Most Anticipated Movies of October 2013 - Video

Most Anticipated Movies of October 2013

            From now on, in the first week of every month, I will make a blog of movies that month that I want to see. I may not see all of the movies, and I may see movies that are not on this list. This is just a list of movies that I am looking forward to this month.

            October 4^th - There are two movies I want to see coming out then.
First, there is Gravity. This is actually my most anticipated movie for the rest of the year. I have heard many, many good things about it and I think it looks amazing in the trailers. George Clooney is a great actor and I also think Sandra Bullock is very, very good.

 Then, there is Runner Runner. I am not a fan of Justin Timberlake, but I like the plot and think it looks good from the trailers. It looks like it could turn out to be a somewhat original story. I also like Ben Affleck as an actor, and think that he will be good in this movie.

            October 11^th – There is Captain Phillips. First off, Tom Hanks is a great actor; second off, it is based on a true story; third off, it looks really good from the trailers. I think that this will be a very, very good film. I may be able to get into a screening on October 3^rd, and if I do not get into that, I may be able to get into one on October 9^th, and if I do not get into that, I will in theaters when it comes out.

            October 18^th – There are actually three movies I want to see coming out then.
First, there is Carrie, a remake of the 1976 film. As a horror movie remake, it actually looks good. It has – in my opinion – one of the best child actors working today, Chloe Grace Moretz, playing Carrie. It is also has the very talented Julianne Moore, playing Carrie’s mom.

Second, there is Escape Plan. All I really have to say about it is that it stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, but I will go ahead and say that it looks like it could be good in the trailer. Also, the plot looks alright.

Lastly, there is All is Lost. It has a very interesting premise, and even though it does look strange, it also looks good from the trailer. It stars one actor, so it would be tough for the actor. Also, though, if that actor does well, there is not anyone else to bring down the acting. It also has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes as of now, and even though it probably will not keep that, it already has thirteen reviews as of now.

Unless I get into a screening for at least one of those movies, I will not be able to see all three in the opening weekend. I would have to see one of them the next weekend, which would probably be Escape Plan. I will say that I will be seeing Carrie that weekend if I do not get into a screening of that. I do not know about All is Lost, but the probability of me seeing it on opening weekend, or at all, is greater than the probability of me seeing Escape Plan.

            October 25^th – There are not really any movies that I am looking forward to coming out then, but I would not mind seeing either of the movies coming out that weekend.
The Counselor – This film, I might want to see, but I still am not sure about it. It does have the legendary Brad Pitt, and I do like the plot. I just still do not know if it will be worth watching or not. The trailer does not really tell much, so I did not really get much from the trailer. If I can get into an advance screening, I will probably see it, though.

Bad Grandpa – I will not be paying to see this in the theater. It does look very, very funny in the trailers, but those may be the funniest parts of the movie, or the only funny parts of the movie. Though, even if those are not even the funniest parts of the movie, I really do not think it will be worth seeing in the theater. If I do get into a screening of the film, I may go.

            Those are my most anticipated movies of October 2013. I will look forward to seeing all of my picks, but, as I said, I may not be seeing all of these movies. These also may not be the only movies I see this month, as I also said. I will be doing this every month from now on.

The Bridge Season 1 Episode 12 "All About Mary" Video Review

The Bridge Season 1 Episode 12 "All About Mary" Review

WARNING: I GIVE SPOILERS FOR THE EPISODE!

            I am now starting a new segment on my YouTube channel and this “blog” where I will review every television episode of what I see. Also, since it is just an episode, I will not ask the questions I usually do to focus my review. Here is my episode review of The Bridge: Episode 12 “All About Eva”.

            

            After last week’s episode, “Take the Ride, Pay the Toll” this show really got itself high up there because of the episode’s intensity and momentum the whole way through. This is basically an aftermath episode of last week’s. It will be hard for this to live up to last week’s episode. I did expect to really like this one, though. But, I have to say… I did! Usually, if there is a big episode in a television show that is not the finale; the next episode (aftermath episode) is really slow. This episode had its fair show of slowness, but it introduced new subjects for the show.

            

            This new case with the missing girl that ties into the guy that never opens his mouth to talk was a good thing for the show. I was interested in it, and liked how it showed where she was going. And, that scene with her all drugged up and chained up… wow. That actually made me say “wow” out loud when I watched that. That guy that never opens his mouth to talk is going through a rough time, and you somewhat feel for him. It was, though, a stupid decision for him to go to the El Paso police to help look for a girl when Juarez when they had already interrogated him there, though.

            

            Now I will get onto the subject of Marco Ruiz. Man, is that guy broken. He yelled at Sonya for being Sonya. I was interested with his storyline through the episode, anyway. The actor, Demian Bichir, portrayed him well being drunk and being incredibly sad and depressed. I never really felt for him, though. The whole time I was entertained by his appearances in the episode, but I think they needed to express the tone more. Play sad music, show more of him, or just make him go completely crazy in a scene. I liked his progression through the episode, and he had good dialogue as a plus for his storyline in this episode. Another gripe with his is storyline is: his dream. Or I think it was a dream. Whatever, it looked like it was a dream. Anyway, that was unneeded, and, as soon as he gets there the car with David Tate in it conveniently pulls up. I know it was a dream, I think, but wait a minute or two. Though, David Tate’s reaction to seeing Marco was great. All he did was nod, and that is all he needed to do. That is the main reason why I did not like it being a dream.

            

            Now I have to talk about Sonya. (I do not have a picture for her) I will start from the beginning. She does not have anything left to hold onto. The last thing she has to remember her sister is gone. I liked how that scene was executed. It was also a well-written scene. She acts like Sonya would act in that situation. Also, I liked how they addressed that when David Tate hit her car, it actually did damage and she needed a new one, but I do not think that it would be a month before she deals with this as a big fat minus to the episode. But wait, she still has the tape. And, throughout the rest of the episode you can see it in her face that she is struggling and suffering because of the loss of that car. I loved the way they addressed that. Movies and television series today think that they need to really express that someone is suffering by making them cry or make them do something crazy. This episode proves that all you need to do is make someone have a look in their eye to let the audience know that she is having problems. Extremely well executed and a great portrayal of that by Diane Kruger. Lastly, she tries to get with Marco to help both of them out mutually with their sadness. I cannot believe I did not guess that when she went out of her way to go to Juarez, go into the bar, get his drunk self out of there, drive him home, tuck him in, stay the night, then make breakfast for him the next morning, being Sonya. It sounds obvious there, but it was not as obvious watching the show. Anyway, I barely know what to think about that. It is a good thing, but I have no idea where they will go with that.

            

            Now I will go with Charlotte. You do not see much of her in this episode, but when you do, she is handling business by herself. She is actually negotiating with Fausto Galvan about the tunnel, and somewhat wins. I like where her character is going, and I like that she is starting to use the tunnel positively.

            

            In the two scenes they were in, a little something happened with Daniel Frye and Adriana Mendez. Only something little happened. I will just address the little thing that happened. Mendez and her mother get in a fight. That five second was somewhat intense. I have never really seen Mendez yell. And Frye acts the same way.

            

            Now I will just talk about the episode. It had a few flukes, but I could get past them. The main aspect of how you think an aftermath episode is when you are watching is “Is it boring or am I enjoying it?” There were some boring scenes and some scenes I was entertained by but did not go anywhere and took a small number of points away from the film. I can say, though, that most of this episode was enjoyable. Is the episode as good as most of the episodes this season? No, there is actually only one other episode I would say is worse than this. For what this episode was, though, it was very, very good. Just as it was in general, it was good. It could have been better though. It had room for improvement, and they could have cut off scenes sooner. My only other problem with the episode is that almost half of its major events were weak. Nothing really happened in this episode, but again, it is an aftermath episode.

            

            Now I will rate the film. Also, there is one more thing I will not be doing in episode reviews. I will not rate them on my “phrases” rating system. I still will be rating them out of 10 and on the grading scale though. I give The Bridge: Episode 12 “All About Eva” a B+ and a 7.5/10.

"World War Z" Blu-Ray Video Movie Review

"World War Z" Blu-Ray Movie Review

            In 2006, the book World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War was released. Now, the movie World War Z, which is based on the book, is on Blu-Ray. So, which would you choose? The answer should be obvious.

            How was the acting?

            This film stars Brad Pitt and Mireille Enos. First off, I should not have to say that Brad Pitt does very, very well in this role playing Gerry Lane. He was a believable character, I did not see Brad Pitt on the screen, and he portrayed Gerry Lane very well. Mireille Enos plays Karin Lane, and plays her well, too. She is not anything incredibly special, but she portrays Karin Lane well, and was a somewhat believable character. I did not mention any other actors because those are the only true stars and other characters came in went throughout the film. I will just say this: With the exception of a few actors, the supporting cast did well in the film. The movie had good overall acting.

            How was the writing?

            The film did have alright dialogue, but nothing special. The lines were good, and not clichéd, but it did not have edge-of-your-seat dialogue or lines where I thought, “That was a really good line.” The worst part about the screenplay was that the characters were not developed. There was one scene with the only the family and not anything having to do with zombies. The film does not lose that many points, though, because World War Z is meant to be a fun movie. It could be argued Brad Pitt’s character was introduced gradually throughout the film. Anyway, the undeveloped characters made it fairly difficult to gather information about how they would deal with the situations they were in, so I had guidelines for how far the screenplay could go in how characters’ actions are different from the characters’ personalities. Therefore, I do not have an opinion in that field of criticism. Another thing I liked was how the events and action sequences were written. During some of the sequences, I could not tell what was going on because of the camera positions, but I liked how in the screenplay the camera angles were written. About the events: in the writing, there were probably instructions about how to execute them, because the events were executed well.  I liked what characters did during the major events. They did not just do something stupid so that it will all flow together. They would choose the logical decision for the situation. Though, there were some illogical and realistic elements to the movie, but it is a zombie movie, so it will have those elements. The writing for the film was good, overall.

            Did it have an interesting premise/good story and good characters?

            I thought the premise was interesting for two reasons. Reason one was that… Zombies! Reason two was that if was supposed to be a fun zombie movie, but it added a political view on the apocalypse and did not have as many illogical and unrealistic elements in the script, so it has a more mature take on the zombie apocalypse. The story was also good. It did have some flaws in the execution, but it did have a good feel and tone, and I liked most of the major plot events. There were some I did not care for, and some that seemed over-the-top, but that was a small number of events. All the rest of the events, I liked. The characters, as I already said, were not developed. I did not know much about them; therefore I did not really care about them. Brad Pitt’s character I did somewhat care about, but his family, and everyone else in the movie, I did not care. Most to all of the characters were likable, but they still were weak characters. World War Z had a very good premise, good story, and weak but somewhat good characters.

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            There was a span of about 30 minutes after a few opening scenes that was slow, and get boring to me after the first 15 minutes of it. There were other smaller spans of time that were slow, but I was interested in the film and was entertained by them. The scenes that were not slow, I was really entertained by. Lastly, what this movie’s all about, the action sequences, which were incredible. They were really, really enjoyable and so fun to watch. The sequences were very exciting. The last 30 minutes of the film, I thought were nearly great. I was a very well done group of scenes and intrigued me. Most of it was an action sequence, which was the best in the film. It was intense, suspenseful, and incredible. The span of 15 minutes right before that was also very, very good. It was also an action sequence, which was not as good as the last one, but was probably the second best in the film. It was very intense, but it was also very thrilling, and was different than the last one. Anyway, those two combined for the last 45 minutes of the movie was really, really good. The movie as a whole was not only entertaining almost the whole way through, but it was very enjoyable.

            What things in particular did I like about it (that I have not already said)?

            I liked the way this film was directed, and most of the shots were good. I depicted the action sequences how they should have been depicted, and I really thought the cinematography was good. The scenes were lit up so that it gave the feel of a fun summer movie, but also a drama.

            What things in particular did I dislike about it (that I have not already said)?

            The editing was very strange. It changed scenes very abruptly sometimes and it felt like something was missing. The scenes were also cut together strangely in the sense that they should not have been in that order.

            How was it overall?

            World War Z had good acting, good writing, a very good premise, a good story, somewhat good characters, was very enjoyable, was directed well, had very good cinematography, took a more mature take on the zombie apocalypse, had very, very good action sequences, and had good shots, but also had a small number of bad actors, some weak lines, some illogical and unrealistic minor plot events, some bad lines, weak characters, some boring parts, a somewhat messy story, and had not-that-great editing. This is a very, very good film.

            Do I recommend this film?

            This is a good mix of an interesting story and a fun zombie movie; I really recommend renting or even going ahead and buying this film to watch it.

            What is this film’s rating?

            On my scale, the it’s rating is “I’ll Probably Buy This”.
            On the grading rating scale, I give it an A-.
            On the out-of-10 scale, I give it an 8.3/10.

"Under the Dome" Season 1 Video Review.

"Under the Dome" Season 1 Review

            Steven King released a book called Under the Dome in 2009, and now in 2013, it gets a “mini-series” put right in the middle of the summer. For some strange reason, though, the “mini-series” is getting a second season. Weird things are going on… Are we under a dome?

            

How was the acting?

            Under the Dome stars Mike Vogel, Rachelle Lefevre, Natalie Martinez, Britt Robertson, Alexander Koch, Colin Ford, Dean Norris, and Mackenzie Lintz. First, I’ll name the actors that didn’t do well. Alexander Koch did the best, and I thought he was Junior (his character) and he played a somewhat believable crazy guy. The idea is that the viewers are supposed to hate him, though, and I did not at all. Mike Vogel does an alright performance as Barbie, but he seemed to say every line the same way. Dean Norris also did an alright performance except for the fact that he almost always had the same look on his face and said every line the same way. Rachelle Lefevre did seem to overact, and I did see Rachelle Lefevre instead of Julia Shumway (her character) when she was on screen, but she gave a more or less believe performance and she didn’t terribly. Natalie Martinez, Britt Robertson, Colin Ford, and Mackenzie Lintz did do terribly, though. Britt Robertson probably does the best out of them, but she was still bad. It was easy to tell that she was acting, and she didn’t speak lines correctly in order to be acting well, and every other actor that did badly were worse with it. They all had the same on their face all the time, and all of them except Natalie Martinez spoke the same way every time. The reason I thought Martinez was worse than Robertson, though, was that she gave an awful performance and was not believable at all. Colin Ford did the worst, and his acting was hilarious. It was so had that it was funny. Mackenzie Lintz also did pretty terrible, but she is not as bad as Colin Ford. Under the Dome: Season 1 has bad acting.

            How was the writing?

            The acting for this show was a letdown, but good thing that the writing saves the show by also being bad and evening out the level of stupidity. There are countless obvious lines of dialogue where we can see what’s happening right there. The screenplay has the have the characters say it just to have lines of dialogue because they can’t think of anything else. “There is the mini-dome.” “There is a caterpillar inside the mini-dome.” Those things were really said in the show. They also wrote people reactions to just stare at something while it is happening. There was an incredibly lazy screenplay for this show that writes the events pretty badly. Though, there were good lines of dialogue and for most of the time the dialogue was not terrible and I didn’t have a vast amount of flaws with it. Some of the events and character’s reactions to the events were written well, but some were still written badly. Some of characters’ actions reflected on the characters’ mood and personality, but many did not. The writing had good and bad parts, but it was still not the best.

            Did it have an interesting premise/good story and good characters?

            I did think the premise for Under the Dome was interesting, and the story was not bad, but the way it was executed really bothered me, because every episode had some really big thing happen to help keep the audience’s attention and to keep the show entertaining. That made no episode special, and no episode bigger than another. I would have done a review of the finale, too, but the finale was just like every other episode. I also didn’t like the events: most of them had very predictable outcomes. There would be one every now and them where I predicted falsely or couldn’t predict it, though. That is basically the only compliment I can give to the story. I can say, though, that it did keep my attention and I liked one or two of the events, with the rest of them being ridiculous. Now I’ll touch up on the characters. I didn’t care about them at all. They weren’t believable, most of them weren’t likeable. The city can just explode and I would not care. I would actually think it would be pretty awesome. Though, there was very, very few times where I would think “You know, it would kind of suck of he or she died”. Overall, this show does have an interesting premise, but it has a bad story and really bad characters.

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            Under the Dome did hold momentum throughout the first season, and it kept me entertained, but not interesting and intrigued. There were some times throughout the season when I really wanted the show to move on and was bored by it, but I actually somewhat enjoyed the show through most of the season. There were several times where I was fully enjoying it, and a few times when I was really enjoying it. Almost the whole season was entertaining. It was because of major plot events happening every episode, but I already covered that when asked it had a good story. Here I’ll just say that most of the season was entertaining, and there were several times when I was enjoying it.

            What things in particular did I like about it (that I haven’t already said)?

            Some of the CGI was good, and some of the shots in the season were good. And I didn’t think the directing was bad.

            What things in particular did I dislike about it (that I haven’t already said)?

            Most of the CGI was bad, and almost anyone could tell that it was fake. Some of the shots were bad, and some of the action sequences used “shaky cam”. Also, one of the biggest flaws with the season is that the musical score is terrible. On the smallest lines and almost at random times incredibly loud music would play, nearly drowning out the dialogue. The score was completely overdramatic and completely overused.

            How was it overall?

            Under the Dome: Season 1 had a good actor and some alright actors, I did not have a huge problem with the dialogue, some things were written well, it had an interesting premise and alright characters, had some events I liked, almost all of it was entertaining, several parts in the season were enjoyable, there were some times when it was really enjoyable, it had some good CGI and some good shots, but the overall acting was bad, the overall writing was not very good, it had a poorly executed story, unrealistic characters that you did not care about, mostly bad events, some scenes that were boring, most uses of CGI were bad, it had instances of shaky cam, and it had a terrible, overused and overdramatic musical score. Under the Dome: Season 1 was a mediocre, slightly bad, overrated show.

            Did I recommend this film {season}?

            No, I do not recommend watching this season, because it is overrated, and actually a mediocre show. If you are looking for a show you can just sit back and have nearly mindless entertainment, then this show is for you. If you need for substance to enjoy something, though, this show is not for you and if you watch it, you will probably enjoy it as much as I do

            What is this film’s {season’s} rating?

            It was hard to come up with the rating for this season on my rating scale. For me, it was between “Don’t Watch This If You’re Looking For A Good Movie {Show}” and “Good If You Don’t Watch It Seriously”.
I will say that Under the Dome: Season 1 is at the abyss of the rating on my scale “Good If You Don’t Watch It Seriously”.
On the grading rating scale, I give it a C.
I lastly give Under the Dome: Season 1 a 5.4/10.

"Rush" Video Movie Review

"Rush" Movie Review

            In the 1970s, two racecar drivers, one very famous, and one starting from the bottom, start a very big rivalry that turns into something somewhat huge. Now, Rush tells the story of how it happens, and how it exactly happened because movies based on true stories always get it exactly right.

            How was the acting?

            Rush stars Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, and Olivia Wilde. I’ll start with Chris Hemsworth. First off, I wasn’t a very big fan of him in The Avengers and Thor as Thor. I did not think he spoke his lines very well. But, in this movie, he does very well as James Hunt. James Hunt was a very believe character, was portrayed well, and Chris Hemsworth did well reading the lines this time. I think he kept up with James Hunt as he changed and was good for the role. Daniel Bruhl may have done a little better than Hemsworth, though. Playing Niki Lauda, he not only was believe able, but the character was realistic, Bruhl handled the material well, and also portrayed a changing character like Hemworth did, and portrayed the character well. Olivia Wilde, playing Suzy Miller, did a good job, but I wasn’t very focused on her acting. That could be a very good compliment for the acting, but I feel that I wasn’t focused on her acting to try to go around it. All in all Wilde did portray Suzy Miller well, though. The acting overall was really good.

 

            How was the writing?

            The screenplay for this film, while sustaining momentum for a large number of aspects of the film, did seem lazily put together at times and seemed like it was made without passion and it was there to be a screenplay for the movie. I do have to say, though, it has many, many nearly great lines. There was good dialogue in the film, and some of characters’ actions were really good for the character(s) and reflected on past actions and dialogue of the character. So, what possessed me to say that I think at times it was lazily made was little-to-no passion? There were times when the dialogue was clichéd, simple, and the same as past dialogue. And, like I said earlier, sometimes it seemed to just be there to be there. Some of it was repetitive (as I said) and there was on blank scene in the script. For example, there was one scene with little to no dialogue, and no implied elements. Or, at least, I couldn’t see any implied elements. Back to characters’ actions, I said that some of characters’ actions were really good for the character(s) and reflected on past actions and dialogue of the character. Some of their actions, though, seemed crazy and out of the ordinary for the character. The character hadn’t changed, but I guess they needed this event to happen so that the film could turn out a certain way. There were some good character changes throughout the film, though. Those things made the characters seem real as the movie closes. There were also sudden changes in characters that seemed unrealistic as a minus to the film. The characters were well developed, too. That is a good thing for the movie, but it also made me think that the sudden changes in characters’ personalities were more unrealistic to the depth and mood of the characters. I did like the writing as an overall statement, though.

            Did it have an interesting premise?

            I did like the premise of the film, but it did not seem to have a twist like a premise of a film should usually have. The fact that I thought that, though, made the story of Rush much better to me. It was great that they were able to take a premise of something that wasn’t fairly big, based on a true story, and make it into a deep film with a very good story, because this film had a very-well-thought-out story. I thought the story could have gone in some better directions, but I did not have any major flaws with it other than that. It turned out to have some, but a small number of, intense scenes. Both of the main characters (James Hunt and Niki Lauda) had problems. It expressed those problems in the film, and expresses them well. I also liked most of the events of the film. The ones I did like were strong and confident and realistic. The very few I did not like seemed the smallest bit lazy, and I did not “dig” them. I thought they were somewhat weak, and did not really change the movie. This film had a really, really good story.

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            I’ve said this film has a good story, but it has a slow act and other slow scenes. That is strange, though, because there were few scenes in this film that I did not enjoy. And most of those scenes were in the last act. The first 45 minutes to hour of Rush were slow, but it develops characters deeply, and I enjoyed it. When it got more exciting, I started really enjoying it. The third act of the film, though, lost momentum after a while. I did somewhat enjoy all of it, but there were some slow scenes. It did not really have any exciting moments, but it did get close. There were some major events that I really liked, and several scenes that weren’t boring, and many enjoyable scenes, but it had my least favorite scenes of the film. It was not horrible, though. My main flaw with the movie though was the largest plot events of the movie. It was supposed to be the height of the film, and extremely intense but riveting. It was somewhat intense to be, and it was somewhat riveting, but it underwhelmed me. I did really enjoy it, but I thought that it was supposed to better and more intense than I thought it was. It did really enjoy the movie as a whole, though.

            What things did I like about it (that I have not already said)?

            Rush was a very well done film that had really good cinematography that illustrated the tone of the film and matched it very well. I also liked the directing of the film, for the most part. It had many good shots and not very many bad shots.

            What things did I dislike about it (that I have not already said)?

            The film takes place in the 1970s, but it did not really seem like it did. There was not any modern technology in the movie, but they never truly illustrated that it was in the 1970s. There were also some bad shots in the movie. Sometimes it cut off things I would have liked to see and felt that I should have seen.

            How was it overall?

            Rush had really good acting, many very good lines of dialogue, several good characters’ actions, good writing, a good premise, an incredibly good story, many good plot events, had exciting moments, was really enjoyable overall, had good directing, some good shots, good cinematography, but had some lazy elements of the script, had some slow scenes, had an underwhelming huge event, had some bad events, didn’t really seem like it was in the 1970s, and had some bad shots. Despite my flaws with the film, I really enjoyed it, and I thought it was very, very good.

            Do I recommend this film?

            I strongly recommend seeing this movie in the theater. It was not only enjoyable, but it also had other very good elements.

           

            What’s this film’s rating?

            When the film had about 10 minutes left, something happened that I really liked about the film. Then, I decided that if the ending was good, I would buy the film, and rate it “I’ll Probably Buy This”. The ending turns out to be alright, but it wasn’t quite good. I still thought about possibly buying Rush, though. I then decided I won’t buy this film.
            The film is at the top of the rating Worth Seeing at the Theater, though.
            I give the film an A- on the grading rating scale.
            And, I give Rush an 8.3/10 on the out-of-10 rating scale.

"Insidious: Chapter 2" Video Movie Review

"Insidious: Chapter 2" Movie Review

            In 2011, Insidious, known as one of the scariest movies of all time came out, and did very well for an independent film and a James Wan (Saw, Dead Silence, Death Sentence) film. Now comes its sequel, Insidious: Chapter 2, so apparently each ‘Insidious’ movie will be based off of an incredibly long chapter of the book, Insidious?

           

            How was the acting?

            Insidious: Chapter 2 stars Patrick Wilson (Insidious), Rose Byrne (X-Men: First Class), Barbara Hershey (Black Swan), Lin Shaye (There’s Something About Mary), and Ty Simpkins (Insidious). The overall acting aspect of the film held up through the struggles of the characters, but didn’t leave me overwhelmed by the performances. I wasn’t clearly focused on the acting, which would be a “plus” for the actors, but the primary reason I wasn’t focused on the acting was because I was focused on aspects of the film that didn’t have to do with the actors. Some of the characters didn’t have any layers, making the acting part for them fairly simple. The best aspect of the acting was the fact that there were no portrayal flaws with the actors. Rose Byrne’s character, Renai Lambert, (better explained: The Mom) was portrayed as the mom. That role was the easiest role of the film, though the role of Lorraine Lambert (Barbara Hershey) was simple, but her character did have a hint of layers to it. The character with the most layers, though, was Josh Lambert (Patrick Wilson). His character had to be different in every act of the film. Patrick Wilson seamed to play several parts: The Creepy Dad from The Shining, The Guy Who’s Possessed, The Demon Speaking Through A Human’s Body That’s A Bad Liar, and Josh Lambert. Those were all played very well. Lin Shaye, playing Elise Rainer, portrayed the strong female character well, but she said every sentence the same way, and her voice didn’t match her character. Ty Simkins as Dalton Lambert actually did well. He wasn’t in the movie much, but when he was, he matched the character well, he didn’t mess up, and he showed the right emotion that he needed to.

            

            How was the writing?

            The screenplay is written by Leigh Whannell (Saw), who also shares a credit with James Wan for the story, and has his own credit for the characters. The screenplay, though cheesy and absurd in some moments, was very good. Even though dialogue between characters could have been more effective and had more thought, the dialogue matched the mood of the film. There were comedic elements in Insidious: Chapter 2 turning it more in the direction of a “fun” horror movie, because there were several comedic lines, and most of them were very funny to me. Some of the ways the scares were written were also thought out too far, or thought out in the wrong direction as a “minus” to the film. There were poorly written scares in this film, like there were in Insidious. Though, as the film progressed, I really liked the way some scenes were written. Some lines and plot events created a massive amount of suspenseful scenes that sometimes kept me on the edge of my seat. There were also “fight” scenes between characters that were choreographed really well. There were some predictable elements and some clichés along with the action sequences, though. The writing was very, very good overall.

            Did it have an interesting premise?

            The premise isn’t bland, but it isn’t original, either. It does have elements of the typical horror movie sequel, and it has several elements to it that were copying off of other horror franchises. I did really appreciate the story, which is by James Wan & Leigh Whannell (as said in the writing section) though. It went in a direction of a mystery-type film that nearly intrigued me. There were plot events of it that tied into Insidious, which I thought was excellently done, and flat-out excellent as well. Some of the story events later in the film were very original, too, and had fresh elements. I really “dug” the story and was surprised by many aspects of it and how well it was executed. The story of the film was nearly great.

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            The first 15-25 minutes of the film (after the prologue) were the worst parts of the film to me. I predicted many of the scares that happened, it had several failed jump scares, and it had many of the elements that I didn’t like from Insidious used as scares for it. It just seemed to be people walking around in the middle of the night, looking at things, then a few jump scares, and then it’s time for that to happen to someone else, and then start from the beginning. Because of that, the first 15-25 minutes seemed genuinely boring to me. I enjoyed every second of the rest of the film, though. There were dull moments after a creepy night, but those are in every horror movie. There were several traumatic moments that I really felt trauma at; there were very creepy moments and some very good scares. If a horror movie is scaring somebody, they will not be bored from it. That’s a positive thing about taking on the horror genre. I wouldn’t say I was scared at scenes that were traumatic, but they were solidly creepy. I really got into the film in the second half of it, because the first half of it seemed like a horror/thriller film. The second half was an exciting thriller movie. There were two parts during the film when everyone in the theater started clapping, because something very exhilarating happened. The film was also unpredictable to me. I didn’t expect the complete opposite of everything that happened, but I was surprised by some things and I didn’t predict any of the events. I was not bored by the film and I was intrigued, somewhat scared, exhilarated, and very thrilled by the film. Insidious: Chapter 2 was an extremely enjoyable film.

            What things in particular did I like about the film (that I haven’t already said)?

            There was well done makeup work in the film. James Wan has been known to use makeup effects to make his ghosts and demons look like ghosts and demons, and do it very well. Actors and actresses played theses ghosts and demons, just with makeup. There were some elements in this movie that stuck with me. Some of the scares in this film got to me.

            What things in particular did I dislike about the film (that I haven’t already said)?        

            There were over-the-top elements in the storyline that didn’t fit in and seemed somewhat absurd. There were also plot elements that went too far. There was also unrealistic dialogue between characters that I knew would not happen. Some of the characters actions were not logical to the character and certain things they did, did not reflect on what a normal human would do in that situation.

            How was it overall?

            Insidious: Chapter 2 has very good acting, very, very good writing, a nearly great story, was extremely enjoyable, had very interesting, some intriguing and exhilarating moments, some very good scares, many traumatic moments, was a solidly creepy movie, had good makeup work, but had some over-the-top elements, some plot events that went too far, some illogical and unrealistic character action and dialogue, several failed jump scares, some horror movie clichés, a bad first 15-25 minutes, and some cheesy dialogue between characters. This was a great horror movie overall.

            Do I recommend this film?

            Since I thought that Insidious: Chapter 2 was a great horror movie, I would recommend it to somebody. I think it really exceeds Insidious, but I think people who loved Insidious won’t care for this one. I think people that liked Insidious would think that Insidious: Chapter 2 is alright. I think people that thought the first one was alright (like me) will love Insidious: Chapter 2.

            What’s this film’s rating?

            Off of my rating scale, this film’s rating is “I’ll Probably Buy This”.
            On the grading rating scale, I give it an A-.
            On the out-of-100 scale, I give it a 92/100.

            Will I buy this film?

            This is a great film to me that is faintly original. It is the better of the two ‘Insidious’ movies, so I think it would be worth owning

"Riddick" Video Movie Review

Watch Jeffrey's video review of Riddick.

"Riddick" Movie Review

            In 2000, Pitch Black was released, and was good enough to gain a sequel, The Chronicles of Riddick, which was released in 2004. Since The Chronicles of Riddick let down many fans, so they decided to make a sequel to The Chronicles of Riddick that would be more like the first one. So, Riddick was made with a higher budget and newer technology, and also creating a trilogy.

            

How was the acting?

Riddick stars Vin Diesel, Jordi Mollà, Matt Nable, and Katee Sackhoff. Vin Dielsel’s performance in this movie was good, but not as good as his performances in the past two movies in the trilogy. Sometimes it seemed somewhat choppy and fake. Other than that, Riddick was a believable character who you care about. Jordi Mollà had an alright performance as Santana. Sometimes he did well, but there were scenes when he was supposed to be more series than comical and he didn’t handle that material was. Matt Nable did very, very well in his role as Boss Johns. His facial expressions showed his emotions, which he also expressed with the way he talked. Johns was even a likeable character that I cared about sometimes. Katee Sackhoff, playing Dahl, did very well. She handled the material when she was supposed to be tough, comical, scared, mad, etc. Sackhoff gave a very stable performance. Some of the supporting cast, though, didn’t do the best. A small number of them did do well, but most of them gave an alright performance. Their performances were acceptable, and I didn’t have many problems, but they didn’t portray their characters to the full extent. Some of supporting cast, though, did not do well. There were two or three of them that I didn’t feel tried their best with the material to portray their characters. The acting overall, was actually good in this film, though.

            

            How was the writing?

            The writing for Riddick had its good and bad parts. This is the least serious movie of the trilogy. It’s just supposed to be a fun action movie with humor. The film was funny, but some of the humor was overused and/or went too far. There were a few lines in the movie that were cheesy. Most of the humor was not mature humor, other than a few lines that expressed smart humor. They did pull off the humor element of the movie. There was good dialogue in the film that expressed chemistry between characters, but most of the dialogue was acceptable, but nothing special. The dialogue was fine, though. Another thing that the screenplay expressed was how character’s actions reflected on their dialogue, their situation, and even the tone of the film. That worked well for the movie.

            

            Did it have an interesting premise?

            The premise is that Riddick (Vin Diesel) gets left for dead on a desert-like planet that has all of these creatures that kill everything they see, then when he makes people aware that he is on the planet, teams come down to capture him and turn him in for money, but when they get him, the creatures attack them, and they have to team up with Riddick to survive. I thought the premise of this film was interesting. The story was also good, except for the fact that it seemed like three films in one. The first one would be when Riddick is on this planet with many big creatures and he has to survive. The second one would be when these people come to the planet, and they try to capture Riddick. The third one would be when the people have to team up with Riddick to survive the creatures. My least favorite of these would be the second, because you see little of Riddick and it’s from the people’s point of view. My favorite would be the first one, because it was basically Riddick versus the planet, and it was very cool. I thought the third was actually almost as good as the first, but it was just a little more similar to the second one than the first one was. The story did have good events, though. Now I’m going to touch up on the characters. The film had good characters. The people who come are almost all interesting. One of ties into another character that was in Pitch Black (he wasn’t in this one). The characters surprised me, because they some depth to them.

            

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            For the most part, the movie was entertaining. The first act of it had its slow parts, and those weren’t miserable, but it was mostly enjoyable. It was a good section of the film. The second act, though, had several boring scenes. It did have good scenes, but it was very slow. The slow parts were used to introduce and develop the new characters, but I didn’t find it that interesting. I wanted it go back to Riddick. The third act was when many things happened, so, since the film had set out for several things to happen, it would be hard to make that boring, and they didn’t make it boring. There were a few slow scenes in the beginning, but like the slow scenes in the first act, they weren’t miserable. They weren’t as bad as the slow scenes in the second act, but those weren’t miserable either. Anyway, after the slow scenes, it picks up, and there are very cool scenes after that. Those scenes were also very enjoyable.

            

            What things did I like about it (that I haven’t already said)?

            The special effects and CGI were very good and almost looked real. The action sequences were also usually pretty good. That’s probably it for the things I haven’t already said that I liked.

            

            What things did I like about it (that I haven’t already said)?

            Throughout the whole movie, the musical score seemed somewhat repetitive, somewhat overused, and somewhat overdramatic. I thought in some parts they were giving too much music or they didn’t need to have music. Also, there was one strange scene in the second act of the film that I didn’t really like. It had comical elements that weren’t funny, it overdid itself, it was overdramatic, and it lasted too long.

            

            How was it overall?

            Riddick had pretty good action sequences, many good acting parts, was mostly enjoyable, very good special effects, good characters, good premise and story, was funny, some good dialogue, and good character actions, but had some boring scenes, some illogical things, some cheesy lines, a bad musical score, some mediocre and some bad acting parts, and had one scene that really bothered me.

            

            Do I recommend this film?

            I do recommend Riddick, but not seeing it in the theater. With its problems, I don’t think it would be worth the price. Watching it at home after it comes out on Blu-Ray and DVD would be good.

            

            What’s this film’s rating?

            On my rating scale, I made a little alteration, because Riddick didn’t have enough stupid things for me to say it’s “Good if you don’t watch it seriously”, and it’s better than “Not bad”, but it’s not quite “A good movie”, so I’ll say it’s “A good movie, exclusively watching it at home”.
            On the grading rating scale, I give it a B.
            I also give Riddick a 64/100 on the out-of-100 scale.

            

           

Will I buy this film?

            Since I only recommend watching this as a rental, it is not worth buying. I don’t really think it would be worth watching again, even though I wouldn’t mind watching it again. I just don’t feel like I need to and I don’t feel like I need to show it to everyone.