Movie Review: The Ridiculous 6

For a solid decade, one could argue Adam Sandler was the best name in comedy. From 1995 through ’05, Sandler had a big hit nearly every year: Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, The Waterboy, Big Daddy, Mr. Deeds, Anger Management, 50 First Dates, The Longest Yard and in 2006, my personal favorite, Click.

With the exception of Just Go With It in 2011, Sandler has failed to hit comedy gold for nine consecutive years. Instead, audiences have been gifted with fool’s gold like Bedtime Stories, Grown Ups, Jack and Jill, That’s My Boy, Grown Ups 2 and Blended.

What happened to the Brooklyn boy we used to know and love? Where did the greatness go? In athletes, age plays a role but what plays a role in acting?

So when I saw Netflix spamming The Ridiculous 6 everywhere on their home page as their latest original film and saw Sandler, I knew I was gonna have to watch this.

To Sandler’s credit, I watched The Cobbler over the summer and found some entertainment in that. It got destroyed by critics but The Cobbler was decent compared to his last few projects. At the very least, it avoided the pitfalls that have become a mainstay of Sandler’s colossal failures. I had a smidgen of hope for this, I really did. I had no right to, I understand that but I want to believe everyone has a chance at redemption. Except you, Shyamalan. I’m done with you. Go back and sit in the corner.

The Ridiculous 6 is a western, a genre Sandler hadn’t managed to soil yet if I’m correct but I guess he was bound to find it eventually. In comes his character, nicknamed “White Knife” and a bizarre assortment of characters to form a ragtag team of brethren to go on an “epic” journey.

That was probably the pitch without the script. When the script’s brought into the equation, you may or may not bat an eye. Depends on if you’re still offended by Sandler’s lack of promise these days.

There’s simple comedy and then there’s not-even-trying. The Ridiculous 6 features the latter.

The problem is the film’s clearly compromised nature and its need to lean on this stilt. If you want your films to be targeted at elementary school kids, Sandler, you’re doing a great job. Otherwise, let’s grow up, shall we?

I’m unsure if Sandler’s forgotten how to phrase things in a humorous manner or if his heart’s not in these projects but something’s been wrong with the guy for a long while and I think it’s time for an intervention. I hate to say one decade of mediocrity eliminates one decade of elevated comedy but I’m starting to wonder because there’s only so much of this nonsense I’m willing to put up with before I stop watching, too, as I’m sure some of Sandler’s loyalists already have.

There’s no wit or charm in Sandler’s productions anymore, two things I believe should be inbred in a work of laughter. The characters aren’t appealing; instead they’re excessively moronic, with Taylor Lautner being the largest bumbling idiot all of Hollywood has probably seen this year. There’s a morsel of enjoyment to be had given that Twilight-infamous Lautner is playing the role but in the spirit of the Grinch, that morsel is even too small for a mouse and when you have a large platter of unappetizing entrees as we have here, a morsel that small doesn’t aid in the entertainment process whatsoever. Stupid is stupid and just because we have the ability to pick on an actor for picking up a stupid role doesn’t make it any less.

As Sandler and crew once again parade themselves across the screen and give cameos to Vanilla Ice and Blake Shelton, we’re left wondering when the torture will end and this failed product will run its way out of town.

The cast is bare bones and even Terry Crews, the legend of Old Spice, feels out of his element here and when a guy’s that funny and he’s in a comedy, that shouldn’t happen. With no lines worth noting or character building worth mentioning, there’s not much to say about The Ridiculous 6 other than what I’ve already said. It’s watchable and you could do worse but I expect more than mediocre and bearable and you should, too.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook, Interstellar, Chappie)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Creed, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Crimson Peak, The Martian, Black Mass)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, Beasts of No Nation, Terminator: Genisys, Black Sheep, Twisted)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Everest, Hercules, The Sentinel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Blitz)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (The Lost Boys, Zombeavers, Crank, Erased, I, Frankenstein)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Visit, The Fantastic Four, The Boy Next Door, The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for The Ridiculous 6: 40.

Like a pinata waiting for you to smash the life out of it, The Ridiculous 6‘s material begs for a beating and by film’s end, critics like myself will have all the ammo they need to unleash hellfire upon it.

Movie Review: Creed

Nearly a decade after the Rocky series’ sixth and presumably last installment, Sylvester Stallone decides to return to his long-lost love. Creed is the latest rejuvenation of what began as a Best Picture winner all the way back in ’76. Now, one year short of four decades later, Stallone, Michael B. Jordan and Fruitvale Station director Ryan Coogler try to reignite a spark in all of us.

Boxing is a sport that has declined over the years and fallen out of prominence’s gracious spotlight, a development tragic for the sport’s once passionate fan base. The days of the great Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson are gone and the last contenders of the sport are nearing the end of their careers. What boxing did and is still trying to do is continue to put the coals in the ovens of our souls, to convince us with hard work and an uncompromising focus, anything is possible. No matter how many hits you take, you get back up. Boxing is a test of the human will as much as it is a test of training and conditioning and that is what the Rocky franchise showed us again and again and why people continued to flock to see the people’s champion.

Now Creed walks in at the last second, just as the crowds were starting to disperse to tell us there’s another event on the docket with the hopes this tale can return the series’ most loyal patriarchs to the theater seats.

The narrative of an up-and-coming fighter hasn’t been displayed with this much emotion since 2011’s Warrior. Adonis Creed, played soundly by Michael B. Jordan, one of Hollywood’s emerging talents, is trying to find his footing in life and escape the shadow of his father’s legacy. This film is not about Rocky but Rocky propels Creed’s path, giving him the compass and leadership he so desperately needs at this stage of his life.

Creed is nowhere near as developed or promising a character as the boxing hero we’ve all come to know and love but that isn’t to say Creed doesn’t show potential. Creed has an untamed fire and seemingly unquenchable thirst within him, the undying will to win. That, coupled with solid direction from Coogler and Stallone, gives any future sequels a firm footing in the industry. With Jordan at the helm, Creed could very well develop a long-lost passion for the sport of boxing and create intrigue in the sport over the next few years.

Coogler once again highlights his central character and the communication between Coogler and Jordan behind the camera is evident. The story’s flow is natural and genuine and the dialogue, especially between Jordan and Stallone, is very noticeable. When you can watch a movie without paying close attention, it’s usually because the film isn’t worth your time. Creed is not that film. Creed is a drama with impact despite its commercial appeal for being a boxing mainstay. The Rocky films have always been dramas and Creed is no different. The transition into this new development in the Rocky franchise is clear and clean. The tone, aesthetic and fluidity of the latest addition is crisp. Creed pays ode to the previous films while still making itself an individual that can be viewed apart from the Rocky epics, arguably the most important comment I can make about Coogler’s work.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook, Interstellar, Chappie)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Crimson Peak, The Martian, Black Mass,Enemy at the Gates)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, Beasts of No Nation, Terminator: Genisys, Black Sheep, Twisted)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Everest, Hercules, The Sentinel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Blitz)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (The Lost Boys, Zombeavers, Crank, Erased, I, Frankenstein)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Visit, The Fantastic Four, The Boy Next Door, The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for Creed: 78.

It’s easy to become ensnared in the works of others, especially when Rocky is such a legend but Creed and Rocky stand atop the steps of the Philly Museum of Art as two separate entities. Creed is not a younger version of Rocky. He’s his own man and that should give all Rocky fans faith in the character Michael B. Jordan now embodies. Also, Stallone gets a win in Winners And Losers (WAL) for his role.

BVF Round 1: I Am Legend

Welcome to my new series, Book vs. Film. As I mentioned in my Mockingjay Part 2 piece, Book vs. Film is a side project. Don’t expect one of these out every week or even every month. I’m aiming for two or three a year, which is a pace I think I can keep up with.

Book vs. Film is built on the ongoing battle that continues to take place among pop culture fans: Which is better? With Hollywood continuing to share story lines from comics and literature, the argument is at the forefront of pop culture daily and continues to go unresolved. This is my opportunity to throw in my two cents. Finally, in all cases, I will be reading the book second. I haven’t done a lot of recreational reading over the last few years but I’ve lately gotten into reading books that have inspired films which, coincidentally, is what has inspired this series.

For my first installment, we look at I Am Legend. The novel was written in 1954 by Richard Matheson. The adaptation, also titled I Am Legend, was made in 2007 and directed by Francis Lawrence, who lately has been directing The Hunger Games films.

Will Smith in the title role as Robert Neville is one of the better Smith roles I’ve seen and the times Lawrence’s film falls short are in no way due to poor character from Smith. I still remember seeing this film in theaters. I was 14 and cowering in my seat. I Am Legend scared me thoroughly and made me fear what came next. At an older age now, that’s not the case but the film still has some grip and grit to it, the same fear-inducing tone Matheson’s novel so clearly illustrates in the wording and headline character, Robert Neville.

A clear discrepancy between Neville’s character in the two mediums is his determination and demeanor in his daily routine. In Matheson’s novel, Neville is shown in a much more fragile state rather than the tough, cool and collected Will Smith we’re given. The change in character made the film much more marketable, seeing as how the zombie genre was just beginning to lift off back then. That and the need for a strong protagonist is there. The passive-aggressive, anxiety-filled lead isn’t something we see in film too often but I think it would have been a welcome addition in this scenario. Matheson’s Neville feels more human and relatable than the Neville on screen. Smith’s Neville is certainly admirable and compelling but he doesn’t have the same sense of attachment I found in Matheson’s original character. Neville’s nerves further emulate the struggles, both physical and psychological, of a post-apocalyptic environment. While characters clearly have a sense of the world around them and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty invoke a sense of power within us all, a majority of us aren’t those people. A majority of us are not Will Smith, despite our fascination with end times. We are Matheson’s Neville, a man who had a strong internal compass before chaos and fiends began to run rampant. Once everything goes to disorder and extremes, everything crumbles, including the people engulfed in it. That’s why I have to give the better character to Matheson.

The plot of the novel is nowhere near as important as his title character which is why I first addressed the legendary (play on title intended) Robert Neville. Matheson’s plot goes where you would expect it to go: to the unknown and to what once was. Flashbacks and Neville’s lingering on the past push the themes of Matheson’s work through the pages. Not all that happens in the film comes in second-place, however. There is genuine emotion in Smith’s performance through and through.

Where I think Lawrence’s visual novel really falls apart is in its final act. Matheson’s original work has an ending I did not expect, one that goes in a unique direction. The movie skips that altogether, brings character pawns into the mix and allows Smith’s Neville to discover his purpose and end in a dramatic fashion Hollywood tried to sprinkle over the last pages. All those sprinkles don’t shield the general awkwardness and at times, odd forcefulness of the film’s pacing here. I’m a bigger fan of creative license than most but even I can recognize this was a money-grabbing tactic on the part of Lawrence’s screenwriters, a move which hurt the film for me critically and entertainment-wise.

Mostly due to its third act, I’m awarding Matheson’s novel the win in the introductory battle of Book vs. Film. The character of Robert Neville is nowhere close to being a legend in pop culture but offers a unique post-apocalyptic account from an everyday Joe rather than a beefed up survival expert. If you’ve only got time for one, go with the novel. Either way, I Am Legend.

BVF Round 2-The Martian

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 might be the most trivial piece in cinemas this year. I was so livid at one point I shouted, “That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard” in the theater (everyone got a good laugh out of that).

After Mockingjay Part 1, I was irritated and had all the right to be. Mockingjay‘s first half was a rundown mall closing one shop at a time, the demolition of the building a certainty. The characters were set to the side and what was once an action series with questions of theology, morality and survival became a long-winded stage presentation on how to create a political campaign. Everdeen was disgusted the whole film. She wasn’t doing anything aside from modeling in front of a camera and pandering to the masses as to the good of the rebellion, which is all fine and dandy till you turn what takes ten or so minutes to illustrate into a two-hour lecture. The famous Lord of the Rings quote goes “butter over too much bread”. Mockingjay Part 1 felt like butter over too little bread, just stacks and stacks of butter on mere shrivels of bread that no matter how you look at it, just isn’t appetizing.

In comes Mockingjay: Part 2 to remove the stamp of disapproval from its latest installment. The film had an uphill climb ahead of it. After its first two installments were 80’s material and relevant in pop culture and literary adaptations, Mockingjay Part 1 demonstrated all that’s wrong with them. I have little doubt Collins’ novel was descriptive, thought-provoking and moderately alluring whereas Francis Lawrence’s work last year developed no cares with me.

Mockingjay: Part 2 surpasses its older sibling and with lavish strides but that isn’t saying too much, especially when its oldest siblings, Hunger Games and Catching Fire, remain so far ahead of it.

I’m sure fans of the novels enjoy a chance to reminisce but Collins’ pages must be leagues beyond this. The first two were capable but I haven’t seen a cash grab this desperate since The Hobbit, which was far worse I might add.

Jennifer Lawrence is worthy of far better than this and the over-politicization is like watching a five-year-old try to do hurdles and continue to trip and fall on his face. It reeks of desperation and feels like a Hollywood spin on a Greek tragedy, killing characters with no development and hoping the few that remain can live happily ever after.

What Mockingjay: Part 2 does, and does so hungrily, is try to return to the scenery it previously set up, what once defined this series: the Hunger Games themselves. The barbarism and animalistic tendencies of the Hunger Games competitors as well as the oppression of the government produced a trampoline to elevate its story into the upper echelons of discussions of sociology and political upheaval. Instead, director Lawrence elected to jump on a rock next to the trampoline and hold a level one course of how to make a political campaign, completely avoiding the filthy work that truly gets things done: violence, oppression and fight, as if the topics of the first two films were of poor taste or going further into the muck and true realities of humanity were too nasty a topic to discuss to the next generations. Instead, we see Katniss and the rebels try to defeat Panem with aggressive advertisements. Oh no!

In my opinion, Mockingjay: Part 1 went in the polar opposite direction it should have. I have yet to read Collins’ original works and frankly, after these last two films, I don’t think I have the desire to but if these were the avenues Collins decided to deduce in front of her readers, she chose unwisely.

What I believe critics applauded about these films was their ability to narrate key issues of morality and themes of natural selection aside from the plot and script line. These last two films, they’re mashed together like a glob of Play-Doh.

Few things sadden me more than an artist halfway through a fine work and then losing the initiative to continually meet and surpass the standards it has laid before it. These last two installments put the movies in jeopardy of falling out of the public eye and I wouldn’t be surprised if they faded like Narnia. The first two had far more potential than Divergent but they either let it sit out and spoil or threw it into the oven till it was ash.

The relationship between Katniss and Peeta never reaches the depth I feel it could have nor is a dominant love triangle developed. In all of his appearances, Gale comes across as a self-righteous, judgmental and insensitive bigot. Again, I’m sure this is more accurately painted in the novel but we’re not talking about those. We’re discussing what’s wrong with novel adaptations and this is a reasonable example.

The truth is, I love novel adaptations in movies. A lot of strides have been made thanks to literature. It’s allowed me to find a new passion for reading as well, which is why I’m starting my BVF series (Book vs. Film). It’s easier to write a great character in a novel than it is an original film. While I hope producers, directors and screenwriters continue to develop their own ideas and not lean on literature to keep the industry standing, there are some stories people wouldn’t have known about if it wasn’t for the adaptations.

In my opinion, Mockingjay Part 2 is a story I could have lived my life having never known about.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook, Interstellar, Chappie)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Crimson Peak, The Martian, Black Mass,Enemy at the Gates)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Beasts of No Nation, Terminator: Genisys, Black Sheep, Twisted, Parker)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Everest, Hercules, The Sentinel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Blitz)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (The Lost Boys, Zombeavers, Crank, Erased, I, Frankenstein)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Visit, The Fantastic Four, The Boy Next Door, The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2: 66.

Its plot is predictable, its characters don’t get chances for a lot of substantial non-plot-oriented dialogue and the action pieces, for the most part, are once again disappointing. I will remember the first two installments with fondness but these last two, I wish they were never made and I believe all those who are true fans of the series should be able to look at these and discern the difference in their quality level.

Movie Review: Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse

What a film. Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is the new Zombieland everyone and I’ll go so far as to not only compare the two but argue Scouts is better. Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve seen Zombieland but when I say Scouts is a barrel full of uncensored jokes and college humor, well, it sounds like hunting season for me because I love that stuff.

Scouts is like the kid in a rock band walking into class late with his hair a mess and pajamas on. He doesn’t have an excuse and he doesn’t care that he doesn’t have one. He’s unapologetic and couldn’t care less about the perception of him. He’s an alabaster of untamed raucous and people love him for it.

Scouts is that jar of no-holds-bar comedy. It’s blunt, brutal and to the point and doesn’t sketch around a joke to continuously repeat again and again like some of the barren comedies written lately and honestly have no purpose or meaning and would be better off being thrown in a barrel full of fire. Guess I like barrels today.

Scouts‘ material is fun for those who can appreciate it and better for those who aren’t offended easily. Those who are should probably avoid this because director Christopher Landon has no restraints with his free script. Characters will say what they want to say, sometimes enough detail to make you squeamish or at the very least twitch in distaste from the grotesqueness of it all.

Yet with its clearly adult-targeted humor, its narrative is directed at a young teenage audience unlikely to breach theaters to see this due to the R-rating. That narrative is tarnished by cliche and overuse but I still found it enjoyable, mostly because it wasn’t shoved down my throat like some poor comedies try to, although some would rather tape their own mouth shut and just have nothing relevant to say at all.

Critics have been especially harsh with the film because of the poor narrative, leading to its 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes but I think this is mostly because what the film has to say aside from the script isn’t all that much. I would argue the perfect parallel to Scouts is a McDonald’s Big Mac. No health expert is going to recommend you go to McDonalds for obvious reasons. However, we all love McDonalds and let’s be honest, if you say you don’t, you’re probably lying. Health experts will derail McDonalds in their reviews but the target audience for McDonalds will continue to buy that “American” delight. Then they’ll finish eating, question why they decided to eat there and return in a few weeks anyway.

The same can be said of Scouts except I never had my stomach rumbling, “WHY?!” at me like an enraged and disgruntled parent that just saw me push their kid on the playground. Scouts is my type of comedy, an unapologetic film that maintains some dignity and knows to toe the line of humor and express the wide range of hilarious emotion without crossing into the ever-growing wasteland of Sandler ashtrays and Rogen epitaphs. A cast of no-name actors and that one guy from Anchorman managed to make a better movie with a meager $15 million budget than Sandler’s been able to do since Click (lone exception: Just Go With It) and Rogen’s been able to do since, well, possibly ever.

With zombies being such a huge hit with popular culture, I’m genuinely surprised this hasn’t been a hit all over the country although that might be because of a limited release. I had to drive an hour and a half to see this because all the theaters around me weren’t carrying it. Terrible reviews aren’t helping public appeal either. I don’t blame the critics for saying what they’re saying. It’s their job to be critical and write from a standpoint. Scouts is a bad movie. It doesn’t have a group of overly talented actors or pertinent dialogue on life. I only think it’s unfair critics don’t talk about what the film has.

The zombie genre has become a hulk of a monster in pop culture and now in television and film. Anything with zombies sells right now, not necessarily because it’s good but because it’s zombies.

Unless Scouts becomes a cult classic however, it’s unlikely to become a box office hit or have a sequel, no matter how much those who loved it would like one, me included.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook, Interstellar, Chappie)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Crimson Peak, The Martian, Black Mass,Enemy at the Gates, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Beasts of No Nation, Terminator: Genisys, Black Sheep, Twisted, Parker)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Everest, Hercules, The Sentinel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Blitz)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (The Lost Boys, Zombeavers, Crank, Erased, I, Frankenstein)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Visit, The Fantastic Four, The Boy Next Door, The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse: 72.

If you’ve been waiting for a Zombieland sequel, look no further. Zombieland has better actors, plot and production but Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse may surpass it on entertainment value alone.