Tag Archives: Jason Statham

Movie Review: Death Race

Image result for death race movie poster free use“Okay, cocksucker. F*** with me and we’ll see who shits on the sidewalk.”

Been waiting to watch this one for a bit. Say hello, 2019.

With this piece comes the return of Winners and Losers, a series I’ve left dormant for far too long. Updates will be put up by end of the week and Round 3 is on its way. Hopefully Statham can get his score in the green again.

I watched Killer Elite the other day. Gonna watch it a third time at some point later this year for the last time. It’s a doozy.

Was hoping Death Race might be a breath of fresh air. It was not.

Death Race comes from the same vein as The Running Man: deadly reality television in a world rife with economic turmoil and anarchy. Nearing close to the apocalypse it seems, it’s a dog-eat-dog world. The end makes people do desperate things and become the darkest versions of themselves. There are no heroes, only victors.

There are quite a couple of motifs that could be exploited here: survival, the life and death of morality, desperation and what any creature does when they’re pushed to the brink.

Paul W.S. Anderson is not the guy to go to if you want real storytelling. If you handed Paul a canvas to paint, he’d probably unload a shotgun on it. On one of his more creative days, maybe he’d be generous enough to use paintballs.

Let’s not mix words. Paul W.S. Anderson is the guy who throws chaos on a camera lens and calls it entertainment. Watching the Resident Evil films (thankfully only watched one though I’ll see them all eventually) is like being injected with epilepsy. It’s very perverse and very direct but also very blunt and uncomplicated. Bashing someone’s head in with a baseball bat doesn’t take a lot of talent. Cutting them 100 times and keeping them alive is far more terrifying and insightful. Paul much prefers option A.

And that’s fine, by the way. This post isn’t about how awful of a director Mr. Anderson is. It is only a comment that Paul W.S. Anderson either doesn’t excel or doesn’t prefer stories that involve high-end character focus or dynamic story arcs. His talents are in the visual arena. While the Resident Evil franchise sometimes does a solid job filming in a video game frame of reference, it also becomes corny and visually glaring at times. He doesn’t have a fine hand, in my opinion. He has a brazen one. That works sometimes. Michael Bay has a brazen hand, too and he’s seen quite a few of his films hit box office gold.

But if you put this story to print, it would be bland. It would not be a fun read. The dialogue isn’t compelling, aside from that line I included at the top. There would be a lot of boring chapters and I can’t imagine doing a reading for this would be that interactive. The idea of Frankenstein is an opportunity waiting to be seized: a man with a mask because of all the wrecks he’s been in but also a man who seems to be incapable of losing or dying. Symbols can be powerful things.

Yet Anderson wouldn’t seize on that potential and neither will the penmanship. It’s just pushing towards the next time Paul gets to unload some bullets and bazookas.

Death Race isn’t a race against time or against tension. It’s a race to the next time Anderson gets to explode some shit.

Which is again fine. If you want braindead entertainment, you’ll love this, but if you’re looking for character, the intangibles that true story offers, look elsewhere. Anderson isn’t going to give it to you. I do think that says something about Anderson’s breadth or lack thereof as a director. Even one obsessed with the visuals knows when an avenue as large as this should be taken. Something other than the equivalent of a mannequin in that car would make those explosions look more visceral and feel more impactful. As it stands, Statham could be blown to Uranus and it wouldn’t matter. It’s the sort of neglectful storytelling that pisses me off. I am not an Anderson fan.

Hollywood’s business structure is also responsible for this waste. This reeks of suits in a board room putting together a storyboard in a half hour, throwing $45 million at a dude known for explosive dunces and watches the green come in from those who are willing to settle for this second-rate entertainment.

I don’t know if you can even call Death Race art. It’s disingenuous and wholly incompetent. Anderson still has a fair touch for visuals but to fully ignore everything else that makes stories what they are is malpractice and he deserves to be criticized for it.

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. (TakenCaptain America: Civil WarDeadpoolAvengers: Age of UltronThe Avengers)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The 40-Year-Old VirginThe ConjuringSinisterOlympus Has FallenThe Cable Guy)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Ip Man 2Ip ManKong: Skull IslandThe InvitationHush)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The RoadDoctor StrangeJohnny MnemonicJason BourneSuicide SquadBatman Forever)

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. (Wind RiverTommy BoyDeath NoteTrue Memoirs of an International AssassinThe Great Wall)

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. (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No TalesPower RangersUnderworld: EvolutionBatman & RobinBloodsport)

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. (High-RiseMost Likely to DieIndependence Day: ResurgenceThe Crow: City of AngelsCenturion)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The SnowmanAvalanche SharksCatwomanThe GunmanThe Visit)

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 StonerThe Forbidden DimensionsCyborgOutcastSabotage)

My score for Death Race: 50.

Death Race plays a fiddle of violence and gearheads but does nothing to truly separate itself from the pack. It’s a formula that’s been done before and I simply can’t give it props for that. It’s another loss on Statham’s record. I’m still a fan but man, he has some blots on his rap sheet with me.

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

Movie Review: War

Two of the best action stars of recent memory, Jason Statham and Jet Li. One would think building a box office hit with these two superstars would be a walk through Central Park. Evidently not, or maybe Hollywood is just that incompetent.

If there’s anything I’ve missed this last month, it’s been my followers and reading my blogging compatriots latest works, which I will be getting back to pronto, but there’s something I’ve missed about this whole blogging thing that I’ve missed even more than that. You know what it is? I just have a craving to watch a bottomless film. I get some sort of cynical satisfaction out of kicking a film when it’s down and very rarely do I pity such productions. Many of these films are begging for derisive commentary, especially when their primary motivation for making this thing and wasting everyone’s time was to make a quick buck.

There are few things I hate more than half-hearted effort. If you’re going to do something, do it right or don’t bother. I’m a perfectionist and always will be. Nothing I do will ever be good enough for me and I don’t think that’ll ever change either, so when I watch a film like War, featuring two great action stars in Statham and Li, and then watch Philip Atwell get the honor of sitting in the director’s chair, well, let’s just say getting on E-Bay and looking for a noose to hang myself with isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

What’s wrong with Philip Atwell? I’m glad you asked. Would you like to know what Atwell has specialized in? Music videos. The only feature film he directed prior to War was a music tour video. He directs rap stars’ music videos and for reasons unknown, this guy was given the keys to a $25 million vehicle with Statham and Li in the back seat. Wow.

A slow clap doesn’t give this boundless fallacy the justice it deserves. That would be like if I was a Nascar owner and gave the keys to my car to my son because he’d had some experience driving a PT Cruiser. That would be like allowing my daughter to cook on the grill because she’d had some experience with an Easy-Bake Oven. The comparisons are endless and I would encourage you to make some of your own in the comments.

The tone of this film from the very beginning is off. Events occur too quickly and suddenly we’ve already had a time jump. As I just mentioned in my last review, time jumps early in films usually aren’t a good sign. That time jump was a precursor to this film’s failings.

There’s nothing wrong with the stereotypical revenge ploy in an action film, but when that becomes the film’s magnet, the primary component of the experience, there’s some evident problems with that.

For one, a revenge film is predicated on the notion that the audience will be rooting for the protagonist and want to see justice served. Very rarely are we going to root for someone because the film told us to. Instead, we want to be given reasons why we should root for him, reasons that aren’t plot-related. We want character background, what that person meant to our protagonist, what loss they felt and naturally an inside look at our hero. When a revenge film doesn’t give any character background, the person is killed off within eight minutes, we’re not privy to how that loss impacted our hero and the only time we ever see our hero is when he’s shouting orders regarding how important it is that we catch his nemesis, you get a movie like War, an artificial action installment that feels like a sad penguin looking up at the sky wondering why his parents didn’t give him wings.

What’s more embarrassing about this is that these are basic questions that should be answered in the drawing board stage. These are entry-level questions and concerns for any movie. A film company and director can’t claim ignorance here. They can claim negligence and unbridled stupidity, but not ignorance.

So you could say I was pretty disgusted with War at the halfway point, especially when I stopped the film and went through Atwell’s “experience” for the 20 seconds it took to go through it.

Statham and Li have few scenes together, which leaves their rivalry far too cool and collected for anyone watching to get emotionally enraged and want to start screaming internally for Li’s demise. With two actors as talented with stunt choreography as these two, you would expect some fight scenes between the two, but minus a four-minute segment, which occurs in the last ten minutes of the film, you won’t find any. Atwell is so out of his element that he doesn’t even know his actors or how to properly utilize them. This type of unpreparedness is unacceptable and I can only guess that’s why Atwell has never been allowed to direct anything since.

A quick sidenote: While I was scrolling through Atwell’s Wikipedia page and his “experience”, would you like to take a guess what the first thing his page had to say was? “Philip G. Atwell (often misspelled Phillip G. Atwell)…”

That’s right. His profile was calling out those who didn’t do their research. Atwell didn’t make his Wikipedia page, I understand that, but does anyone else find it ironic that a man who’s clearly incompetent and grossly negligent in his work has caused others to be negligent with the spelling of his name? I just thought that was funny.

You see, writing reviews about films this bad on occasion can be difficult to me and far more time-consuming then they should be. I’ve been writing this review for two hours now and that’s because I honestly hate talking about it. War is great at causing a war of inner turmoil inside of you and makes you wonder how anyone could possibly mess up an action film with Statham and Li but doesn’t create much of anything else. The stunt pieces are there on occasion but the story is so topsy-turvy and out of sync that it disorients the action sequences the film is able to throw together.

The editing of the film is so lazy that the when characters speak in different languages, there are misspellings in the translation subtitles. That’s how lethargic this crew gets in their work. It’s lackadaisical and I honestly can’t even.

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. (CreedScouts Guide to the Zombie ApocalypseCrimson PeakThe MartianBlack Mass)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2Beasts of No NationTerminator: GenisysBlack SheepTwisted)

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. (EverestHerculesThe SentinelMad Max: Fury RoadBlitz)

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 Ridiculous 6The Lost BoysZombeaversCrankErased)

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 GunmanThe VisitThe Fantastic FourThe Boy Next DoorThe Colony)

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 StonerThe Forbidden DimensionsCyborgOutcastSabotage)

My score for War: 41.

I haven’t felt this disappointed at the end of a movie in a while. Just eternal sadness. Statham gets another loss in Winners And Losers (WAL).

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

Winners And Losers: Round 2

Hello, everyone! It’s time for another round of Winners And Losers (WAL)!

If you missed Round 1, here’s a link.

If you haven’t read a Winners And Losers post before, here’s what Winners And Losers is. Each movie an actor/actress/director gives a memorable performance or a good film, I consider that a win. For every movie they give a shoddy performance or star in a detestable film, they get a loss, leading to an overall record of wins and losses. Over 50%, you’re a winner. Under, please get off the screen. I’m more likely to see winners’ films and do my best to avoid losers entirely.

Not all the films included in Winners And Losers have been reviewed by me yet, but I have seen them. I haven’t seen some in a long time and I don’t feel comfortable grading them a win or a loss, so they’ve been excluded from the list. There are also some films that actors have been in but did not play a substantial enough role to be considered for Winners And Losers. There is a tab at the top of the homepage for Winners And Losers and all records will be updated regularly when I see films with participants.

The bell rings for Round 2 and three more action stars come into the ring. Let’s go!

Jason Statham

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels 

Guy Ritchie’s first feature brought Mr. Statham into the fold. The film is troublesome at times but demonstrates potential. It is not a smooth ride but what it does right keeps it afloat. Verdict: Win

The One

The One is headed by Jet Li but Jason Statham has a large enough role to be included for WAL. It’s a boring one. The film is a watchable bad movie but Statham’s presence here is a head scratcher.  Verdict: You’re not the one.

The Transporter

Statham’s breakout ride is a joyride. Statham’s best character to date spawned three films and now a TV series as well, though sadly without him. Jason Statham is Frank Martin and he drives fast. Not the best of the series, but a fun flick nonetheless. Verdict: Win

Transporter 2

Louis Leterrier’s sequel is an improvement as Statham digs himself farther into the character. Frank Martin remains the man. Verdict: Win

Chaos

I watched this on Netflix not too long ago. It has Wesley Snipes and Ryan Phillippe co-starring. Wesley Snipes put another dingo on his board and Chaos remained as stable as a film can get. Excessively boring and I don’t remember anything about it. Not looking forward to reviewing this. Verdict: You call this chaos?

Crank

This film was definitely different but not all difference is good. Crank‘s overwhelming reliance on fast-paced film editing overshadowed a weak story, but Statham’s character defines this film and the entertainment it offers. Verdict: Win

War

This film is at war with itself and with me. Unable to meet the basics of a revenge storyboard and flat-out ignoring the stunt work ability of two of the best in the business is enough for a hard L. Verdict: You want a war with me?!

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

This film is absolute garbage. It was the worst film I’d seen for a time and my return to it earlier this year was just as painful. Verdict: What king? The king of the trash heap?

Transporter 3

Haven’t penned a review for the final installment, but Transporter 3 remains my personal favorite and was a salute to the character and series. Verdict: Win

The Expendables

Statham and Stallone owned the screen for the opening flick and it was well-deserved time. The chemistry between the two was on point and rarely does Statham disappoint in the stunt department. Verdict: Win

The Mechanic

A film that was going to be excluded from this round squeaked its way in when it showed up on TV the other day. It’s not the best, but it’s one I look forward to visiting again, especially with Ben Foster co-starring. Verdict: Win

Blitz

I watched this once and hated it, a second time and still hated it, and a third and final trip was the strikeout that did it in. No interest in seeing this flawed film again or watching the overblown subplots and limited presence Statham was afforded. Verdict: Blitz off the screen, pronto.

Safe

This film was the worst! Oh my gosh, so bad. Time jumps were constant, the character motives were weak as glass and that Asian girl better never act again. EVER. Verdict: You are not safe. Not safe at all.

The Expendables 2

Still digging the explosions, stunt choreography and Statham’s character, Christmas. One of the leading lads of the entourage and again, well-deserved. Verdict: Win

Parker

Watched it twice, missed the target twice. Jennifer Lopez didn’t show up to play, Statham’s given pebbles to work with and let’s not talk about The Thing. Verdict: You’re not parking on my street.

Redemption/Hummingbird

Another real doozy, Redemption was a protegé at the sport of boredom if ever there was one. A story of self-identity that never identified itself, Redemption was purposeless and didn’t even hum entertaining. Verdict: Redemption? You got a lot to make up for, bud.

Homefront

James Franco’s presence in any movie not titled Spider-Man is a bad sign and this was no different. Useless as usual, Franco tore this movie down like it was built on cotton candy straws and Statham sunk down with it. Verdict: Foreclosed.

Killer Elite

An assassin film without much thrill or punch and with an underused Robert De Niro to boot, this one falls flat. Verdict: Not Elite.

Death Race

Bred from the same themes of The Running Man, Death Race feels unfulfilled given the depth of story and character that was available here. Verdict: Race ya to the exit.

Final Record: 8-11, 42.1% LOSER!

Statham was a solid 6-1 prior to my subscription to Netflix, but since then his rating has taken a tumble. He’s fallen into a rut, but I’m confident he can dig himself out. I’m still a fan of his, but he’s got to give me something to work with or I’m going to start being a lot more selective with the films I choose with him.

Wins: 8 (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, The Transporter, Transporter 2, Crank, Transporter 3, The Expendables, The Mechanic, The Expendables 2)

Losses: 11 (The OneChaos, War, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, Blitz, Safe, Parker, Redemption/Hummingbird, Homefront, Killer Elite, Death Race)

 

 

Image result for liam neeson free useLiam Neeson

Schindler’s List

I watched it for the first time my senior year of high school. It’s a very dark film that contrasts villainy with a message of hope and it ushered in the great Liam Neeson so the whole world could finally recognize his brilliance. Verdict: Win.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Hate it all you want, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace isn’t a terrible movie. It might not be great, but it’s not awful and Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn was a great cast. Verdict: Win.

Batman Begins

Christopher Nolan’s first Batman film grabbed a great actor in Neeson to oppose Christian Bale and it really helped hold the film together. Verdict: Win.

Taken

3-0? Make it 4! Luc Besson’s writing and one of the best monologues of the 21st century shoots Liam Neeson into action star elites! Verdict: Duh, winning.

The A-Team

I picked up this on TV a few months ago and forgot how much I loved this movie. It’s dumb at times, corny at others, but it still remains way too much fun given the duo of Bradley Cooper and Neeson. Verdict: Make it 5.

Unknown

The streak ends with this garbage. A story that draped a blanket over our head for the entire movie worked with the suspense but the climax was a complete dud and Neeson was never given the materials to act, nor did he do well with what he was given. Verdict: Hope it remains unknown.

The Grey

When my family rented this, Mom quoted a review saying, “The dogs did better acting than the actors.” Whoever wrote that review wasn’t kidding. I didn’t hate this the second time around as much as the first, but it’s still a bloody dog carcass laid out in the snow. This survival tale struggled to survive an audience and those CGI dogs. Verdict: Woof, woof. It only gets darker from here.

Taken 2

Somehow close to the same standard as the original, Besson’s work comes out swinging again. Verdict: Win.

Non-Stop

Not a great film and I’m on the fence in terms of how good it was, but at the time of my review, I looked at it favorably. Verdict: Win.

Taken 3

The whole identity of the film was switched up and I didn’t like the change of direction, but Neeson remained faultless. Verdict: Win.

Run All Night

Neeson’s last venture was a mold of a prior film, somehow avoiding an obvious copyright lawsuit that should have been filed. Neeson was doomed from the start with this one. Verdict: Run from this all night.

The Lego Movie

Almost forgot about this one. A great animated film and Neeson has the voice for this kind of thing. Verdict: Win

Image result for liam neeson free useFinal Record: 9-3, 75.0% WINNER!

As long as Neeson keeps hitting the targets, I’ll keep watching. It’s a shame it took so long for the guy’s career to take off, but better late than never. I want to believe he’s got one more good drama left in him, but I’m unsure if he’ll go for it or not. His catchphrases and ability to relate are what really jumps out to me. He may not be one of Hollywood’s best right now, but he is one of Hollywood’s most entertaining.

Wins: 9 (Schindler’s List, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Batman Begins, Taken, The A-Team, Taken 2, Non-Stop, Taken 3, The Lego Movie)

Losses: 3 (Unknown, The Grey, Run All Night)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image result for tom cruise free useTom Cruise

Taps

One of Cruise’s first films, Taps was forgettable and it’s a good thing because if he put out product like this, he never would have become the Hollywood superstar that he is today. Verdict: I didn’t play Taps when this movie ended.

Top Gun

This might be a popular film but it’s not a good one. Corn on the cob it’s so corny, Top Gun‘s following among Americans makes no sense to me. Verdict: You’ll never be my wingman.

A Few Good Men

Tom Cruise’s first truly good role, at least that I’ve seen, A Few Good Men remains one of the best law films ever made and Jack Nicholson’s monologue remains just as profound as it did the first time we heard it. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible

The introduction of Ethan Hunt and a series that would spawn some of Cruise’s best stunt work, Mission: Impossible was truly gravity-defying. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible II

Climbing another rung in the ladder, Mission: Impossible II remained hot. Verdict: Win

Minority Report

One of the best sci-fi films of the last two decades, Spielberg’s Minority Report explores a lot of angles and Cruise gets to be the leading lad we all know him to be once again. Verdict: Win

The Last Samurai

A study of oriental culture and character transformation, The Last Samurai is such a film to honor that Tom Cruise was given his own holiday in Japan. Verdict: Win

War of the Worlds

Many critics still don’t know what went wrong with War of the Worlds, but something did. That much is evident. However, for me, Cruise sneaks away with a surprise win because I found his role the key piece that prevented this film from turning into pure feces. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible III

While the question, “How many impossible missions are there?” may begin to circulate your mind during this film, it is the best Philip Seymour Hoffman delivery I’ve seen and Tom Cruise continues to get farther involved with the character of Ethan Hunt. Verdict: Win

Valkyrie

A history lesson for those interested in World War II, Valkyrie never got to the depth of character I wanted, but remained attractive enough to keep me involved, with kudos to Cruise included. Verdict: Win

Knight and Day

Saw it in theaters and sadly haven’t gotten to see the whole thing again since, Knight and Day allowed Cruise to demonstrate the wit he’s so easily capable of as well as an upside-down story that will throw you for a loop. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol

The Mission: Impossible train refuses to stop and doesn’t look to do so anytime soon with a fifth film coming out this summer. The script writing still thrived, the stunts never disappoint and the adrenaline comes in a constant stream. Verdict: Win

Jack Reacher

Based off of Lee Child’s novel and filmed in my home city (Pittsburgh), Jack Reacher featured some good camera work, a dominant presence from Cruise and a twisting story that worked. Verdict: Win

Oblivion

2013’s Oblivion had potential and like many other sci-fi films that came before it and have yet to come, had potential go unreached. The third act is a major letdown, but the first two-thirds made it, at minimum, an intriguing experience worth riding out once. Verdict: Win

Edge of Tomorrow

Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise had some great chemistry, the story was driving and Cruise played comedian, drama king and action hero like it was picking apples. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation

Somehow these things continue to improve just when you think they couldn’t have gotten any better. Verdict: Win

Mission: Impossible-Fallout

There is nothing Mr. Cruise cannot do. The stunts he’s still doing at this age…certainly can’t bash this man’s dedication. I start to get worried each time I come into these that this might be the film that triggers the decline of his career but it never happens. Tom, like Brady, seems to defy time. Verdict: Win

Final Record: 15-2, 88.2% WINNER!

Tom Cruise steals the top spot on Winners And Losers from Sylvester Stallone (82.4%) with an impressive 13-2 tally as of this posting. His personal life is one easily criticized but his talent in front of the camera is undeniable. He never feels out of his element, always at the top of his game and continuing to impress me. He performs his own stunts, a trait I will always applaud and root for. Now in his 50’s, Cruise is still performing his own stunts, including hanging on the outside of a plane on takeoff and holding his breath for six minutes in an underwater scene in the newest Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation. You can question his personality and character all you want, but there’s no question of his dedication

Wins: 15 (A Few Good MenMission: Impossible, Mission: Impossible 2, Minority Report, The Last Samurai, War of the Worlds, Mission: Impossible 3, Valkyrie, Knight and Day, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol, Jack Reacher, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation, Mission: Impossible-Fallout)

Losses: 2 (Taps, Top Gun)

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

Movie Review: Crank

If I was asked to describe Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor’s Crank in one word, it would be “different”.

Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) wakes up dazed and confused before he sees a left-behind recording and gets a phone call from Ricky Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) confirming that Chelios has been poisoned with the Beijing cocktail, which inhibits the flow of adrenaline, slows the heart and eventually kills the victim.

If you’re someone who longs for immediate immersion in your films, you’ll enjoy the way this comes out of the gate. If you have become used to seemingly required backstory at the introduction of films, you may not be as fond of Crank.

I can appreciate both sides of the fence when it’s executed in the right manner. Crank is revving up the engine, which would be impressive if the engine wasn’t a bicycle in first gear, a gear that is great for exercising, not so much for going places.

Opening the door the way it does earns Crank some leeway, however, because Chelios doesn’t know anything either. It provides an audience-character parallel and to a certain point repairs early scars with duct tape. To an extent. This doesn’t forgive a complete lack of introductory outline or audience consideration.

The direction from Neveldine and Taylor emphasizes sharp edits and harsh, rapid cuts, giving visual adrenaline to complement a hurried story.

Shaky cam is a technique that should be used sparingly and viewed like mayonnaise. If you don’t want your serving to audiences to be void of taste, please limit the shaky cam. Shaky cam should be a condiment, not an overdressed salad. Matching the film’s shots to the tempo should not be prioritized over an audience’s ability to watch it, for obvious reasons.

The technicalities of apace film-making flaunted in Crank are oddly charming, however, and after displacing continual missteps from my memory bank, remained entertaining. The unorthodox style intrigues and smacks me in the face at the same time and for some reason, I was okay with that. Not sure why, but from an entertainment perspective, I felt the abrasive approach contributed to what Crank was trying to be…I think.

I’m not sure what Crank was trying to be. The scripting is like an elementary school student who proudly brings home an art project for his parents. He holds it up as he would a championship trophy and while his parents are happy for their son, they don’t have a clue what it’s supposed to be. To them and most everyone else, their son’s masterpiece looks like a mass of muck and pudding.

Which is not to say there isn’t anything worth cherishing in a youngster’s work. Quite the contrary. To continue my metaphor, imagine that same situation but the son is 30. Now you wonder how that guy’s going to make a living.

That’s what I was watching, a shapeless growth with little to no personality being presented as a final project, with no edges or indentations, just a blob of pictures. There’s no form to Crank. It just…is. Crank prioritized being a speedster flick so much, it flew by characters and plot, the pinnacles of story.

Jason Statham, bless his soul, has been struggling of late with the last few films I’ve reviewed, which you’ll see in next week’s round 2 of Winners And Losers (WAL). Crank has many of the same failings: poor story, buried characters and an overall experience that won’t let you breathe.

Crank‘s main failing is its inability to introduce supplementary characters to help Statham, a recurring problem in the Brit’s films. Producers and directors continue to give Statham inadequate material and sometimes even more inadequate actors to play opposite and alongside him, leaving Statham out to dry in the middle of the ocean for the umpteenth time. You would think these producers and directors would watch other Statham films before hiring the guy and think, “man, there’s no one helping Statham here at all. That was actually a pretty bad movie. I think I know how we can avoid that. Let’s get a second good actor for our film. Does anyone else think that’s a good idea? No? Ok, whatever.”

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it is a common phrase, one that many of Statham’s employers have not paid attention to as they continue to utilize the same inadequate actors and same substandard scripts as the producers and directors before them. People that learn nothing from the past and continue to make the same mistakes as their predecessors are known as morons and have no place in the industry, so yeah, you could say I’m pretty angry with Neveldine and Taylor. Stop leaving my man, Statham, out to dry!!!

Thankfully, I need not bemoan Statham’s role in Crank because he came to play with this one. Crank is not one of Statham’s better films and I’ll never recommend it, but I still consider this a W for Statham off the fact that the guy tries so hard to make this lousy script work. Characters cuss a lot more than they need to and coming from someone like me, that’s saying something because I don’t have the prettiest of mouths. Actually I guess I’m not that pretty to begin with but that’s beside the point. The point is that Statham, for all of this film’s 88-minute run time, is running all cylinders at full speed ahead. He’s got a zinger line here and there to deliver with that rasp of his and he does what he can with unambitious stunt choreography. Once again, Statham does what he’s forced to do on a regular basis: get on his knees, have a film placed on his shoulders and try to stand up and support it by himself. If the film was even halfway articulate, it might have been decent but it misfires too many times to put on a good show.

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. (InterstellarChappieAmerican BeautyGone GirlMulan)

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. (EquilibriumDead Snow: Red vs. DeadSnowpiercerThe FamilyWhen the Game Stands Tall)

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. (BlitzThe PunisherDrive HardRun All NightRage)

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. (ErasedI, FrankensteinThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly Madison)

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 ColonyIn the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege TaleThe GreyX-Men: Days of Future PastThor: The Dark World)

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 Crank: 46.

Disorganized, choppy and needlessly vulgar at points, Crank tries too hard to separate itself from the masses and instead becomes a mass itself. Statham adds one to the win column with his spontaneous protagonist but while Crank exceeds in the visual department at times, it cannot escape Shaky Cam Syndrome, blank acting and an eye-drooping plot.

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

Movie Review: Blitz

I watched Jason Statham star in Chaos on Sunday night but don’t remember as much from the film as I would like so I didn’t write a review. To make up for it, I scrolled through my Netflix history for films I watched but didn’t review. I give you the cop-killer film, Blitz, starring Jason Statham yet again.

I’m obsessed with the guy’s accent, the power he can bring to a few lines of dark humor and the burlesque films he continually stars in. If you have no idea what burlesque is, that’s okay. I didn’t either. I’m trying to learn new words lately and expand my vocabulary.

burlesque- an artistic composition, especially literary or dramatic, that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity.

Statham’s films have that mocking gumption flavor to them but Blitz plays a stark contrast to Statham’s previous work.

One of Statham’s more memorable introductions is featured in Elliott Lester’s 2011 British crime thriller. I don’t know why but for some reason, this film seems so much older than that. It’s got a 90’s feel to it and perhaps that’s because the script seems so barren, the story so predictable and the acting so devoid of life.

Perhaps that’s being a little harsh but when I first saw Blitz on TV, I hated it. I watched it a second time with my roommate, Jon, during the fall semester and still wasn’t wild about it. I gave it a third try and I’m done with it. It’s just not my cup of tea.

Detective Sergeant Tom Brant has anger management issues, but he’s also really good at his job: getting thugs behind bars. He’s tested when someone starts targeting cops. It’s up to Brant to catch the perp and do it before he finds himself in front of the barrel.

It’s basic enough but not very complicated or intriguing and the cast list doesn’t instill much confidence either which is both this film’s downfall and Statham’s seemingly impassable barrier to becoming a brighter star on the Hollywood strip.

Statham is a hard-working actor that guarantees a genuine attempt at making a film all its own, but he doesn’t have the acting flair required to carry a great film on his shoulders. He’s one of the better action stars of the past decade and some of the stunts this guy pulls off are gravity-defying. It’s when the compass begins to point up and Statham attempts a film out of his genre that the windows fog over.

Crime thrillers are built on a story’s suspension, its ability to remain aloft and out of reach but still appeal to our sense of intrigue while it plays puppeteer upstairs. Thrillers are meant to toy with our minds and thrill us, hence the term thriller. Thrillers are meant to be manipulative. If you watch a thriller and aren’t thinking about it a few minutes after watching it, then the thrill wasn’t there, the thriller didn’t thrill and the film failed at its primary purpose.

Lester seems decided on exploring a variety of topics in his film but runs away from them as soon as he opens the envelope like a kid jumping in and out of puddles or an artist trying to dab his paintbrush in all the colors on his palette. We’ve got drugs, alcoholism and police brutality and rather than have a few minutes to decide how the audience feels about all these things, we’re swung through a drive-thru of cinema and they’re onto the next customer before they served the first one.

For example, there’s a scene where Brant goes to visit one of the new inspectors, Sergeant Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) and confides to him that he’s losing it, that he’s blacking out. Nash tells a personal tale and Brant falls asleep during it for comedy reasons. The discussion of Brant’s “losing it” and “blacking out” is never brought up again. Why’s it in there then?

Blitz teases audiences with relevant material but then, like a bratty sixth-grader, laughs in our face for believing him and instead hands us some more toothless dialogue and unrelated subplots.

Statham’s never given the chance to flex or demonstrate his forte: action sequences. Aside from a long chase scene where Statham shows us he can run and do a little parkour, Statham’s experience as a stuntmaster is never utilized. The stunts are sometimes the only entertainment you can get from a Statham film and Lester finds a way to steal that enjoyment from us, too.

Statham’s got some fun quips and jabs here and there to throw around but there’s no diversity to his character.

The subplots are a waste of time and our villain, played by Aidan Gillen, is a punk. The concept of a character not giving a crap works but the execution here is porous. Gillen is not a talented enough actor to pull this off.

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. (InterstellarChappieAmerican BeautyGone GirlMulan)

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. (EquilibriumDead Snow: Red vs. DeadSnowpiercerThe FamilyWhen the Game Stands Tall)

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 PunisherDrive HardRun All NightRageZoolander)

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. (ErasedI, FrankensteinThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly Madison)

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 ColonyIn the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege TaleThe GreyX-Men: Days of Future PastThor: The Dark World)

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 Blitz: 57.

It might say crime thriller on the cover, but Blitz never gets to the point of thrilling anyone. The acting aside from Statham struggles, the villain is out of his league and undercut, the film fails to take advantage of Statham’s stunt aptitude, the subplots are excessively horrid, especially the acting from Zawe Ashton, and there was a need for a stronger costar to stand alongside Statham. Luke Evans was present but given an off-the-street role. Basically, this review is short because I’m tired of devoting any more of my time to this.

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

Movie Review: In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Another Statham film. I know, guys, that it seems that all I review is Statham films, but I review other things, too…sometimes.

It’s hard to describe my dedication to Statham. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a bromance, but I’m definitely a big fan of the guy, which is why when he offers me a rotten apple of a film and I’m understandably disgusted with it afterwards, I’ll still go back to the guy. I know he’ll always give it his best shot even if the tools he’s given for filming are inadequate.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is that and so much more and by so much more, I mean so much more trash to take to the curb. A decent cast list might be there, in Statham, John Rhys-Davies, Ron Perlman and Ray Liotta but the talent is so misused or not used at all that it’s a total waste.

Statham is Farmer. You might read that and think, “I don’t think that sentence is correct. I think there was supposed to be an ‘a’ between ‘is’ and ‘Farmer’. On the other hand, why would he capitalize Farmer?”

Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it? Statham is Farmer is what I meant to type. His character’s name is Farmer. Really.

Calling a character by their occupation is stupid. The film will go on to say Farmer is adopted and was never given a real name so he just went by Farmer which leads me to ask, why would you name yourself after an occupation? That’s like naming yourself Burger Flipper or Garbage Man. Just imagine this dialogue for a few seconds:

“I love the way your hair flows. You’re beautiful.”

“Why thank you! My name’s Emily.”

“I’m Garbage Man.”

“Oh, you’re a garbage man? Ok, what’s your name?”

“Garbage Man.”

“Yeah, I heard that. It’s not a big deal, I can deal with that. What’s your name?”
“Garbage Man.”

“What’s your problem?”

“I don’t have a problem! My name is Garbage Man!”

Aside from completing ignoring their main protagonist, which is one of the more important aspects of character writing, In the Name of the King has no support structure to hold it up either. John Rhys-Davies is so bad in this film, it’s hard for me to fathom this is the same man who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings, easily some of the best films of all time. Ron Perlman holds no purpose in the equation and holds a winless record for me right now. He’s 0-4, starring in the two Killboy films, Pacific Rim and this butchered carcass. One of these days, perhaps a day soon, I’ll write posts discussing my winning and losing actors, actresses and directors in my little book here but for now, let’s at least try to stick with this film.

Trying is probably all that can be done with Uwe Boll’s medieval skirmish. A 4% on Rotten Tomatoes is certainly warranted and Boll has a losing record with me as well, even if it’s just 0-1 at this point.

The term “brainstorming” came to mind more than a few times during my viewing of this travesty. Was any brainstorming or pre-screening talked about with this film or did they just jump in and hope the ink pool would manifest itself onto the page? Unscrewing the pen and draining the stored ink onto the page would be just as productive. The story never divulges any deeper than the platform it was born on and shows no want to remain in our hearts and minds. It’s about having fun. If only there was fun to be had.

The acting is torturous by all parties involved, even my man Statham. He had no clue what to do with this material.

Ray Liotta looks high on acid during most of his screen time but resides as the film’s only memorable role.

The dialogue is chunkier than Chips Ahoy and is neglected by any editing from its crewman. This boat was sinking before it sailed and somehow no one, including “Captain” Boll, managed to notice.

Burt Reynolds is probably the worst of them all, starring as the king, and is pertinent ability to not give a rodent’s behind about his reputation is quite astonishing. I understand that he’s broke but maybe if he wasn’t so zealous with his earnings that wouldn’t have been a problem. Second, his problems are not my concern. There was a great tweet I read the other day from Philadelphia Eagles WR Jordan Matthews. He tweeted, “90% of people don’t care about your problems…10% are glad you have them.”

It’s cynical but it holds a lot of truth. I’m sorry, Reynolds, but I don’t care. You’ve bathed in luxury your entire life and you somehow managed to waste millions of dollars. That does not deserve pity in my opinion. If you want to go do something meaningless and make some cash, go work a 9-5 minimum wage job. Learn what it’s like to be an everyday joe because the fact that Reynolds can still profit from cobweb performances like this disgusts me. If an everyday guy would give a substandard effort, he’d get fired. If Reynolds gives a substandard effort, he still gets paid. The privileges of the upper class!

As if the clichéd characters weren’t enough, the film plagiarizes consistently. Uwe Boll clearly wanted his own Lord of the Rings but to try to attempt to make a medieval film right now is just a major no-no. The genre is basically off-limits for the next ten years, five if you’re pushing it. Regardless of whether it’s fair or not, any film that tries to breach the void will be held to the Lord of the Rings standard instead of being viewed as its own experience. The visual effects and costumes are third-rate and it’s a film devoid of fantasy dreams. This is not the world cosplayers dream of.

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. (TwistedParkerHouse at the End of the StreetThe RavenDead Snow)

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. (ErasedI, FrankensteinThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly Madison)

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 In the Name of the King: 21.

The action sequences are flacid, the acting turns stupendously stupid and the story arc expressionless, In the Name of the King is one of the worst films I’ve seen but somehow avoids a suckage label, if only because I love mocking this film’s attempt at seriousness.

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

Movie Review: Parker

That two-week blogathon didn’t work out very well, did it?

No, no it did not, but I have quite a few things to write about. This review is but one. Also, how about that new profile photo?

In yet another Jason Statham movie where he yet again plays a man who’s good with guns, knives and women, Statham stars as Parker, a priest. Wait what?!

The opening scene shows Parker wearing the wardrobe and collar of a priest at the Ohio state fair, only to rob the place of over a million dollars with four compadres. Simple enough.

The gang’s so impressed with his ability to control the situation, they ask him to do another job with them, an even bigger one, but there’s a price: they all have to contribute the money they just ripped off for this next heist. As in the Transporter franchise, Statham doesn’t like things going out of the boundaries of the plan and so says no, which is where our conflict starts.

There’s plenty to talk about now, like this whole start-up sequence. It’s not bad. It’s a decent start for an action film and it drew some new surroundings for a familiar occurrence, like a robbery, to happen and make it seem not so familiar.

Then I see Michael Chiklis and I cringe. Fantastic Four will always be in the deep recesses of my mind. He will always be the Thing, the very dumb, ugly Thing that was a thing and nothing more. A large, terrible thing, but still just a thing. Not important at all. Therefore, when Chiklis’ Melander proposes this idea to Parker in the most flat and non-threatening way possible, I cringe a little more. Fantastic Four acting.

Chiklis can’t act, though I’m sure an overall shadeless character and an advertisement-length amount of time in front of the camera didn’t help either. On the other hand, commercials seems to be getting pretty long these days so maybe that’s not the correct phrase to use, but moving on.

Parker’s gonna go beat these former pals of his senseless after they left him for dead but first he needs to find out where they are, what they’re stealing and where they’re going to be afterwards because Parker wants to make some cash out of this, too. Still seems basic enough but can it hold the audience’s attention for two hours? Can it even run that long?

Apparently not, because in walks Jennifer Lopez. Now, Jennifer Lopez is one of the few people who came outside of the acting business that has the ability to act, at least in my opinion. Most musicians should stick to singing. However, this isn’t Lopez’s type of film so I’m unsure why she agreed to this role. Lopez thrills in rom-coms, not a dark action film and it shows because she’s so out-of-place in Parker. She doesn’t belong here and neither does her character, Leslie. A real-estate agent who’s practically bankrupt and living with her mother, talk about down on your luck. However, it’s hard to relate to Leslie’s predicament. A cop is clearly interested in dating her but she continues brushing off his advances. He never does anything questionable in character and seems to really care about her, yet she never seems to even consider it. Seems like a clear avenue to me, at the very least something to look forward to. What’s she looking forward to now? Failing at work, failing at having a social life?

It’s only harder to relate to Leslie’s depression because she’s Lopez. If a woman looks like that, she gets the guy, the job perks, the car and the everything-you-can-think-of. No one, and I mean no one, who has the appearance of Jennifer Lopez is having a tough time at work or is struggling to start a romance. It’s preposterous to even propose such an absurdity.

Which leaves us to ask, why is Lopez here and honestly, I don’t know. She serves as a subplot distraction as well as a handicap on both the character of Parker and on Statham. To find out where these “friends” of his are, Parker enlists the services of Leslie under the surmise that he’s looking for a vacation house, which she digs to find out is not the case.

Yet Leslie’s subplot, pity-party character becomes its own animal asking for its own spotlight even though it has no right to ask for such screen time, but it gets it anyway, for some reason. There’s no draw to her person or problem. She still lives in Palm Beach, one of the richest neighborhoods in the not just the state of Florida, but the entire country. Yes, she lives with her mother, but still. We’re talking about Palm Beach here.

I did some research. In Palm Beach, a median household income is $124,562. Naturally, Leslie didn’t make that, but still! One of the richest neighborhoods in the United States, according to a study done by Business Insider, is Everglades Club in Palm Beach. The mean household income is $467,000!

But yes, poor old Leslie. Let’s ignore the fine body she has, the charm, the weather that millions of Americans get to experience a few days a year but wish they could live in, the picturesque scenery and let’s not forget the beach. Poor Leslie. Bah humbug!

The daddling plot accentuates clear plot errors, like Parker consistently breaking into unlocked cars.

Uncertainty with the direction of the story’s noticeable and drags a lot in the middle while its initial tone is shredded and irreparable in the film’s final third, which can be categorized as a letdown and far too quick resolution.

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. (I, FrankensteinThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly MadisonA Haunted House)

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 Parker: 61.

I had to put this one review from Netflix in here because it was just too funny:

“1 star for getting a middle-aged J-Lo into lingerie. 1 more star for a strong opening sequence. Minus 1 star for not just stopping there. This film is Terrible, capital T, as in Made for TV. Story is beyond contrived, the action makes The Transporter look like a documentary, the direction is Horrible, and the acting isn’t even high-school drama class. This might be right for the daytime soap-opera folks, but otherwise, avoid like the plague.”

Parker isn’t necessarily a bad film, but it’s just very meh. Jennifer Lopez is one of the few non-actors that can act, at least in my opinion, but the character she’s given here is one-key and off kilter. Statham’s Parker is forced to twiddle his thumbs while dealing with this pitiful real estate agent and the forced interaction compromises the tone the film originates with. Overall, it’s another miss for Statham.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Movie Review: Safe

Jason Statham, you’re killing me, man. You’re killing me.

If you read my Homefront review, my Transporter review, and/or my Transporter 2 review, you know that Jason Statham has my utmost respect. He does his own stunts, he’s got a great work ethic, constantly plays anti-heroes. He’s just got it all. If there was a problem with Jason Statham, it would be that either A) his agent is incompetent or B) Statham doesn’t know how to say no to a role.

Me personally, I’m more likely to go with the former because I think too much of Statham. With that said, Safe was…..

This little Asian girl running around and being all super-smart at school and getting sent to a better school so…

Statham’s Luke Wright is a UFC fighter who wins a match he was supposed to lose, angering the Russian mafia and….

She can do math for a crime syndicate while her mother is…

Wright finds tragedy when he gets home when he finds out the mafia have killed his…

In the hospital.

That’s super-annoying isn’t it, when I don’t finish my sentences and I keep jumping to different topics? It’s like you’re trying to watch a movie in a theater and this annoying 7-year old won’t shut his mouth, interrupting every conversation with different gurgles, chuckles and comments.

I’m a patient person. I’ve worked retail. Patience is a requirement for such work. However, this film does not know what scene, time period, or location to focus on. There are three time changes and at least three location changes in the first 15 minutes! Make up your mind!

I already hate the movie at this point and it’s only been 15 minutes. I’ve watched some pretty bad movies, but only a select few of the 100+ movies I’ve reviewed have caused me such nagging irritation at the outset. It was worse than living in the woods for a week with no bug spray and that’s pretty miserable in my mind.

Safe, ironically, is anything but safe in its premise, characters, or viewer experience. Plot inconsistencies in this film are more common than fast-food restaurants.

Some of them are “go with it” elements that I’d be surprised if most people would actually go with and others I think are there just to spite the audience. For example, our Asian girl in this film has a photographic memory. There’s a scene where a list of numbers, at least five lines long, is put in front of her. I kid you not, the paper had just touched the table and she said she had it memorized already. YOU DID NOT YOU LIAR!!! NOT EVEN A PHOTOGRAPHER COULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL THOSE!

It’s things like this that get me especially angry. I know you’re trying to move the film along but how much time did you really cut out by crossing into the boundary of falsity? Five, ten seconds?

The action scenes are futile compared to Statham’s other work yet the only entertainment this film offers.

Statham’s Luke Wright is so one-note and underdeveloped that describing him as a character does an injustice to the word. I think the more appropriate term would be “scribble”, or perhaps “mistake”. I truly can’t comment on Statham’s acting  because I’m not sure he even does any here. He wanders around and eventually punches a few people in the throat and shoots a few in the head, all for the sake of a little Asian girl who he wants to save for a reason that is called plot convenience.

Catherine Chan stars as Mei and I hope she never acts again and makes any more of an embarrassment out of herself because….*deep breath*… she is insipid- without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities. Is this all her fault? No, but her inability to unleash emotional output or humanistic tendencies aside from closing her eyes and putting her hands over her ears is incredibly childish and simple.

Director Boaz Yakin should never have been given the pen for this film. This script would not have worked as a book, magazine excerpt or short story. It is an incommunicable assembly of words, that’s it. No other distinction or title can be given to this rancid work, if you can even call it work. He also, based off Safe, does not know of the phrase “character development”.

Despite all that, I will say Yakin had a larger political agenda he was trying to dive into with this, especially the corruption of the police and leadership heads, but if you want to talk about that alone, write a book or an article. If you want to make a movie detailing your thoughts, you’ve got to write a plot.

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. (Guardians of the GalaxyDawn of the Planet of the ApesTransformers: Age of ExtinctionJack ReacherGodzilla)

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

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012)MaleficentRise of the Planet of the ApesTransporter 2Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Hansel and Gretel: Witch HuntersAnchorman: The Legend of Ron BurgundyThe TransporterSpeedGodzilla(1998))

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 Expendable 3HomefrontG.I. Joe: RetaliationVantage PointThe Starving Games)

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. (Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly MadisonA Haunted House300: Rise of an EmpireCowboys and Aliens)

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. (Planet of the ApesStonadosRedemptionPride 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.” (WatchmenClash of the TitansA Haunted House 2Open GraveAlien 3)

My score for Safe: 19.

Statham is still one of my favorites, but his uselessness in Safe cannot be overstated. Careless acting and negligent writing by themselves make this film intolerable and that’s without including the unoriginal stunt choreography, deprecating dialogue and overbearing political aspiration into the equation.

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

Movie Review: The Expendables 3

The Expendables 3 was…..*sigh*.

I really don’t want to talk about this film right now because it was such an utter disappointment. Alas, I trudge on.

The Expendables was something that was a long time coming. Action die-hards had wanted to see the biggest action heroes come together for one big explosion since the 80’s. Had it been done during the 80’s with a solid story structure and character arcs, this theoretical movie could have been one of the best. With that said, it never happened and so we retreated back into our man caves and continued to watch ceaseless violence, decent but never overachieving acting and stories that were questionable at times. I’m not saying we haven’t been blessed with the material we’ve been given. How can you complain when you got Rocky AND Rambo from just one of these guys? Die Hard, Predator, the titles are truly endless. However, there was still a niche, a void in all of our hearts because the film with the big three of Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger never came out of the fantasy realm and into the real world.

The Expendables, the first one, gave us that. A projectile and gut-busting epic with some of the best in the business plus some witty dialogue and an amicable story line, The Expendables was not the perfect model but was certainly awesome nonetheless. Yes, we can debate what could have been better and about whether Stallone should have written and directed and all that, but it was what it was and it was confident in what it was doing. It was all fun and while it remained light-hearted throughout, it still managed to bring a serious undertone into the equation.

Then there was The Expendables 2, where more big names joined the route and while this film struggled with poor villain writing as did the first, it was still a phenom for the genre.

So, The Expendables 3 came in with a lot of gas and yet gave us an incredibly bland trailer with a long cast list of names that made me scratch my head. Glen Powell? Victor Ortiz? Kelsey Grammer? Wesley Snipes? Kellen Lutz? Some of these people flat-out didn’t belong in a movie and others didn’t belong in this movie.

The Expendables 3 missteps where quite a few films I’ve watched recently trip: in getting over-involved in the film’s message rather than the film itself. This is on Stallone although I understand what he’s trying to say. By bringing in a list of no-name actors and depositing them in front of the spotlight, Stallone is trying to illustrate the sad but obvious fact that Stallone’s career is coming to a close as are most of the action stars we’ve grown up with. Some of the dialogue emboldens that message as do some of the plot anchor points but in terms of story and the characters we’re viewing makes no sense whatsoever, which I’ll get to later.

We don’t know how many years are left, but a new generation of action heroes is coming. We don’t know who most of them are yet, but a few are poking out. With that being said, I think it’s fair to say that Victor Ortiz, Glen Powell, Kellen Lutz and Ronda Rousey are not it.

Just looking at the filmographies of this quartet makes me cringe. Glenn Powell has survived as a TV actor. Ronda Rousey is a professional fighter and while she most deserved to be in this out of the four, has no acting credentials, which was blatant during my viewing. Kellen Lutz’s most notable role was in Twilight. Need I say more? Finally, Victor Ortiz is a boxer who is incorporated in no notable boxing sequences during the film and his most regarded accomplishment outside the ring was appearing in Dancing With the Stars.

Again, I understand Stallone is trying to usher in a new group of action stars but none of these people will become action legends let alone decent actors. If Stallone wanted to make his message more meaningful, bringing in some actors we’ve heard of would have been a good start. I would have suggested Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Tom Hiddleston and Michael Fassbender. They’re all younger guys who look like they could be the new faces of the genre yet not one was given a role for this.

Prioritizing his theatrical farewell note over this franchise’s once promising company of dangerous misfits leaves us with an incredibly dull and uneventful screenplay that demonstrates little resemblance to its two predecessors. No character furtherance nor refreshing life reflections occur and the light-hearted tone of dark humor we’re familiar with is never introduced. The references to previous blockbuster hits and corny one-liners weren’t included in the script, instead making room for the untalented quartet I mentioned above and Stallone’s meanderings. I always found these jabs to be quite effective. Reminiscence was an aspect I always enjoyed because it reminded us, one last time, to appreciate the past before we got absorbed with the revolutionary visual effects of today.

Without the humor, the film is bottle-necked into expositional dialogue, character progression and life platitudes and sadly this film’s sharpshooters only find one of the three targets and even more depressing, the least of the three: expositional dialogue. One of the more common cinematic sins, a film’s layering of expositional dialogue is usually a strong indicator to a film’s success or upheaval. Too much nine times out of ten means a bad movie. This was one of the nine.

Our go-to ragtag team is broken up because Stallone’s Ross decides it’s too dangerous now even though there’s no clarification for his change of heart and audiences with significant brain activity will come to the unanimous decision that this story turn is for the worst. The rest of the film only solidifies our assumption as we’re stuck with Mr. Expositional himself, Kelsey Grammer, as he introduces the newbs to the film industry and then leaves. Truly no point having him here aside from a paycheck. All of the new additions to the cast are bores aside from Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson who don’t get enough screen time to make as large of an impact as they could have. Jet Li is pretty much excluded from The Expendables for the second installment in a row even though his chemistry with Dolph Lundgren in the original was fine-tuned.

Antonio Banderas is the stand-out of this disheveled mess and all he’s doing is rambling and talking as fast as he can. That’s it. Pretty dumb but when the film’s as uneventful as this is, that’s a high note.

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. (Guardians of the GalaxyDawn of the Planet of the ApesTransformers: Age of ExtinctionJack ReacherGodzilla)

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

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012)MaleficentRise of the Planet of the ApesTransporter 2Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Hansel and Gretel: Witch HuntersAnchorman: The Legend of Ron BurgundyThe TransporterSpeedGodzilla(1998))

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. (HomefrontG.I. Joe: RetaliationVantage PointThe Starving GamesYou’re Next)

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. (Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly MadisonA Haunted House300: Rise of an EmpireCowboys and Aliens)

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. (Planet of the ApesStonadosRedemptionPride 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.” (WatchmenClash of the TitansA Haunted House 2Open GraveAlien 3)

My score for The Expendables 3: 54.

Scroll up to the poster of this film real quick. What do you see? A lot of names and tiny faces. That’s how large of a role each of these people get to play in the film. The Expendables 3 suffers from OBCLD, or Over-Bloated Cast List Disease. The material doesn’t do any of these stars justice with the exception of Powell, Rousey, Lutz and Ortiz, but only because these four couldn’t do any better than this. I honestly think Stallone picked names out of a hat to collect these four tragedies. The action scenes were surprisingly mediocre, not even close to their usual standards. It seems fair to say that The Expendables 3, unlike the previous two installments, is definitely expendable and stands as one of the leaders of the League of Extraordinarily Disappointing Sequels.

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

Movie Review: Homefront

If your kid gets dropped in a fight at school, don’t call your drug-dealing brother to make things right. It will not end well.

If you read my Transporter review, you know I have some serious respect for Jason Statham. Easily one of the best action stars today, entertainment is always in the cards when it comes to Statham, which is why when I was scrolling through Netflix, Homefront jumped out to me. It’s Statham, guys! If you’re looking for a good time that doesn’t ask for too much from you as a viewer, a Statham film is always an option. Chances are you’ll have fun with it, although to what degree is something you’ll have to find out for yourself. On a rare occasion, you’ll enter a Statham movie you hate. For example, don’t watch this or this, especially the second one, although I might watch it again just so I can rail on it for your enjoyment. Those are the only two I’ve regretted with Statham and when your success rate with me is eight for ten, I’m going to keep watching.

Also figuring into the equation is Sylvester Stallone. Stallone and Statham have become good friends since the making of The Expendables and join forces again here. Stallone was Statham before Statham was Statham and I think that’s why they get along so well, because they seek the same type of roles and have the same attitude to their work. That being said, Statham’s got all the screen to himself on this shoot because Stallone’s responsibilities are as the screenwriter and producer. Scripts by Stallone are hit-or-miss but people continue to see his work anyway because of the icon he’s become. No one wants to miss a masterpiece that may or may not arise from the author of the Rocky and Rambo franchises.

My respect for these two guys is through the roof because of their work ethic, character and the roles they play. Easily two of my favorites right here.

All that being said, I did not pursue Homefront when it came out. It just didn’t look like that great of a film. I’ll always love Statham but I think I’ve discovered that his movies are not usually ones worth seeing in theaters. They’re the ones you seek out the year after their release when they’re at Walmart for $5 or on Netflix, which I’m really happy I’m subscribed to now. A quick sidenote, I watched Johnny Mnemonic and Rubber yesterday. However, I want to show them to my roommate Jon and some friends at college so you’ll have to wait on reviews on those.

Look at me, getting all sidetracked. Anyway as I was saying, Statham’s movies don’t make barrels of cash at the box office and there’s a reason for that. I think people such as myself have realized that they’re films worth waiting for. Other films you just can’t wait to see. For example, everyone is going to see Expendables 3 because no one wants to wait to see that. The bank deposit for that movie should be sizable.

Statham’s movies differ because while you probably won’t see them at the theater, you’re bound to see them eventually. I don’t know a lot of people who haven’t seen a Statham role-play. When you’re hanging out with friends and you’re scrolling through lists of movies to watch, Statham shows up with his British accent saying, “Hey, you wanna take a ride?”

Keeping all that in mind, Homefront highlights a few big names but doesn’t give them a lot to do. I believe Winona Ryder was meant to ascribe “visual quality” rather than her acting prowess. Kate Bosworth plays the venomous mother of the son who gets a beatdown in the playground and brews hate in the audience. She’s one of those parents who thinks she’s perfect and everyone else is wrong. I don’t like those people.

Moving on to the leads, Statham is Statham and gives it his all, reveling in the spotlight while emanating a character I think is closely associated with himself. A simple life for a simple man is all Phil Broker wants for himself and his little girl but a face-off with a bully ascends to something much more than that, all because Kate Bosworth had to take things personally. The sad thing is that this scenario is credible considering all the other dumb stuff people do these days. There is some page-turning tension here as you see events continue to unfold into bigger and badder things. With that being said, you wonder where this is going to go. Is there going to be some big explosive third act or is Broker just going to beat a couple of guys senseless and ride into the sunset? Advances in character are made while we wait to see what happens.

James Franco is our villain and does nothing for me….again. I just don’t get the flavoring, the sinister vibe from Franco here. He doesn’t seem interested in doing any of the dirty work, making him more of a weasel than a face worthy of standing across from Statham’s Broker. Some blame can certainly go to the writing of his character but Franco’s lackluster effort is also worth noting.

A subplot of romance is hinted with Broker but is never explored, something that would have distracted from the meandering of this plot at the halfway point. I wouldn’t have minded a little romance either because you don’t see Statham get emotional much if at all in his roles.

Frank Grillo provides what might have been a beacon of light for audiences given his aptitude but to our dismay is a false hope, playing an angry biker whose only meaningful line of dialogue is “Where’s the narc?”

The third act is sure to disappoint everyone and excite no one. The only success the third act can boast is anchoring this film rather than pushing it off the ground, certifying Homefront‘s status as one of the forgettable films of 2013.

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. (Guardians of the GalaxyDawn of the Planet of the ApesTransformers: Age of ExtinctionJack ReacherGodzilla)

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

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012)MaleficentRise of the Planet of the ApesTransporter 2Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron BurgundyThe TransporterSpeedGodzilla(1998)The Incredible Hulk)

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. (G.I. Joe: RetaliationVantage PointThe Starving GamesYou’re NextThor)

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. (Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesBilly MadisonA Haunted House300: Rise of an EmpireCowboys and Aliens)

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. (Planet of the ApesStonadosRedemptionPride 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.” (WatchmenClash of the TitansA Haunted House 2Open GraveAlien 3)

My score for Homefront: 58.

Potential was there but Stallone does a poor job of utilizing it. The cast list may read nice but doesn’t come to fruition. Truthfully, the achievement that Homefront can boast the most is its ability to deceive and ensnare potential viewers into thinking it’s something more than it is.

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