I, Frankenstein

I, have seen this movie somewhere before

The story of this movie takes place directly after Dr. Frankenstein dies hunting down his creation. The "monster" buries his creator in his family grave, and is immediately set upon by demons. He kills one, but the others get the drop on him, and his life is saved by two members of a holy order of Gargoyles. The Gargoyles take him back to their base camp and introduce him to their queen. The queen's second in command tries to get her to kill the monster, so he cannot be used against them. She spares him, gives him demon killing weapons, and sends him on his way. A couple of hundred years pass, and the monster is set upon once again by demons, after trying to be left alone in the wilderness ( can we say Hulk anybody?). He then gets tired of being pursued and takes the fight to the demons front door. Trying to get answers to some questions that seem to have been plaguing him, and defeat the demon menace once and for all.

This movie is basically a less intelligent version of "Underworld," which I guess can't be too surprising since the man that came up with "Underworld" also wrote the comic book version of this movie. It is "Underworld" just with no classicism/slavery reference, and Frankenstein in the place of Michael Corvin. This is more straight forward, Gargoyles are good (more or less), Demons are bad, Frankenstein is a creature of unfortunate circumstance. Done and done. Not saying that this movie's story line was awful, just bland. I like how they addressed the whole "What do we call the monster?" thing. The Gargoyles went with Adam (since he was the first of his kind I imagine), the Demons went with Frankenstein (since most people make the mistake of calling the monster Frankenstein anyways, and he was just giving him the family name). I like the whole demon descending to hell when killed, and Gargoyles ascending to heaven when killed. I just didn't like the tactics of the Gargoyles. We know that there a set amount of demons in the world, and that these demons have no way of getting back to earth by any traditional methods. So why did it take these Gargoyles so long to dispense them? I also didn't really like how the Gargoyles seem to be just as easy to kill as the demons, and somehow they are still fragile even though they are made of stone. On the other hand, at least the story line didn't have any mention of the overplayed Vampires and Werewolves, and it brought back some older classic protectors in their place.

The acting was great by two very important people. Aaron Eckhart and Bill Nighy. It was nice to see Eckhart out of his element a little bit and taking the role so seriously, and Nighy was an absolute scene thief. Nighy has been, and will always be the defining actor in any film he does (yes, that even applies to "Pirates of the Caribbean"); however, with their supporting cast's performance it is easy to see how these two can stand out so much. The two lead females seemed to be miscast, and under utilized. Making their characters more like set pieces then actual story drivers. The same can be said for any of the Gargoyles or Demons. You could put anyone else in the spot for these characters and they would still just be filler between Adam Frankenstein hitting things with his sacred sticks, and him not hitting things with his sacred sticks. I guess that is more of a story line issue than an actual acting issue, but I feel that they could have done something to make their characters more memorable.

The look of this movie was breath taking at times, then "hard to keep from laughing" at others. An example: the transformations of the Gargoyles, as well as the death sequences of both the Gargoyles, and Demons are great to look at; but, whoever did the make up for the Demons while they are in their Demon form must have watched too much "Tales from the Crypt." It seriously looks like they are trying to make fun of the demons by having them wear some rubber masks they picked up from a dollar store. I would have expected better from a creative team I assume is trying to be taken seriously. I really don't understand why they made Adam Frankenstein attractive here, this is literally the only movie I can think where the monster had some sort of sexual appeal and it is disturbing
. The fight sequences aren't really that memorable, but that's only because there are so many movies out there with better fight scenes that actually might be worth your money.

Final Verdict: Netflix it If you want to see what I can only hope is a prelude to a live action "Gargoyles" movie, I guess this can apply for that. It is a good brainless movie to put on when you are trying to nurse a hangover.

Only God Forgives (Reader Request)

To err is human...

The story for this movie is a bit hard to nail down, but I think (for the most part) I got it. Julian (Ryan Gosling) is a drug smuggler living on the hard streets of Bangkok. His brother lives with him and helps his business. One day his brother decides that he wants to "have sex with" (murder) a young girl (around the age of 14, preferably), he hunts down different brothels until he gets what he is after. After he is done killing the girl, the police chief finds him at the murder scene, and convinces the father of the girl that was killed (that sold her body or "pimped" her to this man) to take his vengeance on him. With the brother of Julian now dead Julian's mother comes to Bangkok to bury him, and convince Julian to take vengeance for his kin. I can't really go into too much more on the story line because I would start reaching spoiler territory.

This is not a movie for everyone and I guess I am just one of those people. This is a poster child for the type of movie that everyone either loves or hates, with no middle ground. It is a weird film. Just straight up strange. You can't quite pin down the plot until you are about halfway through the movie, and even then the writer isn't really that helpful with guiding you through the movie. I am not necessarily saying that it is a movie writer's job to pander to the lowest common viewer, but they should at least pander to someone. This movie is all about creative expression. "I felt like making this movie for me, and damn the audience if they do not see my vision." Which I can respect, but it doesn't mean I have to like the overall result of someone painting their soul onto a movie reel. I don't really have any problem with the overall story line, just the way in which it was delivered. The story line is pretty straight forward and interesting. American man and his brother escape a life of being wanted fugitives in America to make a life of crime in Bangkok. One brother dies, and probably deserved the death that he got. The other brother sees that his sibling probably deserved what he got, but is coerced into taking revenge by his mother. A nice little script, but the delivery is just weird and a little insulting.

The acting in this movie is another big issue for me. I can see that Ryan Gosling is basically the male equivalent to Jessica Alba (nice to look at, but the acting career path may not be perfectly suited for them), so it kind of irritates me when he tries to play these artistic roles. Whenever he plays a role he seems determined to only play it as a smoldering, silent, true neutral character (sans "Crazy, Stupid, Love"). To be fair, he didn't exactly get a great deal of help from his supporting cast. Almost everyone in this movie either seemed just as confused by he script as the audience did, or just didn't care about how the movie turned out, and was only there for a paycheck. The only good part of the acting experience that I could gather was the performance by Vithaya Pansringarm as Chang (the police chief or detective thing). He seemed like he was generally having fun with his role, and sold me on the fact that he might actually carry a sword around with him, dispersing justice like an Asian cowboy.

On a more positive note, this movie is absolutely gorgeous at times. The scenes ranging from neon lit brothels, to the gritty, dirty streets really seem to pop off the screen and embrace the audience. I can't really say that everything in the movie was absolutely gorgeous, though. Some of the shots were sloppy, and the make up done on Gosling after he gets his face beaten to a pulp was like someone picked a third grader with some paint off the street, then put him to work on a movie set.

Final Verdict: Netflix it Coincidentally this movie is on Netflix right now. It wasn't the most horrible attempt at creative expression I had ever seen and if you are into cinematography I'm sure you can see the appeal of this movie. 

Ride Along

Kevin Hart tries nerdy, Ice Cube stars as Ice Cube, not a laugh heard

This story shouldn't be too hard to some up. Kevin Hart is dating the sister of a cop, and seeks to be a cop himself. The brother cop (Ice Cube) is a "loose cannon" that likes to cause property damage in his pursuit of a mysterious gang boss that no one has ever seen before. He is on thin ice (heh, Ice Cube) with his lieutenant for all of the damage he has caused, and rules he has broken.   The cop does not like the man his sister has chosen, and Kevin Hart seeks to prove himself by going on a "ride along" (basically means he is going to sit in a car, and see what the brother cop has to do everyday). During this ride along Ice Cube tries to break Kevin Hart's spirit for joining the police force, and scare him away from marrying his sister. During his attempt in trying to break Kevin's spirit the gang boss Ice Cube has been trying to bring down this entire time makes his biggest move yet, and (after being forced to) Ice Cube brings Kevin Hart along in an attempt to bring the man to justice. 

How do you say cliche in two words? "Ride Along." You know those movies that you can just tell are going to be bad from the previews, but you say "it might be worth it because actor X is in it," then it turns out to be bad? This is the poster child for that type of film. Sloppy, unoriginal, and tries to skate by on the stardom of one or two of the stars in it. The story line is a complete copy and paste from "Idiot's guide to making a buddy cop film." The scenes are cheesy, and lack any sort of depth to them. It follows a guide line set by movies like "Lethal Weapon" and "Rush Hour;" however, unlike those movies, this movie didn't bring anything new and interesting to the table. It basically said "hey, Kevin Hart is getting big and Ice Cube has experience playing a cop. Let's put them in a movie." To which someone should have asked about the script, but I guess everyone in the office that day was too entertained by the idea of making an off shoot of "Bad Boys."

Aside from the writing, let's talk about the acting. Certainly something with bad writing like this has to have good actors to make the movie at least somewhat watchable, right? Wrong. Of course that is wrong. What are we going to see from Ice Cube that we didn't already see in "Friday," "21 Jump Street," or any of the other films where he has never changed his persona? What are we going to see from Kevin Hart that we haven't seen in his stand up? The only thing this movie proved to me is that Kevin Hart still can't seem to break his stage character, and that John Leguizamo needs a better agent. Why did I single out John Leguizamo? He is the only actor through out this entire film that once showed a promising talent for the said career path. I miss him in movies like "Romeo and Juliet," I miss him movies like "Summer of Sam," I'll even take him in the four "Ice Age" movies, or even "Super Mario Bros." I hate seeing him as this replaceable side character that is just there to fill space.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear (since I know I am going to be hearing from the billions of Kevin Hart fans out there over this). I am not saying I hate Kevin Hart. I like his stand up, I don't like him in this movie. What made him think he could play Martin Lawrence's character from "Bad Boys 2" (badly), and still get positive reviews on this. Right now, he is wasting his fame on movies like this. He should be trying to go the Adam Sandler route if he doesn't want to end up like so many SNL failures before him. Do stand up, choose the right script, make a name for yourself, then release a bunch of shitty movies. He just needs to try and not take the "Dane Cook route" he is on.

There is just a lot of this movie that bugged me. Like the video game nerd being taught a lesson about how real life is not a game, only for that lesson to go out the window when they see actual combat. Like the shameless product placement. Like the fact the Kevin Hart's biggest joke (even in his movies) is his height, and the fact that he is black. So many issues, that I cannot think of a reason why anyone would actually want to go see this movie. They even stole jokes from movies like "Role Models," and still managed to mess up the delivery. I guess there are some smile worthy scenes in this, but not worth me telling you to waste your money on.

Final Verdict: Pirate it the only reason I am telling you that it might be worth at least some of your time is because of a few scenes that made me smile a bit. Even then, it is hard for me not to put the "Don't do it" stamp on this. If you are a fan of Kevin Hart or Ice Cube, I am sure you will find some sort of joy in this, but I just couldn't see any appeal. If you have seen any of the other movies I have mentioned you are better off re-watching them. Yes, even "Super Mario Bros."

Lone Survivor (Reader Request)

Today I will be giving two separate reviews on this movie. One as a soldier, and one as an everyday movie critic (otherwise known as the "real review").

A movie about military, for military

 This movie will appeal to almost every single man, or woman in the military. There are certain scenes where they show the audience videos of Navy SEAL training, that really drive the point home on exactly how much of a mindset goes into these special force units. The characters seem to have an established, and noticeable camaraderie with one another that feels familiar to those of you who have experience with one another in any sort of field setting. There is familiar military terminology, that will relate to you all on either a cringe worthy level or a laughable level. You all will love it, and have a good time. 

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters although I know (like every other military movie before this) you will find inaccuracies throughout the movie; I still think (with a service member as the target audience) it is well worth the price of admission.

Now that I said that.

A tumble down the hill... breaks no new ground.

Do you want to know why I decided to separate my review into two parts this go around? Because this movie put all Southern/Jewish mothers to shame by making me feel guilty at the end of it. Yes, I understand that it was paying respect to the soldiers who died on mission, but I just have to wonder why they spent ten minutes at the end trying to pay homage to these guys without spending more time on making the actual movie better.

So, let's go a little more in depth into this. The movie is about SEAL team 10, and a failed mission (called Operation Redwing) that lead to death of all of it's members except one (lone survivor is the title, not a spoiler). The movie starts out with some usual military lifestyle shenanigans (in order to make us feel for the characters more, before they start to get fucked up by Taliban), and then goes into the actual mission. It is a mission manned by four soldiers who you will get to know more than anyone else in the film: Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch), and Matt "Axe" Axelson (Ben Foster). All seems to be going well for these men at first, they start setting up for their mission (trying to get communications up with their base); until, a trio of goat herders comes and discovers them up on the mountain ledge they have picked for recon. The trio is comprised of an old man, and two children, so the men have to deal with the morale quandary of whether they are going to kill these people (which is bad anyway you look at it) or let them go (in which case they will probably tell the taliban that they are up in the mountains). The leader listens to the little angel on his soldier (or pays attention to his Rules of Engagement classes) and lets them go, cancelling the mission. The boys run to tell the Taliban, and the soldiers are quickly caught up with, forcing them into a very one sided fire fight.

I think my main problem with this movie was the beginning. In the beginning we are told who the "Lone Survivor" is going to be, so there is really no mystery to exactly which one of these guys are going to get out of this alive. I know that anyone who actually did the research (or read the news articles pertaining to this particular event) would have known anyways, but I would have preferred for them to at least attempt a little more mystery. The story line is intriguing at some points, but falls flat at other points. An example of this: I liked the fact that the "none Taliban" locals helped this man, out of some cool code of conduct. I didn't like that the "Lone Survivor" title actually pertained to every character that the audience had longer than a couple of minutes to get to know. The other thing about this (story line wise) it didn't do anything that we haven't seen from any other military movie before. It was pretty cut and dry saying "these are military men. They are getting hurt. You should feel bad, and think about other military men that are getting hurt." I have all the respect in the world for my battle buddies who have seen combat (or really anyone who has seen combat), but this is kind of a grotesque form of "look at these men and feel bad for them, also give us money for the box office."

The acting was pretty standard across the board for every actor that was shown. Mark Wahlberg acted like Mark Wahlberg, same can be said for Taylor Kitsch and Ben Foster. The real stand out to me was Emile Hirsch, I know that seems a bit crazy since (of the four) he has the least impact on story line, but he just showed me another side of his acting I hadn't seen in other films. All of these men have done military films before. For Wahlberg it was Three Kings, for Foster it was The Messenger, for Kitsch it was Battleship, even Eric Bana (the commander of the men) had Black Hawk Down. What was Emile's resume comprised of? Speed Racer? The Girl Next Door? He was out of his element and performed very well for being so new to this style of movie.

I think the second biggest problem I had with this movie was the fact that it was basically a torture film. The first act of the movie was all getting to know the characters, the rest of the movie was these men going through a living hell of survival-style torture. Explosions, that mess up someone's face, or embed shrapnel deep inside someone's leg. What I'm sure will be considered "The infamous mountain falling scene." Riddling these men with more bullets and random injuries, that you are surprised that these men are still walking around after a while (especially "Axe").

Finally, the dialogue seemed random and weird throughout the action scenes. The main scene I am talking about is one where Axe goes on a killing rampage, and it just seems that they are making him say random cool stuff that can be quoted by people when they get out of the theater. None of what he is saying actually pertains to anything, or gives his character anymore depth.

Final Verdict: Rent it It wasn't a bad movie per say, it just could have been a lot better. If they saved the reveal of "who the Lone Survivor actually was" until the end, or even if they played around with the roles a little more. Maybe make Wahlberg have Foster's role so it doesn't seem like "Just another Wahlberg character." The action scenes are pretty intense, and even though it is a guilt trip you will like the homage to these soldiers.

Her

The movie like onions

When I say the movie like onions I don't mean that it will make you cry (at least I didn't cry during it) I'm going with more of the Shrek way of thinking. This movie has a ridiculous amount of layers, which makes it very hard to discern what genre it belongs to. Of course, you could easily describe this as a romance, but what kind of romance? It isn't just a straight up love story, it isn't a sci-fi romance, it isn't a romcom. It takes bits and pieces from everything, puts it in a blender, sets to liquefy, and the result is something that will leave you both mentally stimulated, as well as exhausted. At the end of the movie I felt like I just went through the triathlon of films, which is a lot better than it sounds. This movie will twist you up, in so many directions that when the end credits start to roll you feel like an emotional pretzel.

I guess I should talk about what specifically was good about it. To begin with, the acting was in an entirely different echelon. Joaquin Phoenix, lives up to his last name by being rare to find in films and beautiful to look at when you do find him (no, he doesn't rise from his own ashes). His portrayal of Theodore is convincing and relate-able. He doesn't overshadow his supporting cast by any means. Scarlett Johansson shows her skills as a future voice actor with her role as the OS, Samantha. Rooney Mara's brief appearances as the ex-wife (Catherine) are a welcome addition to the proceedings, and in some way you can just tell she had fun with the role. Amy Adams as the best friend was also pretty fitting.

The cinematography in this was just absolutely astounding, and the direction really gives you a feel for the characters (making them more relate-able). There is a specific scene that shows this off in great detail. Theodore is getting some upsetting news, while he makes himself some tea. While he is getting the news the camera shows him fixated on the kettle as it whistles. With the conversation continuing the camera pans between him and the kettle, it just reminds me of how I feel when my mind is racing while I get troubling news. The rest of the movie is gorgeous, making the future look sleek, and like something you would actually want to live in.

So now let's talk about the story line. As I said before it is hard to discern what kind of romance this actually is. Their are some funny points that fit very well, without breaking the mood of the scene. There are some pretty intense verbal sex scenes, that makes the audience feel awkward (as they should since they are looking at a man's "personal time"), and just drives home the main character's emotional status. The story line is pretty straight forward, while being complex. The

entire time you have to think of the main character as the epitome of "lonely, broken man." You know from the beginning that at the end he is pretty much going to come to terms with whatever made him so lonely and broken in the first place, but the ride there is astounding and beautiful.

Final Verdict: Buy it I figured I would make my first post something positive. This movie sealed it's place in our time line as an instant classic and not only would I say buy it, I would say you probably won't be able to hold yourself back from going to see it in theaters multiple times.

A look into Dustin: My Formula, My System, and My Schedule

Hello loyal readers, and welcome to a special edition of Dustin's Disastrous Decisions. Here is where you get to learn a little bit more about my critique style, my rating system, and my upcoming schedule. Please enjoy.

My formula

My formula is pretty straight forward when it comes to movies. Every time I go to see a movie I either expect to be pleasantly surprised, have my suspicions confirmed, or horribly disappointed. Going into a movie without any sort of expectations is near impossible, unless you have not seen any of the previews for it. The best you can do is go into a movie with an open mind. Case and point: I thought I would just tolerate "Frozen," but I ended up loving it. I thought "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" was going to be the same as "Planet of the Apes" with Mark Wahlberg, but it transcended it. I thought "Man of Steel" was finally going to make Superman worth while again, but it ended up making my hatred of the character all the more prevalent. There are thousands of these examples for me, but just know that I do not harbor a grudge towards a movie for simply "existing." I believe any movie can be good if done right, but the question remains what do I think is the right way to do a movie?

I always award bonus points to a movie for having an original concept and delivering that concept to the audience well. "The Lego Movie" had an original concept and amazing delivery. "The Purge" had an original concept, but turned that originality into "just another slasher flick." Even if the concept is not necessarily "original" I can still appreciate a well written script, and good directing to make the movie stand out. Acting always plays a hand in the movies quality, so if I see an A list actor looking bored on the screen of course it is going to drive the quality of the movie down. The rest of the movie is usually just bonuses to the viewing experience, and I judge the movie based on what the other parts added to it. Cinematography, choreography, effects, etc. All extras that cannot drive a movie's core dynamic. I'm not saying a movie with bad cinematography, is still good if the acting and writing makes up for it. I am simply saying that when I watch a movie, and the script and cast are amazing, bad cinematography is not going to harshly effect my score of the movie. The rest of my process is even more straight forward, and it all has to do with the core concept of what a movie is actually supposed to do: entertain the viewer. If it is not entertaining, then I don't care how great the script is or how amazing the actors performed,. It is a bad movie. Done and Done. How do I gauge if I was entertained during the movie? That answer is found in the genre.

Action or Sci-Fi: An action or a sci-fi movie has to let me escape into that movie. It should be able to let me put myself in the main protagonist's (or Antagonist's if you are into that) shoes. I should feel like I can be John Rambo, or Luke Skywalker when I am watching; or more so, that I am one of these characters. If it can't do that it has to put me on the edge of my seat (at least once during the movie). If there is a car chase I should feel engrossed in that chase, the same for a space battle, or any other big action scene. I should be engrossed in the characters, and there well being. I should feel blown away by the sequences. "Pacific Rim" is the most recent example of what that feels like for me. During that entire movie I was constantly on the verge of blurting out "HOLY CRAP! DID YOU JUST SEE THAT!" Of course I know the random stranger next to me just saw that, the movie was so good it made me forget myself, and feel like a kid again.

Romance: All about the characters in this type of movie. I should care about the love between them, and beg for it to work out. I should want my love life to be like these character's love life. I should hate the antagonist for trying to foil the love between these people. "Pretty Woman," "When Harry Met Sally," and "Brokeback Mountain" are all great examples of this process working.

Comedy: Simply put, I have to laugh. A good comedy can make me laugh without even thinking about me laughing. Uncontrollable laughter is key to a great comedy. A good, recent example of this type of comedy was actually "This is the End." It had me rolling in my seat, laughing at everything that came up without even having to think about the joke first. It was just funny, period. The other way they can go with it is if it makes you think about the joke then laugh. A more highbrow, intelligent humor, usually reserved for jokes about politics, or something you have to have knowledge of to be funny. "Paul" is a good example of this type of humor. To get a lot of the jokes you had to have a certain knowledge of sci-fi movies. Noticing that they were playing the cantina music from "Star Wars" in the background of the bar scene, things like that.

Drama: A good Drama is actually completely derived off of its story line. That is really the only way I can say I was entertained by a drama, unfortunately. Not to say that I hate drama, I'm just saying that there aren't going to be many sequences that put you on the edge of your seat. Mainly, it has to have moments where something is revealed, or something happens that makes my eyes wide with amazement. That certain scene that people talk about for years to come. "The Departed," "Unbreakable," or "Prisoners" (for a more recent example) are great examples of this method. "The Departed" had me wide-eyed throughout most of the movie. "Unbreakable" was an interesting concept, with an amazing ending (back when M. Night did that kind of thing). Prisoners kept me guessing throughout a greater portion of the film.

Horror: This genre is hard for me to judge, I can be a real asshole when it comes to horror movies these days. That is because I need to be scared at some point in the movie, and there aren't too many horror movies that have scared me recently. A good horror movie properly uses this technique. It has some thing that grabs your attention (let's say a door creaking shut), then gets the audience's mind working (the menace is behind the door. The menace is behind the door. The menace is behind the door.) It gets the audience so worked up, that the audience ends up creating their own terror, and when whatever it is shows up it scares the shit out of them (OH MY GOD! IT WAS BEHIND THE DOOR! I KNEW IT WOULD BE, BUT I NEVER EXPECTED WHERE IT WOULD BE BEHIND THE DOOR!). My best, recent example of a movie scaring me these days was "The Conjuring." It used everything at it's disposal to scare me, and I absolutely loved it. Bad recent examples? "Insidious," the "Paranormal Activity" series, and "The Haunting in Connecticut."

Animated: A good animated movie, has to have something in it for all ages (unless you are something like "South Park" which one should never expect to be appropriate for all ages). It should have jokes for all ages in it, something to appeal to the masses. I should be cracking up, or engrossed in a movie, just like a child is. We should both get something out of the experience, even if one of us gets more out of the experience than the other."Frozen" and "The Lego Movie" are both good examples of "fun for all ages." Before anyone asks about this, I must say that with the way technology is today, I never mention the animation of a film unless it was bad. I haven't seen bad animation in quite sometime.  

Of course there are more sub-genres out there, but these are the main ones. Mystery/suspense can be summed up as a drama, western can be summed up as an action, and so on.

My Rating System

Basically I tried to make the rating system my own. It tells you what to do, while giving the movie a score (more or less).

Buy It: This is my highest recommendation. I am telling you all to spend 20 dollars or more on a movie, because it is so good you will want to watch it over, and over again. These movies did most everything right, and kept me thoroughly entertained throughout the running time. Amazing. Example: "The Departed," "Die Hard," and more recently "The Lego Movie"

See it in theaters: This is the next step. I am telling you that this movie is worth going to spend five or more dollars to see it on the big screen. It is worth spending the money, but not a lot of money. There also might not be very much replay value to it. Good. "300: Rise of an Empire," and the first "300." 

Rent it: The middle ground. A movie that is simply okay, and doesn't do much to "wow" the audience. These are good movies for dates, or viewing if you have nothing else to watch and want to catch up with the some lesser movies from the year. They are worth a dollar or so, and will keep your attention at the least. Okay. "Epic," "Despicable Me 2," and "Non-Stop." 

Netflix it: A small step below middle ground. These movies might be worth your time, but not your money (unless you count the subscription fee). These movies are filler, something to watch when you don't want to think to much, or have a hangover. Something that will at least waste a couple of hours in your day, and not make you feel bad for watching it. Meh. (Best description I could come up with to state my exact feelings toward these movies, sorry for that word coming up.) "Planes," "Pompeii," and "The Amazing Spider-Man."

Pirate It: I don't like the piracy of movies. I feel it takes away from the people that put forth the time and effort towards trying to entertain us. So when I say pirate it, I actually mean this movie is so bad you should be refunded. It could be worth your time to see it and laugh at how bad it is, or it could be one of those movies that you need to see because it has a certain actor or director in it. It is worth your time only for these reasons, if the reasons don't suit you then don't bother with it. Bad. "Insidious," "Robocop," and "Grown Ups 2."

Don't do it: This movie isn't even worth revenge, it isn't worth thinking about, it isn't worth talking about. This movie isn't worth the money that was put into it, and it does no one any good for being allowed to be shown in public viewing. It is a waste of space, it is a waste of energy, and you feel worse having seen this piece of garbage. You don't want to do anything with this movie, you don't want to hear this movie's name, you just want to forget it ever existed, and move on with your life. Horrible. "Green Lantern," Spider-Man 3," and "Star Trek: Into Darkness."

My Schedule

This is my schedule for the foreseeable future as provided by the upcoming movies on IMDB. This schedule is most likely going to change as more movies are announced. As always I don't have to strictly abide by this schedule, so don't feel like you can't send me requests for reviews because it will interfere with a movie I am currently viewing. I will release my reviews on the days I say I am going to, but I assure you that I will get to your request when the time allows me to. I cannot stress how much I love getting feedback. I will always do my best to reply to you, and love seeing that people care about my reviews, either in the positive or negative.

March 16th: Need for Speed

March 23rd: Divergent

March 26th: Muppets: Most Wanted

March 30th: Noah

April 6th: Captain America: Winter Soldier

April 13th: Oculus

April 16th: Rio 2

April 20th: Transcendence

April 27th: The Other Woman

May 4th: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

May 11th: Neighbors

May 18th: Godzilla

May 25th: X-Men: Days of Future Past

June 1st: Maleficent

June 4th: A Million Ways to Die in the West

June 8th: Edge of Tomorrow

June 15th: 22 Jump Street

June 18th: How to Train Your Dragon 2

June 22nd: Think Like a Man Too

June 29th: Transformers: Age of Extinction