long and probably the most boring part of the movie. It could've been trimmed down some and still have the intent Lucas had in mind.
Remove those 2 complaints from the movie and really, the movie wasn't bad. Jake Lloyd was a bad casting for Anakin, but the young Darth Vader was a kid after all and certain behaviors are obviously understandable. The lightsaber duel was good (though it's funny that the duels in these 3 movies are a lot better than the duels in the original - but as with the way things looked, there are explanations for that as well). The droid battle could have been a little better, but it was really no more hokey than the Ewok battle in Jedi. The space battle was not as good as the original (and neither were the unlikable pilots for that matter), but you have to start somewhere. I didn't care for the Gungan scenes much either, but this is also something never in the originals. The movie in general and as a whole was still good enough to be a 'Star Wars' movie.
I do think that this movie was under pressure and that people expected something along the same lines as the original, but it was not going to happen, no matter what Lucas did or didn't do. We were getting new characters (the 3PO/R2 scene was forced obviously) and not getting the characters and universe fans fell in love with in the original trilogy. This was a different time, both in the movie and when the movies were being made with an older George Lucas. Sure, the movie could've used some improvements, but that's obviously not happening now. I can watch this movie still and enjoy it. Sure, it's the worst out of the 6 movies, but when watched objectively, it's not that bad of a movie and probably gets a bad rap now more out of habit from some people. Definitely watchable for any normal Star Wars fan in my opinion(whether you nitpick or not).
The Devil Inside (2012)
Good for what it was, though the ending was weak.....
As far as a 'documentary' and exorcism movie done on a low budget, this was not bad at all. They did a good job with the footage, cameras (hardly any of that shaky crap in similar films)and the acting was pretty good. Suzan Crowley in particular (as Maria) did an excellent job in her role.
Pretty short coming in at about 1:25, but it was entertaining and that's the point. I didn't go into this thinking I was seeing the Exorcist.
The main problem people have with the movie, is the ending. I understand what the filmmakers were trying to do and it was ballsy in a way, to just abruptly end it the way they did. Too many times in movies, endings are predictable and to satisfy the masses, edits are done - and with some moviegoers, they need a more simple explanation and some sort of movie closure. It's not hard to understand the final result of the movie, but they probably should have polished off the ending and left this version as an alternate on the DVD. I never saw this in the movies, but on DVD - so I can understand the boos this movie got by someone paying $10+ a ticket (plus extras) and winding up with this result.
Still though, this wasn't bad at all and worth watching at least once if you're a fan of the genre.
Arachnoquake (2012)
Funny to laugh at.....not in the good way either.
Flipped the stations, came across this title and decided to cheaply entertain myself. I used to watch movies like this all the time just for the hell of it (though once in a rare while, there's a gem in all the rubble).
When I looked at who was in this movie - Tracey Gold, Ethan Phillips, and Edward Furlong among others - I already knew this was going to be one of THOSE movies. It was more out of seeing what Furlong was doing and what the spiders looked like more than anything that kept me tuned in. The spiders are as atrocious as any bad movie "monster". Even in 2012 and on TV, this was seriously poor.
Furlong looked bad as anyone would suspect. His acting (which to me was never all that great to begin with) was terrible and he was seriously miscast.
I made it halfway through and decided to just watch the rest, knowing full well this will be the last time I watch this garbage movie. Predictable and nothing greatly original, but if you enjoy bad movies like this, by all means - but this is pretty much as bad as it gets.
Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002)
If there was a bottom of the barrel, you'd certainly find this movie laying there.....
I usually watch all kinds of movies, even the bad ones. I sat through Shark Attack 1 & 2 already(not great, but slightly passable cheap entertainment movies), so I figured I might as well endure this one to finish it off (though to my best memory, none of the movies are connected).
What I found was a movie that I was surprised even made it out of the editing room. The "special effects" were horrid (I could have made a more convincing shark in my bathtub). The acting was as bad as you'd expect. Of course there's that "famous" line in the movie - by that point, I was slightly comatose and this line forced me to rewind twice just to see if I actually heard what I thought I heard. You could easily find the "line" on Youtube just to see it without having to torture yourself watching the rest of this crap.
From what I understand, this movie does have some sort of "cult" following, but it's probably not in the best way. It really is probably one of the worst movies ever made - and I write that knowing that covers a lot of ground (and I've seen a LOT of bad movies over the years). I'd rather watch paint dry than to watch this again. Watch at your own risk.