Best Foreign Language Film Predictions

With a huge list of possible nominees, but none decided yet, this is a perfect opportunity for me to make more Predictions. So, from most likely to least, here are my predicted films to do well at the Oscars, that are Foreign Language.

1. A Separation (Iran)
Come on, it's foreign, but it's already considered one of the best films of all time. How can I NOT put this at number 1?

2. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Turkey)
Not as popular as A Separation, but people say it's just as good.

3. Montevideo: God Bless You! (Serbia)
If something goes wrong with numbers 1 and 2, or the Oscars have biases towards those countries, this'll probably be the one to win.

4. Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (Brazil)
This would've been number 3, but the Oscars have biases towards action films and sequels.

5. Pina (Germany)
It's a documentary, but well received, and looks very artistic.

6. Bullhead (Belgium)
Well received, and like Elite Squad: The Enemy Within without the action, but with less popularity and good reviews.

7. Le Havre (Finland)
A safe film for the Oscar, something that would probably make a filler nomination or a shocking steal.

8. Tilt (Bulgaria)
A good story for the Academy to consider.

9. Black Bread (Spain)
Probably the last really popular and well received film.

10.  Jose and Pilar (Portugal)
Not very popular, but extremely well received.


What movies do you think will be nominated or win the award?

The Fighter Review

Even though I could safely call this film overrated, it's still a great movie. It almost feels real, what with the dilemmas that go on within the family, and within the ring. Sure, it's no Rocky or On the Waterfront, but it's entirely unique and well executed. The story is that a boxer by the name of Mickey Ward (Yes, the real life famous boxer Mickey Ward) is a determined boxer who's always overshadowed by his half-brother, Dicky, who was an amazing boxer who's career was almost ruined because of drugs and crime. Now, Micky has to show that he's a good boxer after a string of losses by dominating in the ring. That's basically the plot of this film, and it's a basic story, and done well here. But enough of that, I bet you all want to know about what I thought of the acting, right? Well, I thought it was OK. It wasn't really anything special, but it wasn't horrible. Wahlberg was OK, but not memorable, Bale was good, but tended to overact at times, Adams was pretty good, but there wasn't much of her in my opinion, Leo did OK, and McGee also did OK, but no one really stood out to me. Everyone says the acting is so amazing, but I felt it wasn't the acting wasn't so good, but the characters and the dialogue that really made people believe the acting was great. Now, because it's been in a lot of my reviews, let's find out The Best and Worst of The Fighter. Now, for the best, I either had to go with the the characters or the cinematography, but I decided to pick the cinematography, as it was AWESOME in this film. It was laid back and cool for most of the film, and intense and direct during the boxing scenes. The cinematography was just really cool in this film. The worst thing about this movie... I really can't say. Nothing was bad. Sure, several stuff was mediocre, but definitely not bad. So, for the worst of this movie, I'll just say the worst is the hype. One more thing worth mentioning, if anyone knows of anymore good David O. Russell films, can you let me know? He did awesome. Overall. this was a great movie, but slightly overrated. I would recommend it to fans of past boxing movies, or fans of any of the actors.

4/5

Is 3D Worth the Extra Price? (Rant)

3D has been around for years and years, changing from a cheap gimmick, to what some people explain as a "Necessity for home and theater going audiences". Of course it sounds good on paper, making you feel as if you're "Immersed in the action" by having the picture literally explode out of the screen and right in front of your own eyes, but over the years, it's gained criticism. It has existed since the '50s, and it still has it's fair share of flaws. The original 3D involved a special type of glasses with red and blue colored lenses, which could produce 3D if the program or film is accessible to 3D use. These glasses were most popular from the 50's to the 80's, but some films following those years still used those type of glasses. Nowadays, 3D has several different forms, the most well known being IMAX, where you would go to the theater, pay extra, be given a different pair of glasses then mentioned above, and watch the movie in 3D. However, some companies taken 3D to whole new levels. A new portable game system, the "Nintendo 3DS" has 3D, but doesn't require glasses. But the big one has to be 3D TV's. 3D TV's have been very popular recently, with 3D Blu-rays being all the rage, and several TV shows taking several minutes of their time to film several scenes in 3D for the buyers. All these advertisements and 3D viewings can kinda make you feel kinda out of the times, so you're probably considering buying a 3D TV, or spending $20 just to get a movie ticket IMAX, but is it really worth it? My final verdict is no. Why no? Several reasons. First, most movie's have mediocre to horrible 3D. Let me give you the names of 3 films: Avatar, How to Train your Dragon, and The Polar Express. What's so special about these films? These are the 3 movies with the most critically acclaimed 3D in the film. I have not seen any other film that has critically acclaimed 3D other then these 3. You can't just watch an IMAX film and expect the 3D to be good every time, 3D has to be perfect to not feel like a gimmick, and rarely is that ever done in film. Second, less and less people are buying into 3D products. Sure, the Nintendo 3DS is going strong, but most people don't buy into the expensive televisions or IMAX tickets, so you should probably wait until the possible fad either dies out, or the prices lower. Finally, what's the point? Besides 3D Blu Ray's and the occasional TV special, it's not like you'll have any use for the 3D. As for IMAX, is it worth an extra $20 just to see the picture pop out at you? I don't think so. Overall, I don't think 3D is worth all that extra money. I feel 3D is still in it's early stages, and needs time to grow. It was begun in the 50s, way to early for this type of technology, and took 30 years just to have a major advancement. So, if you're considering getting a 3D TV, or going to a 3D movie, save your money and go standard. 

The Princess Bride Review

I think almost everybody likes this movie, and for good reason. First, it has probably the most genres a film can have. Let me list them off: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Romance, and Sport! Second, it's just a ton of fun to watch. When my friend at the movie rental store said this was one of his favorite movies of all time after he recommended it to me, I looked at him funny. I thought, "His favorite movie is a chick flick?". Little did I know how amazing it would be. It's as funny as Back to the Future, as romantic as Titanic, and as likable as The Wizard of Oz, and if that doesn't lead to a 5 star film, I don't know what will. It actually shocked me on how good it is, and that's mainly because the director, Rob Reiner, directed The Bucket List, which was good, but had the stupidest plot imaginable. Luckily, he kept things simple here, with just a grandfather telling a fairy tale to a young boy, who is oddly enough played by Fred Savage. This movie also has a great cast, featuring Cary Elwes, Chris Sarandon, and Peter Falk. The characters are comedic and likable, with my favorite one being Inigo Montoya. He's funny, likable, athletic, and has a developed personality. Even though Inigo is my favorite character, there are tons of great ones to choose from, and none are either unendurable or unfunny, which is another thing this movie has going for it. My only problem with the film was there were one or two boring moments, like the beginning of the boat scene, but luckily they don't last to long and they're worth enduring to watch the great scenes. Before I end this review, let me just say, Guys, don't let the romance vibe drive you away, the movie is amazing and hilarious, and even if you don't enjoy the romance, there are lots more things to enjoy to this movie.

5/5

Tapped (2009) Review

Every review of this movie I've seen at least had "You will never drink bottled water again". I didn't think of it that much because Super Size Me's reviews said "You'll never eat McDonalds again", yet I ate McDonalds a couple of times since then. I decided to watch this anyways, and let me just say I probably wont drink bottled water again for a long time. It shows the unhealthy content of many beverages, mostly Nestle, Coca Cola, and Pepsi, as well as the damage the water bottles and soda cans can do to our planet. It is very informative and unique, so it has a refreshing feel to it, and you want to learn more, even after the credits. Actually, the thing that affected me the most about this movie was the credits. Let me explain, the movie shows pollution and smoke from smokestacks to make water (This is about halfway through the movie). Then, they interview several people that live near the smokestacks, and you can see two that are deathly ill. So, when the credits popped up, I decided to see if there were anything after the credits, so I used the slider feature I had on Netflix to see if there were upcoming scenes, and although there was no scenes, there was a picture. It said R.I.P and had a picture of one of the guys they interviewed that was deathly ill. So, what they meant was that man was so ill from the toxins, HE DIED! I couldn't believe it. No review on Flixster, RottonTomatoes, or IMDb mentioned this once. I felt so bad, I'm still depressed, even while writing this review! Now, for the bad things of this movie, hmmm.... Well, I guess it seemed a little biased and it demonized the people that didn't agree with them. Besides that though, I can't think of much. Sure, there were small problems, but that did little to nothing to affect what I thought of this movie. If you like documentaries, I think you'll enjoy it.

4.5/5

Fantastic Mr. Fox Review

To explain how I felt about the movie, here are all the questions I asked myself during the movie, with not all of them being good. "Why is the animation so freaky?", "Why do they have so many close ups of the freaky animation?", "Why does Eric Anderson sound like Jesse Eisenberg?", "Are we really supposed to feel sorry for a rat that tries to kill 2 or 3 characters?", "Why does George Clooney's voice sound like sandpaper half the time?", "What's with those annoying subtitles?", "Why does the word cuss have to be used every two seconds?", and finally "Why is that horrible song with the kids chanting in this movie, let alone twice?". Even though there were even more questions that I didn't mention here, I did that so I could get to the point. After this movie was over, I was thinking about giving it a bad review, but then I thought "Hey, I think I like this movie!". I don't know if it was the clever jokes, the likable characters, or it's cheesy nature, but I knew that I wouldn't live with myself if I gave this a bad review. It's just.... likable. Sure, it has plenty of flaws, but aren't you forgetting the most important thing a movie can offer? Answer: Entertainment. So, if you want a movie with talking animals, creepy puppets, but something you and your kids can enjoy, I think you should rent this right away.

3.5/5

A Hard Day's Night Review

What can I say about this movie? Well, it's not much. It just shows an ordinary day in the life of the famous rock band "The Beatles". Doesn't sound like much, does it? Well, before I watched this movie, I knew there wasn't going to be a plot, so I just sat back, enjoyed the music, and had a good time, and that's exactly what this movie is: A good time. The songs were outstanding, but I would be lying if I didn't say one or two of the songs didn't age well, but they were still enjoyable. Besides that, the music was pretty amazing. I just wish the movie was made later so they could include "Helter Skelter", my favorite Beatles song, but since the movie is supposed to go along smoothly, I guess I didn't mind to much. The comedy was subtle, yet hilarious. It actually sounds like jokes you would tell your friend. The story, for what it is, is pretty awesome. There's no cliches, no boring scenes, just the interesting lives of John, Paul, George, and the underrated Ringo, which I really enjoy. If I had to give a comparison to how I felt while watching this, go to a screening of "Never Say Never" and yes, those fan girls screaming was me. The Beatles are that awesome, even if they do have one or two aged songs. I admit, it's not much, and I probably wouldn't recommend it to people who aren't fans, but to ones who are fans, or at least like The Beatles, you'll enjoy this movie for what it is. It's not much, I'll admit that, but it's enough to be enjoyed.

5/5

Corpse Bride Review

Ever since I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas, I wanted to see if Tim Burton could expand his ideas. Unfortunately, this movie feels like a step back from you know what. The worlds aren't as creative, mostly because most of the creatures are either humanoids or skeletons. Also, the songs aren't very memorable. Even with this movie being below The Nightmare Before Christmas in class, it's still a very enjoyable movie. Johnny Depp does excellent as Victor, a very likable character that has unnoticed genius. The supporting cast ranges from likable to cliched and mean. The villains in the over world were snooty idiots who didn't care about anything. The corpse bride is kinda mixed, as she seems to have a nice personality, but forces Victor to marry him. Victoria was likable, and if Burton tried to make us pick a side for Victor to marry, Victoria would win by a long shot. She's not as sympathetic, but she keeps her nice personality throughout the whole movie. As a child, I didn't like this movie because it was to cruel and scary, and that's what I really don't like. The horror is something that draws teens in, but sucks children out, so think about if your child can handle it before sitting em down on the couch to watch it. If I had to compliment something for being better than The Nightmare Before Christmas, I have to say the animation. It's more realistic and it flows nicely, something that The Nightmare Before Christmas lacked. Anyways, comparisons aside, this is an excellent movie, but watch this before The Nightmare Before Christmas. Why? Because it's better to take a step forward than a step back. So, if you're into Tim Burton, horrors, or dark animation, this is for you.

4/5

Flubber Review

When I saw this movie at 10:30 where I lived, I didn't expect much. I thought it was going to be a stupid movie with no redeeming factors, and I was half right. It sure is a weird plot, but what I think this movie done well was the characters. Robin Williams plays a likable an enjoyable professor, but his flaw is he focuses to much on his work, which leads to him missing his own wedding several times. He's flawed, but you don't hold a grudge as he's just a quirky man who makes a few mistakes. He's pretty funny as well, but the best way I can explain him is that he's a poor man's Doc Brown. But how about the future wife? Well, you feel bad for her as she loves the professor a lot, but she feels she could be with someone who cared more, and would actually SHOW UP to her wedding! She could be a jerk at times, but you understand her argument, and shes very likable as well. Next, you got Weebo, an invention created by the professor himself to keep him company at all times while working on experiments. All I can say is she's pretty cool, and I wouldn't mind having her replace my old IPod Touch. Finally, the villains. These are the characters this movie did wrong. They're like if Biff from Back to the Future wasn't funny or interesting, and that just leaves a cliched mess for villains. That was the good of the film. So, if I liked the characters the most, what didn't I like? Well, something that really brings the movie low is the way it talks down to kids. If seems like the movie thinks it has to act goofy and stupid for the kids to enjoy it. Now, when I was a kid, my two favorite movies were The Lion King (Which still holds up) and The Polar Express (Which didn't hold up as well). Those movies didn't act weird and stupid for the entire movie like this. They had enjoyable stories to keep you interested, even without very much strangeness or goofiness. This movie was to strange to enjoy very much. Everything else was a mix bag. The story was O.K, the acting was pretty good, and the comedy was good (Even though Robin Williams was the only person to make me laugh). I think kids might enjoy the movie, but not many grown-ups would. Overall, it was O.K. P.S There's a disturbing visual joke in the climax that would probably either frighten the young kids, or just entertain their sick minds. So, when you see the flubber enter the villain's mouth, get the kids out of the room, quickly.

3/5

The Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers Review

Who would've thought that a great movie would be a huge letdown? That's exactly what I thought of The Two Towers. The first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, was one of my favorite films of all time. Each scene had a major reasoning for being there, and you can tell each scene had a lot of care and heart put towards it. This movie doesn't have that feel to it. Sure, it continues the story rather well, but as a sequel to one of the greatest films of all time, it falls flat. I guess my biggest flaw with it is doesn't take itself seriously as much as the first film. Gollum is not very likable or serious, the dialogue is not always intriguing, the action is unrealistic and not as brutal as you might expect, every actor looks as if they want all the cameras focused on them, and the first couple minutes are more epic then the rest of the film, even though it's a flashback. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Why'd you give the film 3 1/2 stars even though you have so much complaints to it"? Well, because it's an enjoyable adventure. It's flawed, but it has heart. The acting isn't the best, but they get the job done. It may not be as good as the first, but it's a great movie in it's own right. There's so many bad things, yet there's plenty of good things to even out the score. It's just a flawed, but still great film. Now, for the best thing, well, besides the story, and that would be the special effects, which were even better than the first film, and you feel as if you were transported to middle-earth itself. The only bad thing about the special effects is they upstage everything else, but luckily the effects are subtle, so it doesn't upstage the story. If you liked the first film, I really have no idea what you'll think of this. I thought it was pretty good, but other people thought it was a masterpiece. I guess I'll recommend it if you liked the first, but don't be surprised if it's not as good.

3.5/5

The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring Review

Epic. That's the first word that comes to mind when I hear of this movie, and for good reason, it's brilliant! Now, from my past experience from Peter Jackson, I wasn't sure if this would be good or not. King Kong (The Remake) was O.K, but had plenty of flaws, and District 9 was good, but also had to many flaws to be a excellent film, so I thought this was gonna be a little underwhelming. Boy, was I wrong. It's a very enjoyable and adventurous film that has little to no flaws. As a matter of fact, I found 3 critics who gave this movie bad reviews, and I'm going to explain how this movie is good to them. Yes, I will deny critics, that's how much I love this movie (You know, I should have done this with Star Wars. Oh, well.). First, Richard Roeper, the only one I know of the 3 critics, and is pretty good at reviewing movies, said "It goes on forever". Well, if you hate movies that go on forever, you probably hate Titanic, or The Godfather, or even Lawrence of Arabia! Fact is, run time makes movies better, unless the movie is boring, but this movie has excellent dilemmas that keep MOST PEOPLE interested the whole way through. Next, Peter Rainer say's this this movie is "Overkill". Well, it's definitely over dramatic at times, but those scenes last less than a minute, and they don't affect the movie to much. Finally, Jonathan Rosenbaum didn't like the narrative or the action scenes. Well, the narrative was short and sweet, with no confusing points. I don't think that annoyed anyone else besides you. Also, the action scenes are short, realistic, and entertaining, I don't see how you could have been bored by them. There, I love this movie so much, I denied critics opinions. How many movies can make you do that? Almost none, and that's why this movie rocks. Well, I should talk about the individual stuff now, considering I do it in almost every review and, hey, why not change tradition right? The acting was excellent, the story was superb, the cinematography is in a league of it's own, and the special effects are tremendous. I can't even bring myself to compare this movie to anything, it's entirely unique. Probably one of the best films of the century.

5/5

Roundhay Garden Scene Review (The First Motion Picture Ever)

This is a film that's only 3 seconds long, but it was the introduction to the art of motion picture. It's weird reviewing this, cause it's basically reviewing every singe film in history. Just think, without this, there would be no Star Wars, no Lord of the Rings, no The Shawshank Redemption, no movies at all. That's why this is so excellent, it's not about special effects, acting, or story, it's about the back story, and his movie has some of the most amazing back story in history or cinema. Also, without this, there would be no T.V shows. No The Simpsons, no Family Guy, no Seinfeld, no anything. Anyone who doesn't like this, doesn't like any motion picture in all of history, so while watching an excellent movie, think of this. Well, there's not much more I can talk about, it's just an amazing thing in general that's probably better than most films in history, because without this, those movies wouldn't exist. It's only 3 seconds, but those 3 seconds would end up being the actual reason for every moving picture ever.

5/5

Domestic Disturbance Review

This is actually kinda good, definitely not what I expected. It had the shock factor down, and the characters are pretty good. Unfortunately, it had it's fair share of flaws, mostly minor, but they're still flaws. First, the villain is kinda bland. They try to make him look like a guy who's just get's angry all the time, but for no reason (I would say it's autism gone wrong, but that's to cruel). Second, during the court case, the kid actually LIED saying it was just a joke. Why lie? If he's forced to tell the truth, and already has his dad on his side, why not just suggest to have parental guidance wherever he goes? Thirdly, if the kid keeps saying the man is a killer, why not look for evidence? Ask the kid where he did all of the stuff, and search for evidence. Well, instead of focusing on the best and worst things, I'll focus on the main stuff and see how this movie does. The story is actually good, and I like how for the most part, it's portrayed through the mind of a kid. The acting was pretty good, and the best actor was Vince Vaughn, it's to bad the writing sucked, making him sound bland. Finally, the cinematography is pretty good as well. It builds up tension and freaks you out. This is just a good movie. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to watch a movie you know will be decent, I think this is a rent.

3/5

Casablanca Review

What can I say about "Casablanca"? Well, in most of my movie reviews, I'd say what the plot was like, the acting, the cinematography, etc, but I feel it's a waste of time because everything is done extremely well in this movie, but let me just tell you the best thing about this movie, and I don't think it's any surprise; HUMPHREY BOGART. Before I watched this movie, I heard he was the best actor ever, and agree; he's pretty awesome. You can tell how he feels with one simple facial expression, and he stands out above everyone else, he's THAT awesome. Not to say the other actors weren't bad, they were top-notch, but they looked like DIRT compared to Bogart. Back on to the topic of the actual MOVIE, the plot, like I said above, was outstanding. It made the characters way more interesting and you always want to find out what happens. My only gripe with the movie is it can be pretty boring at times, and a couple scenes are pretty pointless, but those scenes are kept at few and the boring scenes last two or three minutes, no longer. Well, besides that, theres nothing else to say. I know my review is a little short, but it doesn't need anymore words to describe how awesome it is.

5/5

Jurassic Park Review

This is a great film, it has some flaws, but it's an enjoyable experience. It's funny cause I would have gave this film four stars, but the special effects are so groundbreaking and amazing, I had to give an extra half star. I'm serious, this had the best special effects in history until 2010, when two films actually surpassed it, Inception and Tron: Legacy. Every thing else was pretty great too. The acting, the story, and the experience itself were pretty great. There are some flaws too, there minor, but there still flaws. First, I didn't care much for the kids, as they were just annoying. They also don't have much of a likable personality. Secondly, it didn't feel very much like an adventure. It's main genre is adventure, but didn't feel much like something I would like to go on hundreds of times, like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade, two other Spielberg films. Finally, if you're more of an adult, you wouldn't like this as much as if you were a kid. I don't know, I guess it feels more huge to the kid side of me then it does to the teen side. Other than that, it's still a great film, which was extremely interesting, especially with you actually learning about the dinosaurs during the movie, which was pretty cool, especially how subtle it is. Overall, I'd say buy it if you can.

4.5/5

I, Robot Review

If you're into the sort of action Sci-Fi thriller genre, this is for you. When I saw this movie at the rental store, I remembered that my cousin, Craig March, was a detective in the movie (If you want proof, look at the cast). Well, I couldn't find where my cousin was, even though I think it's the guy that get's his wrist broken by Will Smith, but even though I'm not certain he's in that scene, I still liked the movie. The story, the acting, and the cinematography were all amazing. My only real problem, and I think you'll agree, is that cliched, annoying, time wasting misunderstanding. You know, Will Smith makes a mistake, he gets criticized, he finds out something truthful but no one believes him, more things happen, he gets kicked off the detective squad, and he finally proves everyone wrong. That plot scheme makes the movie slow down and makes it completely not enjoyable. If that part of the plot didn't exist, I would give this movie 5 stars, but that's not happening, so 4 stars it is. The special effects are pretty amazing, even if it's obvious CGI at times, and the way they depict the future is actually pretty cool, even if it's a little corny at times. So, it all comes down to if I'll recommend it. Well, if you don't mind that stupid misunderstanding, buy it, but anyone else, a rent is probably what you should do.

4/5

Open Water 2 (Adrift) Review

This movie has no redeeming factors at all. The characters are unlikable and stupid, the plot sucks, the acting sucks, and the fact that this movie is as tense as The Shaggy Dog remake make this movie one of the worst I've ever seen. During the entire movie, I just wanted to see everyone die. The worst thing about this movie is by far the ending. I won't spoil anything, but, either if you like the characters or not, it will disappoint. I know this is kind of weird for me to say, but I'm shocked there was no sharks. I mean, sharks are attracted to blood, and since one or two people were bleeding in the water, it's weird that there was no sharks in this movie. Overall, it sucks. Nothing more to say.

0.5/5

127 Hours Review

If you don't mind a character being on camera for the entire run time, you'll adore this movie and what it offers. Let me first say that if you think Slumdog Millionaire is overrated like many people, don't worry, this is Boyle's best and differs a lot from his past Oscar nominated film. James Franco is one of the only main actors in the movie, and he's amazing. He's enjoyable, likable and he makes this movie what it is. It's not very big, and not very epic, but for what it is, it's tremendous. To tell you the truth, the whole movie depends on if you like the character or not. He's a jerk at times, but funny and enjoyable. If you don't like Franco or while watching the movie and you hate the character, turn the movie off PRONTO! But if you like the character, you'll be in for a wonderful and at times, scary, experience. The supporting actors are only on the camera for a short time, and they're pretty good. They're not anything special, but they're enjoyable for he short time they're in there. The movie takes a trip into the feelings of the main character, and done so well, the climax hurts me every time I watch it, like I'M cutting off my arm, and that makes the movie amazing. Overall, it's something you wont forget. Comparison: Johnny Got His Gun. DVD: Buy It.

5/5

Fast Five Review

A very overrated film with to simple a plot, 20 minute long car chases that, lets face it, suck, and a draggy feel to it that makes it feel as if it goes on forever. Now, you're lucky I'm reviewing this, as I had no intention of watching this beforehand, as I never seen the movies before it, but when my family was at a hotel (I'll just say the name, Holiday Inn), one member of my family was trying to figure out how to work the remote worked, and while doing so, by accident had turned on this movie. So, we spent the next two hours watching this. Like I said, the story is very simple, it's just these guys running away from the cops, and people trying to kill them. Simple, yet boring. The actors suck, as I had no reason to like any of these characters. The action is extremely lame. Think about it, the only good action scene was the beginning, as the camera would ACTUALLY STAY STILL! Every other action scene, the camera would always shake and distract me from the action. But instead of focusing on every single negative, lets focus on the positive things of this movie, cause there are a few. The special effects were pretty cool, and I did enjoy a couple scenes, most of them only for a short time, but still, and the car chases are OK, except for the camera and the fact no one in the chase is likable. Finally, the one actor that did got in my opinion is Sung Kang, which is funny, cause he was the only actor not signed on because of his or her looks. But really, I think those are the only good things of this movie, everything else is flawed or worse. The director should have thought about keeping people that didn't watch the past movies entertained. Finally, why did this get so good reviews? It's like some beloved critic came up in said "You know what my favorite movies are? Wizard of Oz, Crash, and Fast Five" and then everyone else decided to go along with him. So, if you have never watched the past movies, don't watch this. It will disappoint.

1.5/5

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Review

This movie is the definition of beauty. The writing, the acting, the story, the plot, it's all beautiful. Drama, comedy, romance, epic, everything is in this movie. Every scene has so much care put toward it, you get reminded again and again that this movie is amazing. Every character, even the villains, the few there are, are amazing. The only complaint I see for this movie, besides it being to long, is that there are plot holes. Well, Benjamin was born and died a small baby. It would be stupid if he was born the size of an old man or since he was born an old man, he had to die a small baby. Confusing, yes, but still awesome. Brad Pitt does excellent as Benjamin Button, and Cate Blanchett does tremendous as Daisy. The ending is brilliant. *Spoiler!* Daisy dies just before Hurricane Katrina takes effect (Which was a subtle sub-plot) and in a flooding building, the reversing clock that resembles Benjamin still ticks. *End of Spoiler!* Lot's of people say it resembles Forrest Gump, and I agree, but it actually does BETTER than Forrest Gump! It's actually better than the movie it's kind of based off of, that's just great. Overall; It's visual poetry. Almost nothing is done wrong, and if there is something wrong, I don't know about it. Since this was released on Christmas, I would be the happiest person ever if on the night of Christmas, I went to the theater and watched this masterpiece of cinema.

5/5

Indiana Jones Trilogy Review

With me watching "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" very soon, I might as well express my opinion on the original Indiana Jones Trilogy:

Raiders of the Lost Ark:
 

Great characters, a great story, and just an overall awesome adventure are the reasons this movie leaves other adventure movies in the dust. What I like most is the fact that it's fantasy, yet realistic fantasy. Most to all of the scenes are over the top, but believable, so it doesn't feel fake. It also has quite the comedic relief. Indiana is really funny, and so is his sidekick, Marion. It's basically a movie you can't explain in a review, it's something you need to watch. Another thing I like is Indiana is this amazing adventurer, but he also has fears, which when he conquers him, you feel a great sense of accomplishment, as if you helped him conquer his fear. Well, since I can't keep constantly saying "Another thing I like", I'll just say the things I dislike to get you ready. First, like I said before, it's a little over the top, but the good thing about that is if it wasn't over the top, it wouldn't be as exciting or interesting. Second, the traps Indy often has to face are pretty under done, don't you think? Like at the beginning, he has to run away from a boulder, but why don't the trap makers just make the boulder block Indy's way out? He can't move it as it's like 500 pounds or more, so why not? Besides that, I can't think of much. Oh, and if you hate the villain, don't worry, he suffers probably the worst karma in history. Overall, it's not entirely realistic, but it's definitely a lot of fun.

5/5

Temple of Doom:

After watching the excellent "Raiders of the Lost Ark", I was very excited for this movie, even though it was the lowest rated film out of the first three Indiana Jones movies. Unfortunately, this movie did not reach my expectations, and I'm here to explain why. First of all, "Raiders" had a mix of puzzles and action in the adventure. Here, it's mostly just puzzles. Not that I don't like the puzzles, but I like the action more, and since this movie has little of it, it can get very boring, very fast. Second, the sidekicks. I don't know if you agree, but the sidekick in the first movie was awesome. She was smart, enjoyable, and an asset to Indy. Here, however, are two screaming idiots who barely help out Indy AT ALL, and when they do, they're the reason Indy got into the mess in the first place! The first sidekick is Shortround, who screams every one of his lines, and comes up with just idiotic things to say. Well, at least he helps Indy once or twice, unlike the second sidekick, Willie. She just screams about breaking and nails and almost leaves Indy to die because of some insects. I know Indy can't do all of his adventures without a bit of help, but the sidekicks are no help at all! Finally, something i really liked in "Raiders" was it was realistic fantasy. What that means is it's over the top, but it might happen in real life. This however, has no realism, from falling from the sky on a raft, landing perfectly fine, surviving the trip down the hill, go off a cliff into some rapids, and somehow surviving all that without a scratch is just stupid. Even with those faults however, it's still a decent movie. Indy's awesome, the atmosphere is great, and it even has Indy escape from psychological enslavement. Now THAT'S awesome! But, if you didn't like Raiders, don't give this one a try. It's way worse.

3/5

Last Crusade:

This is an excellent movie, definitely my favorite of the original trilogy, and I think I know why. Raiders was about both action and puzzles, which was cool, but the puzzles were not that good and the traps were not as good as they could have been. Temple of Doom had mostly puzzles, which slowed down the movie for me, and the puzzles, as well as the traps were slow and almost pointless. This has just action, and good, fast action too. I was never bored with slow moving traps or lame puzzles that required you to be "very careful", which leaves the watcher time to get bored, but that's not what this films about. Also, the went with the Raiders style of realistic fantasy instead of it being unrealistic. Also, it has some great comedic relief, like Sean Connery as Indy's dad, who has an awesome accent and plus, Indiana Jones and James Bond... TOGETHER? That just spells fun. One thing I don't get though is the ending. *SPOILER!* O.K, Dr. Schneider falls to her doom (Which is pretty risky, but cool that one of the sidekicks actually dies) and Indy's dad drinks the liquid to help him live forever, and Indy did as well earlier, but doesn't that mean, you know, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was kinda, I don't know, pointless? Who cares if you get nuked in the next movie Indy, you'll live forever, so who cares? But I guess there's an explanation in the next film, so I shouldn't worry. Besides that, there aren't many flaws, except one or two scenes are unrealistic, but it's not much of a bother. So, if you liked the first film, you'll love this. If you loved the second film, I'm not so sure, but it's definitely worthy a rent for everyone.

5/5

Crash (2004) Review

This is a brilliant film, with a major flaw or two, but the work Paul Haggis put into the film is outstanding. I would've probably waited till this Monday to review this movie, but I was recommended it by my friend shortly after I got the DVD, so here I'am, and I'm glad I took the time out to watch this. I think the best thing about this film is that if you don't like one character, there are plenty of others to pick through. My absolute favorite, and I think you'll agree, is Daniel, played by Michael Peña. He did outstanding in this movie, doing one of the best performances I've ever seen in film. The last scene of him in the film almost made me cry, which is featured on the movie's poster. Even though all the actors did great, the other one that really stood out in my opinion was Ludacris as Anthony. It's weird, but it's almost like he's a role model, except the character does bad things. There's plenty of characters, and everyone is interesting. The story is simple, it's Los Angelas, and it shows several different characters and how they affect each others lives. Some of them end up turning good or staying good, others turn bad, stay bad, or DIE. It's done very well and it makes you interested in the rest of the movie. Well, those are the good things, but what about the bad? There aren't many, but they're major. First, couldn't they have one story that didn't involve racism? Like, I didn't mind the racism thing, but a story this awesome shouldn't be involved on one topic. Second, some of the jerks in this movie have no reason to be jerks. OK, one woman said she always woke up angry, but what about the others? No reason, and that sucks. Finally, a minor flaw is that HEATH LEDGER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS MOVIE!!! Who awesome would that have been? He dropped out due to scheduling conflicts, but luckily he was replaced by Ryan Phillippe, who did really well. So, if you're planning on watch this movie, please do it. It's awesome. Buy the DVD, you won't regret it.

4.5/5

Spider-Man (Movie) Review

Have you ever seen a film that you really, really like, but it's to flawed to say so? That's this movie. It's heart felt, likable, and has plenty of effort put into it, but is very, VERY flawed. The special effects, the dialogue, the sensibility, the villain, all of these are done horribly, but the movie has an unbelievable charm to it. I guess the charm comes from a few things. Firstly, the character Peter Parker is done extremely well. He's a nerdy but likable young dude, and when he gets bitten by a rare spider, his life changes, mostly for the better. It shows how the superhero Spiderman embodies all of us, no matter how socially unpopular. Secondly, the romance. It's very realistic and both of the characters are likable. Mary Jane is one of the most popular and definitely the best looking of all of the girls in the school, and Peter Parker is nerdy, yet since there both kind, they're good friends, and almost boyfriend and girlfriend. It's bitter-sweet, but interesting. Thirdly, they don't rush the transformation into Spiderman, they just show Peter Parker's life for a while, and soon, he becomes Spiderman, and does all of his heroic stunts, but with a strategy. Finally, every actor leaves an impression, except maybe Willem Dafoe, which is weird, you'd expect him to be one of the best. Well, I explained the good things, now I got to explain the bad. The villain is probably the worst. He's unbelievably silly, stupid, and predictable. It's like a villain for a children's cartoon! Oh wait..... Never mind. The special effects are obviously CGI, but luckily, the other two movies, as I remember, had great CGI, so these special effects didn't drag down the other movies, but still. The dialogue was unrealistic and childish, but hey, that's a superhero film for you. Finally, the movie is very silly at times, and it dragged down the movie. With all of these flaws, I'd usually give a movie 2 stars or less, but this movie is special. It's incredibly enjoyable and fun. If you have a child or you don't mind silliness, this is a perfect movie for you. Rent it now.

3.5/5

Chaplin (1992 Movie) Review

It's hard not to like a bio-pic of your favorite actor, isn't it? It's funny, well acted, and the ending is on par with every Chaplin film ending ever. The best thing about this film is no doubt Robert Downey Jr. as Charlie Chaplin. He shows off his peak of acting in this film and made me laugh more than once. Also, it gives cameos to Chaplin's films themselves, which was awesome, but I wish they spent more time showing the filming of City Lights, Modern Times, and/or The Circus, not just The Great Dictator and The Gold Rush (Even though those ARE the two films Chaplin discussed the most, but still). The supporting actors did great, but there not focused on often, so that was a little disappointing. I enjoy how it shows that Chaplin isn't a friendly and perfect god, he's arrogant at times, but can be likable and suave when he needs too. Finally, the last thing I loved so much that's worth having it's own sentence is the subtle sense of humor. It's laugh worthy when it wants to be, and chuckle worthy even when it's not obvious. But enough with the positive, let's go to the negative. Firstly, the scene where Charlie's a little kid and he dances and get's an applause is a little cheesy. Actually, a lot of this movie is cheesy. The only really sappy moment that works is the ending, which I believe to be one of the greatest film endings ever, just behind City Lights (Coincidentally, is one of Chaplin's most known films) and The Shawshank Redemption. Secondly, the opening makes it look like it'll show how Chaplin made his films, along with an elegant feel to it. The rest of it is basically a subtle comedy. That's another slight disappointment. Finally, they show a good portion of Chaplin's life, but if they show much of his life, show every life changing moment, which if they did do that, all of Chaplin's teenage years would've been entirely pointless, and every fan of Chaplin knows that isn't true. Wouldn't it be awesome to see Chaplin as a teen having to deal with the tough life of an actual teen in the early twentieth century? Oh well, it's still an excellent film anyways. The acting, the characters, the cinematography, it's all outstanding. So, it all comes down to would I recommend it. Well, if you watched even one Chaplin film, and you enjoyed it, I will recommend it. But if you haven't seen a Chaplin film or didn't like all the films Chaplin made, don't watch it. But, for now, us Chaplin fans can watch it over and over and never get tired of it.

4.5/5

Brian's Song Review

If you even wanted a movie that didn't have any cliches or plot holes, just a straight forward story, this is for you. Now, before I say anything else, I'm not the biggest fan of football. I don't watch it that often, but if I had to pick my favorite teams, they would be the Atlanta Falcons and the Denver Broncos. I'm not that big a fan of the Bears, so you'll know this review won't be biased. It's still an undoubted classic. It has genuine feelings toward it, which is probably the reason it was only released on television, so it's impossible to say they only made it to make money, because the director and the company made little money with this film. Now, let's get the major things out of the way. The acting was superb, the story was great, the dialogue was outstanding, and the memorable qualities are thrown at you a mile a minute. To tell you the truth, I almost cried! The only movies I cried at were The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Gold Rush, and The Lion King, and this movie was almost added to that list. The friendship between the two main characters is done very well. The fight a lot, but when one of them get's in trouble, they help out one another. Sure, it's sappy, but it's realistic. The people act like how they should, and the emotions are well expressed. It's like I stepped into a time machine and watched the events unfold. It's brilliant. Another thing I liked was the way they portrayed racism. Not everyone in the movie is racist, but some still are, the way it was in the 70s. The black men were respected more, but still not as respected as white men. Well, I guess since this movie was MADE in the 70s, it's not much of a compliment, but recent films don't get that down, so it's nice to see a change in pace. Well, I don't think there's much else to say. Sure, there's a lot good with it, but since there's little bad about it, it would be stupid to just ramble on about what's good about this movie, so I'll just recommend it here. It's just an outstanding film with a lot of heart.

5/5

The Last Airbender Movie/TV Show Review

TV Series:

This show is probably one of the most epic, action packed, and funniest TV shows I've seen in a long time. The characters are developed well, the action is awesome, the story is amazing, and the light hearted comedy is executed (for the most part) very well. It's one of Nickelodeons best. The gripes that I do have with the show mostly disappear after an episode or two. It definitely wasn't afraid to take risks for kids, like killing off some of the recurring characters, as well as some villains. The story is many people are born with bending powers, being able to bend water, earth, fire, and air. It's not even limited there, fire benders can also bend lightning if strong enough, earth benders can also bend space rock, and water benders can bend moisture in the air, as well as blood (That's when the story get's unbelievably dark). There was an Avatar as well, the only person to bend all four elements, but is only born with one, he/she will have to learn the other three. Anyways, a war started as the Fire Nation wanted to rule over all. So, when the Avatar is needed most, he vanished, and 100 years past, and a new Avatar is born and discovered by two funny and interesting characters, Sokka and Katara. The Avatar later discovers the Air nomads (The people he grew up with, as he was born an airbender) had been wiped out by the fire nation, and Katara and Sokka find out the Avatar, named Aang, only knows Airbending, and to end the war, he has to learn the other 3 elements, and then take down the fire lord, who's actually voiced by Mark Hamill, who played Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars trilogy. I watched every episode more than once, and I only found a few flaws. Firstly, the first season is not as good as the second and third season, as it doesn't take itself as seriously as it does later on, which is a disappointment. Secondly, where's season 4? Each season is named after an element, season 1 focuses on water, season 2 focuses on earth, and season 3 focuses on fire. I guess each season, the Avatar learns the element the season is called, but it was also a disappointment. Finally, Katara and Sokka discovered the Avatar frozen in a block of ice for 100 years, so how did he survive? I know, he went into the Avatar state before he went in the water and froze, but I just wished they would have explained it better. So, besides that, this is an excellent series. Every episode gets better and better as the series goes on. It's likable and great, definitely worthy of a watch, especially for children, as it will be a nostalgic memory for them in the future, like it is for me now.

5/5

Movie:

This movie sucks. It just sucks. No fan of the show thought this was good. The acting sucks, the characters aren't nearly as developed as the show's characters were, the editing sucks, and worst of all, things that had to take two or three seasons to resolve was resolved IN THE FIRST TWENTY MINUTES OF THE MOVIE!!!!!! That's not even the length of the first episode of the series! This movie was based off the first season of the series, the worst of the 3 seasons, and there was completely no comedy in the movie. That's what made the show so enjoyable, and not just a dark children's cartoon, and they left it out in the movie! WHY?!?! Well, to tell you the truth, there was some good things about the movie, even though there at a minority. First, the special effects were great, I'm not talking about the close up animals or anything, I'm talking about the scenery. The elements looked OK, but the scenic special effects added some atmosphere to the film. Secondly, there was two actors that didn't do god-awful. The first was Noah Ringer as Aang. He certainly did bad, but he didn't do horrible. The second person actually did OK, and that was Dev Patel as Zuko. He's a good actor on his own, as he was in Slumdog Millionaire, so it was obvious he wouldn't do to bad, and he didn't. It wasn't genuine Zuko from the series, but he did OK. Finally, the movie had a couple plot twists from the show that were decent. First of all, in the show, the Fire Nation wanted to capture the Avatar because he was the only thing that could defeat them, but in the movie, the Fire Nation wanted to capture the Avatar because the Avatar was the only way to interact with the spirit world, and the Fire Nation didn't want to live with the Spirit World. That was pretty cool. But that's still no excuse for this bad a movie. God, the movie even pronounces characters names wrong, the two I know of are Aang and Uncle Iroh. I think the worst thing was in the middle. In the show, Aang had to go through this huge journey that took up the entire episode just to find out he had to go to the Fire Nation to meet the Avatar before him as a ghost. In the show, they don't show ANY of the journey, Aang just said he met a dragon in the spirit world, got flown to the fire nation, and discovered he had to go to that temple in upcoming days. GAAAH!!! Why change something that was so awesome, it forced you to watch the rest of the series? Oh well, it's stupid to moan for this long, so let's wrap things up. I don't recommend this movie at all, it sucks, but I have to say one more thing. This won the infamous award for "Worst Picture" at the Golden Raspberry awards, but did it deserve it? No, there were two other films I know of in 2010 that were worse than this, the worst one actually being nominated for the same award! First, Titanic 2. That was WAY worse than this! But the worst of the year, which was nominated for Worst Picture to this film is Vampires Suck. That was one of the worst films I had ever seen. Even though this didn't deserve to win Worst Picture, it's still a horrible adaptation of an amazing children's cartoon.

1.5/5