Movie Review: Black Hawk Down

I was scrolling through my blog yesterday and I realized something: I hadn’t written a review on a good film in a while. The last time I reviewed a film that scored in the 70’s or higher? The Red Dawn remake on August 13. Today is September 12. A month of cinematic incompetence? “No,” I said to myself. “I will not go a whole month without writing at least one movie review with a 70’s or higher score.”

To be truthful, I did re-watch volumes one and two of Kill Bill but I didn’t want to write a review on those just yet. I want to keep some of the classics around for later.

I have some films on the shelf that have yet to be opened that I’m anxious to open up and throw in but I felt like something else. Despite all the wrongs Netflix has committed against me (although I admit partial responsibility), I continue to go back to it. Among the top picks for me was Black Hawk Down.

I saw some of this on TV once but I never got to finish. Based off what I saw, I wanted to see the whole product.

There are a lot of faces I recognized in this film, such as Josh Hartnett and Ewen Bremner from Pearl Harbor and Ewan McGregor, Eric Bana and William Fichtner. Tom Sizemore from practically any war movie but especially Saving Private Ryan, nice to see you. A young Orlando Bloom and Tom Hardy were aboard for the ride I see and Jason Isaacs a.k.a. Lucius Malfoy. You can’t hide from me behind that Texas drawl!!! I WILL FIND HIM!!!

Alas, this film might have had a minor case of OBCLD. For those of you who didn’t read my Expendables 3 review, that means Over-Bloated Cast List Disease. Thankfully, these aren’t all big-name stars so this film isn’t neglected or blanketed by the opening credits and familiar faces. I’m just saying I noticed.

With that said, I was expecting some stuff with Black Hawk Down. I’m a heavy war movie addict. The brotherhood/camaraderie features, world dialogues and brutal realism get to me. They’re not always “fun”. Sometimes they make you hate people, despise the world and wonder why you’re still in it. Other times, it’s about showing not everything can be done the clean way. Somebody needs to get down in the trenches and dig out the mud. Should it happen? No, but it does and while we will never be able to attain the experiences of veterans, the least we can do, in my opinion, is seek out ways to empathize with them. Cinematic carnage gives us a chance.

Somalia’s a corrupt, anarchist state run by one general who gains followers by starving them out. That’s some dark stuff. I’m a history buff but I can’t say how precise director Ridley Scott’s visual novella is. Setting aside its historical truths or inaccuracies, Black Hawk Down is about leaving no one behind and putting others before yourself.

It’s admirable stuff that could have been done better. The OBCLD is partly to blame here but there are so many faces, so many parties involved that trying to remember where everyone is location-wise and personality-wise can become an arduous task. I don’t think I can call them subplots because they all interact with the main problem, which is thousands of Somalians with AK-47’s and happy trigger fingers. That rather large ripple in this film’s metaphorical pond is a stalwart try but the film’s time in the oven leaves the attempt well-done. The same can be said for the overall piece in my mind.

Aside from the empathy bid, there’s not a whole lot of character here despite the many at Scott’s disposal. At the end of the movie, Eversmann (Josh Hartnett), which is a play on names (every man), says that we all changed. The context is understood but I still found myself asking, “Did you though? Did you really?” Keep in mind I’m speaking of the character, not the conflict and those who actually served in it. There isn’t any time set aside for character drama. It’s a war zone, yet war films usually incorporate these reflective character sessions into the story. Saving Private Ryan had them. Braveheart had them. We Were Soldiers had them. The Patriot had them. Fury had them. Every memorable, exceptional war movie has them. Black Hawk Down does not.

Coming from the same guy that made Gladiator, I was surprised. Ridley Scott has made portraits fine, great and exceptional. Among his previous sculptures, I’d consider Black Hawk Down in the greats but with a stronger leading arm could have been exceptional.

The Academy graciously awarded Black Hawk Down two Oscars for Best Film Editing and Best Sound but I found the action to be rather tame compared to some of the other bloodshed I’ve observed. I’m not saying it needed to be mind-bending brutality but I think this could have gotten heavier, darker and more representative of the burdens our veterans carry. War is no light matter. Black Hawk Down concurs with the previous statement but for an R-rated film, it edited itself far below the ceiling an R-rating incites. If you want to make a conflicted film all ages above 18 can enjoy, this is probably the way to do it without turning anyone off to the material. However, sometimes it is the things that spur debate that are the greatest, like Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech for example. If you let public opinion object your creativity, you’re doing yourself an injustice. People don’t know revolutionary until you put it in front of them.

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 Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla)

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 Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Young Guns, Cloudy 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), Maleficent, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Transporter 2, Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Rubber, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Transporter, Speed)

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 3, Homefront, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Vantage Point, The 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 Turtles, Billy Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys 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. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Grey, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World, The 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.” (Gallowwalkers, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Safe, Watchmen, Clash of the Titans)

My score for Black Hawk Down: 77.

The story had a lot of potential but the normal cuts and jabs we expect from Scott don’t show up in Black Hawk Down. I’m not sure if it’s on Ken Nolan and the screenplay, book author Mark Bowden or on Ridley himself but this had more buzz and certainly more talent to be explored. I’m sure I’ll find my way back to this for another viewing but in no way does this even attempt to make the climb to war movie classics.

Movie Review: Tears of the Sun

For over a century, the United States practiced a foreign policy of isolationism, refusing to enter foreign conflicts, instead focusing on the happenings inside their own borders. That changed with World War I. The United States became involved with the foreign affairs of others, taking on a leadership position for the countries of the world who either could not defend themselves or had a dire need for economic assistance. Since World War I, the United States has entered many global conflicts, such as World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East. However, we have never given up the right to choose which conflicts we enter and which ones we don’t. We did not engage in the genocide of Darfur nor have we sent troops into Syria even after the UN confirmed chemical weapons were used.

The paragraph above is not what this movie is about so much as the scenario director Antoine Fuqua is trying to depict. A Navy SEAL team is ordered to go into a hostile war-torn Nigeria to rescue an American doctor, two nuns and a priest. Perhaps I’m being overly critical but does this sound like a likely mission for a Navy SEAL team? It doesn’t to me. To be honest, I think Fuqua meant to give us an improbable story because he wanted to show us his cards early so we could see the arguments and allusions being made here. If you look at it as a story and nothing more, you’ll drive into roadblocks but when you know this is a two-hour conversation on ethics, you’ll see the pieces Fuqua is putting down clear as day. It’s contrived well and it’s not fogged or convoluted so you have to peel back the metaphorical veil to discover it. It’s on a platter and served up well-done.

Now, the arguments Fuqua enlightens us with are ones we’ve heard in our history classes during high school. We know what they’re going to be, what the sides are, what the consequences of our actions will be, etc. We’ve heard the spiel before. Fuqua doesn’t have any reservations about that. He’s just going to give us that spiel whether we like it or not. To his credit, his play is a lot more embracing and thought-provoking than the one I heard in high school.

Bruce Willis plays the lieutenant of the SEAL team and I have to admit his performance is stone cold. That’s not a criticism but it’s not a compliment either. He and his squad are what you would expect from soldiers. It’s a mission, stay impersonal and withdrawn from the parties involved and get the job done. There are some changes in the people they are as the film progresses but they haven’t had epiphanies either. Some of them take definite stands on which side they’re on, side as in whether they support involvement or don’t, but some take the middle-of-the-road fence position, embodying the position of the targeted audience for this film. Some people want America to be the world police and others would prefer it if the country reverted back to its position of isolationism. Fuqua’s saying, “if you’ve made your mind up, that’s fine, but watch this and see if you still feel the same way.”

Fuqua tries to remain unbiased in his directing but struggles to do so considering the material he’s dealing with, which in my opinion is understandable. Unarmed citizens are being slaughtered by militant Muslims. It’s hard to direct something like that and tell the actors, “act as unemotionally attached to the material as possible, borderline inhumane.”

Willis is the Hollywood star but isn’t doing any wholesome acting here. It’s more about the facial expressions than anything else. There’s not a lot of dialogue streaming through him, suggesting he’s more of an accessory to the story than its most memorable member. Aside from the decisions he makes, there’s nothing to give us any aspirations to his character, leading me to believe a lesser actor would have sufficed for the role in question. Monica Bellucci plays the doctor who refuses to leave her patients and the effort is there but the product is not. She’s incredibly blase and the script does nothing to draw my attention to anything she’s involved with, including the attempt at a budding romance between her and Willis’ Lieutenant Waters, a romance doomed from the start and all too predictable.

The action isn’t as prevalent as you would expect from a war film but what is given to us is admirable. The film lends itself to a slower pace to establish the darker aspects of warfare and genocide, elements much harder to paint in a film than in a novel but which hit at a high rate here.

Despite the unripe fruit of our two leading stars, the rest of the supporting cast is solid at pushing Fuqua’s arguments forward and developing the film’s apathy, empathy and emotional platforms.

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. (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla, Secretariat, Prisoners)

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

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Battle: Los Angeles, Skyfall, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 300, Flyboys)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Speed, Godzilla(1998), The Incredible Hulk, Disaster Movie, Dodgeball: 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 Games, You’re Next, Thor, Full Metal Jacket, Alien 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 Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens, Serendipity)

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. (Stonados, Redemption, Pride 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 Past, Thor: The Dark World, The 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.” (A Haunted House 2, Open Grave, Alien 3, Dark Fury, Midnight Cowboy)

My score for Tears of the Sun: 83.

This history diatribe has its touching moments, hardcore realism and military camaraderie illustrated to a high degree. Fuqua’s film approaches the division of feature film and documentary as close as he can without crossing it, drawing us a war-torn country scenario and stirring questions along the way. Where Tears of the Sun struggles is in the writing of its leads, which took a back seat to everything else this film had to offer. Perhaps they should given the subject material but a wiser approach would have built strong enough stars to aid in the argument.

Movie Review: Battle: Los Angeles

Bonus brother edition.

Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) thinks he’s reached the end of the line and is about to retire when an alien invasion decides to crash the party. He’s thrown into a platoon under an inexperienced lieutenant and has the eyes of everyone in the squad on him because everyone knows he lost his unit during his tour in Iraq. Rumors are he got them killed. In other words, Nantz is on the hot seat. Everyone’s judging him and his life is in the hands of someone who doesn’t have a clue what they’re doing.

Despite the hostile atmosphere Nantz is surrounded by, there doesn’t seem to be anything bad about the guy, allowing the audience to side with Nantz, view things from his perspective and brew some character connection. It’s a good start, although the “old veteran leads the rookies” is a tale that has been exhausted over time.

However, Eckhart does a solid job distracting my attention from the obvious clichés, guiding me instead to the dangerous escapade these characters are about to embark on and keeping me in the moment so that I’m engaged and concentrated. It generates a sense of belonging and leaves us closer to the material then we probably need to be because once again, the clichés are smacking me in the head like a low ceiling. Think of a war movie and the clichés you see so often. They’re probably present here. Anyone who is married, especially to a pregnant spouse, is doomed. Youngest guy of the group always dies. Those are just two of a considerable collection but Eckhart is keeping the ship afloat as are the supporting cast. No one’s doing anything special or noteworthy. Everyone enters the spotlight, says their line and backs off. No one’s begging for attention but there’s also no one I have a semblance of. Which of these characters am I rooting for the most besides Nantz? There’s no favoritism and while favoritism is a bad thing in most cases, a lack of favoritism is detrimental here. I care but I don’t feel stressed about whatever may happen next and I feel like I should. A character dies? Oh, well I guess that kinda sucks. The characters are just that: characters. They’re not people, at least it doesn’t give off that vibe. I’m involved, yes, but not for one second do I feel like I’m living this movie. I want to experience it but I’m not reaching that level of depth or fulfillment here.

Chris: Who gives a crap about the characters?

Tim: Umm, well, I do, but go on.

Chris: Armor-enforced aliens blowing up half of Los Angeles and terrorizing the earth has never looked so cool. You’re not really that focused about the characters because you’re focused on the awesome action scenes you’re presented with. Yeah, there are clichés but there are aliens blowing stuff up. What’s not cool about aliens blowing stuff up? I’ll give you a hint: absolutely nothing.

Tim: The action scenes are pretty good but I have seen better. They’re entertaining and give audiences camerawork reminiscent of Battlefield. It’s not far-fetched or too sci-fi, instead substituting a healthy dose of realism and keeping it that way. The action isn’t perfect, but it’s fun to watch and keeps me entertained.

Chris: The first ten minutes there’s not a whole lot of action but after that it is a non-stop rush which is why everyone should see this movie.

Tim: Chris is clearly more fond of this movie than I am because this is not a must-see at all nor is it a non-stop rush. There is plenty of dialogue, some that approaches the boundaries of corny, and some suspense they try to play with isn’t all that successful. The third act is well worth the watch by itself but a must-watch is giving this movie far too much credit.

Chris: I completely disagree. Yes, there were things you can see in this movie that you can see in any others but this movie is worth the ride. It is Aaron Eckhart’s best.

Tim: It is definitely not Eckhart’s best movie but there’s no doubt that Eckhart is the primary life-preserver here. As always, Eckhart delivers a speech, something that must be in all his movie contracts or something. His character isn’t full-fledged. It’s like a bird flying for the first time. He’s flying but he’s not a professional.

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. (Jack Reacher, Godzilla, Secretariat, Prisoners, Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

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 2, Young Guns, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, Spider-Man 3, Divergent)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Skyfall, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 300, Flyboys, Dawn of the Dead)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Speed, Godzilla(1998), The Incredible Hulk, Disaster Movie, Dodgeball: 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 Games, You’re Next, Thor, Full Metal Jacket, Alien 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 Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens, Serendipity)

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. (Stonados, Redemption, Pride 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 Past, Thor: The Dark World, The 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 Grave, Alien 3, Dark Fury, Midnight Cowboy)

My score for Battle: Los Angeles: 72.

Battle: Los Angeles could have been more than it was, but a sound performance from Aaron Eckhart keeps the film upright, making it a decent film to watch on TV if you’re bored and looking for something to watch.

Movie Review: Lone Survivor

I hadn’t planned to see this but happy I did.

Lone Survivor depicts a failed U.S. Navy SEALs mission in Afghanistan. Our four main characters are played by Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch from Battleship, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster. All hold their own in their roles. Foster always gives solid performances. He’s an actor you can count on. Hirsch doesn’t bring anything extravagant to the table but he keeps you interested. I felt Kitsch had some potential in Battleship and he proves me right here. Now to Wahlberg. I’m going to be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the guy. He’s a guy who seems to play the same role in everything except that it’s not always cool. Sometimes he comes across as too brazen, although some of the roles he takes call for such acting, and originality is hard to pull out when you play the same role every time. When it comes to stereotypical acting, I’m more likely to pull out a Liam Neeson or Jason Statham movie then I am a Wahlberg movie. However, Wahlberg was made for this role and for this movie. This is the character that Wahlberg was born to play. He gives the audience stuff they’ve seen plenty of times but adds some extra spice to the mix with some serious, engaging dialogue and action scenes. The characters are people in this, not expendable action figures where they blow something up and then die. These are human beings with families back home, fighting for a country that believes in values like freedom and that alone is enough reason to fight for them.

This movie is brutal. When I say brutal, I mean that in the utmost sense of the word. This is a war film and director Peter Berg does no sugar-coating with this material. He shows it to you as it is and as it was, never extinguishing the fires of intensity, horror, or pure adrenaline that this film has to offer. At times, it can be hard to watch, watching characters continue to fight despite bullet holes in their bodies, ears half-blown off, fingers totally blown off. It’s not quite to the plateau that Saving Private Ryan reached, but it is up there. They’re not the best action scenes I’ve seen, but when it comes to hardcore realism, it’s high on the ladder.

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. (Just Go With It, Real Steel, Miracle, Scrooge, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Gangster Squad, Elf, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Poseidon, Iron Man)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (The Usual Suspects, 21 Jump Street, Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

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. (Along Came Polly, Aliens, Alien Resurrection, Full Metal Jacket, Thor)

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. (Patriot Games, The Great Gatsby, Pitch Black, Alien, Serendipity)

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. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice, Redemption)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: 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.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3)

My score for Lone Survivor: 85.

It’s grotesque and difficult to view, but Berg’s war story feature is one worth watching, one that commemorates the sacrifices our troops made and continue to make today.

Movie Review: Full Metal Jacket

If you’ve never seen this before, it’s not the end of the world, although I would be surprised if you haven’t seen clips from it. My brother and I have seen the sergeant rants before on YouTube, so I didn’t come into this movie having not seen any of it, just not most of it.

The movie centers around the experience of Private “Joker” Davis and his comrades-in-arms. It introduces us to the beginning of military training and brings in tons of humor by showing us one of the most hopeless individuals fail at nearly every task put in front of him. The reprimanding of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman is hilarious, although I had seen most of it so many times that it lost most of its comedic jab for me. That didn’t downgrade the score at all, I’m just saying that it does eventually lose most of its comedic effect if you view it enough times. It’s not one of those movies where you can watch it hundreds of times and still laugh at it.

The problem I had with this is a simple one, one that the filmmakers should have recognized as a major flaw. After a significant plot twist, the film takes us to Vietnam with Private Joker but without any of the other characters that we have just gotten to know and/or grow fond of. The movie presents some above-average military comedy but then decides to drop all of the characters and start from scratch all over again, leaving Private Joker as the only known element. It decides to turn into an action movie instead of a comedy half way through and the action isn’t all that engaging or suspenseful. It’s like two movies thrown together instead of one complete product. If they would have given us something that involved all of the characters we started with, maybe it wouldn’t have been such a screw-up. However, that’s not the case, making it just that.

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. (Iron Man 3, World War Z, 42, Just Go With It, Real Steel)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (White House Down, Jobs, The Truman Show, The Hunger Games, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (The Usual Suspects, 21 Jump Street, Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

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. (Total Recall, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, Along Came Polly, Aliens, Alien 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. (Patriot Games, The Great Gatsby, Pitch Black, Alien)

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. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: 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.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3)

My score for Full Metal Jacket: 53.

I didn’t need to watch this. I’d already seen the parts of the movie that were worth watching and taking them into account, is the only thing that made this movie even slightly interesting.

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

*SPOILER’S EDITION*

There’s really nothing to spoil aside from the fact that Pyle kills Hartman in a psychotic rage and then kills himself on the toilet. Aside from that, that’s about it. Really nothing of any importance to discuss.