Tag Archives: jai courtney

Movie Review: Terminator: Genisys

Alan Taylor’s Thor: The Dark World was crowned champion as my worst of 2013. With plot holes at an astronomical level, action scenes that were disappointing visually and conceptually, and acting directionless and talentless, Thor: The Dark World is easily the worst film that has come out of Marvel in recent years.

Had I known Alan Taylor directed this, I would have cringed but it would not have deterred me. Terminator Salvation was such a bad sequel, such a u-turn from the franchise’s previous direction, that James Cameron’s creation was begging for a rebirth. Sadly, they gave it to Alan Taylor.

Something else that the Terminator films have been doing lately is spoiling their own films in their trailers. Terminator Salvation had an awful, spoiler-ridden trailer. If you’re reading this review prior to seeing the film, DO NOT WATCH THE TERMINATOR: GENISYS TRAILER 2. Luckily for me, I don’t watch much television so I never saw the second trailer, for if I had, the film would have been spoiled. However, I am one of the lucky ones. There are millions who were not so lucky and had their experience destroyed before they purchased their ticket.

The purpose of marketing is obvious: to market, to sell a product. How do we sell a movie? Well, highlight the main actors, the director, maybe a few minor plot points, and a strong emphasis on visuals. I wrote a piece entitled The Art of the Trailer that you might check out to explore the world of film marketing further.

To sell a film, what should we not do? Well, let’s not divulge any plot twists. Can you imagine how awful The Sixth Sense would have been if Shyamalan had revealed one of the best plot twists of all-time in the trailer? That would be incredibly stupid, wouldn’t it?

Someone on the staff of the marketing department for Terminator: Genisys heard this argument and said, “You know what? I don’t see what’s wrong with that.” I don’t know if this was the boss that decided this and all of his subordinates just decided to play along so as not to incur his wrath or if the whole department was brimming with incompetence, but this was a poor decision from an entertainment and financial standpoint. If you reveal what’s going to happen, why would we pay to watch it?! It is the simplest argument in the world, yet in two consecutive films, the marketing department managed to play dumb and get paid for it. Think about it: some guys got paid, healthily I might add, to spoil a film connected to one of the most well-known franchises in film history. Wow.

So there’s that.

However, as I said, I avoided the stupid and for that I’m thankful.

Yet another stupid however: the marketing department and the script writers collaborated at the beginning of this film.

I had never seen The Terminator, the first film, until last week and that was because I suspected it to be closely tied to this film. I will kid you not, the sets and shots are exactly the same as the first film. Whether this was meant to be an ode to the one that started it all or not, it’s irritating. It went on for at least ten minutes. The intrigue of such a strategy lasts a few minutes, but ten is far too long. No one likes verbatim material. No one.

Once Terminator: Genisys decides to start being its own creation, it’s not awful, but once again, time travel is incorporated, a feature that I think needs to be removed for good from this saga. The franchise is an endless loop: send terminator back, send someone to aid the Connors. Kill terminator. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. There’s only four repeats instead of five because thankfully, Terminator: Salvation avoided that concept. That was one of the only pluses to the movie.

If Skynet can continue to send terminators back and the resistance can continually gain control of a time machine to send someone back themselves, without that sequence of events ever changing, this war will never end, making myself all the more irritable when a character says a variation of, “If we do this, Skynet is done.” No, it is not. No matter what you do, that won’t happen. The Skynet of the future will somehow realize you are trying to destroy its existence in the past and will send one of its killing machines farther back in time to kill Sarah Connor. Then the resistance will send someone to protect John Connor from a young age. Then Skynet will send someone to kill that young John. Then they’ll send someone to kill older John. Then they’ll say, “Screw it” and send someone back to kill a young Sarah. The process is monotonous.

For me, the Terminator franchise is a prime example of why films should avoid the concepts of time travel. With as many variables, equations and results that such a theory carries, it is impossible for everything to be accounted for. The first two installments demonstrated a thorough evaluation but delve any further into it and complications arise. The continual usage of all-too similar story lines is why I believe the franchise is overrated, but that’s a discussion for another time.

The writing is fair but introduces another fatal flaw to yet another Taylor-directed work. James Cameron’s endorsement of this movie strikes me, because Genisys falls not in left field, but in a ballpark on a different continent.

Describe the Terminator franchise. It’s a simple enough task if you’ve watched any of the films: post-apocalyptic, a world covered in grunge and desolation and seemingly hopeless. They are films foreshadowing the end, brewing technology’s deadly capabilities and artificial intelligence’s problem-solving and creativity. Character bonds are built on survival but remain distant from emotion. There is no time for that. This is war. There is violence. There is destruction and chaos. There is termination.

At no point would one say the franchise epitomizes excessive humor, romance, character reversals or feel visually out of its element, but I assure you that Terminator: Genisys has all these characteristics.

Alan Taylor is such a talentless hack, he tries to jump on the coattails of Age of Ultron and the more recent Jurassic World (which I strongly recommend), films that can get away with precisely dispatched humor because the element was never blacklisted from the franchise. Perhaps a handful of one-liners could be gathered from the four films combined, but Taylor is incognizant of the Terminator franchise’s semblance in cinema and decides to make a film comparable to an action-filled sitcom. Did he watch the franchise?

Taylor’s lighthearted attitude is the antagonist to a serious action film and contradicts everything that the franchise emboldens. In an age where film now heavily relies on visual effects, Taylor’s visual editing is awful, from major scene transitions that I’ll mention in the spoiler’s edition to fights that don’t have the dominant punch the Terminators are known for. The action is performed, not executed with the element-defining quality that Cameron’s two installments remain famous for and even Rise of the Machines and Salvation attempt to replicate. The action does not hold the gravity that the Terminator franchise has stamped on it.

Alan Taylor, I hate you. Here’s to hoping you never have a managing job again in any field of work, especially cinema.

Thankfully, Arnold Schwarzenegger finally got back on the horse and demonstrated he might have some gas in the tank after all and right when we were pulling into the car dealership to trade him in, too. Jokes aside, I’m happy for Arnold. As an actor, Arnold deserves better performances than The Last Stand and Sabotage, both colossal failures. He owes it not just to his audiences and fans, but to himself. After a laughable governorship and a quite possibly more laughable career re-ignition, I was begging for Arnold’s retirement in Winners And Losers: Round 1 (WAL). Watching athletes and actors struggle with something that was once so natural for them is hard to watch and in some cases, diminishes their legacy and unless I hate you, I don’t wish that for you. So since I’m saying that, Taylor, I take back what I said. Please continue making movies you and only you think are good and continue to dig yourself into a hole of negligence and unending criticism for your inadequacy and continual carelessness.

If Terminator: Genisys has a great thing going for it, it’s Arnold learning how to breathe again in front of the camera. He’s entertaining, his humor works and his stage presence is finally present again. Terminator Salvation missed its leading man badly and the franchise did well to return him. Bravo and welcome back. Try to stay back now and please be cautious of what you choose to star in next.

Why Jai Courtney continues to get roles and especially in big-name productions, I’m unsure, but thankfully, he remains tolerable and develops some chemistry with Emilia Clarke’s Sarah Connor. It’s not mind-blowing or particularly engaging but it’s there and it is what it is.

Arnold’s Terminator plays a father figure to Sarah and the bond that has grown for years that we sadly don’t get to take part in is admirable and at times, touching, if once again misplaced. Jason Clarke as John Connor also plays a substantial role if not the one he should have ever been tasked with. Once again, I’ll touch on that in the spoilers.

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 UltronThe AvengersThe BabadookInterstellarChappie)

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 GuyThe Cabin in the WoodsTears of the SunEdge of TomorrowThe Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Anchorman 2: The Legend ContinuesLeon: The ProfessionalEnemySleeping with the EnemyEquilibrium)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Black SheepTwistedParkerHouse at the End of the StreetThe Raven)

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. (The SentinelMad Max: Fury RoadBlitzThe PunisherDrive Hard)

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 BoysZombeaversCrankErasedI, 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. (CenturionPlanet of the ApesStonadosRedemptionPride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Boy Next DoorThe ColonyIn the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege TaleThe GreyX-Men: Days of Future Past)

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.” (CyborgOutcastSabotageGallowwalkersTucker & Dale vs. Evil)

My score for Terminator: Genisys: 65.

A case of mistaken identity, Terminator: Genisys is nowhere close to what it should have been but Taylor’s best efforts to suck this film dry of life or entertainment are stifled by Arnold’s first true comeback role and Jason Clarke’s portrayal of Connor against the unbeatable odds stacked against him. It is a fun sequel but certainly not a good one. It’s fair and it’s better than Terminator Salvation, but a film this poorly directed has no invitation to compete with Cameron’s imaginations. Perhaps it can compete with Rise of the Machines, but I’ll have to watch the series again before I can decide. My disappointment notwithstanding, please put a much-deserved win on the board for Arnold.

*SPOILER ALERT* IF YOU DON’T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED, STOP READING!!!

*SPOILER’S EDITION*

The big spoiler that the second trailer highlights is that John Connor has been taken over by the terminators…or decided to destroy the world. One of the two. I don’t really know.

The thing is, in both the movie and the Wikipedia plot summary, it says something to the effect of the terminators captured John and infected him. What he’s infected with I don’t know but he’s now made of nanorobotics. It also seems improbable that John is under mind control because he tells Kyle Reese, Sarah and the Terminator what happened to him and that he’s been tasked with the survival of Genisys.

Regardless of what actually occurs here, the Terminator franchise essentially killed their star hero that has been the focus of all these films from the beginning. Not since Spider-Man 3 has a film taken its main character and disfigured him in such an extreme way. This, I assume, is the biggest reason that Genisys has tanked at the box office and has been mercilessly assaulted by critics. They took the hero, the cornerstone of this franchise’s legacy and they destroyed him and to make matters worse, turned him into the villain to continually remind us of their horrible experiment. It did not ruin the film for me, but it definitely took 15 points off the top and for many fans, much more than that.

Now, to editing. When Kyle and Sarah first time travel to 1984, the Genisys clock says 11 hours. They are transported in the middle of the highway and cause a lot of accidents, are arrested and taken to the police station. When they get to the station, we see the clock says 4 hours. It took 7 hours for the police to arrest them, which happened almost immediately after they got there and to take them to the station…

In a later press conference at Genisys, the clock says 21 hours till initiation. This is one of the most notable, unintentional plot holes I’ve seen in a long time. I have no clue how everyone missed that.

In a scene later in the movie, Connor pulls the ignition out of a school bus Sarah, Kyle and Arnold are in. The bus is driving along the Golden Gate Bridge and is shown flipping front first, vertically, along the bridge, but in the next shot, the bus is shown flipping horizontally, spanning side to side, something that is physically impossible.

Finally, in Sarah’s flashback to when her family is killed, she jumps into a lake and hides under the dock and hears her house explode with her parents inside. Arnold comes walking along the dock and sees her through the boards, picks her up and carries her away from the danger. It is worth noting he is carrying Sarah Connor with one arm and in his other arm? A bazooka. You would think a correlation between an exploding house and a terminator carrying a bazooka could be found, but Sarah never notes any suspicion of that, nor is the flashback mentioned again.

That, my friends, is stupid writing.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Movie Review: I, Frankenstein

It’s been far too long, guys. Far too long.

I’ve neglected my blog for the past few weeks with things continuing to draw my attention away from WordsofWisTIM and I’m sorry. I’m more than three weeks behind on blog reading and there are so many films I’ve seen this year and not written about.

To try to make up for that, I’m going to challenge myself. I’m going to post each day for the next two weeks to the best of my abilities. Movie reviews, sports reports, sports features and a Movies in 2014 feature coming your way. I’m dusting off the pen and going mad crazy on the ink. I’m so excited to get back and I’ll try my hardest to never drift off again.

To begin my two week marathon, I’m starting with a film made in 2014 and I think I was one of maybe five people who wanted to see it: I, Frankenstein.

The trailer didn’t bore me. Dare I say I kinda wanted to see this in theaters, but I couldn’t. How could I? It looked like garbage and Jai Courtney, too and Aaron Eckhart? “Hopefully it’ll come out on Netflix,” I said. Well it did, so thanks Netflix.

I, Frankenstein’s 3% on Rotten Tomatoes is simply amazing. Sometimes I question how films make it look so easy. How do a bunch of people get together for a project and manage to fail so badly? That’s one of the questions that Hollywood still puzzles me with. Might have to blog about that sometime, maybe make a new series focusing on the questions Hollywood puzzles me with? I don’t know.

So the film opens with a Lionsgate logo. So far so good, I’ve enjoyed lots of their films.

Lakeshore Entertainment. The logo looks familiar. It’s a kid jumping off a dock into a lake.

SKE Films? Did someone just make that up?

Hopscotch. Hopscotch Features. Wow. Don’t even know how to respond to that. How can I take you seriously when you name yourself Hopscotch? When you read a production company name like that, you slowly close your eyes and sigh. Crap.

I knew it was going to be crap. I knew it before I started it, yet I still watched the darn thing anyway. What’s the matter with me? A few years ago, I’d just shut it off, but I’ve developed a need to finish what I start and now every cursed film that finds its way into my hands has been watched from beginning to end.

Five minutes in? Time for some exposition. The whole universe is laid out like a blueprint for a bystander who just wants to watch the construction process. Do I need to know all this? Do I really?

There’s a war between gargoyles and demons and blah, blah, blah. This was produced by the same guys who did the Underworld series so I should have expected it but I still cringe. Has anyone watched those films? There is so much exposition that there is no substantial time to develop character because we’re too busy learning about this fantasy universe.

It’s a plague that infects so many science fiction and fantasy worlds today. Simplify, simplify, simplify, that’s really all you need to do. For this film, they didn’t even have to do that. Director/writer Stuart Beattie cast Bill Nighy, the same guy who played the villain in Underworld and in every movie ever. Has Bill Nighy ever played a good guy? If I cared enough, I’d research that but I feel I can safely assume he hasn’t. I think he may have had a good guy role in the 2012 Total Recall remake, but it was more of a cameo than anything. He’s got the villainous voice and in no way am I saying he’s not a good actor but if you cast Bill Nighy in a movie, the audience can safely assume he’s a bad guy and that he’s trying to take over/destroy the world. Guess what? That’s what he’s doing in I, Frankenstein.

I never watched this and I knew that was where it was going. Anyone who has watched three of Nighy’s movies knew where this was going.

If Stuart Beattie, who wrote Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, wants to be lazy and toss the cast a scarce script, fine, but cut out all this set-up garbage. No one cares. We all know the weapons have to be anointed or something to kill demons/bad guys. We’ve seen enough vampire movies, demon movies and Underworld movies. We’re not dumb.

We all know that Frankenstein is supposed to be overly strong in this film. Frankenstein can’t be an action hero without inserting that clause. Don’t need reminded of that for five minutes.

Don’t need to know about the gargoyle/demon war. It’s evident there is one. They’re killing each other. That meets the requirements of the Oxford definition. I already know why because again, Bill Nighy is here, figure it out people. I know the when (forever…Nighy), the how (Nighy) and the where (everywhere…Nighy). This is all Nighy’s baggage. I got it, okay?! Geez. Move on.

Maybe I’m being unfair, saying Nighy asserts himself that much in a movie like this, but that’s how I felt and thought about this introduction. Just a total waste.

A film should never start with substantial exposition five minutes into the film. Ever. That’s a terrible way to start a film. Aside from being lethargic and unbearably uninviting, opening with exposition is akin to giving the audience the first draft of the script, unedited and unfiltered product scraped together and molded into a block of words on paper. Discolors the art of screenwriting, doesn’t it? A mind-blowing intro is an unfair expectation for almost any film, but expecting a plot extrapolation before reaching the double-digit minute mark is like being a fan of the Buffalo Bills, Chicago Cubs and Edmonton Oilers, the three teams that have the longest playoff/World Series droughts in their respective sports leagues. You wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

Why does a crew willingly subject themselves to that? What purpose does it serve? If they’re trying to set up signs that say, “Turn back now. If you don’t, you’re about to go dumpster diving,” they’re doing a great job, but if they’re trying to make a theatrical presentation that makes millions and entertains audiences, they’re really off track.

Extended opening exposition is one of the cardinal sins in film-making, at least for me, and I, Frankenstein suffered greatly for continually throwing blueprints in my face.

Aaron Eckhardt isn’t a bad actor, only a bad decision-maker. The Dark Knight had some of the best acting of the decade and Eckhardt as Harvey Dent was part of that Christopher Nolan epic. He has the tools if he’s coached the right way and given the right part, but his reliance on substandard films such as this is a continual grievance for his fans. The focal point of the movie, Eckhardt commanded my attention at least but not my mind.

Eckhardt was asked to build a palace out of sand in an hour and a half and was given but three grains to start with. An unattainable goal only worsened by a lack of co-worker participation, Eckhardt’s voice grows graver and deeper as the film goes on, something I found ironic since everyone wants to bury him.

For a character that’s enshrined in the gothic world of fictional characters, Frankenstein is poorly written here. He’s a monster and he wants to be left alone. Surely there’s some complexity? Not I, Frankenstein. Every chance at proficiency is skipped over and standards were lowered as the film progressed. Some basic themes can be colored in, like loneliness and self-identity most of all, but the space is left blank. Frankenstein would have a self-identity problem. He can give hardcore death stares all he wants but he hates himself. Anyone in the same predicament would, no matter how confident they were in themselves and their own abilities before. You don’t wake up each day covered in scars, knowing you were created and hated by your creator and say, “Aw, it’s a glorious day. Time for me to get some Jimmy Dean breakfast!”

There are far more lessons and values that could have been covered but any drama or takeaways you might have expected from this are not arriving to the presentation. CGI and action sequences overshadow them. The character Frankenstein constitutes respect and I, Frankenstein does him no such thing.

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. (American BeautyGone GirlMulanGuardians of the GalaxyDawn of the Planet of the Apes)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cabin in the WoodsTears of the SunEdge of TomorrowThe Amazing Spider-Man 2Young Guns)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(SnowpiercerThe FamilyWhen the Game Stands TallBlack Hawk DownRed Dawn(2012))

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (House at the End of the StreetThe RavenDead SnowRubberHansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters)

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. (RageZoolanderThe Expendables 3HomefrontG.I. Joe: Retaliation)

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 Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly MadisonA Haunted House300: Rise of an Empire)

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. (CenturionPlanet of the ApesStonadosRedemptionPride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The GreyX-Men: Days of Future PastThor: The Dark WorldThe Sum of All Fears)

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.” (SabotageGallowwalkersTucker & Dale vs. EvilSafeWatchmen)

My score for I, Frankenstein: 47.

A thoughtless venture, which I suppose is ironic considering the subject matter, I, Frankenstein is bad but not degenerative. The action starves and the plot is moot, but I still got a little fun out of this, bumping it from the low 40’s.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Movie Review: Jack Reacher

Edge of Tomorrow is now in theaters and to calm my excitement temporarily, I threw in Jack Reacher. Based off the popular novels by Lee Child, Jack Reacher separates itself from the uniformity people expect from a murder mystery, painting untouched characters to peak our interest. The subplots carry their own freshness as does the central focus of the story. The plot isn’t superficial but it’s also not so complicated that viewers get lost along the way. It has an alluring temptation to it, drawing us in like a fish about to be caught in a net and once it’s got us, we’re unlikely to become disengaged.

Tom Cruise continues to impress me with his repertoire of characters. Rarely do the clichés of stereotypical personas emerge from Cruise’s showings. No matter what seemingly innate withdrawals, what surely must be a character we’ve seen hundreds of times, Cruise always manages to make it his own. He doesn’t allow the script to stagger him.

Jack Reacher proves to be more of the same as Cruise welcomes him to his entourage of action phenoms. He’s got his quirks, expressions and gestures down pat. They’re crucial to character development and the dialogue is very well-written. Plot and character furtherance are both involved and none of it seems misdirected or unfocused. Director Christopher McQuarrie also wrote the screenplay for Jack Reacher and you can tell the film’s kingpin and writer are on the same page which really solidifies the direction. It’s a narrow but stern focus and it’s done quite well.

The cast spouts off the dialogue effectively and most of the characters are taught to audiences, but I didn’t feel the film reached its ceiling. Jai Courtney has a solid poker face, but it doesn’t feel like there’s a lot going on upstairs. He’s not as dominant a character as he perhaps should be. I also feel the Zec was probably more of a twisted, fortified character in the novel than he was here. Werner Herzog was pretty impressive in the role but I didn’t feel like he had enough screen time to establish his desperate figure. I would have liked to have gotten to know him a little more. Rosamund Pike plays the curious defense attorney and she’s a good accessory to Cruise’s Reacher. Robert Duvall has some fun with his role as well.

The stunts are well-choreographed and enthralling but as a murder mystery, this film relies on the characters and most are thoroughly mastered by their performers. The cinematography is well-done and shoots the city of Pittsburgh with glamour.

I hate to reference a previous review, but this film was the polar opposite of Skyfall. Where Skyfall lacked innovation, Jack Reacher had ingenuity coupled with plot upheavals that didn’t seem out of left field nor thrown so straight across the plate that a blind man could predict its trajectory. It’s not going through the motions. It’s perfecting all of its mechanics and illustrations to the utmost detail and it shows in the final product.

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. (Godzilla, SecretariatPrisonersMr. & Mrs. SmithCaptain America: The Winter Soldier)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Amazing Spider-Man 2Young GunsCloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2Spider-Man 3Divergent)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (SkyfallCloudy with a Chance of Meatballs300FlyboysDawn of the Dead)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (SpeedGodzilla(1998)The Incredible HulkDisaster MovieDodgeball: A True Underdog Story)

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. (The Starving GamesYou’re NextThorFull Metal JacketAlien Resurrection)

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. (Billy MadisonA Haunted House300: Rise of an EmpireCowboys and AliensSerendipity)

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. (StonadosRedemptionPride and Prejudice, The Contract)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (X-Men: Days of Future PastThor: The Dark WorldThe Sum of All Fears)

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.” (Open GraveAlien 3Dark FuryMidnight Cowboy)

My score for Jack Reacher: 92.

Tom Cruise comes to the plate and delivers a homer that the galleries of fans can admire once again in Jack Reacher. It is probably my favorite film shot in Pittsburgh and also one of the few films that I would like to see a sequel for.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
CCY's Movie Reviews

Movies Worth Sharing!

Days Gone

Meeting the insanity that is reality

500 CRAPPY WORDS A DAY

Imperfection is Perfection

vinnieh

Movie reviews and anything else that comes to mind

emmakwall (explains it all)

Film & soundtrack reviews, good humour and lists

pickoftheflix

EMPIRE'S 301 GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME REVIEWED - to watch or not to watch?

Shit Jon Gruden Says

"Spider 2 Y Banana Shake?"

kylerehm005

I will show the world( or whoever reads this) my passion for movies, sports, life and Jesus

ramblingsofsam

A place for sharing, fleshing out, and fine-tuning thoughts and ideas

Mr. Movie's Film Blog

Film and Anime Reviews - New and older releases!

Thomas J

My Journey Through Film

SnapCrackleWatch

A blog dedicated to television and movies

The Cinema Monster

unparalleled film reviews, news, and top 10s

Silver Screen Serenade

Praising the high notes and lamenting the low notes of all things film and television

Cinema Parrot Disco

Musings on Mainly Movies from a Table 9 Mutant

wordsofwistim

For those searching for wistim regarding life, sports, movies and more