I, Da Ca$hman's Movie Reviews

U Can't Beat Me Man!

How De Be Organized?

Chronologically. By time it was made. You will see the earliest films at the bottom and the latest films at the top. For instance, Frankenstein (1931) will be below Psycho (1960) if I do review those two movies at some point.

Ratings System

Ratings tend to not be the best indicators of opinions - for a better understanding read the entire review. However, ratings are also quick. So here is a quick legend of what these ratings might mean. Note that if there are multiple options, these options can merge in the hurricane that is my mentality.vAll ratings are made with both objective quality of the movie and personal opinion in mind. Reviews are made looking for all aspects of the movies, however seeking the positives as a priority over the negatives. If my rankings were chosen with a different method, this list would be entirely different.

0/5 - Nothing going for this movie. Example: A.V.P.:R.-Un:R[4.0]]{BETA}

1/5 - Barely anything going for this movie. Example: Batman & Robin

2/5 - Option A. Overrated. Example: The Amazing Spiderman. Option B. Had a lot of potential but it didn't fall through. Example: Alice in Wonderland (2010) Option C. Nothing new, nothing special, and synthetic. Example: Dolphin Tale. Option D. At least they tried. Example: Alien 3

3/5 - Option A. Cheesy and Fun, the best and worst of Popcorn Entertainment. Example: Piranaconda Option B. Good, Okay, but nothing that I even recommend by any stretch of the imagination. Just check it out if you're bored to death. Example: Highlander

3.5/5 - Very good, enjoyable. It's a fun time, and I recommend it, but don't rush out to the theaters. Something you would rent on Netflix. Example: Dracula 2000

3.8/5 Close to awesome but just great. Example: Iron Man

4/5 - Awesome but not perfect. Example: Batman Returns

5/5 - Between 90% done overtly well or 95% done well. Example: Batman Begins

5.5/5 - 95% Done overtly well or 100% done well. Example - Return of the Jedi

6/5 - Beyond Perfection. 100% done overtly well. Example: Cloverfield

All decimals represent a space in between these ratings.

Requests

They are available, however keep in mind I have my own schedules of movie reviewing and there are movies that I have reviewed on a now dead  YouTube Channel and some movies I have reviewed on my regular YouTube Channel. You may also post requests in Contact Us or the Request form on my YouTube Page.

Ad Space

Sharktopus (2010)

When it's okay to make a movie called Dolphin vs. Pterodactyl vs. God (Produced by Roger Corman.)



Oh BTW, it's a GIANT SHARKTOPUS. Not a normal Sharktopus...A GIANT SHARKTOPUS...WITH KNIVES ON IT'S TENTACLES.

Mega Shark AND Giant Octopus Anyone?

So, it's come down to this. 1910-Frankenstein, an intriguing and intelligent film, filled with Thomas Edison genius. (Mass Marketing genius is there as well.) 1920-The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. A German expressionist film, that is the first zombie and first dream film. Completely revolutionizing the film industry. 1922-Nosferatu. A film that was banned, hated, destroyed, sued over, but is a legend. Giving birth to movies that took a risk at what they love. 1923&1925-The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera. The two masterpieces that made the sympathetic monster, and Lon Chaney Sr. a legend. 1931-Dracula&Frankenstein. Two films that have entered the pop culture mind forever. Some of the greatest films ever made. 1932-White Zombie. The film that made independent film possible, and the first "real" Zombie film. 1933-King Kong. A film personifying a giant gorilla as a wonderfully sympathetic creature, and again pouring into the common lives of people. One of the greatest movies ever made. 1941-The Wolf Man, giving birth to the werewolf genre, and giving birth to Lon Chaney Sr. 1943-Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. The first real crossover monster film, giving thrills and spectacles. Creating the horror action movie. 1954-Godzilla. A film showing us why War is wrong, in the most in depth and darkest ways that could be allowed in the 50's. Straight from a country that experienced Hiroshima first hand, and only 9 years after the war ended.

Then, the second half of the century. 1960,1963&1968-Psycho, Dementia 13 and Night of the Living Dead. All independent films, all masterpieces. All breaking new ground for the horror genre. 1973-1975&1978-The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jaws and Halloween. Some of the greatest newer horror films, taking the ground that had been broken and breaking it some more so that everybody could have broken land! It showed that we want blood and screaming! We want psychotic plots and mind grinders in our horror! We want killers and sharks, no more dinosaurs!! 1979-Alien. Bringing back atmosphere to the genre, but mixing it with blood and screams, creating one he11 of a creeper. 1980-Friday the 13th. One of the greatest horror movies, and franchises, of all time. Creating endless possibilities in the word of scriptwriting. 1984-A Nightmare on Elm Street. Broke new ground in imagination, and really brought the dream world to it's best at the time. 1988-Child's Play. Really getting society chocked, going against child's dolls for all the wrong reasons.

By now, it had already been established that some of the best movies were from the Horror genre. But then came 1996-Scream. A movie meant to end the slasher genre, which it had every right to. But re-created the slasher genre, for all the wrong reasons. 1998&1999-The Last Broadcast and The Blair Witch Project. Keeping all the trash that came from the slasher genre in a separate place, these movies brought what should be the popular part of horror today. Horror Movies That Look Like Home Movies. Actually putting you in the situation, and scaring the holly $#!T outta you. 2002-Jason X. After this complete steroid shot of Friday the 13th, companies just banked on remaking the same film over and over and over.

Of course there is hope, what with Cloverfield, Freddy vs. Jason, Paranormal Activity and I've heard Devil. As well as James Duncan Rolfe's favorite horror film from the last decade, The Devil's Rejects. But now...the public majorly either goes to the movies rarely, or pirates. So TV is often a case now to show already made movies, or to make new ones. And this is what is come to be shown to the majority of horror fans? Sharktopus? As much as I love SyFy, as much as I love cheese, bad CGI, fake blood, cliches, cliffhangers, everything that makes a SyFy movie...its a disappointment. TV movies from the past were different, because it wasn't the same situation with financial difficulties. So don't try to justify it differently. It's too bad. The movie theaters, where real movie buffs go, are full of remakes. TV, where casual viewers go, is full of garbage. They just hope the number of dedicated film buffs decreases, and the public gets used to trash...

I could say how much I love how bad it is...but seeing this is my first review in around a month...I want to send a different message.

Sharktopus? Easily 3.5/5. The state of horror films today? 0.5/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Lake Placid 3 (2010)

A trilogy? Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla was no where as good as Gojira, but it was fun enough to make a duology. Then, some spin-offs. And those were meant to be rivals, try to create a new light on the opponent. But there was no MegaMechaGodzilla vs. Godzilla (1976)! I am sorry to report there is no trailer. I swear there were a ton on TV. Could those pirates just put there camera's to good use for once? Whatever case and point, it's time to get down to the nitty gritty. As you may be able to tell, Sci-Fi Channel is notorious for being the 50's of today. They also had WWE ECW, which was actually pretty good for a year or two. (Nothing like the original Extreme Championship Wrestling.) Once they changed to SyFy, WATER GO DOWN THE HOLE!!!!! You see, before their movies were cheesy but not horrid. Now, it's right on top of the fine line between horrid and extremely cheesy. But when SyFy changes to CyPHy, then not only water but cb@p go down the hole. Not saying they will, but if they do, there will be no hope.

I was able to enjoy this movie in it's crocodile scenes and original story idea, but D@M. The scripting is horrid, giving all the cliche's of an Asylum film. Extra Extra, not only was this released the day after Piranha 3-D, but also Asylum released Mega Piranha the day before, AND tons of Asylum films appear on SyFy, which means they hold a partnership. But here's the really interesting thing...SyFy is owned by Universal. Think about that. Lake Placid sort of in spirit went from 20th Century Fox to Universal, and became a SciFy product. Why? Universal could have done awesome things with it. Not to mention, why is Universal's movie material so good, yet as soon as Office goes away I say there is no good original television on any of there networks. And, Universal is a clear slate. In the 20TH CENTURY they pretty much had mostly awesome stuff. Now, look at a fierce number of horrid comedies, and you've got the idea. Pixar is the only big production company that has got a clean slate and the best material, and they are KIDS movies, and THEY HAVE TO SHARE FIFTY PERCENT WITH DISNEY!!!! WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!?!!?!?

Not to mention, now they are taking away 8 bucks per customer (4 bucks per Pixar customer) for the Blu-Ray, to every person who has bought a kids movie in the last months. At least on Amazon. DISNEY IS STEALING!!!! Pixar loses a lot of money, while Prince of Persia has no coupons. But WTF, I went on and ranted about Television networks and movie companies, when I should be ranting about how bad the movie is. Just shows you how much I have the professor voice. So onto Lake Placid 3. As the script includes all cliche's on an Asylum film, but that creates an environment that is unfriendly to a monster movie goer. It's extreme. It's the difference between Mtn. Dew and Spike. Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla VS. Lake Placid 3. I think we know who wins. In turn, with such an unfamiliar territory, it doesn't feel like a monster movie, it feels like Michigas. Yeah, I'm Jewish. BOOM!!!!!! YOU CANNOT BEAT JEWS!!!! No offense, but it's true. I won an awesome contest.

There I go rambling again. F'N-HE11.  Some people criticize The A-Team (2010) for having shaky camera work. DUDE. It's one thing to have a 12 year old kid trying out his new version of WMM. It's another thing to have Blair Witch shaky cam. But when you have BOTH....WELCOME TO THE MIND @#$%!!!!! DAVID IS NOT HERE!!!!!! Another BAD sign is that this is the first film in the series to use nudity. Because this is a television film, they were only allowed to show the shoulder and backs, but I swear they subliminally enter the thought of the boobs in the sky through the shots of our temptation. TEMPTATION I SAY!!!! Inception, Deception, Insertion, Termination, Destruction, no...IT'S TEMPTATION THAT IS DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!! Notice all the high caps sentences in this review.

From the first parts it grips you harder than any of the entrants. From 15 minutes and further, it lets you go all the way to Canada and back. And no consistency. 2.46/5

And as corporate as I sound, I really have nothing to say more about it. It really was so empty. I didn't just add those rants about Universal, SyFy, ECW, NBC, A-Team, Blair Witch, Godzilla, and all that crazy stuff just to make this review longer.

The Expendables (2010)

I've given a lot of recent movies as some of my favorites. A good amount of classics too. But not just me, but the people I personally know who grew up during the time of The Terminator and Rocky, call this...

[THIS REVIEW MIGHT HAVE MINOR TO MEDIUM SPOILERS.]

One of the greatest action movies they've ever seen. Back when I first read about this movie on Wikipedia, I thought this was going to be The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. I saw the first trailer in the theaters, it didn't give me the impression I hoped for, but it did deliver in the Hall of Fame way. When they finally started showing some action, I thought this was gonna be awesome. Then my friend said "you know, I've seen a lot of men, and a lot of explosions, but where's the plot? I mean, that's not the strong point of any action movie, but it hast to at least exist!" So I thought about it, and got worried. Both me and him had medium-low expectations, Ironically we saw this in the theater together.

No I am not telling you what my friends name is. So we go too see it, and it seems pretty cool. It's relate-able, just a bunch of people hanging' around doing stuff as...you get the picture. Just sitting around smoking, drinking, and drawing tattoos for Mickey Rourke. (Okay...I don't know why.) Then, Bruce Willis (I believe, could have been Jason Statham, I never can remember the two's faces,) is talking to Sylvester Stallone, when Arnold Schwarzenegger comes in the room. Now, seeing this on a TV screen or even a preview doesn't give you much adrenaline. But when you see them talk and even the line "he wants to be president," your balls get locked and loaded. (Don't take that too seriously, this is a man movie.)

That marked the key moment. Seeing Rocky Balboa and The Terminator in the same room made me go insane. But what made Chester A. Bum and My balls eat a wild boar was the second half in Brazil. BOOM!!! BOOOOM!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!

BOOOOOOOOMMMM

 

And this doesn't suffer from The A-Team's comedy relief. Instead, it gets you pumped with more meaningful action. Gazara (if that is how you spell his name,) played by a Chavo Guerrero wanna be has a wonderfully dark presence, unlike Chavo Guerrero. Each villain has a wonderfully dark presence, including STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN. So lemme give you a little: Boxer on Wrestler MEGA ACTION!!!! Yeah, let's just say Sly had to get a metal plate in his neck after the shooting of the film. That is all. And the things in here you might think are spoilers, are just hints. There's so much I am just DYING to talk about, but I am holding myself back hoping that you will go see this film. It is absolutely mind blowing! Seriously.

The action is great, the characters are great, the actors are pretty much a give away fantastic, the scripting is masterful, the explosions, stabbings and gunshots are crafted beautifully besides the CGI, and the pounding is spot on MAXIMUM ENTERTAINMENT KHAN!! With that said, I could go on and on, but it would spoil the film. With that said, have you ever heard of the man who must hike a boulder up a mountain forever? Yeah, this is a punishment that Hades gave a horrid man in the Greek readings. The man, whenever he would get half way, would always fall to the ground.

With that said, I feel this is similar to Action Movies these days. Whenever they get halfway to glory, they always ruin it by a token character, abandoning any plot, toning down the violence and getting it a PG-13 rating, too much $3X or Drama, you get the picture. No, this movie told Hades to go to He11!!! (Ironic.) THEY PUT IT ON AN R-RATING, THEY GOT ACTION AS CRAZY AS EVER, NO TOKEN CHARACTERS THAT REALLY STUCK OUT, THE DRAMA IS IN IT'S PLACE, BOOM!!!  Not to mention, the hype also did this and finally reached the mountain. Just getting all these actors is an impossible achievement in itself.

Although Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Dame, Charles Bronson, Jackie Chan, Mr. T, The Rock, and James Earle Jones would have also been nice. This movie is a feat of human trial and accomplishment. Go see this movie, one of the best action movies ever. The Rating? You might not get this from this review, but you will when you see the film, 6/5.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010) (Under Construction)

Don't judge the movie by the trailer.



I'm also going to give you a link to a video I think can sum up exactly why you won't be able to find this film very close to you/at many screenings. IDK, it was pretty close to where I was, but still not within my zip code. Credit for this vid goes to The Distressed Watcher/The Amazing Atheist. ttp://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/dw/skitches/27623-dw-5reasonswhyscottpilgrimflopped

And I'm going to give you the reasons why you SHOULD see this. And not just MY opinions, I'm going to say things from the point of view of Geeks, Nerds, Dorks, Dweebs, Academy Members, Socks, Greasers, Rejects, Goths, Emos, and Joucks in the most respectful way. (Because seriously, don't we all at least fit into one of those groups?) So let's go from my personal point of view first off. The only really bad thing for me was the characters, none of them were interesting. The main characters such as the 4 guys who live under the roof of Scott Pilgrim are cool, they keep the story flowing. Also Romona Flowers is also an interesting and dull character, just meant for eye candy and to keep the story flowing. There's nothing bad aboot having characters keep the story flowing, it's like filtering water. But I would like to have the characters be genuinely interesting (or for me to have a Brita filter.)

Some of the other characters, like Knives Ciao, are just freaking annoying. They are total stereotypes. Another example is the Lesbian character (don't...just don't...really, please don't.) She is stupid, R1+(hy, annoying and just another stereotype. Also, somewhat utilized as eye candy, but not even really that hot. The 7 evil exes weren't compelling either, but they at least fit their ideal. Lemme put it this way, have you ever though in a movie there would be super villains that were ex boyfriends? NO. I think they fit the role well, and some of the evil exes actually play excellently, but unfortunately, subtly. Now if only we got Angry Joe to fit the 8th evil ex. But that's my only real complaint. Some of the jokes are embarrassing, it's a love story, but actually a lot of the jokes should get you a good chuckle that you might but shouldn't feel embarrassed about. Don't be too manly, enjoy yourself, but don't laugh at the scene where the two guys are kissing in the bar (don't worry, I didn't spoil anything.)

But there are two things that make this movie: the epic nerdiness of epic nerdiness, AKA an epic epic of epicness, and the fight scenes. So many references, I probably didn't even get half of them AND STILL I felt this was the most nerdy movie of all time. (And that's a good thing.) Countless references from the tri-force, to Pac-Man's name, to Base Battle, to a video game style of text appearing whenever, give it an extremely nerdy feel. I think we all get the feeling that a video game movie will fail, because it either sucks as an adaptation or is way too much like a video game. But what about here, where it's appropriate to be like an Anime or a Video Game? IT FREAKING ROCKS. The fight scenes are epic. Now, they aren't long, I think it would be a lot for a director to ask the guy who stared in Juno to go Super Smash Brothers Brawl/Melee on us. But it freaking rocks. I don't know what to say, IT'S ANIME/VIDEO GAME FIGHTING IN A LIVE ACTION MOVIE!!!! GO SEE THIS GOD D@M IT!!!!

It's the greatest mix of four great flavors: epicness, awesomeness, nerdiness, and fawlcawn pawnchess. The ending, just brings the movie to a screeching hault. But I didn't care, it still holds a great solid rating. Not yet though, I think it's time to look into my soul for the things that every social group could love out of this film. Geeks and Nerds are very closely related, so I'll go them both. I think the thing that hits the nerdiness and geekiness of our soles is the references. If you didn't get Base Battle, you might not be a nerd/geek. A dork will appreciate how this film is fast paced and bright colored, along with paying tribute to the world around them, and not going completely out of reality, while STILL going more escapist than Star Wars. (That's a stretch, I apologize.) A dweeb will want to rant about how the movie was horribly marketed, and will tell you to go see it. (But that's the only thing he will do.

An Academy Member will enjoy the love story aspect, the cast, and the creative style of this film, going a new mile in film making, gearing towards a target audience of glasses wearing fat teenagers who play video games and have trouble walking (like me.) And I love myself. A sock (soc,) will appreciate how the film doesn't take place in the US, and instead ventures out to explore a culture that has a different view of life while still staying close the American citizen. (Canada, Toronto to be exact. The most American Canadian city in Canada in my opinion.) A greaser will appreciate that this film ventures from the usual adult tasks that lay at hand, and portray a young persons troubles while not creating stereotypes in the main characters. (Breakfast (Club)/(The) Outside(rs) Anyone?) Rejects feel a similar way to greaser, but instead of feel with all the children, feel with the main character of Scott Pilgrim. WHO IS IN DEFIANTLY A REJECT.

Salt (2010)

Just needs a little pepper. No joke, this is supposed to be a real analogy.

I'm just gonna tell you right now the reviews I do today will be shorter than usual. Well, Salt was advertised as "A Russian Spy 'someone is framing me'" extreme cliche. I love cliches, I love cheese, and if corn can be done right I love it. I watch Godzilla ALL THE TIME. (I promise there will be some Godzilla reviews by the end of October, most likely the original or G vs. Megagirus.) Well...even if I would spoil the movie for you, I don't think I would be able to. But I can tell you, they try there hands at some sort of a twist. But don't trust me, because this movie was very confusing.

And not the good confusing like Inception, more like the bad confusing, something that the more you pay attention the less you understand. Watch a few Nostalgic Critic episodes you'll understand. That's my main complaint, is that the whole movie is founded on a hole. No matter how much good stuff you put in the movie, no matter how much of it nor how good, WATER GO DOWN THE HOLE!!!! (Sorry, I just got finished watching Nostalgic Critic's Animaniacs tribute.) Now we talk about the action. Usually in a good action movie, all you need is jumping and explosions. In a great action movie, you get jumping, explosions and muscles. In a fantastic action movie, you get jumping, punching, explosions, muscles, guns, everything. In a MASTERPIECE, you have all that plus a fantastic plot to back it up. This...was mediocre. Jumping, that is it.

Now, aside from that, the real part where this movie makes up for all the faults 80% is in the characters. Why only 80? Because it doesn't make it better, it just off-sets. They are extremely well developed and have some cliched yet awesome and intriguing personalities. Just so fun to watch them talk and interact with the environment around them. And that makes the casting not only Angelina, but everybody in the cast and directing chairs extremely well performed. But a bad script is a bad script. The only thing about the directing I think could have been improved would be to step in and add a little more of the good stuff. The director has a lot of experience but not in the greatest stuff, so I think some constructive criticism could be useful.

Salt was very good, but it needed pepper. But again, the real reason to see this movie is the characters, I think if we buy a ticket to support anybody, it would be to support the actors. What a fantastic cast. But I don't think I'll buy it on Blu-Ray/DVD. 

Well, for the characters alone I would rate it 4.5, but because of it's faults, it draws it down ALL THE WAY to 3.4/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Inception (2010)

Time for me to RAMBO!!!! I mean ramble.

[THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW]

Now, it's not that people don't understand this movie. It's not that it's too intelligent. For me, I understood it perfectly. But the fact that there's so much going on at one point, makes it hard for people to understand exactly what's going on. Also, there is no clear transition between dreaming and real life. There is a lack of explanation as too what things look like. Basically, this movie doesn't spoon feed anything to you. 100% of all movies I've seen spoon feed at least one tiny little detail to you. This doesn't spoon feed anything. During the last half of the movie, there are things going on in reality, 3 layers of dream and 2 layers of limbo. All within one persons head.

Now, I think there's a reason for that. I think this movie was designed to make sense not to someone awake watching the movie in the theaters, but it would make sense to someone who is dreaming. It's meant to be like that it isn't actually, but it's a very clever idea. Why? One cliche in movies is that whatever seems supernatural you are using 100% of your brain instead of the 10% of usual. That doesn't really make sense to me. Wouldn't it be not all 100% but some sort of addition to the 10%? I mean, if we were using TEN TIMES what we usually use (and think about that that is a lot.) If we were, then things would be unbelievable, beyond our imagination.

And some things are beyond our imagination in dreams, which is why I'd say 60% of our brain capacity would be used during dreams logically. What this movie does beautifully is show how dreams work and how you can extract and insert information from it. Extraction, and Inception. I won't tell you, ah he11 I will. When your in a dream, you are in a state of pure imagination. Your brain can create whatever it wants, but in a dream, you are fully devoted to it. Unlike day dreaming, where you haft to put effort into keeping that state. So your brain creates and destroys so seamlessly, we aren't even aware.

So because of this effect, sometimes when we are confronted in our dreams, we can easily give away sub-concise thoughts about our life. Thus, we can extract ideas, thoughts and memories. But I'm not done. If you use a memory as a dream, than you can loose your sense of what is real and what is fake. This ties into the whole backstory of our star Leonardo DiCaprio and his widower. Back when Leo was first being trained, his wife was stuck in a dream world. Endless sleep. So Leo learned Inception, the idea of planting an idea in someones head, to give his wife the idea that this is dream and if you die you will go to reality.

He was able to go in her dream and have her run over a train. Thus, she is awoken. But that's just the beginning of his turmoil. The idea grew like cancer, a virus. He learns that ideas are the most harmful parasite of all. She starts to think that the true reality is a dream, and that if she dies she will wake up to see her true kids. This ties into the end of the movie, in which she might have even been right. So she jumps out the window of a 25 story building, Leo has a terrible acting sequence on where he cries, and so on. In the end, Leo is in the deeper layer of limbo, where he witnesses and confronts his perception of his wife. He ends up learning that this is only a perception, a mere shadow of his true wife. The perception then stabs Leo, and the stuff that happens from there kinda got confusing.

But in the end, he finally makes it too his kids. Now here's some more information for you: apparently, Leo holds a top/spinner that used to be his wife. If it drops, he is in the real world. If it stays spinning forever, he is dreaming. In the end, he comes to his kids and godfather, and spins the top. But he gets distracted. So the top keeps spinning, and it kind of starts to drop, but before we can see it actually drop the credits roll. (And Batman rides the Batmobie out of the screen.) So we're left with a cliffhanger. Now here's the really scary part. What if he's been in a dream ever since he started Inception and Extraction? What if he never left? This would be backed up by the fact that in the movie, you can both feel, and it feels real.

And since there can be multiple layers of dreaming, he could have obviously been in the dream ever since he started his career. Some people say that the top dropped in the movie, but I don't ever remember it actually dropping in the movie. (My God, THIS IS JUST AS GOOD AS CLOVERFIELD!!!!) And I will explain why a little later. So, his wife could have been right all along, and that SHE WAS IN A DREAM, AND SO WAS LEO! In fact, EVERYBODY IS. This whole movie is left for people to interpret, just like Cloverfield!!! Not only that, but there was a massive teaser trailer that served as the main trailer for a very long time. So there was a lot of speculation. Also, the trailer didn't reveal much even the longest of them.

And, Inception has left us with tons and tons of speculation!!!! This is Just like Cloverfield!!! For half a year, YouTube was dominated with speculation as too what the monster looked like. The movie was absolutely awesome (just like Inception,) and in the end, we still didn't know what the monster was. So now, to this day, people speculate as too what it is. TO THIS DAY. And Inception has created that as well. Only this time, it uses very separated ideas for two timelines of speculation, instead of J.J. using the monster both times as the symbol of speculation. But, Cloverfield did keep my attention along with it being intelligent. Cloverfield didn't slow down to let the thoughts and emotions go along, Cloverfield (like Night of the Living Dead,) had both at the same time!

So Cloverfield ranks as my favorite movie, but this ranks Second! SECOND PEOPLE! THAT'S INCREDIBLE!!!! Christopher Nolan both wrote and directed this movie, PROPS TO HIM. It took one hell of a genius to write this thing, I mean, from Dark Knight to this. I know Dark Knight was awesome and wonderfully wrote, BUT THIS!!! THIS IS LITERALLY LIKE WRITING SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM!!! IT'S FREAKING IMPOSSIBLE!!! I see a lot of people saying the action is very good, and I do haft to agree that what is there is great, but there isn't much action. I do haft to say, that even though it's not really an "Iron Man 2" movie, it still slows down way more than it needs too. This even makes the following of the ideas, the thing that slowing down is supposed to help, go down.

When I saw the first few seconds of the first trailer I saw, I thought this might be Alien Eight. But then, I saw the title Inception, and realized I was a dumb@$$. Slow Motion is used a lot in this film, and it almost becomes annoying. The drama in this movie is spectacular and well done! Shawshank Redemption style drama, only not in such an extreme setting. This movie is intelligent, visually entertaining, dramatic extremely, and creates a never ending movie that both Cloverfield and Night of the Living Dead also created. It's my second favorite movie, with Cloverfield ranking first and Night o/t Living Dead ranking third. 

The Rating? At first, I thought I was gonna say ? !. For the rating, but now that I've processed it through my head, it deserves the platinum award, 6/5!!!

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

Extremely Adequate.

I don't have much to say about it. I really don't. But I'll dive into the DEEPEST RECESS OF MY SOLE!!!!!!!!! Okay, Nicotine Cage in every movie that I've seen him in has done a good job. He is, well, Nicotine Cage. Wadda I gotta say? Until this movie comes out. Read my Leprechaun review (or listen to Cinemassacre's review,) the movie is horrid but the Leprechaun himself is freaking awesome. He brings enough light into a bad movie to make it a legendary selection among all horror cinema. 80's and 90's horror cinema that is. Really, 90's. Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man, Godzilla, King Kong, The Creature From the Black Lagoon, Halloween, all these Leprechaun doesn't hold a candle too. But it has it's place among films like Saw, Child's Play, Drag Me to Hell and so on. 

And how does that relate to Nicotine Cage? The Sorcerer's Apprentice is really bad but has Nicotine Cage. Nicotine Cage plays fantastic! He is the best actor in this movie, and frankly, just a wonderful human being to lay your eyes upon. (Not sexually...) You get my point. He is an amazing actor in this film, better than most of his films, and he makes the movie far from unbearable. The scenes without him, are. The apprentice has slow but good development, but as a character on his own he just lacks anything and everything. He is the most stereotyped nerd that I have ever seen. I swear there is two voices: one for his nerdom and one for his apprenticeness. And really, may I say, the apprentice is more of a geek than anything.

Speaking of stereotypes. SONG OF THE SOUTH. Must I say more? A movie that has been personally banned by the Walt Disney Company because of fear of racism. Racist movies like Gone With the Wind are allowed in society, so is King Kong, Peter Pan ans so on. But Song of the South raised the bar so high IT'S OWN COMPANY PULLED IT. Okay, THAT'S ONE OUT OF...200!!!! Granted not all the Disney movies have those stereotypes, but nearly all of them do. You know why from 1991-late 2010 we saw no white princess? Not because they're not trying to be racist NO, because they ARE TRYING TO BE RACIST. And they fool you by having the media cover them!!!!! @#$%ing he11. What does that have to do with this movie? May I also point out Phantom Menace, that had racist stereotypes for Asians, Jew's (proving Lucas is not one,) and African-Americans. AND HE WROTE THE D@M MOVIE!!!

My point is this. There are 3 black people in this movie. They all represent a stereotype: Number A. We see the apprentices best friend, HE GETS DRUNK GETS LAID AND FAILS CLASSES. Exhibit 2. We see a guy trying to STEAL MONEY AND JEWELRY FROM THE APPRENTICES WHITE AND BLONDE CRUSH. Exhibit 6 minus 3. We see an African-American girl having a date with the apprentices best friend, READ MY NUMBER A STATEMENT. SHE IS A \/\/H0R3. For those arguing "the China Town scene, is that racist?" Well, yes and no. There's no stereotypes built into it, but my anger comes from this. There's usually people inside those big paper dragons that go around the street right? Well, it turns into a real dragon and the people get eaten.

UNLESS IT'S A COMEDY, YOU DON'T KILL OR EVEN HURT SOMEONE UNLESS THEY HAVE IT COMING TO THEM. THE PEOPLE IN THAT PAPER DRAGON WERE INNOCENT. I know this helps the plot, and if they didn't show it people would be screaming for them to, but just cut the scene altogether! It adds little to the film and only serves the purpose of saying "hey kids, kill Asians!!!" @#$% it, Walt obviously told Roy "brother...please...after I die...make sure all of our future employees follow the ideas of Hitler." And Roy lived for 4 years after his brother. THAN WHAT HAPPENS? "Son...Junior...please...after I die...make sure my brothers wish lives on." WILL THE NOSTALGIC CRITIC/DISTRESSED VIEWER/CINEMASSACRE/IRATE GAMER/ZARANYZERAK/ROGER EBERT/SOMEBODY RANT ABOUT DISNEY!!!!

And Roy's son lived up until LAST YEAR. Anybody who watched the last Academy Awards knows that. Thank God nobody else related to Disney is in the business, but the people who were with Roy still remember him and carry on the tradition. My kids or maybe even grandchildren have only a slight chance of not growing up with racist stereotypes in their head. Most people in the company adore the 3 big Disneys, and if my statement is true, that the two Roys carried the legacy of Walt's racism, then it'll be a long, long time. Fortunately there is some hope with Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey. Also MLK being taught as extensively as possible in my local schools. But kids care about movies at a young age, THEY DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT POLITICS. All my friends (as I am young,) are completely running stereotypes and they don't even know it.

That said, I do love Disney, but the racism in it is INEXCUSABLE!!! Okay, the white blond girlfriend is just as you expect, another disgusting role model for young girls. HAVE YOU SEEN MY SISTER? No, of course you haven't, but that gives you an idea of how I know Disney started being lazy ever since Pixar came along. Or I should not say that, as I love Dinosaur, Hercules, Tarzan, Fantasia 2000, and Pocahontas. Even though they have the stereotypes. No, it was after the Millennium Doomsday theory. After that, corporations, especially Disney, started becoming extremely conservative and only caring about money. Because that was when it came to them that someday the world will end. WHAT A LOAD OF BULL$#!T

Don't get me wrong Brother Bear and Princess N' The Frog were great, but Lilo and Stich? Emperor's New Groove? Bolt? Home on the Range? Tangled? Meet the Robinsons? Chicken Little? BLAUGH! Okay, I've gone through THREE CHARACTERS and already told why Disney is not the best studio ever. AND NEVER WILL BE. Actually, that's an overstatement, but it's 10:30. The plot was...the plot...as cliched as it can get. The other characters were...the other characters...as cliched as it can get. You know, I'm a guy who loves and adores cliche and cheese, but this film just didn't do it. The CGI was great, very detailed, but I felt all special effects could have been done with Star Wars like technology and animatronics. I'll be honest, I'll find any way to get rid of CGI.

It was all shot in the dark, but it didn't have a dark edge like Dark Knight (dark...dark...dark...in French translates to Black.) It was just...in the dark. Why? WHY? It obviously was not going for a dark tone, SO WHY THE NIGHT? HUMANS LIVE IN THE DAYLIGHT!!! WE HAVE EYES BUILT FOR SEEING WITH LIGHT!!!! 

Besides that, there wasn't much. Nicotine Cage and CGI were the only good things, and obviously the selling point of this film. The Rating? Thumbs Down. 1.8/5. Why not 2/5 and be merciful? Because as far as I know, it's not being overrated. I have to see Inception to see if a film released in July has achieved that status yet.

DinoCroc VS. SuperGator (2010)

The ultimate mix of Jurassic Park, Alien vs. Predator and SyFy Channel!!! Would be good right?

So, I know what your thinking. Wouldn't this be absolutely perfect for me? Wouldn't I just send this one to my favorites? Well, no. See, a SyFy Channel Works on it's own. A Jurassic Park movie works on its own. A crossover movie works on its own. But together, all three interfere with each other. The usual plot holes in a SyFy movie were multiplied by 10, (maybe even 9000!) I can handle a few plot holes, but that was ridiculous. It was just painful at times to watch. Now, the actors in a usual SyFy movie don't do as great in a hollywood movie. But, the difference here, is that, in a usual SyFy RHI movie, they usually try to show some emotion. Here, it's just bland. They're reading it off the script. Only the Arnold Schwarzenegger look alike has any good emotions. You do gotta hate the girl who turns on the group but, she still isn't the best. Needless to say, SyFy has lost some budget.

Speaking of loosing Budget, I swear the ratio of commercials was Movie 7:12 Commercials. Utterly disgusting what they've come to today. And, you realize SyFy is owned by Universal/NBC? You guys do don't you? So is USA, NBC, Universal, the list goes on and on. There's tons. However, they seem to be giving absolutely no budget to SyFy, because Sci-Fi is underrated and underviewed. So, in turn, the employees must live off commercials. My last complaint, is with the dinosaurs themselves. (Slammer, if you're reading this it gets better.) The two animals were not the best choice to have a fight. I guess they were just the craziest mutants on SyFy channel. They move way, way to slow. They can't attack each other in a real fight. One's bipedal and one is quadrupedal. Couldn't we see something as tall as a DinoCroc and still have agility to fight him? A Boa (from Boa vs. Python?)

Now, who would fight the SuperGator? Easy! Sharks in Venice anybody? Or...no...dude! This would have been a much better solution to all their problems: DinoSHARK VS. SuperGator! Now that would have been way crazier. Alright, enough ranting, let's get on to the good stuff. The monsters themselves, when attacking humans, are flipping amazingly entertaining. The first part, is like in all these movies, the CGI is 100% synthetic. It just adds to the entertainment. But, that's only with the way that the guy moves here. In the movie, they actually look very improved compared to some other CGI. The design is great, looks like...A DINOSAUR! Or a Crocodile in a case. Now, because of the way they move, it's very fun. However, they also sneak attack with no warning. Super Scary if you're alert.

Which brings me to another shark, Jaws! *hint hint wink wink elbow elbow shoulder shoulder skim skim bob bob joe joe.* Steven Spielberg was a genius in plot and monster choice, blood effects, and many other aspects. Especially in casting John Williams as the music composer. Nowadays, we can't imagine Jaws without that signature music. But, if there was no music, and there was no 1st-Shark-Eye-Views from the camera, maybe, it would have been a lot scarier. But, it was also 1975...*Mr. Twister slaps Ca$hman in the face* "DUDE, DID YOU FORGET THE EXORCIST AND HALLOWEEN?* Oh yes, The Exorcist and Halloween. My point is, they actually did something better then Steven Spielberg *BOO'S FROM THE AUDIENCE* Okay, okay, that was too far. My point is, there was no warning, and it happened too the people you wanted to see get killed the most at the perfect time.

The jungle setting is a little too Jurassic Park, but it feels natural. The girls are good looking, of course. There is blood, which I enjoyed until they shot the SuperGator's eye out. To an animal? Are you guys kidding me?  All in all, not nearly as good as the other SyFy channel productions. But, pretty sweet none the less. It sort of balances out between good and bad, but most SyFy channel productions are just overall.

The Rating? A good 3.1/5

Grown-Ups (2010)

I notice that I sometimes review movies and do news articles on movies that mirror themselves none. ME HAVE BAD GRAMMAR YES!

Ugh myself. That's right, UGH MYSELF! You probably will find yourself laughing. Why? BECAUSE WERE OUT OF GAS (Very badly done Spaceballs reference.)  No, here's why. They had great build-up to the jokes. Light heart-ed but themed music. The right characters. The right lines that made you angry. Just everything felt right in the introduction of the jokes. The jokes themselves? Well, basically you were forced to laugh at them. In reality, they are extremely dull, cliche and inappropriate. You've got a 4 year old drinking milk out of a mom's breast. Worst, Kernal Sandler makes the joke "Cookies and Milf." Disgusting atrocious embarrassing derogatory pieces of bloody $#!T! That's right, BLOODY $#!T! And unlike Fury of the Film Fan's experience with a terrible movie this weak, the theater wasn't even cool! I was wanting to go in the water that was featured in the film.

What a perverted piece of crap, both male and female @$$ is shown extensively in this. You've got 6 year old's peaking through the windows too look at naked girls in the window. What a load of @#$%! You've got breast milk going everywhere. As I said it is derogatory, it just plays out the word ugly to it's fullest extent. It just horribly takes everyone who has any faults and makes them look like @#$%ing OGRES! There is nothing I can say good about this movie. What a counterfeit subliminal-feelings perverted Hollywood BULLCRAP! I advise anybody who knows what's up to not see it. It is just a *AVGN THEME SONG*Horrible abomination of mankind*AVGN THEME SONG* (he's the angriest gamer you've ever heard, he's the angry Nintendo nerd, he's the angry Atari SEGA nerd, he's the angry video game nerd!!!!) 

Just awful, this movie is. Let's not forget the storyline. Extremely cliche. Am I watching an adult comedy or Disney Channel? It's just complete awfulness. I hate it so much! I HATE IT! It's just completely insulting! What a load of crap! I can't think of one moment in this movie where it doesn't pick on a group of people that is hated by society, weather it be disabled, weird, fat, black, nerdy, spoiled! It's just all disgusting. I can't think of ONE thing good about this movie...and you know what that means...

The Rating?.......*GIANT DRUM ROLL!* For the first time in Da Ca$hman history, I have reviewed a movie, that is,

 

0/5 What the @#$%

 

Toy Story 3 (2010)

THAT WAS A @#$%ING MASTERPIECE!!!!!

You know I love the first two Toy Stories. This movie, had balls. Lemme repeat that for you: A G RATED MOVIE HAD BALLS. Again: A G RATED MOVIE HAD MORE BALLS THAN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN. And one more time: A @#$%ING KIDS PIXAR TOY STORY MOVIE THIRD IN THE SERIES G RATED HAD MORE BALLS THAN THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. *Boos from the audience* okay, okay that was too far. *Actual Boos [Super Mario Bros.] From the Audience.* Woah, woah guys. stop...hey...stop...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But due to the fact I have had to recover from surgery for the last few weeks I'm not able to give an accurrate review. So, lemme say it like this. Everything about the original Toy Stories was enhanced extremely, including both good and bad. But, they were smart. Pixar was that is. They put all the negatives all out in the trailer, so that we would know what to expect out of the negatives. The positives, were absolutely astonishing! As I said, everything from the first two has been greatly enhanced. But there were two things that surprised me: A. Where Andy Lives.

123 Elm Street. Any grown movie fan will immediately recognize what that means.

Now let's talk about the Climax. That COULD have been the best climax in all of history. [SPOILERS.] They were about to take the classic childhood characters that we knew and loved and killed them off. That would have had more balls than @#$%ing Dead Alive! But of course, because it is a kids movie, G Rated, they obviously couldn't do that or get sued up the @$$. But that scene definably reached it's ABSOLUTE FULL POTENTIAL. That was the scene that I have always wanted out of a movie. I'm not psycho, I just want some guts. The emotion that was drawn from that scene will always remain in my heart.

And here's the REALLY gut-wrenching part. That happens to so many toys. So in the Toy Story universe, that kind of emotion and tragedy among scales of many men happens regularly. Now, If I told you the Jews were killed regularly during WW2, you'd say "Yes I know." But Pixar was able to make us more aware of the world by re-constructing the idea into something that were much more personally chained to. The reality of it is: we know a lot more about talking toys than we do about German Jews. 

This movie isn't perfect, but anything that makes it so is made up for in the best movie scene of all time. There's tons of other reasons to go, mostly seen in other peoples reviews and the first two, but that's the BIG THING that makes it more than a movie. I rate it, 6/5!

Jonah Hex (2010)

Western-Romance-Horror-Action-SciFi-Patriotic-War-Drama-Paranormal-Religious-ComicBook movie. WE JUST SET A WORLD RECORD! JONAH HEX BEAT PREDATOR! *BOO'S FROM THE AUDIENCE* okay...okay...that was too far.

So. aside from the ELEVEN genres this movie encompasses, I think we need one more word that describes this movie. HIT IT DC AND MAHONEY!*Singing from singers*I've got big balls, she's got big balls, he's got big balls, they've got big balls, dirty big balls, dirty big balls, BUT THIS GOT THE BIGGEST, BALLS OF THEM ALL!*ending singing from singers.* Needless to say, this movie had balls. I know that's not exactly the nicest way of saying it, so let me put it this way. Legendary Pictures is NOT afraid of making their movies more extreme (and I thought I knew that from The Dark Knight.) This movie accomplished some of the most gruesome stuff ever seen in a FLIPPING PG-13 MOVIE! Wasn't GODZILLA PG-13? This, was flipping nerve racking. I mean, a crow crawls up from Jonah's stomach out his throat. Pure  eb asjsk ;ie a;oshir ao;neisg aboad *SYSTEM WILL SELF DESTRUCT FROM TOTAL ANNIHALITION DUE TO CORRUPTION IN 3...2...1...*

I've had a lot of imaginary special guests haven't I? AC/DC. Balls Mahoney AND The Mothership. Don't worry guys, this isn't all completely disturbing (well...yes...yes it is.) But, it still has the shoot em' up cowboy, deserts and explosions that we all come to love from Action movies. Honestly though, I thought they had too much killing. They Shot the Sherrif! *Singing from a non-singer imitating a Bob Marley imitator*Hex shot the sheriff...but he did not shoot the deputy...*ending singing.* No, wait, yes he did. In fact, he probably did more damage then the villains themselves. I guess that's kind of an over statement but...man. Oh? The thought provoking stuff? There's a scene in Limbo where...stuff happens. Awesome stuff happens.

Now, the movie does have it's problems of moving at an unnatural pace. And of course, the Native Peoples are white actors. Welll...sort of. They're more white than actual Native Peoples. And by saying Native Peoples I am not being racist, it's probably the most Politically Correct thing to say when describe what other people know as " Native Americans, American-Indians, Indians, BLEEP." Other than that, you pretty much got what this movie is about. I recommend, if your a weak heart-ed, don't see it. There's a scene where Jonah's chest is punched in by Native Peoples and then Hot Water is poured down to revive him from the grave. I guess it's an ancient remedy but...man.

And of course, there's a ton about He11 in here as well. As I said it is probably more religious than most movies go these days.

I was glad I saw it, but definably don't let the kiddies watch it. The Rating? 4.4/5

The A-Team (2010)

I pity the fool who tries to impersonate Mr. T if it weren't for the fact that THERE WERE 5 MILLION FREAKING IMITATORS WHEN HE WAS POPULAR! GET OVER IT YOU HARDCORE T ENTHUSIASTIC S! HE'S JUST ONE GUY OUT OF 1/6TH OF THE POPULATION!

Read the statement above alone and you'll probably be offended. Read the next stuff and you wont. I'm not saying though, that Rampage Jackson did a good job. It seemed like in MMA, he had some similar looks to Mr. T. The studio wanted a guy who looked like him but did not actually imitate him. Okay, cool! Now what? Well, something does happen. Rampage Jackson gets it in his head he needs to imitate Mr. T because he was chosen for the part. The director obviously did not tell him that he was supposed to create his own T-ish atmosphere, and not really imitate Mr. T. Well, he didn't. Rampage Jackson, with no experience, actually does try to imitate Mr. T. Instead, he ends up as a mix between Mr. T, Booker T, and racial stereotypes.

With that said, the ONLY other complaint I had with this movie was the comedy. First off, G-D! If it's not a comedy, DON'T PUT IN COMEDY! Imagine if you had fight scenes in Titanic! Imagine if you had gore in The Three Stooges. Imagine if you had fight scenes in Earth! Things don't mix, and almost everybody in Hollywood understands that except for Action Comedy! Ever since Ghostbusters! D@m! People always have to have Comedy in Action, use common sense Hollywood! FOR ONCE IN YOUR CAREER! Now, where it strikes here is hit or miss. I don't like it when there is a ton of comedy, but half of it worked well here. The other half, brought some of the best scenes in the movie to a screeching halt.

Now, with those two issues out of the way, I can start praising the movie like I should. This...was flipping fantastic. No, was @#$%ing fantastic!!!!!!!! I mean! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! THEY'RE FLYING IN A TANK! THEY'RE @#$%ING FLYING IN A TANK! I said Hyper-Action in Iron Man 2? @#$%, this movie makes Iron Man 2 look like a stereotypical Robin Hood! I mean holly $#!T! This was off the charts! IT WAS LIKE!!!! BOOM!!!! BOOM!!!! BOOM!!!! BOOOOOOM!!!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! 

 

 

With that said, it wasn't all action. I define a perfect action movie was one with tons of awesome action, and a plot that is used not too sparingly but used sparingly enough to not make it a drama. It must also be very fun to follow the story, as it is interesting. Man! They just pulled no punches in this film! Oh, and I haven't seen the TV show so, please don't harass me. There are some other complains, but they are minor. Like, some of the sound was disgusting. When ever sand is coming from the speakers (which it does a lot) it just feels like I have sand in my thumb! SAND IN MY THUMB PEOPLE!!!!!! Some characters are token, and some stuff does occur, but I'm a fan of the fun. I don't take movies THAT seriously, though I don't love every movie.

The Rating? IT'S PERFECT SIX OUT OF FIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiivvveee Not so fast...4.8/5

The Karate Kid (2010)

Might not be as great as the first one, but D@m, did they try real hard at a great movie.

So, this movie has it's ups and downs. First off, they couldn't stick with the names Miyagi and Daniel. Okay, so now the mentor is Chinese (more on that later,) but the kid is still American, why Dre? Why not Daniel? It just seems that they were trying to make their movie stand alone. But at the same time, play with the details we've come to know and love (would you like your car waxed on, or waxed off?) Well, they succeeded, with 70% going to Stand Alone, 20% going to playing with details, and 10% going to sticking with the original script. (You ready?!?!?! LEGO'S!!!!!! This is 10% duck, 20% krill, 15% concentrated juices to fill, 5% cheddar, 50% Cane, and 100% reason to eat it again!) Speaking of such, this movie also had a great score. Both original songs and some familiar ones, some of the familiar not so great, but one in particular was spectacular. (I have the Air Conditioning on Dude! Cheese, the room is Pitch Black! I'll be Back in a minute!) Yeah, needless to say it's 10:30 P.M. on a Wednesday night.

I don't like the idea of coming to China as part of the script. How bout Japan if they wanted some foreign country with a language no American can speak? How bout Japan, because Miyagi was Japanese!!!! Nope, gotta be EXTREMELY Typical. Gotta just make everyone a stereotype. Gotta make it Kung Fu in China. Instead of Karate in Japan, like IT SHOULD BE!!!! The only thing non-stereotypical about this is the new Miyagi, Mr. Han (which is Mr. Chan-C.) His accent is more real then a lot of other faces and accents. But, his one liners! Nowhere near the stuff of the original! (YOUR FOCUS NEEDS MORE FOCUS?!?!!? @#$%!) Also, his last name is such a stereotype (Han? For real? The only time it's used outside Chinese stereotyping is Star Wars....) Now you must hear me do STAR WARS!!!! THIS IS A STAR WARS!!!! WE ALL LOVE...STAR WARS!!! A WAR IN THE STARS!!!! 

The only thing I think they got better than the original was Mr. Han's history. (Try saying that 10 times fast.) He gets drunk and cries and breaks down at one scene, because it is the anniversary of...well...I won't spoil it for you, but it's a scene extremely well done. I haven't even told you what I thought this was a mix of. Take The original Karate Kid, The Karate Kid Part II, The Next Karate Kid, (No, I'm sure not part III because even though I haven't seen it I know enough of it,) Clash of the Titans (2010), a juicy New York Stake and a rotten tomato (sign) and put it in a blender. All force it down an audiences throat with a little pop culture music on the side. The girlfriend is done typically in half the time, but the other half you REALLY like her character, and not in an innuendo way. She is just an awesome personality. Of course, she plays violin (and I say that because of King of the Hill, not because of any other stuff.) But, it works out in favor for the movie, because she's awesome at it.

Now, onto the bad guys. Well, Dre's one good male friend (of course, an American White Blonde...THIS IS CHINA!!!!) Looks more like the bad guys of the original, and the bad guys (besides being Chinese) look more like the old Daniel. Well, Dre is a totally new look for a child star. You notice that a lot of 80's movies with child actors don't have African-American child actors? Ah well, I'm getting on my political high horse again. (Which is more like a Zebra than any other horse, and not just because of the stripes.) Now I'm hungry for stripes Gum!!!! Okay, get on track Ca$hman. This movie was able to immerse yourself in multiple ways, made you feel like you were part of the experience. Better than any 3-D movie in recent years. You see, it's not physical but mental Hollywood! The settings and props were pretty great looking as for what they had to work with. You know, I can see the director and producer held no punches making this movie, but the writer and editor maybe had a beef with Director and Producer.

All in all, definably worth a watch in theaters. Don't get too excited, because, like the original, it works against you. I rate it, 3.5678124982/5

Invictus (2009)

I didn't absolutely LOVE it, but I didn't dislike it either. I thought it was really good.

Well, this movie does its job right. It both raises awareness of...something. It also tells us...something. Okay, lemme just say, I did not like this nearly as much as The Shawshank Redemption. I think this movie did it's job at telling a story (based off a book based off true events...seriously people.) It also does its job of...well...telling a story. I mean, there's not too much I can say about this movie. It just is good, real good at some parts. It does get confusing, I wasn't liking it for a substantial amount of time. However, I realized what the message was...it's just not within the idea of text or talking. Since this movie is based off true events, there's not much more I can say. Morgan Freeman is awesome!

The Rating?.... 3.6+--

High Plains Invaders (2009)

Another Syfy flick. Awesome.

Well, as you may know, I don't always find SyFy Channel/RHI Flicks to be the same all the time. First off, this movie is very awesome on the visuals-non-CGI. It has a great amount of gore (so I wouldn't recommend it for the kiddies,) and the scenery...I don't know what it is about it, it's just great. Of course time line mistakes are made, for instance, this takes place in Colorado but 14 years before Colorado became a state. Thus, they wouldn't have called it a state or talked about other states as if Colorado was a state. 

Character development is fair at best, and most probably poor. The only good character development is with the main female role of the national bounty hunter. She has some great character development. The fair character development comes in with the main male character of an escaped jail mate and the wife of the first victim. The others have either long but poor character development, or just have one scene of great character development. You cant serve a kid half a slice of pie unless that slice of pie is the size of Texas. And believe me, some slices of pie have been the size of Texas as far as movies go.

Another timeline mistake is when they mention Jules Verne. Enough said, it takes place in 1862, his first publication was in 1863, and that took 6 years to translate to the U.S. However, I see the importance of mentioning a father of science-fiction, and I guess Jules is a prime target. This movie has a great premise, with a good script better than some SyFy movies I've seen. In fact, I have no problem with the script besides Character Development. What I have a problem with is the acting, they act like they're in a horror movie, when they're in a Horror-Sci-Fi-Action movie, and you can easily replace the Horror part with either Suspense or Gore-fest.

Now, we all know that SyFy and RHI are known targets for having bad CGI. Well, yes, pretty much. But I'm so used to seeing that in a SyFy movie it just makes me happy too see the effects sped up yet less quality for the impatient usual TV watcher. You notice the more life like something is, the more slow it can appear. Here, since it isn't life like as nearly much as some other movies, it appears fast. However, this is way better CGI than some movies like Dino Shark. The pacing is good in the first half and poir (a combination of poor and fair no accidental intentions Mr. Twister,) in the second half. I'd say, it takes the usual SyFy/RHI movie, and gives some to some aspects while it takes away from other aspects.

All in all, if you like SyFy movies, give it a watch. The Rating? 3.45/5

The Angry Video Game Nerd vs. The Nostalgic Critic Trilogy (2008-2010) (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

 ...Do I need to say anything? Do I REALLY NEED TO SAY ANYTHING? Obviously I do. I'm doing this review. If you don't know who The Angry Video Game Nerd is, lemme inform you.

He's gonna take you back to the past.

To play some $#!TTY games that Suck @$$.

He'd rather have a buffalo take a diarrhea dump in his ear. 

He'd rather eat the rotten @$$hole of a roadkill skunk and drown it with beer.

He's the angriest gamer you've ever heard.

He's the angry Nintendo nerd.

He's the angry Atari Sega nerd.

He's the Angry Video Game Nerd.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

When you turn on your TV

Make sure it's turned to Channel 3

He's got a nerdy shirt

And a pocket pouch

Although I've never seen him write anything down

He's got a PowerGlove

And a Filthy Mouth

Armed with his (something) he'll tear these games down

He's the angriest gamer you've ever heard

He's the angry Nintendo nerd

He's the angry Atari Sega nerd

He's the Angry Video Game Nerd

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

He plays the worst games of all-time

Horrible abominations of mankind

They make him so mad he could spit

Or say cowabunga. Cowa@#$%ing piece of dog $#!T.

They rip you off and don't care one bit.

But this nerd he doesn't forget it

Why can't a turtle swim?

Why can't I land a plane?

They got a quick buck for this $#!T load of @#$%!

The characters names are wrong

Why is the password so long?

Why don't the weapons do anything?

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

He's the angriest gamer you've ever heard.

The games suck so bad he makes up his own words.

He's the angriest most pi$$ed off gaming nerd.

He's the angry Atari Amiga CD-I ColecoVision IntelliVision Sega Neo-Geo TurboGraphic 16 Odyssey 3-D0 Commodore 64 Nintendo Nerd......

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

He's the angriest gamer you've ever heard

He's the angry Nintendo nerd

He's the angry Atari Sega nerd

He's the Angry Video Game Nerd

He's the angriest gamer you've ever heard

He's the angry Nintendo nerd

He's the angry Atari Sega nerd

He's the Angry Video Game Nerd

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

END.

If you don't know who The Nostalgic Critic is, here's your introduction. "Hello, I'm the Nostalgic Critic, I remember it so YOU don't haft to." ...And that's it. They both do a very similar style of review. They both swear, they both on occasion have stories involving their reviews, they don't give ratings, they dress up in costumes (not to over-the-top,) and they both review stuff that is at least a decade old. But the older the better. So, what's the difference. NC reviews movies, AVGN reviews games. So naturally, one fan base would eventually call out the opposite reviewer on being a rip-off. This ended up being the beginning of a war.

It chronicles through these videos, and I'm not posting them here because James and Doug both collect ad revenue from the videos.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/161-angry-video-game-nerd-rant

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/162-angry-video-game-nerd-rant-part-2


http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/207-avgn-wizard-rant

http://screwattack.com/videos/AVGN-Super-Mario-Bros-3

http://www.cinemassacre.com/2008/06/12/avgn-first-response-to-nostalgia-critic/

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/386-avgn-response-response

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/529-the-battle-of-epic-proportions

http://www.cinemassacre.com/2008/07/28/ricky-1-review/


http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/994-video-game-review

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/1810-nc-vs-avgn-last-showdown

http://www.cinemassacre.com/2008/10/10/avgn-vs-nostalgia-critic-the-final-battle/

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/2236-nc-vs-avgn-retrospect

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/2064-off-to-beat-the-nerd

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/2236-nc-vs-avgn-retrospect

So that's part one. The epic saga of AVGN vs. NC. As you might be able to tell from all the posters that were made, and the epicness they were, it was THE most epic thing that ever happened on the internet. It was legendary. It shook both the gaming community, and the film community. It shook the very foundation of the internet. People went crazy. But it's importance isn't just what matters. It's also it's epicness. The story was awesome, but it wasn't AWESOME. The fight was AWESOME. But it wasn't UBER AWESOME. Something was missing. But it was still as epic as he11, and we realized these aren't the 20 million dollar budget producers, and that what we got was 1000 times what we should have got, and 100,000 times better than what we deserve.

But Doug Walker was always one to feed to the fans. So is James Rolfe. And Doug still is. But unfortunately, only so much was done, because again, only so much of a budget. It was the dream battle, but Doug wanted to parody it himself. So here is is sketch as Chester A. Bum reviewing the Final Battle.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/2119-avgn-vs-nc-final-battle

What CAB parodied was the comedic relief and ending. It was supposed to be there, but it wasn't exactly the right balance. It was 5.5/5, but it wasn't 6/5.

But then this happened. After a long period of request after request.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/6719-1-year-anniversary-video

Lake Placid 2 (2007)

How did they get John Schneider?



An improvement on the original (NO,) is the gore. But most of this movie is even worse than the original, and that's a bold statement. The jokes were really bad in the original, BUT THIS IS WORSE. So yes people, Lake Placid 2 was made. BY THE SCI-FI CHANNEL? HOW? It's owned by Universal, but Lake Placid owned by 20th Century Fox, HOW?!?! HOW?!!? I do miss Betty White, but this actress is way creepier. Much more fit to do the role, instead of a type cast. Although, she is famous. Guess what else? THE FAKE CLIMAXES ARE WORSE! How did they do this? They messed up a movie already messed up!!!! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW??!?!?!! WHEN WHERE WHY WHAT WHO? Here are the answers: Another company, 2007, Lake BLACK (not Placid,) to make money, a crocodile, and the Sci-Fi Channel.  But what was the one thing I said made the original so horrid? The dialogue. What's awesome in this film? The dialogue. "I'm gonna make you a snack...I'm gonna make YOU a snack." That is an awesome line.

So, they didn't completely mess up what's already messed up. But you gotta ask something. Why am I watching these movies? Simply because I grew up watching Godzilla, King Kong, Gamera, The Beast, Them, Alien, and so forth. The original soundtrack from the first is good but out of place. But this is just BAD. HSM style bad. This movie incorporates eggs, which was not originally seen in the original. I RAMBO (I MEAN RAMBLE.) Actually, would that make for a cheesy crossover goodness? I, Rambo! Okay, time to start writing. From Crocs are worshiped more than Jesus, another pointless story is told, about a two men and a lion. It is still uber. In the end, the crocodile ate his feeder.

And that's all I haft to say. It would seem they would just end this, and keep the legacy of the duo-logy of crocodile action alive, *** **** **** **** ***** *.

2.9999/5

The Pixar Story (2007)

The story of one of the world's greatest animation studios. The story of one of the most innovative art forms of the modern world.

This movie was extremely informative, is the first thing. This movie went into extreme detail and history. It also helped create the emotion of the people involved in these movies, and help realize that even children movies have a hard time making. I think almost every documentary about film is pretty much the same, so there's nothing to point out here. They weren't afraid to bring out some unwanted info from Disney, and they weren't afraid to show some stuff maybe people would be surprised to know. It didn't just regurgitate what we already know. It's a little outdated is the only thing, but I commend them for going into detail of every single film that the founding director and the studio created. All in all, extremely informative and really good. 

I rate it, 3.8/5

Eragon (2006)

(Keep in mind I haven't read the book.) Perfect for a nerd. Pure popcorn entertainment. Fantasy Adventure movie.

So yes, this is pure popcorn entertainment. Now, let me get this the bad stuff off as quickly as possible. The idea of being able to hear your thoughts is a constantly used idea that makes no logical sense at all. Not because it's physically impossible, but because it's mentally impossible. Some thoughts aren't in the English language. What if your working on a math test? Keep in mind the brain uses thinking not just to talk undisturbed, but too also make sense of situations, solve problems, and understand both points of view of life. Meaning, that you will think what you think you don't want too think even though you don't really believe that. So the idea of having one read your mind, would make the greatest confusion of all time, AND SHOULD BE PARODIED BY MEL BROOKS IF HE IS STILL WORKING! But anyways, that's the one big problem I had with this movie.

I'd say this is a good combination of Harry Potter, Godzilla and The Lightning Thief. Nothing is too deep, everything is completely fantasy and nothing at all hast to make sense. See the thing I love about this kind of movie, is that they're able to explain something that's completely illogical and make it sound completely logical. The actors, director and writer are able to immerse themselves in the impossible and understand just for the movie that it is possible. And that my friends! Is true genius. I cannot truly explain it. It is just an extremely fun time for nerds and geeks alike. Unless of course, your angry at what they cut from the book.

Now, lettuce go back to a movie called Night of the Living Dead. What was it innovative for? Well, many things. It started the rating system, it's known as the great great godfather of modern horror. But, too a naive perspective, it is innovative for it's African-American lead actor. Now, lettuce think of any other dragon besides this one. King Ghidorah? Guy. Smaug? Guy. Pete's Dragon? Guy. Godzilla? Guy. Just about every single dragon you can think of was a guy. Now, now, think about that for a second. That's been ingrained into your brain through the society's stereotypes. Here, they blow the roof off society and bring in a female dragon into cinema. Now that my friends, is truly innovative.

The CGI, I thought was impressive. I'm not gonna compare it too anything (and no coughs either,) because my brain might be fogged. But, I thought the CGI was very detailed and lifelike. Like, as if it was real material. I thought that was pretty impressive for a movie of this nature. Heck, being of this nature is impressive enough. So, in other words, I think this movie is extremely underrated. At least, from a non-book-reader's perspective. Well then...shall we give this movie a rating?

The Rating? Well...I think it deserves a good 4/5

DinoCroc (2004)

IT'S ZILLA!!!!

Roger Corman. Must I say more? Well, in this case, yes, I must. Now, this movie tries extremely hard to create a great monster movie, it was just squashed from the beginning. The shots are beautiful, the characters are written to a familiar stand-point, the monster is awesome. The directing and scriptwriting is great, it was the acting and editing that sort of flushed the movie down. Of course, the CGI is bad. But, don't we all love that? And of course, we have DinoCroc named Zilla!!! Okay, not really, but he looks a ton like it. Really, the acting. It's like these guys are TRYING to be stereotypical. It's like they're TRYING to be stupid. I swear, there was a conspiracy.

And, I said the scriptwriting was great? Well, the points in the script were great, but as overall, THAT WAS THE MOST PLOT HOLES I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!! It's like half the script got burnt, much like DK was created when MK gone $#!Tless.

There's not much left, honestly. The only thing I can say, is that it's pure today's monster movie. Check it.

I rate it, 2.89/5

Bugs! 3-D IMAX (2003)

A Beautiful telling of a Bug's Life (no not the movie.)

Bugs are BUGS. BUGS ARE BUGS. BUUUUGSSSS. Even for one as I who is afraid of Bugs in the unnecessary respect, really loved this movie. It was absolutely beautiful. We were attached to the characters, and that's all they were, characters. Not actors, just characters. It was a DOCUMENTARY AND I'M ATTACHED TO THE CHARACTERS. That is impossible to pull a feet. Especially with such creatures as BUGS. BUGS. BUUUGSSS. Now, of course you may be wondering "what about the 3-D Effect?" It was sometimes a little worse and sometimes a little better than the best 3-D I've seen, however this was made 7 years before such. So it's extremely groundbreaking. And the only important 2003 movie I've reviewed during this summer.

I think part of the reason why I'm so attached to the bugs are because of the narrator. She is absolutely perfect for this role. Usually you either get that over-the-top MonsterQuest voice, or just a monotone voice, or something that's just lame. But this narrator is perfect! Absolutely amazing. She is friendly, and knowledgeable. We've all heard the facts before, and we know what the bugs haft to do, but the narrator makes it all exciting and dramatic. It's a beautiful movie as well, the scenery and the cinematography is top notch. Especially considering that they had to use two 3-D IMAX cameras using like 300 roles of film right next to each other to film every moment without a second take. IT'S FLIPPING IMPRESSIVE. This must be the hardest genre of film to make, IMAX Documentaries in 3-D.

You may think this movie is for kids from the title and it's arrangement in the DVD store. It's not. Trust me, it's absolutely astonishing. The Rating? I'm thinking 4.4/5

Jaws of the Pacific (2003)

This is like any ordinary Discovery Channel film. I don't like how they call Shark's actions gruesome. If they are gruesome then we are at least the Devil himself. It felt real interesting to watch 4 movies about Great While attacks all called Jaws, then too watch this and understand more of the psychology of The Great White. Unfortunatly, this wasn't that informative, and in all honesty, it isn't as good as most Discovery Channel films. But, if you like sharks enough, you should be satisfied.

I rate it, 3/5. And that ends Jaws Fest.

Quigely (2003)

A rare one. And for a good reason (but not a great reason.) Quigly sends a good message with a script written for a 12 year old and actors from some College film. But, besides all the bad factors, also including editing, it is an enjoyable film. Watch it with family, most likely someone young. It's a story about a business tycoon who runs a multibillion dollar business obviously resembling Bill Gates and Microsoft. However, it is much more similar to Donald Trump. But, for better or worse, he is a human abuser just like every other stereotypical business tycoon. So, HE DIES?

He goes to heaven, they punish him by becoming a dog, he must do good deeds, and mild chaos continues from there. I thought I'd tell you the plot since most of you haven't heard of it nor will you probably want to see it. In fact, I had no idea it existed until my little sister forced me to watch it. (Well, it wasn't like she over powered me, but I was in a position where I had no choice.) I don't like their portrayl of video games, or business tycoons. Everything in this movie seems to be made a hidden stereotype, but, it is still worth a watch if your okay with these kinds of movies.

The Rating? Say...2.95/5

Night of the Wolf (2002)

A trial of trying to resurrect the classic 70's and 80's animal adventure movies. A trail and error indeed.

Here's how I feel about the movie: everybody was great except the people who actually matter. Seems like an old man told this story to his 11-year-old daughter, and she wanted to write a screenplay of it. Being the type of 6th Grader who was curious and watched IT, she twisted it around too her disgusting liking of torture. Than, she sends it to, not an actual movie studio, but animal planet. And they execute the script terribly. So not only did they have a script that took something great and messed it up beyond belief, but they executed it horribly, trying to do too many things at once. What are those things? Trying to make a typical TV movie and at the same time trying to create another classic rescue family film. 

The only relieving part is the visuals. The settings and backgrounds are fantastic for what they had to work with. Everything else, no. I already talked about the script and the execution, but it gets even worse. After a terrible script was written, and terrible execution was brought, the casting and acting was horrific. I can't believe even Animal Planet wrecked such a great opprotunity for such a classic up this much. It was completely uninteresting, graphic for a family movie, and just an amateur story to begin with. Only, ol' Grandpa told it in a way that made you feel awesome. Like how Walt Disney told Winnie the Pooh, it was a very simple story, but he told it into a way that spawned a franchise from the golden heart of Pooh and his friends. Granted the movie is different from the book but, oh bother.

And what are they doing calling it Night of the Wolf anywho? That would have been a flipping awesome title for a werewolf movie. Not to mention Dog Soldiers was made in this same year. I'd say flip the title but it wouldn't work. This definably doesn't fit Dog Soldier. And actually, it doesn't even really take place at Night except for one scene, other wise it is days. Should have called it Sun of the Wolf...he11, let's just go with A Hard Days Wolf. Than the Beatles can come in there and put some value on this catastrophe. Luckily, if you most see it I believe it's in the public domain so just download it. I don't say download copyrighted movies. But whatever, download any movie from Animal Planet because copyrighted or not they have no business making movies, more WTF! (Any watcher of Animal Planet will know that doesn't stand for what the @#$%.)

There's my throughts. The Rating? 1/5. You don't see me giving that rating too often.

Kill For Thrill (2000)

Not one of James' best by far, but he did good.

So, he was experimenting with Alfred Hitchcock and Poe. Sounds awesome right? Well...see I dunno. He was trying to replicate what Alfred Hitchcock wanted. He never wanted to cut a scene he always wanted to keep shooting until they run out of film, and try to cut behind a guys back. James was using a VHS recorder, so he could have gone for over 2 hours. Thus, he decided to do an entire short film in one shot. The intention is good, the storyline bares great resemblance to Edgar Allen, but it just doesn't work too well. See, there's no editing, and no polishing everything sounds like there's no microphone it sounds like someone just took a camera and started recording. I swear that's what they did. James, it's a good idea but it doesn't work. That's one thing I don't agree with Alfred Hitchcock on. If he would have pulled that story in a much more Poe style, I would have enjoyed in much better. I mean seriously! The story's messed up! @#$% if he wouldn't have done it in the amateur way it could have made him one of the best script writers ever.

Oh well. It's instant video. Personally, I'd like to get my hands on the screenplay. The Rating? I can't believe I'm doing this to James. 2/5 *slaps himself in the face*

Toy Story 2 (1999)

I AM A PIZZA (As you may notice I was not able to think of a line, being I just had surgery.)

The movie begins immediately (a horse is a horse is a horse of course,) with spectacular shots. We get an actual idea of what the storyline of fictional Buzz is supposed to be. (Not that this isn't fictional in itself, but fictional within the fiction...PIXAR IS SO SMART!) In other words, we get the story of Buzz. We also get a look at the main villain of the Lightyear story, and everything inside this scene has been implanted in my brain since the dawn of my life! This scene is just so mezmorizingly beautiful, it deserves a hall of fame ring. You haft to see it to believe it, it is just so darn wonderfully crafted. And that helps you like the story doesn't it? And then, when you are connected to this new fictional Buzz the most, they take him down! Revealing it to just be a video game.

And then you get slapped in the face and pulled back into semi-reality. Jeez, Pixar does things that nobody else could do. John N' Lee, two hall-of-famers to be. Well, we immediately also get the sense that this film is going to be great like the first, because of a subtle reference to Darth Vader through Zurg that is heightened to one of the most funny jokes that a light-hearted movie can accomplish. I'm into the first ten minutes saying "this is gonna be a classic." Just from minor and moderate elements. When we come to play time with Andy, we see Ham the Piggy Bank as an evil leader. Okay, I'm gonna give you three guesses. (Bush? Hitler? Washington?) All guesses are great. It's trying to tell us someone was a real hog. 

So then we see just how clever this film is. Although, I really should say that it IS Hitler. But enough of that, we go back to the land of Toys where our only worries are how broken they are. REALLY! I'M NOT JOKING. Say 60% percent of the plot is focused around Woody's broken arm, and the chaos X5 that continues from there. I do haft to say, that by this point,  I see the film being even more visually entertaining than the first. Something that most films of all history don't accomplish is the idea of giving the viewer EXACTLY what they want. To be entertained. People try to hard, but the furious geniuses at Pixar gives us a near perfect force field of an idea: entertainment.

Just pure entertainment. In an Action movie, you usually see blood. In a horror movie, your always scared. In a Drama, your always sad. All genres have their ups and downs, but Toy Story almost has no downs because it lowers down the goods. Rule number 2: first, don't learn rule number 1, as I say. (Although, Karate Kid did bring some of that same sense into play.) And trust me, I love Action and Sci-Fi and Horror, but to have a great balance almost makes it perfect. The only things I can say are truly bad about Pixar films is the offensive humor. BYOB made it into Bugs Life, LightBeer made it into the original Toy Story, and other similar humor made it into this installment.

(Please excuse me if I ramble, remember I have been taken apart by doctors.) Now I would like to put some jokes on the map. Normally, if a movie tried to pull off a jojke like  "how do you spell FBI." That was pulled off in here, they would be unsuccessful. Somehow, Pixar was able to put a little magic on my nose and make it not just funny, BUT REALLY FUNNY. My favorite joke in this hole movie is a total rip-off. When Zurg tells Buzz I am your father, the next scene we see is...well..."Catching Up With My Dad." Let's just leave it at that. It's SO FUNNY. The humor in these movies are totally wonderful. We also see a referrence to Jurassic Park in this installment, which helps to keep the adult brain going. Not that it needs it, but just incase.

Now, something that starts in this movie with the segment "When She Loved Me..." and very much continues in Toy Story 3, even through the trailer, is exactly what the toys represent. To me, they do not just represent toys, but I feel they represent a child's parents. Think about it, when a toy feels complete is when they are being played with by a child. When they grow up, depression hits them like the H-Bomb hit Japan! Just think about it for a few moments, sleep on it even. And now, to finish off, I am going to see how Buzz relates to Andy. 

Buzz relates to Andy like this. When Buzz has the helmet on, he is in his own made up world (this doesn't always apply.) But when Buzz realizes he is not a real Buzz, he has his helmet on much less. Andy, when he is playing, always has some sort of hat on. But when he does not, he always shows his head. Think about the connection. In short, Toy Story 2 continues the tradition of a beautiful company, and a beautiful movie franchise. The places and people that was revolutionized by Toy Story, is just unbelievable. Somebody should have told Disney to pay attention, but they obviously did not pay enough.

The Rating? 4.49/5

Lake Placid (1999)

Crocodile? Alligator? Dundi? Gandhi? Cornholio Albert Potutu? Iron Man? Santa Claus? Santa CHRIST? WTF IS THIS?!?!


Summer indeed. What, you want some Hot Cold Sodas and Cold Hot Popcorn? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? I think this movies biggest problem is the dialogue. I mean, it's usually the acting, writing or plot that kills a movie. Even with it's amateurish CGI, the thing that kills it is the dialogue. That's insane, at least it sounds like that. But not, the dialogue here IS THAT BAD. Lemme give you a few lines. "Everyone's a comedian, sarcastic!" "There's some bubbles over there!" are a few. But there's one conversation that almost takes the cake as the most awkward $3Xual moment in movie history.  "You have big wonderful boobs." "thank you." then a guy comes in and tries to separate them, and the guy says "We were hoping to mate!" But that's not the most awkward $3Xual moment in movie history...this is... "I'll have $3X with you! Just don't go in!" Okay, this is absolutely insane. THIS IS FREAKING 20TH CENTURY FOX.

And let's get on that topic. 20th Century Fox not only knows Science Fiction and Fantasy, with Star Wars, X-Men, Planet of the Apes, Ice Age and even Night at the Museum which had plenty of good things about it, but they also know Monster Movies, Alien, Predator, and again, Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, Ice Age and Night at the Museum. This is also the company that made Die Hard, Revenge of the Nerds, Office Space, Home Alone, Sound of Music, Gertie the Dinosaur and Dr. Doolittle. This is the stuff of the SyFy Channel (which is ironic because **** *** ****** ** ****.)  Now, the first opening scene of the movie is weird. It opens with a scenery shot. This is fine and good, but THIS IS A MONSTER MOVIE.  This film also uses fake climax's, well they are good, not great, I just don't like the idea of a fake climax. It seems like just a cheap way to not show the monster and get the scares in anyways.

The first kill is very strange. Look out, it's a bird, it's a boat, IT'S SOMEONE GETTING KILLED BY A CROC!!! Like WTF? He literally goes flying. This only makes sense for the fact that gators are vicious, BUT THEY DON'T FLIPPING FLY!!! Early in the film, there's a meditation scene where she just breathes very fast. Having done what most of you are afraid to admit, I know what they were going for. Do they really think we as a community are that perverted? Sure, it is $3XY, but that doesn't make the movie any better. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't get the actress well known, my former friend had a crush on the girl from Leprechaun and still didn't know it was Jennifer Afghanistan, even AFTER she got so famous. As I quote Super Mario World, "for real? For Real? for real? For Real? for real? For Real? for real? For Real?"

The musical score. I think we can agree from The Lost World (1925,) to Godzilla (1954), to Jurassic Park (1993,) to sporting events especially including WWE (1930's-2010,) to Harry Potter (2001), a musical score can make all the difference. So, does this musical score go A. the horror route of Godzilla and The Lost World B. The majestic animal fashion of Jurassic Park or C. the cheesy but awesome way of WWE or D. the inappropriate way of Harry Potter. "C?" WRONG. "A?" WRONG "Well it then has to be B!" WRONG. This goes the Harry Potter route. A GIANT CROCODILE IS KILLING PEOPLE TO THE SOUNDTRACK OF HARRY POTTER...Why is that awesome? It sometimes ruins a scene. WHY IS THAT AWESOME?

Now, there are human characters of course, but...yeah. There is stupidity, along with cleverness, but the stupidity surpasses it 2:1. And in a movie with this little time and this much horrid dialogue, that CERTAINLY makes a difference. The cleverness is out of place, but it should be the stupidity that is out of place or just OUT OF THE MOVIE. I remember Jaws with delight, fear and suspense. This spawned a string of real life monster movies, like Grizzly, Piranha, Anaconda, Orca: The Killer Whale, and Lake Placid. Jaws had characters that were neccessary and interesting. Does this movie? AAAAA. (And that was a buzzer sound not an ahhh.) Here, the characters are either stereotypes or eye candy. It seems the movie industry likes to mock our intelligence. Either that, or the creators themselves are 5 year old hillbillies. But, there is one character absolutely necessary, as the others just carry the film, and that necessary character is, Betty White.

The idea that an old lady has been feeding these 40 foot croc's cows and humans and whatever else for over decades is absolutely disturbing, creative, and innovative. It is D@M CREEPY!! Still, it is not played to it's full potential, but most creep effects are never played to their full potential. But, as an actor, she is good as herself, but as a character, she seems to be type casted. The old lady in **** ****** * is much more creepy. Now, the first awesome moment after the first kill is the moose antlers. It's awesome, but it's ruined by comedy. YOU DON'T HAVE COMEDY IN A HORROR FILM, UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO PULL IT OFF LIKE IN GREMLINS. AND THAT WAS SPIELBERG. OR LEPRECHAUN, BUT THAT WAS STILL BAD. Way too many "spoiled-New-Yorker" jokes. As I said, this is 20th Century Fox, why are they using this level of CGI? But I will admit, for using the cheap way, and 1999, it looks impressive. But if they just used the Spielberg method, everything wood be fine.

Through say 29 minutes of film, we get no kills. And this is in the early parts. It's painful! Horrid! Why? We want to see people get killed by animals! Finally when someone does get killed...it's lame. The worst CG moment of the film, and it doesn't last very long. The gore is good though, good gore, good gore. I have one problem. First, there are no Salt Water crocs in Asia, and second, there is no way for them to get to America because the Pacific ocean is half way across the world. Maybe if this took place in the future, but it takes place in the year it was made. And I'm not going to even nit pick the radar used in 22 minutes in. Also, there is a scene where the gator flips the boat, but they never see the gator. HOW? JUST EXACTLY HOW IS THAT GATOR THAT SNEAKY? HOW IN THE WORLD OF HE11?

Some body parts like a toe and a head appear rotten and eaten by worms. That's not scary. That's vulgar. Or should I say, that's it's vulgar scary. Fun scary is watching blood gush out of persons head at rapid speed. Gross but fun scary is...well, you haft to see it to believe it. Vulgar scary is looking at green $#!T in real life. Also, NC should really review this movie, because there a lot of "this has been another *BAM* pointless moment." Including skipping stones. Seriously, POINTLESS. The scene where they are talking about Gators being more worshiped than Jesus though, is pointless, but funny. And all the "pissing in the woods" and "fake climaxes" that happen in that scene are merely pointless and worthless. Some scenes where you don't see the gator, you wonder if it is the gator. In Jaws. you only had the focus on one animal. Here, cows, bears, beavers, and ducks are also utilized. So you sort of loose suspension of disbelief this way.

There's some awesome Bear on Crocodile action. It's short but sweet, look up the scene if anything, but I always love to actually buy things so that movie industries will stay alive. One thing I will never get over is that YOU SHOULD SHOOT IT'S EYE. IF THE HIDE IS IMPENETRABLE, SHOOT IT'S EYE!!! OR IT'S MOUTH. Both are vulnerable, but the eye is an easier target. Just one thing, does this movie count as animal cruelty? Lifting cows in the air and everything? Also, if the skin is impenetrable, YOU CANNOT PENETRATE THROUGH IT. YET THEY DO THIS TONS DURING THIS FILM AND MANY DURING *** *****. I can't really talk much about what is good, but I can nit pick to the end. But this movie is awesome crocodile cheese action, worth checking out if your a monster movie fan, but skip the first half. Last but not least, the ending isn't epic, but wonderfully clever dark humor. Reggae is being played to other crocs being fed by Betty White. IT IS DARK.

3.5/5

A Bug's Life (1998)

AKA A Bug’s Leaf

Where do I start off? This movie is a classic, maybe not a masterpiece, but at least a classic. It holds a place somewhere in our hearts, no matter how big or SMALL that place may be. For one thing, I think I remember it for just how beautiful this film is. Or is it a film? (Check out my Toy Story review.) They actually had a machine that went out in the wild and was small enough to replicate a bug’s view of the world. Therefore, they were able to create a real world of bugs. Some people think that 3-D animation is worse than traditional, and while I think that traditional should not be obliterated, 3-D can be used to create an even more immersive and eye-popping experience. Some people just don’t understand that.

This isn’t just a kids movie about bugs, it really does hold a personality and story beyond what normally occurs in life. And that’s what we want right? Movies are meant to entertain or educate us, and frankly, what we haft to learn right now is not worth sitting through 2 hours of a history show. Just 1 hour. My point is, Pixar gives Fantasy in the way we desire. Sometimes, I feel we do not even realize that we want such an idea of going away from real life, as so many movies try to replicate it. But when I watch a Pixar film, I understand perfectly what I desire. I will pay anything to keep Pixar in the big leagues, because they shouldn’t vanish anytime soon.

In other words, the scripting was extremely well done.

Now, the humor is pretty good, but not as good as Toy Story. I feel with bugs, they are the target of murder and torture. Toys, are usually the target of love and compassion. Thus, they could not avoid some dark humor, and I don’t appreciate dark humor in a family movie. It’s supposed to be A FAMILY MOVIE!!!! But, some other humor pulls off the job well. And then, there’s some humor that’s just not appropriate. BYOB makes a line in this film, now that’s outrageous! Kids, that stands for something very bad. Now, Lemme talk about just (again) how beautiful this is. There is a scene in the mist…watch it…and then you will know the true meaning of the Discovery Channel. In other words, it’s been in my mind as one of the best visual scenes in all of family movie history, if not all movie history.

Last but not least, there seems to be some sort of New York theme in Pixar films. I dunno is John Lassetter is from NYC, but it seems very prevalent in the soundtrack. Besides that, you can pretty much get my opinion of most Pixar films from my Toy Story Trilogy reviews.

The Rating? 4/5

Toy Story (1995)

Just in time for it's 15th Anniversary. (Jeez the trailer spoils a ton of jokes and plot.)

Disney trailers tend to stink of two things: that voice, and spoilers. Why even though it is created by the greatest studio of all time Pixar? Because most of the marketing was held by Disney, so even though this was a huge success, Pixar almost went broke. They later negotiated a 50/50 contract, but that took 3 years. What made this movie money, and most people remember for it, was the animation. This was groundbreaking. Sure, Brave Little Toaster had 3-D backgrounds, as well as Where the Wild Things Are short from 1980. And there were tons of 3-D shorts made by Pixar before hand, since 1986. But this was a full feature length 3-D animation that is still more realistic than most 3-D animation that comes out today from Paramount, Disney, Universal and Nickelodeon. Not to mention Cartoon Network. 

Seriously, Toy Story has held the greatest animation in history. Best 3-D animation that is. And yes, I mean better than Wall-E, Up, or any other Pixar film. And they've always kept it that way. Ratatouille comes very close. But, Pixar knows it's not just the visuals that need to be realistic, but the minds of the characters. The personalities are real and engaging, like a 2-D movie would be. And they kept going form there, with actual toys. Sure there is no Ham, but he's a piggy bank! Sure there's no Slinky Dog, but there is a slinky! Those specific army guys might not exist, but there are plenty! The reason being is copyright. But Woody and Buzz, represent two different kids of people entirely.

They represent (and the storyline) represents the 60's change from Cowboys to Astronauts, with Star Wars, Star Trek and the Moon Landing. So all in all, this is probably one of the most realistic animated movies of all time, and it's about Talking Toys! Why? Because it touches on true events, not just real lifelike events, but real life events. Now, what most people praise this movie for is the message. To never abandon stuff you love. This is carried out in a more mom-friendly manner in Toy Story 3, but you'll have to wait for that review to see exactly why. What do they think when we leave them? What are they like? These are questions we've all come to as a kid, and this finally gives us an answer.

I never understood why Toy Story is called a family movie. Sure, it's rated G, it's about Talking Toys, but a lot of the humor and messages target the parents and teenagers. You have this on VHS Generation Z? Pick it up on Blu-Ray, you'll be glad you did! Because of answering to our childhood questions, it holds some of the greatest sense of fantasy that you will ever see in a movie. Disney movies are classics, but this movie touches us so deeply that we can't help but love it more. Sure, Disney has better movies. But we like the Pixar movies more, because they touch us on a deeper level. It brings us back to the days when all we were worried about was breaking our toys or not being able to play with them. That my friend, is what a childhood movie is about!

Of course, to keep the kids entertained (besides the ground-breaking visuals,) you need humor. It's important to make both the parents and kids laugh, and not make comedy take over the entire film. Well, they succeeded. The humor in this movie is not inappropriate, nor immature. It is Light, Zany and Great. Kind of like a slapstick without the violence. I guess that doesn't make much sense, but that's how it's described. In fact, you even get a reference to that when the Stick Bug in Bug's Life says "Slap-Stick." John Lasseter and Lee Unkrich are two of the greatest family creators of all time, along Roy and Walt Disney. 

Here's something that will pander to adults (at the time it was made,) there are no electronic toys whatsoever. The only battery operated boy is Buzz, and Andy almost replaces Woody for him. It's exactly how the Media hypnotized kids into loving their inadequate toys for the lights, instead of loving a fine piece of craft. Of course, there are many references to classic movies in these three films. One in here, Buzz keeps time with "Star Date." Star Trek anybody? Anybody here Trekkie, Trekker, Star Trek Fan, Trucker? Something I see too often is when the characters are either perfect or disgusting. Like the director had Bi-Polar disorder.

Well here, we see characters that are like your friends: lovable, awesome, but not perfect by any means. And that's what your Toys were right? Friends! You know, I ever wonder if kids read these reviews. Unfortunately, they weren't able to understand the meaning of a "hardcore kids movie" until the climax of Toy Story 3. In Bugs life, there's attempt at suicide and the phrase BYOB. It's not a serious attempt at suicide, it's just a joke. And BYOB was a mistake made by the star ant, but was purposely put in the script. Here, (wow, it seems Like Pixar likes this stuff,) Woody calls Buzz Mr. Light Beer. Now isn't that kind of subliminal messaging? And in Finding Nemo, there's Blood! That's strait up ridiculous! But, that's me being nit-picky.

Virtual Realty is the name of a Realty company in the movie. Virtual Realty? Virtual Reality? I guess Pixar was saying "hey, you, watching our movie. Were going to dominate YOUR WORLD!!!!!!!!" I wish I was able to write and yet add videos in a NostalgicCritic way but still make it convincing and not obtrusive. Another reference is Pizza Planet themselves, possibly referring to Chuck E. Cheeses. And there's an Indiana Jones reference. Best of all, Dinoco! There's two gas station this mixes: Texaco and Sinclair. You know, the station with the dinosaur that is responsible for the price of Gas in Utah! (And what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?) 

With Buzz, (8 Paragraphs so far,) they sorta use the Frankenstein effect. I can't remember how I put this, again, I take notes, but it does. Or maybe it was a different character. Oh yes. It was the crazy toys in the villain's house. That was clever, they're not cannibals. They're just toys that have been abused, and that is great that they actually used the Frankenstein effect in a family movie. That makes it much easier for a kid to HAVE FEELINGS!!!! Not only are you sympathetic, but the characters are sympathetic of the creatures! It's even better than the Frankenstein effect! They even work together for a common goal, maybe trying to say don't discriminate against what you don't understand.

This film puts a lot of effort into itself, including lots of emotion and imagination, as well as humor and revolutionary graphics. But in the end, it's a childhood memory, and I love it

The Rating? 4.85/5

The Next Karate Kid (1994)

Honk on? HONK OFF!

I will always spit in the face (of Carlito La la la) of this movie because of the crappy scene. THE CRAPPY SCENE. They had the perfect opportunity to bring back HONK and they did not. I love honk, honk loves me, I kill the director and his TV. Now, I have not seen Part III, so excuse me if I am mad for a reason I should not be. The movie seemed like they took Myiagi and put him on Disney Channel. Beware guys, the characters are crap. Miyagi however, does improve the movie by a longshot and in fact improves the films characters by a good span. Everyone else is disposable. The movie plays out with a terrible premise. There is no real plot, and if there is, it swings throughout the whole movie. It just can't focus on itself! In the end, the only two things good about the movie are Miyagi and the script, but everything else, including the premise, was just amateur.

The Rating? 2.41/5

Of Mice and Men (1992)

How can you possibly do damage to an already damaged book?

Let's take some characters and compare them book by movie. George: Book-A person who really cares about his friends. Movie-Cowboy. Lennie: Book-A man who has difficulty talking and understanding life, but someone who you would still like to be friends with. He is intelligent on the inside. Movie- Completely unintelligent and unlikeable, a total stereotype. Curley: Book-A Jack***. Movie: A Whiny***. Candy: Book- A man who has gone through a lot and has retired, but still has the energy to be a great friend. Movie- An "Old Fart." Curley's Wife: Book- Someone who is completely misunderstood as a "tart." Movie-Someone who is completely understood as a "tart." (Translation: Book-Not a tart. Movie-is a tart.) Crooks: Book-An impressive, Bad*** old man who's been through a lot. Movie-An African-American stereotype. At so, even though there was little to no character development in the book, you actually liked them. Here, there's tons of character development, but you don't like them AT ALL!!!!

But let's talk about who played Lennie Small-John Malkovich. He's been in the business for a long time, but only got his name known recently. This was his first famous film. Yet he plays horribly! Yeah sure, there are people that act like that in real life, which is what the book portrayed...real life. But the book didn't portray Lennie as an unintelligent stereotype! He was still intelligent in the book, but he had hard times with controlling himself physically and socially. You know, this is actually a remake? Yes, of two movies. It's a remake of a remake of an adaptation!!! And there was STILL the plays and radio shows!! Was this book really that good that so many adaptations had to be made? But there is one thing that this movie improves on the book--writing. Yes, this movie actually HAS BETTER WRITING THAN A BOOK. WTF? John Steinbeck, while creating characters that you liked better, and taking risks with language and content, took no risks on format.

Now, this movie actually does take risk on format. John followed "start, middle, end" too closely. This movie, while sticking to the book closely, feels like there's more turns in the plot, multiple climaxes, and just all around like stuff is actually happening! It wasn't something big that's explainable, it was just extremely tweaked and made a much MUCH better script. The directing is also great, I can tell Gary Sinise was making sure the actors had emotions on there faces. Which, for the characters they have, the actors are also awesome. But there are no actors or directors in a book. It's all about writing in a book, so those aspects cannot be compared. Music is great but extremely forgettable, Cinematography is absolutely awesome (again, cannot compare to book,) it's a long running time that feels short, which means that it's eventful. (Or somethin'.) The gore is also sweet when it appears, that scene when Lennie crushes Curley's hand, you can't help but say "LENNIE! LENNIE! LENNIE! LENNIE!"

Overall, it's a really good and stylish movie. I definably recommend seeing it NOT with the book. The characters are awful, but that's the only thing bad about it. But it does rip apart the book. So skip the book, or read the book after, but I definably recommend seeing the film.

3.99/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Aladdin (1992)

With Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, do you wonder if I am reluctant to review children's movies?

Lucky I can find a trailer. Disney's so crazy about copyright. Now, another thing that gives them a bad rep is racism. Yes, I agree. Not only Walt Disney himself but the entire company has remained racist throughout the 20th Century, and still remains racist but just at an attempt to cover it up. They're not doing that great a job though! But, I still think Disney is a wonderful company that has made probably some of the greatest kids movies of all time. And now that they own MGM, I can say without a doubt the only thing they need to be THE kids movie comapny, is Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. But, let's face it, they own all original Disney material, The Wizard of Oz, Pixar, Disney Toon Studious, just amazing how Disney has been able to pull off a streak of awesomeness. I mean, they've got everything!

So, how does Aladdin hold up together? Well, I can say it's extremely colorful, especially with depth factored in. All Disney animation in it's proper viewing has depth, and it really establishes the sights. Some of this stuff is burned into my mind not because of subliminal messages, but because it's just so D@M beautiful! The songs, (for a Disney film of course,) are very entertaining and catchy. Very good, they'll be stuck in your head like a sinus infection. The story line is very cliche, but that is something in Disney movies that needs to remain. The characters, aside from stereotypes, are very intriguing and entertaining. All in all, even in a quicky, I can say this movie is something all kids should see, just make sure you help them understand what is reality and what is not, and not just because of stereotypes.

I rate it, 3.76/5

Ghostbusters II (1989)

Who ya gonna call? LU-I-GI!!!!

[THIS REVIEW IS NOTELESS]

Lemme take this opportunity to say that Ghostbusters and Luigi’s Mansion are extremely similar. They both involve two forms of catching a ghost: first, use some sort of energy to stun them. Ghostbusters used Plasma like substance and Luigi used a flash light. Second, capture the ghost. Luigi uses a vacuum in similar shape to the plasma ray of the first step in Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters themselves use a box to capture the ghosts that also appears on the Poltergiest 3000. (Or, in my universe, Spielberg 9000.) So, in other words, Luigi’s Mansion was just a parody in all respects that nobody who played it caught. And because nobody has a brain, people clamor for a sequel. Did Galaxy Quest have a sequel? Did Spaceballs have a sequel? Fact, did any of the Mel Brook’s films have a sequel?

That said, (and will be copied into the Luigi’s Mansion review if it ever comes up,) let’s get on with what this installment in the franchise has to offer. First off, you notice that the overall appeal is less. Well, Ghostbusters had an overall feel of a good time and ghosts, with the light hearted comedy and what not. That relates to a cheese or single topping pizza. There are only a few flavors but they are all awesome. Here, it’s like a mega ton Godzilla pizza, there’s tons of different flavors that not all blend in that well. So, of course it wasn’t as good as the first one, but that’s a tough act to follow. Nothing is better than plain pizza!

Now, lettuce also recognize what James A. Rolfe has said. A sequel, will either try to be the same and bore us, or do something new and get us angry. Okay, those weren’t his exact words but I’m typing on a terrible keyboard right here. Some say that having slimmer in again is too much borrowing from the original, I say, it used in such a clever fashion it’s just right. He’s making a cameo, not an official appearance people! Another thing is that the Statue of Liberty is trying too much for a giant monster again. Watch the movie. It’s the actual Statue of Liberty and not a living creature. And, it’s used to a positive effect instead of a negative one with the Marshmellow Man.

Other than that, it is pretty much the same. The same light hearted humor exists in this installment, and the characters are just as great as the first one. The plot is creative, Sigourney Weaver…must I say more? Well, I can say 1989 or somewhere close was where $3X scenes started to get popular, there is no nudity though.

The Rating? 3.69/5

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

Da   da na na da na na na na da na na na da na na da na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na

This movie is not as great as Raiders. Lemme just tell you that right now. Raiders had the edge, and I’m not just saying that because of freshness. Raiders was NOT my first Indiana Jones film. So, what do I think of this film? Well, it is better than Crystal Scull and Temple of Doom, because it keeps the audience into the film. It doesn’t base itself completely on cliché, and still understands exactly what the audience wants in an Indiana Jones film. The fact of the matter is, Indy needs certain clichés but not all action clichés. And if you don’t know by now, the whole franchise is built around clichés. It’s based off B-Movies, Action Serials and James Bond. Which is awesome, cause Sean Connery is Indy’s dad.

The fact that a movie based around cliché can keep the audience interested big time is big time. I say this, because it is an epic feet. Just goes to show both the audience loves what you love and you can deliver what they love. Spielberg, you are a genius. I say, this movie really knows how to understand what the audience wants out of an Indiana Jones film. Oh but, what is? A treasure, and this time, the biggest treasure, The Holy Grail. Indiana Jones and his whip. Animals. Scarce humor. Plenty of action. The theme music. And, action clichés. What I really like about the beginning of this film is not the transition from young to old Indy, but just the scene with Young Indy. He’s been at this ever since he was a lad. In 1912 mind you. Utah, that’s where I am right now (on vacation mind you.)

Unfortunately, I can’t say I can promise more than ramblings in this review. But I can say, it was awesome. Everything just comes to a great tied knot to finish off the film. However, I do say that Kingdom is an official entry, but more like an epilogue than a chapter. So, here I am to defend Kingdom of the Crystal Scull. People said that aliens don’t belong in an Indiana Jones movie, did anyone do there homework? Did anybody know that Crystal Scull is supposed to be Alien sculls? And even if they didn’t watch the documentaries, The Mayans! They’re always associated with aliens! The Fridge scene, dude, going off a tank 30 feet in the air and surviving isn’t exactly realistic either. But, I guess…nah.

So there’s a pizza with toppings. The Rating? 4.123/5

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad (1988)

Now that's a long title.

I basically thought similar things to Airplane. Luckily, you guys do not know exactly what I think of Airplane! So, here's the stuff: the best kind of comedy they can pull off in a movie is literal stuff. Puns. But in extreme talent, not just "jokes," but tricked you puns. You get the idea if you've watched one of these movies. This was not as good as Airplane, I think Airplane got the idea better. But, Comedy will never be my favorite genre because the funniest things in life happen on accident, so it always feels like I'm forcing it when I watch a comedy. Because, it's all scripted. Action, Horror, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Westerns, they're all meant to be scripted. Comedy? No. I can't say too much, because the good stuff in these movies are the jokes. So, go see it for yourself.

I rate it, 3.6/5++-

Jaws - The Revenge (1987)

Unlike most people say, I believe, this is an improvement on 2 & 3. But that's not saying much.

You may notice that this is in a different style of review. I have started taking notes.

So, positives and negatives...Well, to start off, I swear they chopped off John Williams |)1(K and shoved it up his @$$. His music is featured in no more than one scene. In fact, that's a problem all the Jaws sequels have. And, it completely ruins the suspense scenes. You just don't care if somebody gets eaten. In the original, even just a civilian that only appears in one scene, you actually care because of that awesome J.W. music! However, unlike Jaws 2, this film is very visually entertaining. Colorful and bright, and set in the Bahamas. However, the flashback scenes are artsy, however crap and hard on the eyes. Some scare scenes are very well done, but those are the ones that don't involve a SHARK! The Moray Eel was the scariest creature. Yeah, I bet people aren't gonna see this movie from that last sentence.

Well, at least they tried, I can tell they were inspired by Spielberg but didn't really understand how to pull it off. Now you wanna talk about the storyline and plot? Well, the plot is very cliche however unlike the first two, it is not annoying. It actually gets you interested. Or does it? Well it should, but like the middle 2 Jaws, it is extremely unapparent in 2/3rds of this film. So, it's extremely slow and hard to follow. It also has a bad sense of time. It's supposed to take place when SPOILER ALERT Captain Brody is dead. Now, that did make me sad, but this is 12 years later made from the first Jaws. The age of his widow and him dying from heart make it feel like a 40 year difference, meaning this would take place in 2015? Forget 2001, forget 2010, the new film 2015: Jaws in Space arrives in theaters 2/7/9000!!!!

Anyway, the storyline is familiar and refreshing, but I just can't concentrate on it!!! This film contains some references to the original Jaws, which are cool but don't make the movie any better. This movie also has a real odd couple, a grandma and a young pilot. Just doesn't seem right IN MY HEAD! That was also only present in one scene, so why didn't they just go without it? The shark? It remains flipping awesome, both in appearance and abilities. I just love this guy, he's always been in the series, and he's always awesome. He just seems so Bad@$$ to me. The characters are very disposable, just like the other ones. Only this time, you actually wish they weren't. You actually want to be attached to the characters, but you just can't because of the non-existent storyline.

There are plot holes, but they are very unapparent, plus, there are only 1 or 2. And they are far between. Now, there is some sort of mystery, as if "has it been the same shark in all the movies?" Which, they did try to carry out through the entire series, but it's so unapparent (like nearly everything else,) that you really don't care that much. What's allowed to remain smart as far as characters go is contained, however, in a monster movie, no matter how intelligent, you gotta have bad characters. The outdoor backgrounds in the final scene do look fake, and it could have ended a scene earlier. However, it's an okay ending that isn't terrible. Overall, an improvement on the first two, but that's not saying much.

The Rating? 3.63/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Spaceballs (1987)

One movie I can easily say I've watched over, and over, and over.

AND MAY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER BE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!! Looking back to when I first saw this film, at first when he says "Spaceballs II, the search for more money," I thought he said "Spaceballs II, the search for Paul Bunyan." That...well, the original joke was funny enough, but if it was Paul Bunyan, oh the laughs of legend they could have pulled out of that. I do love this movie, it's total Mel Brooks. Not quite as good as Young Frankenstein, but definably one of my favorite Brooks films of all the times. Now, the only thing I got to say is, comedy does not get better with age (except for Paul Bunyan.) I'm not saying it's bad because it's a 1987 movie, I'm saying it's not as effective on me as it was the first time I saw it. Specially since I see the jokes coming, so you may get the sense of not the greatest review for this film.

What really startles me is the technical innovation (or some sort.) The scene where Dark Helmet and Kernal Sanders (you already get a sense of this movie from there names alone,) are watching Spaceballs on a TV screen, is magnificent. They were watching themselves as the action occurred. First off, that scene had to be incredibly hard to script. Secondly, that scene had to be impossible to produce. I could imagine maybe a hidden camera was linked to the TV screen, but it just seems BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE! The characters are awesome. But a character that really stands out too me only makes an appearance in one scene, and that is...THE ALIEN! XENOMORPH OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT! A new born alien makes an appearance...and...SPOILER ALERT he sings showtoons. It's dead funny.

Continuing on with the characters, Princess Vespar plays great as an even more spoiled Princess Leia. I mean, she wasn't THAT spoiled in the Star Wars movies, so it's good to see Mel could exaggerate something too the point of no return. Lonestar, actually plays sort of a younger Han Solo. That's the only real difference. I guess you could say Lonestar is a mix between Luke and Han. Not resulting in the best of hero's, but funny moments indeed. Barf AKA Puke takes Chewbacca down to lows that we could never imagine. I can't even describe him, sometimes he's really embarrassing, and other times he's kinda funny. But I never thought of him as the main point of the movie. Mel Brooks plays the new Emperor, and he does fantastic at portraying a world leader. Somebody who scrams all the supplies he can for himself and doesn't understand how to make decisions...yep.

Kernal Sanders...well...he's not exactly the Kernal Sanders of legend. He is just Dark Helmet's lackey, but he pulls off some pretty awesome jokes. (DO SOMETHING!) Dark Helmet, again I felt wasn't exactly the strong point of the film, but he does play a lot better than Sanders or Barf. He plays the ridiculous Darth Vader...enough said. That scene with Ludicrous speed was absolute genius, but extremely un-realistic. The female C-3P0 (what was her name?) She plays...ugh... a female C-3P0! What can I say? And she does a good job at it. Of course, your wondering who my favorite character is, and, I'd haft to say either Mel Brooks' character or Yogurt. Yes, a golden Yoda who calls the Force the Schwarz(enegger). And a very Jewish one none the less. And believe me I know, I'm Jewish. 

So is Mel Brooks the last time I checked. Anyways, the jokes, I'd love to talk about but I'm afraid I'd spoil the movie to no return. So, I'll give it a rating right here and right now.

The Rating? Hmm...4.4/5

The Karate Kid Part II (1986)

HONK!!!!

So, one part of the good news is that the cast that gets to play from the original has not changed. Miagi and Daniel are still the same players. Ari however, is completely taken out of the picture by a break up in the end. I don't like that part, it seems just like they threw away the perfect opportunity to go on another route. In other words, they threw away Wendy's to go to Burger King. Another good thing about the sequel is that it picks up right where we left off on the first film, and delivers the story not at a slow pace from the transfer. It acts like the two were meant to be one, like Star Wars. And now I shall do my Zaranyzerak rendition of the PS2 Star Wars Remix! Star Wars...This is a Star Wars...We all love Star Wars...A War in the Stars!!!!!!!! Yes, I just ripped off Sean.

Now, we've just gotten into the beginning. Well, Myiagi stays and maybe even improves his training techniques. In other words, he's better than the last one. Myiagi is probably my favorite character of the Saga, and I know I usually don't go with the crowd but, you gotta love him. However, Daniel does prove to be a close match as far as a character you can relate to, because he was once just like us. That does bring this sequel down a bit, because in the first, we were seeing Daniel rise from the depths of misery. Here, we just see 5 turn into 8. He just continues on his journey. But since this picks up immediately from the first, I can totally live with that. And it's not all like that, there is still some parts where Daniel learns.

Now, everybody seems to love the setting of this film. Japan. Beautiful Japan. Well, I can tell you it is beautiful, and the new characters were pulled off nicely, only bad part is the way they are pulled off as Japanese. Sato has a Japanese-Schwarzenegger voice. That right there is annoying. I can handle Japanese or Schwarzenegger voices, but putting them in the blender is like putting a Pear and a Steak in the blender. It also seems like they were trying too tone down the setting for a wider audience of stereotyping Karate fans, but besides first impressions it's actually okay. There is a story in Japan that actually keeps it from feeling like they took the blood out of Friday the 13th. Speaking of Slasher flicks, remember Halloween? (Which didn't have much blood mind you.) Of course you do, remember Halloween III: Season of the Witch? OF COURSE YOU DO! 

This has that feeling of Halloween 3. Sometimes, when you see familiar stuff (such as the Pelican stance,) you just wish you were watching the first one. It can be boring, and I said before don't go in expecting a masterpiece for the first one? Okay well, that trick doesn't work. The love story played out perfectly in the first one, however, in this one, it plays out like...A LOVE STORY! It's not a triangle anymore, which makes it very uninteresting.  I've said before that The Karate Kid created many themes that have been copied? Well, so did this. In the secret family theme. Where Myiagi's dad not only taught Karate to him but too another man, and Miagi and him are arch-foes. But when Miagi's dad is dying, they try to patch things for a little while, then things go to he11. You've seen it all before, how everyything plays out.

Oh, and the storm scene is a lot like two scenes from Gojira. The Rating for this sequel? 3.9/5

Commando (1985)

25 years old, starring The Terminator.

@#$% Chuck Norris ARNOLD IS WHERE IT'S AT!!! Now, remember I said this stars The Terminator? Not just being Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he also recites two lines from The Terminator on 3 occasions total. I'll Be Back & @#$% You @$$hole, including the fact that he says the second one the first time after someone else says it. Do I need to get back to L.A. class or what? Since we're on the subject of one liners, this includes many one liners that I think are AWESOME. Why does everyone say Schwarzenegger is a horrid actor? He did lines like the two I mentioned, "If It Bleeds We Can Kill It (Predator)" "He's Dead Tired (Commando)," and plenty of other classic lines. SERIOUSLY!!! Not to mention, his actual acting is fantastic. Mixed with the wonderful Austrian accent, is just so flavorful and masterful.

And NO I am not in love with him. I am a perfectly strait man thank you very much. Again, I say @#$% Chuck ARNOLD IS WHERE IT'S AT. Within 10 minutes of the film he kills 53 people and not one damage to his body. That is way better than a lot of what Norris has to say for himself. Throw anything at Schwarzenegger, he can kill it. Those giant elephants from Lord of the Rings, The Death Star, Godzilla AND King Kong, Bowser AND Donkey Kong, Chuck Norris!! He doesn't even haft to shoot AT it, he just shoots and it dies. There's killing, explosions, Arnold flipping lifts a phone booth with his bare hands!!!! WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT RECOGNIZING ARNOLD!!!!!???? WHY I ASK YOU!?!!!!!!! But, as fun as this movie is, it has its bad moments.

There's some flight attendant that follows Arnold who plays Matrix who plays John, as she is merely eye candy the whole movie. Seriously, her presence is completely useless, and it might have been so much better without her. Not to mention, Arnold shortly plays eye candy as well, he is in a speedo. Why are speedos in existence? I don't think they help you swim that much. Swimmers are desperate ego maniacs sometimes. Whatev. I accept Arnold being eye candy because he's both awesome and attractive, so it's just natural for a movie studio to do that. But the girl, she is a horrid actor with no purpose and still plays eye candy. It sucks. The plot line is very thin, so don't go in expecting a storyline like The Terminator. It's just a fun action movie. But it does exist enough to keep you from getting bored.

A little after the beginning, we get an awesome car chase scene. I won't spoil it for you, but lemme just say this: cars in mountains. THAT IS ALL. There's also a scene where he jumps out of a plane, and barely makes a splash in the pond that he lands in. Did that sentence make fun to you neither did it for me. Of course the shining light of this movie that separates it from other Schwarzenegger movies is the soundtrack. It is...is. It's awesome. It's jazzy yet techno. That's when you know you've got a good soundtrack. JAZZY YET TECHNO. Bring in the dancing tuba's!!!! (No, it's not like that. It's very awesome and fits the mood perfectly.) Another scene that bugs me is the scene where he rips out the chair of the flight attendants car.

WHY? Now he looks like a little kid. The beginning is actually very ballsy, not on the outside looking inside, that way it's childish, but on the inside looking in, it's very ballsy. Why? Because they had the balls to write Schwarzenegger in a more real life father manner, and I commend them for that.  When he kicks a guy off a cliff, there is no thud. WHY? You could have easily done it. What about a splat, I'd even take a Batman sound effect. The Rating? Given everything, I feel a good 4/5 is in effect.

The Goonies (1985)

[Excuse My Sickness] Accidentally began the tradition of kids adventure cult classics, yet in itself symbolizes the innocence of childhood with not only directing children too do it but also in a a zany way that has only been achieved by underrated Gem's. 

This movie achieved 3 times it's original budget, but it wasn't nearly one of the top grossing films of the year. Meaning, it had a low budget. It was so lucky to get Steven Spielberg, that guy knows what movie to do weather or not he gets a paycheck. Now, that doesn't always be the case.

Of course I have to talk about S.S. Film for a second, I love that guy. He did infact do E.T., Close Encounters, Gremlins, Jaws, Back to the Future, Blues Brothers Duel, Indiana Jones Tetra logy, Hook, Jurassic Park Trilogy, Saving Private Ryan, Men in Black Duo logy, Schindler's List, Poltergeist, he too me is the best director/producer/writer of all time. However, in his early years and frankly his later years, he hasn't done quite as much as his prime. He rejected offers to do Superman - The Movie, King Kong and Jaws 2, which would have been awesome had Spielberg done it. Don't get me wrong, I love Superman - The Movie and King Kong and Jaws 2 have qualities most people don't talk about. However, if Spielberg directed those films they would have been both more successful and better.

I feel the best films are directed by Spielberg. Lately, he has done a lot more artsy films. I'm okay with these, and some are masterpieces, but some of them bug me. Needless to say, Steve better get back off his @$$ and do some Sci-Fi and Horror. Which, he has, including War of the Worlds, A.I., and the Transformers soon-2-be trilogy, along with the new Indiana Jones [& The Kingdom of the Crystal Scull.] However, his ratio is Dramas:Sci-Fi as is 2.5:1 at mid-range. I also have a problem with one film he directed: the Money Pit. Need I say more? Worst movie ever. That's alright though, everyone has there ups and downs.

A few movies that I would have loved Spielberg talent in :Superman Tetra Logy, Batman Motion Picture Anthology, Jaws Sequel Trilogy, King Kong, The Terminator Quadrilogy, Alien Quadrilogy, Predator Duo logy, AVP Soon-2-Be Trilogy, X-Men Trilogy. X-Men Origins, Cloverfield, Any of the Star Trek/Star Wars Movies, Harry Potter Films, Lord of the Rings Soon-2-Be Tetra logy, Sings, and of course, The Matrix Trilogy+1. @#$%ing He11 any God Dam movie would have been awesome with Spielberg! Now, I do love all these movies, I just think...heck, every single Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Sci-Action-Fi film shoudl have had Spielberg in some form.

Now that you've heard my thoughts about the Producer ans Writer, lemme talk a little about the movie. This movie is a classic, but watching it on a small screen will not do it justice. This is something for you too talk yourself into and immerse yourself. A true trip back to childhood, in a way that nobody expects. You never think of these memories of your childhood that the Goonies go through because you feel "you're to @#$%ing sophisticated to have been such a person." Lighten up Jack! We all asked our mom if we could go out naked when we were 4! Did We? DID WE?!!?!! I think we did. For those who haven't seen the movie, nobody is younger than 10 I'm just using a comparison. There is no nudity. 

This movie does appear to be a little dated, which if you're patient, adds to the charm. The characters...well Chunk is the side of us that is clumsy and naive, he is the innocence and dishonestly in our childhood. The one that lies when he knows he's lying yet he thinks he is telling the truth. Chunk is the part of us that wants too live in the dreamworld, replicated as Oz in those Oz films, but since he cannot brings it into the real world. Sloth is the guy who shows us the part that is outcast by the adults and can be accepted by children. This also replicates innocence. He is the feeling we have "why doesn't anybody like me." And on a scale, nobody does. They don't like that part of you. Only you and the righteous like that part of you. And that part of you is what makes you different and special. Here, he is accepted by the Goonies, representing the Goonies as a whole as the good people in the world.

You know, this movie is just as symbolic as the Disney Alice in Wonderland. It's just discredited for being understated.

Ma Fratelli is someone in our lives. That teacher we hate, the times when our mom yells at us, the stranger who asks us for change, the bad neighbor, or just some idiotic creep. Just someone we really, really hate as a kid. That evil person who doesn't give a dam about childhood. She just wants money, and can't even remember being a child. YOU SEE THIS KIND OF PERSON IN CHILDRENS MOVIES ALL THE TIME! Not that this is a kids movie, not by a longshot. Some pretty disturbing stuff in their. A relative of mine went to see this when she was 14 and couldn't stay in the theater. But now I am off topic. The mom is obviously mom, our mom, his mom, every bodies mom, it's just hard to grasp sometimes. Brand (or Troy) is obviously the big brother, he always is the tough guy, always loved, picks on you, you get the picture. However, behind the scenes he is usually in a pickle himself, and just takes his anger out on you. Eventually, you get payback. Weather he learns his lesson or not is not a casual case.

Rosalita Rosalita Rosalita, dang. She represents a baby sitter, or a visitor, somebody who is our mom's friend and is invited into our territory without our approval. She is an unwelcome visitor and needs to leave the premisis before further action is taken. This is what you say in your mind when this character visits you except it translates too "mommy I'm scared." And that's another thing, kids don't understand how to express the great feelings that they have through what we only understand being the English language. Unless you speak another language. But children understand such feelings through thought, but since we have no telepathy, children aren't able to communicate the greatest of things to us. To Kill a Mockingbird (book) tried to express these thoughts through the mind of Scout and through the words of Scout as best as it could, but still there will always be locked away secrets in the mind of a child. 

Mikey is our Cocky side as a kid (and frankly life), he is the one who, usually is right, but when he is wrong he pays. But he thinks he's always right and he thinks he can do anything because of his innocence. He is the leader in us, the one who cannot help but want more in life and not just be as great as everyone. Do you know that most Americans don't wanna be rich, but instead wanna be richer than everybody else around them? Incredible, everybody is a 10 year old. Mouth, oh what the heck, I'm just gonna copy it from Wikipedia, it states it so well, "an obnoxious, smart-mouthed Goonie who loves to talk and tends to be a bit of a trickster." Who hasn't had that phase? He kinda ties in with our Cocky side. Data is the side that everybody loves, we all have our talents. But when were young, they are seen by others a lot more because we stand out. Data even exaggerates and makes a joke out of such love for kids.

Stef is our sister, no doubt to that. Young or old, she just got chosen older out of luck. I think we all know our sister, the brat, the so called smart one, the one everybody is proud of but she feels like nobody appreciates her. We all know that person. I could be confusing Stef with Andy. 

Okay, I was wrong, it was among the top 10 highest grossing films of the year. But, that's another story. *gets slapped in the face by Mr.Black.* Well, besides the excellent symbolism, this film portrays the first of the awesome tales of the adventures of action-adventures of children. I AM REDUNDANT! You know this movie inspired a genre, such movie example Jumanji. 

The Rating? 4/5 would be usual, but I can't help my soft spot for symbolism and give it a 4.4/5

The Last Starfighter (1984)

Tron, Star Wars and Star Trek. All 5 star series. Put them in a blender with cheese and corn, not the greatest salsas in all of Mexico.

The plot extremely reminds me of Tron. The special effects and costumes remind me of Star Wars. The characters remind me of Star Trek. That should just cover it right their, but I'm gonna talk about some stuff. Nowadays, people are always taking movies like this, Tron, Krull, Transformers. Spaceballs, etc., and just passing them off because their too much of a geek too let in a capitlizer of Star Wars. They call them "rip-offs." When infact...well, look at it this way. Every decade had their rip-off artists, last decade shows a lot of dramas trying to cash in on Titanic. Now, people are jumping on the special effects band wagon because of Avatar. There's also been a side trend, tons of Comic Book movies ever sine the success of Hulk and Batman Begins. So, the 80's is just a Star Wars decade, will people just shut up and watch these movies?

This is another classic to the list. They weren't making a Masterpiece such as Star Wars, but they weren't exactly going the Santa Claus Conquers the Martians route either. They were going somewhere in between. A perfect balance of a script based off but not rip-off of Tron, great special effects (those are a rip-off of Star Wars. The explosions look just like Death Star explosions,) and a character development pulled from the great mysteries and Star Trek episodes of the times. All pulled together by a legendary title, plot twist, and cheese, make a good popcorn flick, and that's all this is, just a popcorn flick. But a very good one. Usually, the only thing going for a popcorn flick is the popcorn. Here, you actually bond with the characters and observe great details in the things I have mentioned before. 

I do have a few problems that I haven't mentioned. First off, every character is your usual neighborhood suburbs kind of good ol' folk. Except the 7 year old who swears a ton and reads playboy. YOU HAD 10 TEENAGERS IN THEIR, AND YOU CHOSE A 7 YEAR OLD TO READ PLAYBOY AND SWEAR LIKE CRAP! Jesus. That just isn't right. The script was not executed as well as it could have been. Things didn't happen in order. Twist should have come the second after we fall in love with the main character, after having a grudge against this brat. NOT BEFORE! But other than that, I really like everything. The idea of having them search for a recruit through a video game is an innovative spin on two very overused plots. I really like the movie, watch this when you're ready to come loose from a hard days night-I MEAN work. 

All in all, fun, fun, fun. But it's more than fun, it has a lot of hard work poured into it, it was just squashed from the point they started making it. You can't do a Star Wars 80's type of movie without getting cheesy, but they really put some sweat and tears into this film. The Rating? 3.8/5.

The Karate Kid (1984)

Wax On, Wax Off.

The first thing I'd haft to say about this film is, don't go in expecting a masterpiece. I did, until I realized this is among Clash of the Titans (1981,) and not among Aliens. If you don't go in expecting a masterpiece, believe me, you will get a masterpiece. Now, not everything is strong. The scenes with Daniel and his Mom don't blend well, the two alone are, Daniel is great, Mom is good. However, together, it's like putting milk and corn in a blender. That is disgusting. However, Daniel seems to be able to blend very well with all other characters. His strongest point is Mr. Miagi. Did I spell it right?

Now, you might come off thinking that Daniel (The Karate Kid) comes off feeling like a typical Greaser, and Johnny comes off as the typical Soc. I have an answer. The actor that played Daniel played Johnny in The Outsiders. Johnny is the holy grail of Greasers in The Outsiders. Remember the scene where his head is blown up to the size of the screen? Half deep half funny. So that's why. Now, if you are thinking I was talking about Greasers and Socs from Grease, well, they're different beans from the same stew. Daniel however, is not a Greaser in this film, he is just picked on by the rich kids. But he has a house, a mom, and he enters a Karate tournament! This is not a Prince of Persia story. 

Definably the strong points in the film are Daniel and Miagi building a relationship. It's absolute genius. With that said, don't go in expecting a Predator or Terminator or Commando type action-flick Karate Kid style. It's not Karate Kid, it's The Karate Kid. The Karate Kid is about the human sole, and how Karate fills the sole. It's about, well, lemme put it like this. After seeing this film, I realize nothing today is original at it's core. Everything is taken from something I've seen, and a TON is taken from The Karate Kid. Here, it's the "heartwarming" tales of a new father. Miagi is not just a Sensi, he acts as a Father Figure. A Mentor. And it's carried through in an awesome fashion. Those who think that this film doesn't quite tell everything about the mentor story, watch Part II and III. Which actually, I haven't seen III but I have seen II as you will see above but I've seen a review of III. 

Also, the love triangle between Johnny, Daniel and Ari is done extremely well. The first doing something always tells it the best, so what might be cliche today was the bomb of a story back here. And I except that, because it does what is so called cliche in a way that cannot be reproduced, but of course, has been tried at many of times. The whole script is genius, and the premise is original and quite good. I wouldn't say the idea was the same as Terminator's premise. The directing seems like it didn't have many flaws, only one thing. This movie is extremely quiet. I had too turn my TV up to 14, where my usual is 8 or 9. So obviously, the actors didn't speak up that much and that distracted me for half the film!

This is where the "teenage/older-child hero story" really came into popular culture. For a movie on it's own, I'd give it 4/5. But, for being so innovative, it deserves a 5.5/5!

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Jaws 3 (1983)

Wow. They messed up Jaws this bad?

This is the awfulness of Jaws 2, with none of the good, minus twenty minutes but what feels like hours upon hours. But, they at least gave it a shot. But, it felt like it was being directed by 12 year old girls. They had no idea what they were doing. What a piece of crap. There's absolutely nothing that will keep you awake. The only good thing was that they tried at making a movie, but they obviously had no intentions of trying to get someone as great as Spielberg because Universal was so d@m cheap with this movie! I don't wanna talk about it, and honestly, there is no reason to talk about it.

The Rating? 1.8/5. Now that's crap. If they did that to a Jaws movie, I'm ready to leave my loyalty of Universal.

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (1982)

Home E.T. Phoned.

 

What an awesome movie. Steven Spielberg and John Williams of course are the big names, but everyone played a fantastic part in this film. But lemme say, John Williams has been with Steven Spielberg most of the way through. I’ll just name a few, Jaws, Indiana Jones, E.T., Jurassic Park, and Spielberg was offered to do Superman and didn’t take it. But John took the job, I guess it just felt right. Now, more onto E.T. I like how they gradually revel E.T., just enough for your soul to feel just right. I mean, Steven really knows how to play with your sole, and that makes him one of the best filmmakers in all the times.

Speaking of which, the Cinematography in this film is fantastic. The shots are just incredible! You don’t get those natural panoramic views today. Just 360 shots. Blaugh. The humor in E.T. is great and light hearted, just pure. No $3Xual jokes or violence needed for the laughing, just light hearted humor everyone can get around. I find that in Spielberg movies, and Ghostbusters. The special effects are just completely amazing, HOW DID THEY DO THAT IN 1982??? I didn’t think they used CGI in live action at the time. Yet, they also capture your imagination. I know I sound paid off (oh, hello Spielberg…) No, I’m just joking around. The animals are a good addition but I feel as if they were mistreated.

Clichés do exist, however, they fit in nicely in the film. Another feature similar to Indiana Jones. But here, it’s family cliché, where in Indy it’s action cliché. Jurassic Park has Sci-Fi cliché, Jaws has horror cliché, gosh, Spielberg likes clichés. E.T. also has a great personality, you can totally get around this guy. He’s just perfect for the role, he’s so awesome. And speaking of which, I love how gradually he is able to learn both together with friends and on his own. It just shows they didn’t sham a family movie, and really put some personality in this character. The child actors are fantastic, this beats Goonies. I have never seen children act with such character and feelings. It just shows what. They are free and well spirited.

There is a fake kids show in the film that helps E.T. talk, but the text on it is disturbing. Oh well, minor quibble. Minor complement, I also love E.T.’s voice, it’s just so classic. You know, I’ve waited WAY too long to see this amazing film. The characters are wonderful, they all represent a different part of society. The inexperienced, intermediate, experienced but naïve, elder, corrupt, pure, and of course, foreign. It just fits perfectly into such a wonderful film. Just a perfectly pure and clever film. Better than some of the junk put out these days. Oh and, of course, the Halloween scene has to be talked about. No way could anybody ever make a costume so simple yet so clever. Meaning, all you haft to do is put a sheet over your head to dress up like E.T. Pure genius.

Honestly, I feel the bike scene might be overrated. But, I waited to long to see this film, maybe my brain has been to synthesized. That’s something I gotta live with. I also have seen but no memory of Spider-Man. But, that’s nothing like waiting to see E.T. The psychological aspect of this film is original and genius, the ability to feel other feelings. That’s AMAZING! No thinking other thoughts, Spielberg was able to THINK in the way I am. Feel other feelings, that’s correct and amazing. Beautiful. This movie isn’t afraid to rip your heart out, or put your heart back in. It makes you feel extremely deeply.

“Hey, who are you?” “I’m driving.” Awesome line, that goes in the line of fame. Such a beautiful film.

I rate it, 5.3/5

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Bluagh...Glaugh...Ugh....

I know some, and probably a lot, of people like this movie. A lot of people like Avatar. Me, this movie was @#$%ing atrocious. Pure exploitation film and nothing else to satisfy. Boobs and Blood, that's it. Incredibly difficult to follow, and the good things are buried 5K feet under the bad stuff. I extremely caution not to watch, because this was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

The Rating? (Keep in mind I've given this only too 2 other movies.) .........1/5

Jaws 2 (1978)

Decent. Decent, when it is compared to the masterpiece Jaws is, is trash.

This movie is mostly boring. However, there are some very suspenseful and legit scary scenes. There's a mystery in this movie, how the shark got burnt, as if "is it a new shark, or is it the same shark for the first one." That alone, makes it worth watching. However, you don't care nearly as much as you should, because it's mostly cliche, teen comedy and drama. It's all about Brody's family, and then the second half is his son and company on a boat, stranded instead of looking for the shark. As for the first half, it's an interesting concept, but it doesn't work for a sequel to the ultimate thriller that was Jaws. As for the second half, it's also an interesting concept, but IT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE THRILLER THAT WAS JAWS! Think about it, teens stranded out in the sea. Perfect for a terrible movie.

The whole movie is basically...The James Cameroon of today trying to be the Steven Spielberg of his first days. Not to say S.S. Film is bad today, but as long as you have more naive and amateur in your system, you also have more genius. Spielberg is so perfect these days, he doesn't have the same freedom to create a film. Maybe he should re watch his own work. But, of course, it's James Cameroon I do not like. He directed Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens, Piranha II, and The Abyss. Those were masterpieces. Now he directs Avatar and Titanic. Blaugh. Avatar was 1/5, as I've said before, and Titanic is not the movie to be directed by the same director of Aliens. As you can imagine, it wasn't exactly the best mix. I like how they aged the characters, although some aged the appropriate 4 years and some aged the inappropriate 11 years. 

The ending should make it all worth it. But it doesn't. However, it's pretty sweet. SPOILER ALERT. SHARKS GETTING ELECTROCUTED!!! AWESOME!!!!

That's all I have to say people, thank you for reading, and have a GREAT DAY!

Oh wait, the rating? Um...I'd say a good 3.59/5

Apache[s] (1977)

Just for the record, I like cows. There is no trailer, this is actually a full length PSA.

For those of you who need an introduction, this film is about kids who go to a farm to play Cowboy's and Indians. (INDIANS ARE FROM INDIA!!!!) But they end up all but one being killed in a gory mess. I'm not joking. Okay, only one has blood, BUT THEY ALL GET KILLED! This film was also only released in the UK, and only on Television. Never on Betamax, VHS, CED, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, or Blu-Ray. But it even deserves the Blu-Ray treatment, if it were a classic and there was a cult following. I feel there soon will be, but it won't be for another 10 years that it will ever get a video release. In that, you wonder how British kids sleep at night. It's no wonder they become James Bond villains. 

Of course the kids are going to be cliche, because this is the late seventies. However, the kids not only are cliche but just awkward. Now, I understand that most kids are awkward, but also the kids act in the "Christopher Robin" sense. You need some consistency, either have the kid real or fake. And it's a tradition in PSA's to make the kids fake. I will also state that this film is only 27 minutes, so if you want to see it it shouldn't take too much of your time. You can easily tell the dialogue is lip-synched. The kids are horrid, and I wouldn't expect more, but in Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory we saw the kids speaking just fine.

Now, lemme repeat a few things. This film tells us the dangers of wondering around on a farm. Really? What about maybe looking both ways before crossing the street? That would be helpful!!! That always happens and kids never listen!!! But no, we take the 1/10,000 chance that kids will do this obscure activity.  The first death in this film is not very well portrayed, and there is no build-up. The adult witnessing this is stupid, and doesn't give a $#!T. *wink.* Most likely because of the fact that there is no character development. They  just give you the kids NICKNAMES. Not even names! And just expect you to be connected to the kids like that. Obviously the people making this movie never actually watched a movie.

You know how sometimes a kid will want to buy a toy gun? THESE KIDS BUY REAL GUNS. No, not even buy, THEY ALREADY OWN REAL GUNS BEFORE HAND AND PLAY WITH THEM IN COWBOYS & INDIANS!!!! WHERE ARE THESE KIDS PARENTS. Drinking, and eating. No kidding, the whole freaking film is about kids who run to have fun and die while their parents just drink. It takes place mostly in real time. Onto the subject of dialogue again, this film's voice writing is awful. True you can't expect from a PSA, BUT IT'S JUST HORRID!!!! This is longer than most of today's TV episodes, not a 5 minute commercial!!! Have consistency!!! They just slacked because they never realized just how infamous this film would become.

The next death we see is when a kid dies in crap. I'm not joking. He dies in crap. He drowns in cow manure, that looks like a teenager's dia---you get the point. As they saw "Poopality!!" James D. Rolfe should review this movie. Yeah, figured out he isn't the least bit related to Thomas Edison. I do appreciate one of the kid’s ideas of an adult party. The naïve mind is such a wonderful thing. He says “nobody gets any presents, nobody gets anything to go home with. There’s no dancing, it’s just people standing around eating and drinking.” Makes us realize just how weird grown people are. But it might seem the other way around to someone else, probably older. Now, I don't like how they refer to Native Peoples as "Indians." Especially in England, they have no more reason to care. But, at the same time, this is 70's England, WDYE? (What Do You Expect?)

The kids are mercy-less. They take death with no sadness or regret, no looking back wanting one more play time. No drama. This is what they should have had, BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP KIDS FROM DOING THIS STUFF! THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY REASONS SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!!! But I digress, because this film actually grows on you. Yeah, by the 12 minute mark, you will find yourself actually being entertained. I don't know if it's just because I had 11.75 hours of sleep rather than my usual 8, but I actually think this film is worth a watch. Just to understand how bad it is, you really become attached to it. But I wasn't pausing when I was taking notes, so my experience was challenged.

The next death is from drinking weed killer. They are doing pretend rituals: here's a thought: PRETEND RITUALS REQUIRE PRETEND DRINKS. Or, whatever the he11 is fire water.  The girl who dies after drinking poison delivers one he11 of a yell. That’s probably what would have happened. No, not joking, DEAD serious. Then they go ahead and play with guns. WHAT DID THESE KIDS HAVE NO PARENTS? ARE THESE THE LOST BOYS THAT WERE TO STUCK UP AND GOT KICKED OUT OF NEVER LAND?!?! That’s Bull$#!T. This film looks like it takes place centuries before our time, with no 70’s technology at all. However, there is an airplane in the background. You need consistency! Well, I think I might have saw a TV, but it didn't look like a 70's TV. It looked like a computer monitor.

Lemme repeat what I said with a little more. A kid drowns in crap, another kid gets his head sliced in a million pieces, a kid gets run over by a tractor, but then a kid gets killed by a falling fence. WTF? Everything but the falling fence was legit seemingly, but falling fence? WTF? There is no consistency. Is this a film about pretending to be Native Americans? Is this a film about dumb adults? Is this a kids infomercial? All three? I can’t tell. But in the end, we truly figure it out. Because some 30 kids died in 1976 on a farm, and were all reported. Jeez, that’s dark.

In conclusion, the phrase it's so bad it's good applies in the most surprising way in this film. So, under normal circumstances I'd give it a 3. But thinking about everything, it gets a 2.4/5

Jaws (1975)

Do Not Drown

Happy 35th Birthday Jaws!

Steven Spielberg is an absolute genius in this directing role. However, remember that you can not have the Ying without the Yang. Therefore, we also see some of Spielberg's early amateur self. This was his first big hit production, follow his home movies of Firelight and Amblin, and a TV movie of Duel. First, I gotta talk about John Williams BABY! Of course, the music is iconic and absolutely awesome. Everyone knows that stuff. It's probably the most innovative Spielberg film of all time JUST for that iconic music. Of course, everyone associates the music with the shark, which makes it even more innovative to society. However, in the beginning scene (which we will talk about a little later,) we see the girl does not know the shark is there, yet we hear the music. See, THAT scene in particular, and all scenes where the victim does not know of the shark would be better off without music. And a lot of them don't. However, the chase scenes/scenes where the victim knows the shark is coming, DESIRES THAT MUSIC.

Here's why: it is a suspenseful track. If there's a very suspenseful song in the background, then for sure a SUSPENSEFUL scene will benefit from such a tune. The scene where the dock breaks, and the guy is swimming away from the shark, is absolute genius. I was on the edge of my seat. However, the scenes in the boat almost had no music compared to the first half-of-the-movie suspense scenes. Onto another matter. They don't show the shark nearly as much as a lot of horror movies. Like in Godzilla, you don't see the monster until the time is right, and many scenes absolutely benefit from the mystery. Not showing the monster is another way of making the audience smarter and more into the movie. Genius Steven, genius! Now, there is one scene early on in the movie that shows the shark, but it fits well. When they show the shark in the boat scene, I guess they eventually had to show it, but I feel it lost a little touch.

As you might have noticed by now, I actually LIKE the first half better then the second half. It just feels like they can't come up with anything good in the second hour of the film. Sure, their are some touching and intriguing parts involving the humans, but you need human shark relationships in this film! I also felt the first half had a much better relationship with the plot. You see, it's all about corruption and cruelty and greed within politics, I guess, since the 1900's. You tell me when politics went wrong, but I actually believe it was Andrew Jackson that screwed it all up. But, you really get pissed at that mayor, he's such a perfect actor. He's scripted extremely well and he plays the script in a manner of awesomeness. In fact, every character is scripted in a manner of awesomeness. 

Now, lemme tell you, if you are of light heart, and wanna watch this because of Jurassic Park or Indiana Jones (which are already disturbing enough.) You might come in for a surprise, THERE IS A LOT OF BLOOD. There are people getting trampled to death. There are kids being brutality eaten in a frenzy! This movie holds no punches, it doesn't try to lower itself for a wider audience. It's hardcore, and I commend Steven Spielberg for not holding back, what a genius! I haft to just say that me and him both share Heinz Asperger's Syndrome. And no, not the ketchup or/on @$$ Burgers. Look it up. But man, some of this stuff is extremely disturbing. There are some plot holes, but this is a 1975 movie, you can't expect everything. But you sure do get a lot more than you expect. 

Now, I, being a conspiracy theorist, definably haft to talk about the two UFO scenes. Yes, there are two very short scenes back to back, that show a shooting star type object. I was willing to believe the first scene was a shooting star, but it comes strait back the other way in the next scene. It's clearly not an act of nature, unless it is being driven by an alien being called an act of nature. I'm pretty sure if that was a real shark, that would have been against laws (at least today if not in '75.) If it's not a real shark, that was some awesome realistic stuff. That really does look like a real shark. Animatronics, I suppose? Not a guy in a suit...maybe, it could be. Yeah, that's actually a probable solution.

Anyways, an absolute masterpiece. I rate it, 5.458/5

Space Amoeba (1970)

For it's 40th Anniversary (yes I may be doing S.O.S. to make it Amoeba-Thon,) I've been wanting to do this review for a while.

Now, if you read my Salt review (written the same day,) you will know I love cliche's and cheese. This...is not the reason why I like this film. First, it's exotic, it's rare when a Toho monster movie both takes place on an exotic island AND is original. At least past 1967. This lands the last non-Godzilla monster movie Ishiro Honda directed, and the last non-Godzilla monster movie before Godzilla himself got a talking from husband-of-future-senator-of-Connecticut Vincent Kennedy McMahon. (For all non-wrestling fans: YOOOUUUUUU'RRRREEE FIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRREEEEEDDDDDD.) Of course, that would be temporary, but we all know we missed him.

And it wasn't so much that he was fired as much as he was unable to perform and was laid off. During the 1972 alone, all these lost projects came up: Godzilla vs. Hitodah, Godzilla vs. Hedorah 2 (the first Godzilla movie to have a number in it at the time,) Godzilla vs. Redmoon, The Return of King Ghidorah, and Godzilla vs. The Space Monsters: Earth Defense directive. Following such, during the late 70's, these films were lost: Godzilla vs. The Devil, Godzilla vs. Spacegodzilla (early script,) Godzilla vs. The Gargantuas, Godzilla vs. The Asuka Fortress, and King of the Monsters: Rebirth of Godzilla which was going to be a remake of the original.

And that's just one of the many decades where Godzilla was unable to perform. What was my rambling to point again? There was no point, I was being random and a \/\/hore trying to fill up space. Now, onto other cases, the movie. Yes, it is very exotic, in more ways than just the setting. But let's talk about the setting. The ancient and isolated jungle and beautiful seas create the mood for a strange acid flick featuring low-budget monsters. Yes, this film was low budget, even after Toho made legends such as Godzilla, Seven Samurai, Rodan, Mothra, The H-Man, and tons of other greats that you know about. You can tell that Gezora sometimes has his eyes glowing, in the script it was originally intended that his eyes would ALWAYS GLOW. 

But that's not the movies problem. The monsters are also awesome. Ganime is a rip-off of Ebirah, Kamoebas is a rip-off of Gamera, and Gezora is AWESOME!!! He is the most trippy slimy piece of I have ever seen! He looks incredible! Someone who works for the Academy would say he looks stupid NO. He is awesome in both cheese and just sheer originality. Sure, he's a squid, BUT HE'S A CRAZY @$$ SQUID. Like how Gamera is a Crazy @$$ Turtle. Of course, every Toho movie comes with it's own moral of the story awesomeness, and this one doesn't let down. (Wow, awesomeness actually agrees with the spell check.) It tells us to always remember your roots, and never let what has crawled into your body take over you. Remember that people, you were naked when you were born.

The monster action is actually a little lacking, but probably because of the body structure of our three superstars. It's an odd acid classic, anybody thinking a stupid squid on the cover means it's awful is missing out on some amazing stuff. I desperately want to see another Toho monster movie, so I urge people to go see the new Godzilla movie coming out the year we die. (I think that's self explanatory.) I rate it...3.75/5

Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

Jason.

So, what do we have to say about this flick? Well, you can basically get all the information from my Clash of the Titans (1981) review. However, I will say again that Ray Hay is one of the best in the business. Although, why in his Greek movies have we seen guys in such revealing clothing but girls all covered? Was this supposed to be the way of Ancient Greece? Also, I love how these types of movies enter with some awesome text effects. But, besides that, you pretty much get it from my Clash OT Titans review.

Now, I must mention Jason Voorhees. Wouldn't it be cool (and funny,) to see this remade but with different characters? Instead of Jason and the Argonauts we would have Jason Voorhees and the ArgoNOTS. Zeus would be Godzilla, the Hydra would be Ghidorah, Hercules would be The Terminator, th skeletons would be Freddys, and also Michael, Jigsaw, Norman Bates, Gamera, King Kong, Predator, and so on. I can't believe nobody has thought of that before!

I rate this film, 3.7/5 

Dementia 13 (1963)

You know how I said Matango was an underrated masterpiece of cinema? Well, this one just comes so, painfully close...just lost it by a hair.

And the only reasons I say this movie didn't get it quite right, was this. Wait...hold on.... *yes...yes...yes....ugh-hugh....ugh-hugh...yeah...oikay...yeah...*.........................................THIS IS PERFECTION!!!!!!!!!!!! Holly crap this is...this is... You know this is in the public domain? WHY! It was made as recently as 1963, and the creators are Roger Corman and the director of The Godfather! People, WHY! This movie is absolutely fantastic. I'd say, this is Frankenstein, Halloween and Psycho blended beautifully. This is complete awesomeness. First off, it's in beautiful Black and White, which does add to the creepy atmosphere. I'd say this is 1963, but Night of the Living Dead was in 1968 and was in Black and White. It also adds to the actors, I feel they are improved by the black and white. It always seems that way doesn't it?

Here, you don't need a monster, and the psycho isn't seen till the second half, and isn't revealed until the very end. Sounds Familiar doesn't it? Extremely awesome. It's not a gore fest, but it has more gore than a lot of movies that were being made at the time. Luckily, it's all black so if it's the color RED that gets you (and is the background of my website,) than you don't haft to worry about it. The story is very intriguing, and, every shot is just beautiful. It's a work of genius. I would say that it is one of the most innovative movies ever made, but since it's in the public domain and these tactics have been used before, I can't say that. If I told you any of the genius shots I'd be giving away some stuff. Lemme just tell you this: this movie has an ABSOLUTELY sweet twist conveyed throughout the entire movie but not realized until the last scene.

Also, the plotline is very well done. It transitions from a girl's husband dying and the girl throwing the dead body in the lake. Then, it goes into a mystery that the girl is solving about Kathleen who died many years ago and drowned in a lake. Then, when something big happens, it transitions to her brother-in-law, trying to figure out what his dreams mean. They are of course, about Kathleen and the killer, but it even adds more to the twist than you can imagine. This movie isn't for the visual and audible effects, it's about the psychological aspects of it. However, as I said this did have a heavy amount of gore for 1963, and it actually has some pretty scary scenes of animals making sudden noises. It's a perfect sit down, so if you go in expecting too much you might find it boring, but believe me it's absolutely awesome. 

It's almost a slasher film in some aspects, a psycho is creating a body count. But it's not that big, and frankly, it's not too important to the whole idea of the film. All the actors do their job in good shape, and the execution of the script is done with plenty of effort. Everything else is pretty much masterful. So, I guess with those things in mind, it's not entirely perfect. Dang, I wish I could say it was though. 

The Rating? 5.4/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Black Friday (1940)

Friday the 13th, A Universal Production, starring Frankenstein and Dracula.

For it's 70th Birthday.

Within the first some odd minutes, DRACULA RUNS OVER A COLLEGE PROFESSOR! That should give you the idea, but let's dive into this great film in depth. Because it setting is modern 1940, it lacks the correct atmosphere that is definably present in other Universal horror flicks such as Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Creature From the Black Lagoon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Invisible Man, The Phantom of the Opera, The Cat and the Canary, and the. But, there are still scenes where there is atmosphere present, and just Black and White really helps the film. This whole film centers around illegal surgery on both animals and humans, and that presents a good recurring theme in these films. The controversy of what should and should not be allowed in society.

Dracula (Bela Lugosi's) performance is magnificent. As always, he has that face, that accent, it makes him awesomely mad! He is just spectacular, I love him more than The Monster (Boris Karloff.) He should stick to playing as a monster, like in Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, (I believe) Son of Frankenstein, The Mummy, and many more. But when he plays a mad scientist, he doesn't have too much magic. Now here's something, haven't you always been bothered at looking at writing in a film but not being able to read it? Well they actually spell it out for you!! G, actually giving the audience a chance at reading it? No, no, we want money! In other words, Universal had more common sense in these days than today, and most studios.

The musical score is good, but not great. I say a C, C+ or B-. Nothing more, nothing less. Worthwhile, but not something to really devote your love to. Warning: this film shows age very much so. In the form of inflation, it shows how an amount of money was worth more in the day. Such as in House on Haunted Hill. As in all Universal films, the cinematography mixes perfectly with the atmosphere and symbolism. Not to mention, it's great all by itself. I love how it parodies the typical spinning newspaper. Here, there are not only spinning newspapers, but spinning everything written that gets its own shot. Like even if the camera is fixed on a sign, that gets a newspaper spin!

One actor is quickie and over the top, but this is part of his character. Unlike newer Hollywood films, all characters are necessary, and there personality is necessary. Kingsley's glasses look upside down, as I nit pick my out of London. The plot is very hard to grasp, but once you do, it is a very compelling and interesting plot that will never leave you bored. It is smart, mystifying, and many other things. It cleverly mixes two genres that can go together great: Horror and Mystery. Then, it adds a secret ingredient, Chemical X, whatever you say. Crime/Gang! WHEN DID YOU EXPECT A GANG MOVIE WITH THE SAME GUY WHO PLAYED DRACULA!!!!! The use of hypnosis both cleverly adds to the atmosphere and is just plain awesome! 

And, If I'm not mistaken, Bela himself was in a trance during the suffocating scene. Some conspiracy going on? Nah, as you saw, it was in the trailer. At one hour and ten minutes, this film is incredibly fast paced for a '40 movie and can be watched in a short sitting. Got a show coming up in say, 1:30, NO PROBLEM! Watch Black Friday! Of course, this film deserves a more prime time spot for those Universal fans out there. The humor is okay, enough said there. But whats really funny and cheesy are the dramatic pauses. I love those, they are classic. When you read one of the letters, you see "Wive Love" instead of "With Love." I have no idea. To me, it's just a typo. The music in this film caught the attention of my dog, I wonder if there's some dog whistles, or if it's just soothing to an animal?

For those who have the usual patience for a universal flick, this film doesn't leave you bored for a second. I think that sentence alone should make anyone want to see it (Bela Lugosi Collection for those who are righteous and don't download.) The diary is cool, but sort of de-levels the integrity of the film until the very end where it IS AWESOME! Heck, the ending was awesomely awesome. It's something you'd come to expect of Universal, but it's still pure genius! Great twist, great ending, Universal Monster Movie. I love it. Not done though. In this film there is a character named Kane. Hmm...1940-Character named Kane. 1941-Citizen Kane. 2010-Kane (Glenn Jacbos) becomes WWE World Heavyweight Champion at Money in the Bank 1. MANY KANES! CANE! CAIN! 

So there is my thoughts, this film is wonderful, a universal monster movie with a spectacular ending. Check it out.

I rate it, well I would rate it 4/5. But for that ending it got another .4! 4.4/5!

Gone With the Wind (1939)

…You know, I’ve hated on a lot of so called masterpieces, including To Kill a Mockingbird, Avatar and Conan the Barbarian. I’ve been very positive about of so called trash, like Freddy vs. Jason, Cloverfield, Jaws the Revenge, Alien vs. Predator, Prince of Persia, Alien Resurrection, and the new A Nightmare on Elm Street. Well, I think you’ll be very disappointed with this review if you are in disagreement with my opinions on these films. (Longest introduction ever.)

Now, I will say this movie is very beautiful. But, we must get on that later. The first thing you see is an Overture, and you really don’t see that much do you? Not even in older films, I’ve seen so many, including every Universal Movie in the Legacy Collections. But within 10 minutes of the film, it just felt SO GOD D@M LONG!!!!!! Now, I think I have an explanation. This is based off a book. So is Lord of the Rings (duh.) What do they have in common? SO GOD D@M LONG! (However LOTR was very good.) Why? Because they stayed true to the book. That pleased a lot of people. What if they hadn’t stayed true to the book? Well, people who haven’t read the book enjoy it more but people who have read the book, BOMBSHELL!!!!!! THIS IS A BOMBSHELL!!!!!

So, you either bore people or make them extremely angry. Personally, I’d rather bore people. And frankly, so did the directors of this film. If It weren’t a book, I’d say this could have been just a 1 R 2 hour movie, NOT A @#$%ING 4 HOURS! WHAT THE @#$%! HOW IN THE HE11 DID THEY DO THAT IN 19 @#$%ING 39! But, with that said, I cannot deny it’s innovation. Along with Wizard of Oz, Phantom of the Opera, War of the Worlds and The Many Adventures of Robin Hood, this innovated the business with full blown Technicolor. Also, the use of text was greatly enhanced and more entertaining for this year. Oscars should have brought back “Best Title Writing” for this film.

Being the man I am, I must talk about how God D@M offensive it is. This describes the South as a wonderful place, of Master and Slave. And I quote that. Load of Crock! I don’t give a D@M if they loved their Dixie Land, this is 70 years after the Civil War, and I believe that to make this is showing how idiotic the human race is. Also, all white characters are orderly and well manner, while the Black characters are full of stereotypes. Obviously, there was a reason for MLK. Oh and, Song of the South is banned. Yet this is allowed into the public? Or is Disney really a coward? What a “$#!T Load of @#$%!”

Now, onto how the film goes. You do not feel with any characters except for VERY specific scenes. And frankly, not in the way you really want to. For instance, in this scene you feel twice. One girl kills a man and the other stripes nude. Now, I want to say it is done civilized but, honestly, I feel as if these girls are just psychos. Do I want to feel that in a love story? And frankly, I just don’t like love stories. I just saw this for film experience. There are some smart scenes, but frankly, they are not too memorable. May I just say, that medicine in the civil war is a cruel thing. There’s also a scene in a loon house, why do you never see girls in there in the movies?

The shell scenes are shocking, even for today. This film also has some beautiful cinematic scenes. So, I cannot stay completely mad at this film. But, the big problem is I don’t feel like I’m watching a movie. I feel like I’m watching moving pictures. You understand? This film also has innovation in the way of creating certain scenes. Probably the most famous, is the return, run and hug scene. It’s very over exaggerated today, especially in cartoons. However, in here, it is simply a hug that doesn’t even end in a collision. But innovative none the less. Now,  I will say there is one good moral: WAR IS BULL$#!T. But, that doesn’t quite make up, so now I’m gonna be offensive. Compared to most 30’s and 40’s movies, the girls here are RED HOT.

You know that scene where the main character flashes back everything at once? Yeah, that was invented in this film. It also helped create the Tomorrow is Another Day theme. So, all in all, I can describe it in 4 words that all apply to the extreme: Innovative, Beautiful, Offensive, Boring. It has its place in history, but history aside it is one of the most boring films I’ve ever seen.

The Rating? It would be 2/5, but here, because of it’s place in history, 2.6/5

I, Da Ca$hman signing off.

Frankenstein (1910)

An interesting one. This is  the one by Thomas A. Edison studios. Most people know the character of Frankenstein as the Universal 1931 versions creature. However, this is in fact the first version. As I quote James A. Rolfe (Thomas A Edison, relationship perhaps?) "We're not @#$%ing around WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1910!" I just love the way he says it, you've gotta see it. Anyways, so how is it? Well, if you like silent films you should like it. If you don't have that much time on your hands you should like it, it lasts for 12 minutes and 42 seconds exactly. This movie also creates an image of the Monster I've seen nobody try to even be inspired by.

The idea of a clever, fox like monster. See, the sympathetic Frankenstein's Monster is so popular, that's just what everybody goes with. Now, on the other hand, we've got this guy. First off, he looks awesome. Second off, he's got the best creation sequence of the early 1900's and probably up their in the top 10 of all time. It's just awesome, it's worth a watch just too see that. And, it's legal to download! I would suggest Internet Archive myself. Third off, this one delivers the idea of a monster who knows what life is like and doesn't want it. It would be like if someone rose an angel back to earth (or would it be pulled down?)

Yes, the monster hates being alive like the first one, but here, he doesn't try to adapt. Instead, he tries to torture and injure Frankenstein, mostly mentally but sometimes physically. And yes, there is a scene with a mirror analogy (more on it later), but I just can't help but feel these two aren't the same in this movie. Now is later, the last scene is the mirror analogy, and I didn't spoil anything, it didn't deserve to be. They ended it on a low note. That is my only problem, besides their being no real DVD release to speak of. This movie for over 50 years was thought to be a lost film, meaning it was extinct, long gone, didn't even exist. Until it was found in Australia. So, it seems like we're looking at the holy grail, but that in our minds has been replaced with London After Midnight.

Well, I can't deliver too much on a 13 minute movie, but there is my stuff. The Rating? I'd say, a good 3.6/5