Ender's Game

As usual, I haven't read the book for this, so I'm going entirely based on the movie here. I know, I know. I really need to pick up a book or two more often. I really miss reading for pleasure.

Ender's Game is a good, albeit strange, movie. It has a cool, if not necessarily big or expansive, story, following a boy raised in peace time in a militaristically proud society. The invasion of Earth by the alien enemy happened 50 years previous to the events of the film, but the army continues to build itself in fear of the alien's return. It has an obvious allusion to our involvement overseas (whether or not this was the same context for the book obviously I don't know, but it would of course be with different policies in mind), questioning how much is too much in military protection, what "protection" really is, and of course bringing into question the moral ambiguity of the use of child soldiers. Obviously to us it's unthinkable, but this film does put the concept into a very believable scenario, one that almost leaves the audience not batting an eye.

But for all its brilliance, I have to admit I have some questions that were never really answered. I get that the game that was played was to demonstrate a certain way of thinking and a certain amount of leadership. But how exactly was this game demonstrating a strong leader for a full armada of spaceships? It's not like he really learned any skills in space battle, only battling with his own weightlessness? I don't want to give away the ending, but there's a BIG question I have regarding his training simulations. Give me a holler if you want to know that question, we'll avoid spoilers here. Although here's a weird little spoiler question - why were they so mad that he found the game section, wanted him blocked out, and yet continued to watch? Confused...

Ben Kingsley is an awesome actor with a super cool character. But again, this character raised more questions than answers. How exactly is he there? Is that really all the explanation we're going to get? what am I missing to let me really get this story? As always, I put no fault on the book. This is problems with a script, things that were left out that probably could have been left in or explained.

But all that aside, I loved the performances in this movie so much. Everyone gave 110% to deliver an awesome interpretation of deeply written characters, some giving far more interesting twists to characters than the sometimes bland script didn't deliver on. And that's not to say the script is bad - it had me react pretty strongly to some of the emotional displays. It's a successful movie. But I can't help feeling it could have worked far better.

Rank - 3/5

Last Vegas

I had absolutely no idea what I was getting into with this movie. Honestly, I hadn't seen a single trailer. It only just came onto my movie radar maybe a week ago, and I liked the idea. But then again, it could turn into some boring rehash of a million comedies.

But what I got was nothing original, but still a sweetly told and nicely written story. Four childhood best friends go to Vegas to see the final one of them get married to a particularly young woman. The film has plenty of jabs at the age of the girl, and plenty of jokes about male genitalia. But I have to admit, there was something different about the style and level of low brow humor. After thinking about it, I realized it was organic. The jokes weren't forced dirty jokes or nods to the audience. Instead, they were jokes that I'd very much believe childhood friends would throw off, much like how my closest friends and I would throw off color humor at each other. It made sense that they would bust Michael Douglas the way that they do, and Kevin Kline's behavior and actions make sense for him rather then just a punchline for the audiences to chuckle at.

The story is generic enough, involving two characters falling for the same woman, past drama that alienates one of them, and of course distinct character flaws such as not feeling alive, sexual frustration, questions of love, and moving through phases of loss. It moves pretty effortlessly through humor and serious moments, allowing not only to connect with them on an emotional level but also allowing us as an audience to laugh with them, again making the low brow humor work effortlessly. Each of the actors demonstrate masterful ability to balance humor that's funny on two levels - the context of their actions relative to their age, but also in context to their personalities as actors. There are often punches at their personalities or character types, and to watch this group of well respected actors at a club is pretty hilarious.

Honestly...there's really not too much else to say about this movie. Although it should be noted that I saw this movie by myself, surrounded by people easily 3 or 4 times my age. Of that audience, everyone seemed to REALLY enjoy themselves, laughing at all the right moments and reacting just right to every  other moment. It was really an enjoyable group of people to see the movie with, but I guess that's also a pretty strong nod to the audience that will enjoy this movie. Kids my age will probably stick with The Hangover.

Rank - 3.5/5

Free Birds

Oh my god. It's been done. It's really been done. A movie was made that even George Takei's presence couldn't fix. It's so sad. It actually happened.

Seriously though. I thought Escape from Planet Earth was the worst animated movie I'd seen in a long time. But no, this, THIS takes the turkey. What's that, you say that's a bad pun? Kick's the crap out of any joke int his movie...

So, what is this movie about? Two turkey's, one of whom had a vision of a turkey god telling him to do so, go back in time to prevent turkey's from becoming Thanksgiving dinner. Yes, that apparently WILL be made into a movie. Owen Wilson's character, the USA pardoned turkey, is kidnapped by Woody Harrelson's overly buff turkey (...?) character. Hijinks ensue. That's really about all there is to say...there's Native American turkeys (?) who use spears and flaming pumpkins (?) to sabotage Plymouth colony (.......). Not to mention this film suggests that Thanksgiving was celebrated in an attempt to convince the Native Americans that they needed help. Way to get your facts straight, movie...

But that's not all that's wrong with this movie. Pretty much everything manages to fall on its face. Voice acting? Disgraceful. What the hell happened, Woody Harrelson? Animation? Cheap and lazy. In fact the only good animation seems to have been saved for the time travel sequences. And even those only look just okay. Plants and surfaces look flat and uninteresting, lazily forgotten to make outer space look good. But even there it doesn't. The Earth, when the turkeys fly into space (...-_-) looks like a poorly cropped photo of Earth just kinda thrown in. It all happens with an overly used awful musical score, one of the worst I can remember. It's tacky, boring, and forgettable.

Not only is the movie's general plot stupid, but so much more of this just raises eyebrows. Apparently, Woody Harrelson's character sees Turkey Jesus, who tells him to go to find the pardoned turkey and go back in time to save turkeys from being the Thanksgiving standard...because that's a story that needs telling...? How about the part where a villager is hit in the head with a flaming pumpkin, with no comedic results. That's right, incredibly blatant violence endorsed by this movie. How about the turkey's all using SPEARS as their choice of weapon, or the incredibly insulting war paint on their faces? If that's not strange enough, there's an absolutely ridiculous plot twist that results in head scratching and headaches, and my giving up on the film.

And this all culminates into a film that even takes away George Takei's happy making. His sultry, soothing voice doesn't even make my mouth twitch from a smile. Even his trademark "ohh myyyyy" had me roll my eyes. Mr. Takei, if you're reading this, I PROMISE it's not your fault. It's this god awful movies fault. I can't believe I wasted my cash on this. Who am I kidding...I see this so you don't have to.

Rank - 0.5/5

The Counselor

I had no idea what this movie was going to be about. All I knew was that it had Michael Fassbender and was directed by Ridley Scott, so I loved it already. What I was hoping for was a sleeper hit, a film that wouldn't get the most attention but would manage to fascinate me or at least keep me entertained, especially after Prometheus really won me over.

By the end of the movie, I was mildly satisfied. But man, it took a heck of a long time to get to an interesting story. It starts with a heck of a lot of exposition, a lot of character development used solely to get us to know the characters before the story really started. And each actor gives a solid performance throughout, even Cameron Diaz who I generally don't like (who is also FAR sexier than I ever remembered her being...yeah I'm really not her biggest fan). But I feel that great story telling doesn't need to spend so much time establishing characters outside the context of the tale. And this movie didn't take advantage of that much. It more often had extra scenes establishing character even between important moments. I guess it could work, but considering the movie's length, it didn't really work for me.

But then again, that's not Ridley Scott's fault. That's Cormac McArthy's fault. Ridley Scott gives the actors and cinematography fantastic direction. We're talking Fassbender's third best performance I can remember. Yes third, I'm sorry but Prometheus and Shame have to top it. Javier Bardem plays an awesomely egotistical and money obsessed jerk. Cameron Diaz plays a delightfully twisted but irresistibly sexy crazy woman. Brad Pitt plays...well, kindof himself. But he's a good lookin dude, I can handle it.

So that all being said, I liked the Counselor for it's story. Rotten Tomatoes complains that it's a bit wordy, but I didn't really have a problem with the dialogue heavy script. I can imagine that in the real world, more words are exchanged than actual gunfire between the higher-ups of the cartel. What did bother me was the amount of time it took to get there. It was incredibly dull. At the point the movie shows Fassbender and Cruz engaged, it's maybe 10 or 15 minutes in, and we're supposed to care. Not to mention it's kindof a dead giveaway that one of them is going to die, like the reveal of someone about to retire, or someone who's survived so many near death experiences. I dozed off a bit during the exposition, and still had no problem understanding the story.

Let me be honest - I found a lot to enjoy in this movie. But I don't think many other people will. Maybe this is the rare movie to rent or get on netflix, and maybe take two nights to watch. But I can't say I recommend it to general movie watchers. It's heavy, and not exactly viewer friendly.

Rank - 3/5

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

........................................................................ugh.

Yeah, so, you think you know what you're going into with this. And it starts exactly as you'd expect, someones genitalia in jeopardy. But then...Ugh.

What is this film called? No, it's not called Bad Grandpa. It's called "JACKASS PRESENTS Bad Grandpa." This is a JACKASS movie. It's not "From The Creators Of Jackass," "From The Studio That Brought You Jackass," or, even more awkwardly, "From One Of The Many Creators of Jackass" (which, yes, was a thing. Check out the DVD box for Epic Move). This is a JACKASS movie. I hate Jackass as it is, but even I find some strange fascinating with watching people get their balls in trouble. Where was that? There was barely any. Really, there was almost nothing! Most of the jokes were based in bad pun related humor! And not even good puns!  Bad puns!

That's right, puns. Obvious, "of course it's going to happen" puns. No spoilers, at all. Because you'll see it coming a million miles away. What happens when Grandpa is at a funeral standing next to the open casket? Yeah. THAT obvious. What happens when Grandpa crashes a wedding and stands next to a tower of glasses of champagne? YEAH. THAT FREAKIN OBVIOUS. This isn't Jackass! There were barely any nut shots, barely any pain, it's all stupid bad slapstick. Depressingly, cowritten by Spike Jonze. Yes, THAT Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, Where the Wild Things Are).

Now, let's get real here. When you go to see a film called "Bad Grandpa" starring Johnny Knoxville, are you looking for a drama about a grandpa looking to save his grandson from an abusive, money grabbing father? That's right, you weren't. Too bad that's what you get. Yes, I'm serious. The movie is horrendously weighed down by awkward scenes of the grandson asking to stay with grandpa. It was awful. Why on earth would you put drama in a film like this? No one is going to care, and any amount of it in a brisk hour and a half film is just terrible, awkward, and unnecessary. I hated every second of it.

The story itself was, ready for this, too prominent. I would have had far more fun with this movie if it's premise was "Johnny Knoxville dressed as an 80 year old man runs around with a little boy and hijinks ensue." No, this is a story. We don't want a story in a movie from Jackass creators. Especially not one that to some people might be an incredibly emotional one. This is terrible. A complete waste of 6 dollars. That's right. My six dollars was wasted by a Jackass movie.

I love zany stupid humor as much as the next guy. I love Family Guy, Jackass makes me laugh, and I just recently started to really get into Bobs Burgers. This is a complete mess, even from a genre that has no structure. It was a waste of time and money. Go watch regular Jackass movies and TV and you'll feel great.

Rank - 0.5/5

The Fifth Estate

There's one word I think effectively describes this movie - plain. Bear bones. I felt nothing special at all during this movie. And that's incredibly depressing.

I really hate to think that this movie is poor. Wikileaks is such an important story, one that is so revolutionary to our culture now especially for journalism and general knowledge for the public. It was an exciting reveal, a tense situation for everyone involved and one that caught the eye of general news watchers. So...where was any of that? The movie substituted story telling and drama for sortof edgy or artsy images. Completely unnecessary ones I might add. Why are there a million desks filled with smiling Cumberbatches? Because unnecessary symbolism...?

This movie tries to be like The Social Network, with just as much drama and story as artistic vision, where the story is made intriguing not just through fantastic writing but through a visual method that compliments the story. This film does not. Instead of an interesting story, this movie cuts the script to bear basics and the occasional edgy line, but not necessarily well written one either. It was so boring, so weighed down.

Performances in this might be great. Cumberbatch is particular is getting fantastic reviews for his performance. But I couldn't tell. This is a rare instance where a film is so boring that I simply can't judge anything about the rest of the film. Cumberbatch felt forcibly angry, faux angsty, awkwardly fake. But I could tell it wasn't for a lack of effort, it was from obvious plot points and stupid characterizing lines. We get it, movie, he's zany and weird. But it's not like Zuckerberg's character in Social Network where his abnormality was fascinating or different. It felt so fake. It's sad to say, but it really feels like the story was thought to be too boring, not dramatic enough for a film. Which raises two points. One - Who on earth wouldn't see the significance of Wikileaks, and see it's potential story to be told? And two - if you don't find it interesting, or think it needs bad imagery to spice it up, why even make the movie?

And that's the problem with the cinematography as well. It's plain, it's only used to show the actors. It doesn't take advantage of its own artistic merit, unless (you guessed it) it's one of these terrible cutaway shots. Then, for no reason, the cinematography shines. Again, do you really think a story to be so boring or simple that it need no effort, and that the only way your story will shine is if you force bad symbolism down the throats of viewers. It doesn't work. Nothing works. And it's a real shame.

Rank - 1/5

Carrie

Carrie as an AWESOME movie. It's an amazing of relatable teenager in a completely foreign situation. It has a great sense of adventure in a graspable way, we feel Carrie's journey from awkward high school social pariah to almost normal teenager, and it really feels like an epic journey. When I heard there was going to be a remake, I was SUPER excited. Carrie is a story to me that can be told and retold dozens of times, with so many new ways to tell it. Maybe it's a new time period. Maybe it's a different type of social pariah - example, maybe instead of a religiously overzealous mother, she comes from a politically overzealous one. Maybe that example won't work today, but it could work in another year. There could be far more creative twists then I'm thinking of. In fact, I just had a thought - you can almost see Chronicle as a similar adaptation to the Stephen King Carrie idea. And, in my opinion, that was a brilliant movie.

So was Carrie brilliantly retold? No. Not really. But it wasn't bad. It unfortunately became what I hate in remakes. That's not to say a complete change of the story; I really believe that change is necessary in any remake. No, there was just no interesting change in the story to keep me interested. It was spot on. And, with this being one of the few book adaptations of a book I've actually read, I can honestly say it's CLOSER to the book than the 1976 film. But to adapt a book written in 1974 about a girl struggling through relationships in high school to a 2013 premise should involve more work. Sure, the initial struggle for popularity is there. But we just recently saw in the surprise it 21 Jump Street how high school social hierarchy's, while still existing, are changing depending on the circumstances around the students forming them. I would have been interested to see a change there. But instead, we get the same girl, ostracized for the same reasons.

Chloe Grace Moretz was fascinating in the Carrie role. I've always loved her performances, seamlessly going from child actress to great actress, taking on roles most child actresses wouldn't touch. Granted, most of my bias for her comes from Kick-Ass, but here we see her shine in a completely new role. It was also a bit of an Emma Stone quality in her role too; a girl who we know is physically good looking, but who manages to make a character we believe is average, plain, or even ugly. Watching this movie, I easily believed that Carrie would never be asked to prom, that boys wouldn't find her attractive. It works super well, and I'm super happy with that. Julianne Moore also manages to me a delightfully creepy and uncomfortably spot on overzealous religious nut. She manages to make me feel both upset at Carrie's upbringing and strangely frightened of Carrie's ultimate fate, both at the same time. It works super well.

But again, these great performances simply aren't enough to carry the film to new heights, or even new places. It was successful enough at telling it's story, but for a remake, I want more than "enough". It was clear that the team making this film was probably just a group of diehard Carrie fans, who wanted to put their name on an official remake. So I'll chalk it up to a fun night at the movies. Maybe my rank is a bit unfair. But I don't want any remake to be just "okay".

Rank - 2/5

Captain Phillips

There's a huge amount of controversy around this film, apparently. I did some quick research before writing this to see how it faired in accuracy. Apparently, the captains crew has deemed this work to be a complete work of fiction. Apparently Captain Phillips was a cruel, unforgiving leader, going so far as to force his crew to complete a life boat drill while pirates were coming towards them, completely exposed. I can't really seem to figure out how much of this is true or fabricated. So, unfortunately, I don't really have a choice but to review this film from solely a film stand point, imagining it to be a complete work of fiction.

From that standpoint, it was pretty damn fantastic.

Captain Phillips, for those of you who somehow missed the trailers, Captain Phillips is based on a true story about the captain of a freighter ship who's ship was captured by Somalian pirates in 2009. The story deals with the capture of the ship and pursuing Navy to handle the situation. In the film, Phillips is a cool, collected man who recognizes the potential dangers of piracy despite his crew's initial skepticism. He remains a voice of reason and confidence for his terrified crew, however due to his leadership and faith in his comrades, they do well to cope with such terrifying circumstances. Again, this is the MOVIE'S portrayal of Phillips. Apparently the real captain Phillips is a bit hard headed and uncompromising.

It's hard to talk about this film knowing how controversial the film apparently is. But I can tell you that I felt the suspense and fear that the written character felt every second of the film. It did a great job at allowing us to respect and admire him, while still showing us his humanity and weaknesses. The pirates have enough story to sympathize with their motives and feel pain for their plights, but only enough to recognize them as human. We see their wrong doing and cruelty, and recognize that enough to hope for their failure and consistently support Phillips. In other words, we have incredibly well written villains, with humanity but very little audience sympathy.

The action in this film is unceasing. Similarly to Argo, with very little violence or action, the movie continues to keep you feeling claustrophobic, frightened, even though the outcome of the story might be known to you. It had me crossing my fingers, tearing up, breathing incredibly quickly. At no point in this film was I ever bored, and I never thought about how long I had been in the theatre. The script was fast paced enough to keep the audience interest high, but slow enough and long enough to recognize the gravity and time consumption of the situation.

I really don't know what else to say. It was great. I highly recommend it.

Rank - 5/5

Runner Runner

I'm so disappointed. I had such high hopes for this movie. I love Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck is back and ready to prove himself, Gemme Arterton won my heart as Gretel in an awesomely bad movie, and Anthony Mackie has never done wrong. I loved the idea, too. A man using a computer formula that proved dirty gambling going to confront the man who took his money with physical evidence? That's awesome. I would have loved for this movie to be great.

But that being said, this is a perfect example of a misleading 8% Rotten Tomatoes score. Critics aren't necessarily bashing this movie. And I'm glad. Affleck in particular gives a strong, convincing performance, and I found Timberlake as likable as ever. Moreso, I didn't necessarily mind the script. I actually distinctly liked a few lines of dialogue that popped up as the film went on, lines that I'll remember at least for a while as great lines. And I'll absolutely defend the first half of the film as being pretty interesting. Sure, it wasn't great, but there was nothing so bad about it that I got angry.

No, Runner Runner had 3 major flaws for me, flaws that kept it from being the satisfying movie I desperately was hoping for. One was the music. There's far too much of it, and it's far too generic sounding. Party music in the film consisted of two chords and a lame keyboard beat. It sounded like someone pressed the demo button on a keyboard. For a movie that's trying to be real, that's pretty lazy. The second problem was it's pace. I was checking my watch every few minutes. That's pretty bad considering the movie clocked in at only 93 minutes. It felt like 3 hours. And for a movie with attempts of brutality and shock, mixed with some attempts at suspense, to feel so long is pretty bad. I saw the audience members around me clearly getting antsy as well, some of them actually walking out.

But no, the biggest problem was the ending. It was so thrown together, so predictable, and just silly. It was like the creators decided that no one would be interested after the first hour, so it was time to throw together a fast, stupid, hollywood perfect ending and hope for the best. That was the worst part. The first part of the movie had me checking my watch. The next half had me scratching my head from plotholes, lack of explanations, and forced drama. Story lines were left open ended, there was no sense of finality or even justice, and it had no sense of joy or passion to the ending at all. It felt so uncared for, like the writers literally had given up.

But that aside, I can't hate this movie. It's just such a great idea executed in such a mediocre way for the first half, followed by an atrocious second half. And again, with such likable cast and such a cool idea, I found it difficult to not feel joy at parts of it. But realistically, this movie isn't worth your money or time. If you really are interested, check it out when it hits netflix.

Rank - 1.5/5

Enough Said

I was in an abusive relationship once. It was horrible. I hate thinking about it. She was incredibly cruel to me, often criticizing what I did or things that were my personality in hurtful or cruel ways. She really let my little quirks bother her, making no effort to accept my apologies, and any time she would complain about my quirks, I would try to fix them to the best of my ability. That just brought about more complaints. Looking back on it, I was never really happy. But I forced myself to be okay with it. Even through sometimes physical conflict, with her punching me in the chest while she cried from panic attacks, I had to be okay with it. It sucked so much to feel that way. But the hardest part is admitting that even though she was incredibly cruel to me, she is not unlovable. I believe all people are good people, even if good people don't realize what they're doing is cruel or wrong.

That's the problem that's addressed in this film. How can a man who's ex wife sees him as absolutely repulsive, inconsiderate, clumsy, stupid, what have you, have any appeal to any other women? It's a tough question to explore. I don't want to think any man will ever fall in love with the girl who cheated on me with an internet fling, then demanded I be okay with their friendship. One character in this film couldn't bear the thought that her husband would ever date any attractive woman again either. That's a tough topic to explore, and the movie does it incredibly believably. It's a huge eye opener, and one that's probably hard for a lot of people to think about.

The film follows Julia Louis-Dreyfus' character, as she meets and falls in love with James Gandolfini in one of his last roles before his passing. She finds herself in love with his strange appearance, one she describes as not necessarily attractive, but someone she's attracted to. After hearing only negative things about the man, she starts questioning her attraction at all, seeing all of his newly noticed flaws rather than seeing the charm she originally saw in him. It leaves you wondering, is what you say about your ex right, no matter how cruel or sadly true it may be?

Everyone in this movie gives a sweet, gentle reading of very real characters. I sympathize with every one of them, feeling each of their struggles and desires and seeing the other side as well. The script allows these characters to go through what we constantly go through - a brilliantly written initial infatuation, followed by the realization that no one is perfect. But finally, it questions the validity of past opinions, of what's really okay in sacrifice in a relationship, and what it means not just as a person, but as a parent.

I really don't know what else to say about Enough Said except that it really gave me a lot to think about. It had me ponder my own life and my own experiences, and wonder how I should treat myself and the people who used to be in my life. It was a strongly written, wonderfully acted, and bizarrely effective film, often very funny as well. I'm very pleasantly surprised.

Rank - 4.5/5

Gravity

Gravity is a cinematic marvel. Two actors delivering flawless performances in the context of a story so realistically terrifying it's impossible to leave feeling unchanged. Two astronauts, stranded in space with total loss of communications, have to figure out the surest path to survival while coping with what should be the inevitable, despite their simple will to press on. It's terrifying and beautiful.

It's not an ungraspable tale, however. It hit me during the movie how similar the premise is to shipwreck and survivalist stories. It's not unlike 127 Hours, Buried, or Castaway in its story telling. Mix that with realism of Apollo 13 with themes from 2001 and, maybe not directly referencing, but a fire extinguisher use evoking memories of my favorite sci-fi film of all time, Wall-E. Thankfully, Gravity doesn't try to be these films. Rather, it pays a respectable passing homage to each, then moves on to distinguish its own identity in an unforgettable way. It works.

Sure, it has its hiccups. Only two, though. One was quickly solved. I found myself thinking that most of this wasn't scientifically plausible. Then I remembered that Apollo 13 happened, so I can believe anything I'm seeing. I also came home and read that the movie was praised for its scientific accuracy, with only a few hiccups. That's amazing.

The second problem was simple. I guess I'll just leave it at this - one of these cops is just 2 days from retirement. It's not subtle. We know what's going to happen. But the way it happens is thoughtful, sad, and beautiful. It was a few unnecessary lines, because the characters are so easy to love. But this is forgiven, thanks to unforgettable performances from Clooney and Bullock.

I have to hand it to Sandra Bullock. This is the first movie I've seen where I really truly loved her. I normally am so impartial, sometimes disliking her. But not this time. This is a movie where I truly believe she could take home an Oscar with no complaining from me. She deserves all of the praise she's getting for this film and more. Add a silly, easily lovable performance from George Clooney and you got yourself two great performances playing off of each other magnificently.

If you're on the edge about this movie, you should know that James Cameron called it the best space film ever done. The 3D is amazing. My jaw dropped with each passing shot of earth, every time debris in space passed I felt the immediate claustrophobia Bullock's character must have felt, having suddenly no room to move or work. Breath taking sunrises, amazingly detailed shots of lighting on Earth at night, terrifying shots of destruction. This movie really truly as it all. Even a few good natured laughs to keep you grounded in reality.

There's no other way to put it. Gravity is a masterpiece, one that will hopefully be studied later on as a success comparable to so many great space films before it. The one or two hiccups are beautifully saved by amazing cinematography, intense action, and two award deserving performances. I'm so glad that I saw it.

Rank - 5/5

Rush

Ron Howard is an unbelievable director. I put a few of his movies out of mind, but Frost/Nixon is an all time favorite. Cinderella Man and A Beautiful Mind are absolutely amazing. Need I mention Apollo 13? He knows how to tell a story in a unique way. We know how the story ends, but he keeps us intrigued from beginning to end.

Rush is no exception. It tells the story of the rivalry between Formula 1 racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda, the latter falling victim to a terrible car crash leaving him brutally scarred. We see an amazing chemistry between our two leads, an awkward sense of self appreciation from Hemsworth and a condescending sense of supremacy from Bruhl, with a fascinating direction style leading us seamlessly through their lives

Daniel Bruhl as Lauda a fascinating character, one driven by passion perhaps not for driving, but for an identity change to distinguish himself from his family. He particularly shines, playing a character type I haven't experienced before - one genuinely passionate, but in the most selfish of ways. On the other end, we have a man driven by a thirst to prove himself for the same reasons, but more for the people around him than himself. The film gives a good case to see this as the main difference between them, and succeeds at letting us love and hate both of them for all the correct reasons. We also see the many women who enter in and out of Hunt's life, all of whom are essentially throw away characters. But we also can see why they are so pointless - they have very little effect on Hunt's life. After a heartbreaking divorce for him, we see perhaps a slight humbling, but certainly not a turn around. That fascinated me, and helped the movie feel real.

Formula 1 is anything but boring. It's actually a very exciting race to watch, filled with turns I would never feel safe making at their speeds, and the potential for serious injury is exponentially higher with the body exposed. Even though I don't think it needed to be handled in such an action-movie way to get across the excitement, I do appreciate and understand why it's there. It made it recognizably exciting for the uninitiated Formula 1 fan, or the occasional viewer like myself. I can't see anyone, even someone fervently against Formula 1, disliking the action scenes in this.

The script is slow and easy paced. Perhaps not exactly the most unpredictable, but we knew what we were getting into when we saw the trailer, and it does manage to keep people like me, unfamiliar with the story, guessing a fair amount about the motivations of our lead characters. It's also really nice to hear Lauda defend the film as "very accurate", thus allowing us to understand that his portrayal was surprisingly close to his own personality, while defending the honor of his friend/rival, notorious for drug usage minutes before racing. That's certainly something to be admired, both from the Lauda and from Howard's brilliant vision of a film.

This movie is truly a masterpiece of a sports movie, one that I think will really be enjoyed by near everyone. It manages to keep you interested in not just the story, but character interactions as well. The cinematography keeps the film exciting for anyone, even those uninitiated to Formula 1, and has graspable, real characters played by brilliant actors who should absolutely be seeing some Oscar buzz. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty damn great film.

Rank - 4.5/5

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2

Anyone who knows anything about me knows I absolutely adored Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. I thought it was an absolutely brilliant adaptation of the book, letting us not only see what happened before and after the food started raining, but also letting us get a great look at the repercussions of such an event on the fictional town. But it was more than that. It was an absolutely brilliant parody of disaster movies, such as Twister, Armageddon, and The Day After Tomorrow. That idea, to parody disaster movies in this adaptation of the famous children's book, is just brilliant. But my biggest fear was hearing that Chris Miller and Phil Lord, the awesome team responsible for the first film, was busy working on The LEGO Movie, and wasn't heading up the production of this film. Even more frightening was the terrifying realization that the team responsible for this sequel gave us The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, a horrendous film and one of my least favorites of the year so far.

With my standards set very high, I have to admit that the film kept me pretty darn happy. While it lost the original charm of perhaps being a bit amateur while also having such a respect for science fiction and disaster films in general, it maintained the same sense of humor. It was zany, a bit raunchy, but delivered in such a way that the adult audience members were laughing just as hard as the kids at jokes about "cutting the cheese" and a "BSUSB" (that one you'll get when you see the movie). It also had a pretty hilarious, if maybe a bit too soon, parody of a Steve Jobs-esque figure that really had me laughing.

The animation looked as good as I would have hoped, but kept the original's unique look and style fantastically. It looks like the team really knew the fans would want to see very little updating to the design style. The characters all looked and moved great, and had the same sense of silliness mixed with believability as people as the first film did. It was really satisfactory to compare to the original. Voice acting was absolutely up to par, with Will Forte taking a dominant role in the Steve Jobs parody, nailing a funny, easily trusted but hilariously twisted villain. Everyone else was awesome as always, and kept me laughing easily.

But my one sad criticism was the lack of parody. It felt like maybe this was trying to parody Jurassic Park, but was doing it almost out of necessity, half heartedly. Granted the rest of the film worked great comedically. But I would have loved to see a parody of Jurassic Park stand out a bit more. I would have also really loved, considering the basis for the characters to go back, a bit of parody of Predators, maybe even an Alien reference. Considering the film shows obvious adoration for sci-fi, this wouldn't have at all been out of place.

As expected, the score of this film is absolutely notable. The music written for the original was charming, funny in places, and incredibly appropriate as both parody and just awesome music. It was a huge score, really reflecting the awesome pans of great moments. But that being said, it simply doesn't have the same scope or necessity in this film as the original. And seeing as that is absolutely one of my favorite parts of the first film, I gotta dock it a bit for that.

All in all, I did enjoy this movie. But where it had its moments of brilliance, the story and lack of parody really made feel that this movie was little more than a movie of the quality of a middle of the road Dreamworks picture. That's nothing to frown upon, but I was certainly hoping for more. But who knows, you'll probably have fun with it.

Rank - 3/5

Baggage Claim

Why did I see this you ask? I'll be honest. It was my first day off in MONTHS and I just missed seeing four movies in a row. And this is the only one that fit the time slot.

Yeah, there's nothing to really expect from this. You all know who she's going to fall in love with in the end as soon as he steps on screen. You know exactly how she's going to find out. There's even a terrible dream sequence that ends in a "it was all a dream" moment. It was bad. Real bad.

Get it? Her name is Montana Moore? Because she wants MORE! And, wait wait, one of her close guy friends is named William Wright?? Could that be because he's Mr. RIGHT?!?!?! ERMAGERD.

But there is a bit of...I guess not terrible things? Paula Patton is likable as ever. Even though she's kindof an idiot throughout the movie. But what do you really expect for a movie obviously made for girls night out? The girl does the one thing every woman wishes they could do and it's successful against all odds. That being said, I really don't believe any woman would want to go and re-connect with her exes the way she does. First of all, it's pretty creepy. But more importantly, most of her exes are pretty obviously terrible people. And just like any movie like this, you see who she's going to fall for and what's going to mess it all up. And yet interestingly, I was one of two people in the theatre. And the other person was a dude.

The soundtrack is definitely a point of hatred for me. Every song was obnoxiously obvious to the rest of the plot. A scene with her and her *cough* "friend" fooling around as "friends" has incredibly corny romance music playing over it. I mean, seriously movie. Can't you have a tiny bit of subtlety? You're a subtle as a Tyler Perry movie. I don't mean that as a compliment.

The rest of this movie is, well, what you'd expect. Lot's of guys that seem great at initial meetings. But the first one has a comedic result. Oh man, gurl you dodged a bullet! The second one ends with her demonstrating her strength as a woman. Mhmmmm girl you don't need THAT in your life! Then it moves onto a montage of men. You get the picture. The movie knows its audience. So I guess it has that going for it. But it definitely doesn't think highly of its audience. Its characters are so fake, so badly written stereotypes that I definitely felt like I was being talked down to. Even the last internal monologue is pretty damn condescending to the audience.

In fact, the funniest part of this movie was the very last interaction between Patton's best friends in the film, as they each discuss the date they're going to have that weekend. And that admittedly made me laugh pretty hard. But maybe my standards were just low enough to think that to be pretty hilarious.

Rank - 1/5

Don Jon

The idea for this film is actually one I've been thinking about for a while - what would happen if the extreme negative stereotype for a porn addicted man had a relationship for the extreme negative stereotype for a manipulative girlfriend? Let's face it - men have ridiculous views of what women should be and women have a ridiculous view of what men should be. What would happen if these two met, directed by someone incredibly talented. Enter Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

In the end, the film isn't nearly as interesting as I wanted it to be, and perhaps the slightest bit not believable. But the point certainly gets across - neither one of these extremities are healthy. On one hand, yes every man probably watches porn fairly frequently even in a relationship, but can you really defend porn addiction so severe that actual sex is unsatisfactory? On the other end, is it really okay for a woman to unrealistically search out a flawless man, and then ditch him for such a harmless flaw as watching porn? Is it okay for the woman to make the man stop doing things she doesn't see as attractive, such as cleaning an apartment, even when her significant other very much enjoys doing them? Is it okay to tell a white lie to your girlfriend when she asks you to stop doing something so small, so unimportant, but something you genuinely like doing anyway?

It raises a lot of questions, and answers a lot of them fairly satisfactorily as well. Julianne Moore plays a fascinating, intelligent, and weakened woman, destroyed emotionally by recent events. Yet somehow she manages to make sense for both of them, helping Jon understand why he is the cause of his own problems. Sure, Johansson's character walks away pretty unchanged. But we see closure and understanding, and seeing as the movie is Jon's story, we don't necessarily need to see her grow up either.

But this movie succeeds at a few things from a comedic standpoint as well. First of all, it has a really funny approach to parody silly romance movies, whether it's the direct approach of going to see a cheesy romance starring Channing Tatum and Anne Hathaway, or the silly kissing scenes outside the theatre with corny music (I loved how it focused more on the people walking past). It managed to keep me chuckling. Although I couldn't help but notice the rest of the audience really didn't seem to be as absorbed into it as I was.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is pretty darn hot in this. Did I say hot? I mean talented. You almost believe that his porn addiction isn't severe, until he actually talks about it. The entire cast is looking pretty great. And acting pretty great as well. Scarlett Johansson really impresses with a sexy, but terribly cruel, interpretation on a mans idea of the worst kind of woman. I particularly loved the character played by Julianne Moore, a sweet, funny, and sad middle aged woman, who latches onto Gordon-Levitt for no discernible reason except for her inability to understand the other younger men around her.

The audience reaction is definitely notable. This movie is ranking fairly high from a critical standpoint, however it's also ranking quite low for an audience score. But then again, it works well for me, despite perhaps its hiccups. And those are infrequent.

Rank - 4/5

Prisoners

Other than maybe Gravity, this movie had the trailer that got me the most excited. It looked tense, intriguing, potentially graphic in an appropriate or terrifying way. I was hoping for the best out of what looked like it could also be a cliche mystery thriller. But then again, mystery's can be cliche with elements of horror to keep the obvious cliche's out of the foreground. So, here's to some dynamite performances and a hopefully interesting story.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to love about this film. Hugh Jackman in particular reminds us of his strict acting training, as he pulls off one of the most difficult roles I could perceive. He plays a man driven to the edge of his sanity when his two daughters go missing, driven so far that he takes the lone suspect into his private custody and begins to torture him for answers. It's terrifying how much support I felt for the character, despite his obvious moral dilemma conflicting him as well as the audience. Terrance Howard gives a great supporting performance as a man perhaps more against the idea than for, but more importantly so sucked in by Jackman's charisma and fervor that he too assists in the morally questionable. Viola Davis joins in the debate, questioning the right or wrong but choosing instead to turn a blind eye. It becomes a fascinating character study of these three in general.

Paul Dano plays the primary suspect, a man with a severely low IQ who seems incapable of answering the simplest questions. While I want to say he was killer in his role, he didn't have enough screen time to convince me of a spectacular performance. But he did convince me that he had the ability to bring this characters motivations and personality farther than the script allowed him to be developed. There's definitely something to be said for that. Jake Gyllenhaal is going to get a lot of praise for this movie. Honestly, I didn't feel anything strongly one way or the other. He played himself in the circumstances. And it worked, generally speaking. But that being said, he felt bland sometimes. Perhaps this wasn't his fault, but I couldn't help feeling that it was.

The movie keeps itself suspenseful and angry, making me guess what's going to happen next to characters and wondering what Jackman's reaction will be to certain situations. But that being said, my biggest problem was what so many mystery stories eventually succumb to - obvious plot twists. Now that's not to say that I could predict anything that the characters were doing on screen, per-say. But we see every cliche of mystery stories here - the obviously involved, the red herring, the too-innocent-to-be-innocent, the obvious missed clue, etc. The cops in this film are downright idiotic, missing connections and clues that we the audience made in a grand total of, oh, 5 seconds. The whole maze connection took a painfully long time to be made, as an audience member having made it in the first shot of the damn thing. The obviously guilty was there too, as soon as this person was on screen I knew exactly who did it. Sure, I didn't know motivations or reactions. But I wouldn't call it particularly fun to know the culprit, even if motivations are a mystery.

So all in all, there's a lot to respect in this film. But that being said, there's also plenty left to be desired. I wish it was more of a mystery, and I wish it would have left me guessing outcomes a bit more. But, I guess what can I really expect from a mystery based on a best selling novel? At least we got some pretty solid oscar nomination possibilities.

Rank - 4/5

Battle of the Year

You know what my favorite part of the above poster is? Who's face most in the foreground? It's not Chris Brown. It's not Josh Holloway from Lost. It's not even Caity Lotz. No, it's Josh Peck. Okay, fine, he's had a movie or two since his Drake and Josh glory days. So I guess it's okay that he gets a starring role. I didn't know he could dance, did you?

Oh wait. He doesn't dance. At all. He says he can dance. But we never see him dance. He hardly does anything in the movie. I swear to god, he literally has a handful of quasi-inspirational lines at the beginning of the film. And then, nothing. Just nothing. He all but vanishes from the movie, limited to just standing in the background clapping or being unnoticed in the background of dance rehearsals. Really, that's about it. It's actually kindof hilarious how unimportant he was. Let's get real here, we all know that one of the dancers is going to either be disqualified or forced to leave. So that means that Josh Peck, the awkward assistant coach who does nothing, will obviously have to take up the reigns, right? WRONG. Instead, an old dancer is needlessly brought back. In fact, we don't even see him come back. He just appears. Awesome. I gotta hand it to the guy, at least he made probably an enormous pay check from about 20 minutes of screen time.

This movie was about 20 million dollars to make. I'm sorry, but if Cirque du Soleil could make it's 3D film on 25 million dollars, there is absolutely no way your movie needs a 20 million dollar budget. And where did this 20 million dollars come from? I'll give you a hint.

"What's that?"
"It's my new Sony Tablet, it's 10 inches."
"Yo man, check this out, I got a playstation vita!"

At one point, a character hands out gift bags, each of which contain - you guessed it - a plethora of Sony products. What a blatant and disgusting forced product placement. You guys are lucky I just so happen to love my PS Vita...

Onto the actual film. DEAR GOD it was a headache. Cut scenes showing three or four frames littered the movie, showing different aspects of the same damn rehearsal. But at the same time, we never see them suck or improve. We hardly even see them grow as a team the way the movie would have us believe they did. In fact, Chris Browns character has a teary-eyed speech where he declares that (no, I'm not kidding) "at the beginning it was all about me...and now...it's still all about me." Is that supposed to be funny? Because that's literally where the speech ends! And he' s not the only horrendously unlikable character in this film, literally every character just pisses you off. And as if they weren't enough just being themselves to piss you off, try adding a terribly cliche speech about team work and growth and beauty and whatever the hell have you. It's laughable.

Some of my close friends super into the culture tell me that this movie doesn't demonstrate b-boy culture at all. I wouldn't know that. But I will say this - I believe it. And coming from a man with a highly acclaimed documentary on the subject, to have those into the culture reject it for poor representation, bad scripting, and might I mention the incredibly inappropriate 3D, it must be pretty darn terrible.

Rank - 0.5/5

Blue Jasmine

I finally had a chance to see this movie. Seriously, it's been out since July and I never got a chance to check it out. That being said, I probably could have waited more.

I know, I know. Everyone loves this movie. And I love the same things they did. I love the parallels to Streetcar, I love Cate Blanchett. I loved the music. I loved the cinematography. I loved the tone it held, and I loved the supporting cast.

But did anyone else feel a little let down? It didn't have that strong of an effect on me. Maybe that's from comparing it Streetcar, which had me emotionally invested the entire time and absolutely loving and hating the characters at the same time. But I found nothing to latch onto in Cate Blanchet's character, I just did not care about her outcome. And, as always, my biggest pet peeve with any movie is when I need to ask myself why I need to care about the story I'm being told. It doesn't matter if a film is personal or small, like this one is. Why do I need to know the story of Jasmine Francis? By the end of the film, I had nothing except a really spectacular character study on a person I've never known. And don't get me wrong, I loved it for that. But after watching so many other great Woody Allen movies that have such small, personal stories, as well as a definitive reason to be told, this just didn't do it for me.

All that aside, Cate Blanchett is amazing. She takes this completely not relatable role and just absolutely owns it. She makes me want to understand her, but refuses to give me any basis to think that I ever do or will. In a lot of ways, following her felt like an abusive relationship. Sadly, I know what that feels like. But in many ways, I felt the connection - a desire to learn about something, learning more and more, only to know that something is bound to go wrong, to make her snap and potentially hurt you and everyone around you. But at the same time, she means no harm. She doesn't mean to be cruel or hurtful. She simply is. That's fascinating, and I absolutely loved it.

The rest of the supporting cast is phenomenal as well. But I don't understand why I needed to know some stories. Particularly, I didn't understand why we needed to know her sisters random relationship issues, except to understand Jasmine's reaction and look deeper into her structured relationships. But if that was the case, I don't want to see what her sister is doing, I'd rather just hear about it and watch the reaction and probable argument. I suppose it works fine, but it did bother me a bit.

All that aside, I'm sure many people will enjoy Blue Jasmine, and probably a significant amount more than I did. Granted, I thought it was far from a poor movie. But I hope for more out of Woody Allen.

Rank - 3/5

Insidious: Chapter 2

So the horror movie everyone hated this year is the one I liked the most?! We really defend the Conjuring and You're Next over this? I mean, none of them are good, definitely not. But I'll be the first to admit that this movie had me decently scared at least a few times!

Insidious Chapter 2 opens on a very low note - a flashback to the childhood we would have very much appreciated to know about in the first damn movie, with some absolutely horrendous acting from Elise Reiner. I don't know what is going on with her, she was fine in the first movie. But this was absolutely some of the worst acting I've ever seen, even for a horror movie. Every line out of her mouth was forced, silly sounding, took full advantage of making the audience laugh. And whenever she's on screen, it's the same damn thing. Just terrible moment after terrible moment. Really, I couldn't take anything she'd say seriously, even though the movie all but forced me to be dead faced about it. I guess with other horror movies this would be fun, and, like The Conjuring, let me have fun by making fun of the same old horror movie cliche's. But not this time. Her acting  was so forced it actually took away from the joy. That is saying a lot.

But that being said, any scene without her in it was actually generally okay. Nothing great, but the acting was strong enough to at least carry the creepiness of certain scenes that in any other horror film would be the cause of ridicule or laughter. I actually found myself laughing far less during this than I did for the incredibly serious The Conjuring. I also found far more scenes to be at least creepy, one or two even frightening or intense. It lead to a pretty successful climax, mixing horror and action pretty darn well, no silliness at the final actions of the film. Sure, it's a pretty silly conclusion after that, with a pretty god awful sequel set up. But I can forgive that. I was expecting it, so I can get over it.

The film succumbed to the same plot hole issues that so many horror movies do. But I must admit that far fewer of them bothered me to the extent of The Conjuring (I'm sorry, but really, that movie was just horrendously overrated). Not to mention that the movie quickly overlooked them and effectively moved on, leaving no time or desire for me to dwell on them. I wanted to get to the conclusion.

But therein lies another large flaw with this movie. When I see a great horror movie, I want to have some serious amounts of fun with the scary scenes. I love the suspense, I love the idea of waiting to be scared, I never really want it to go away. But while watching this movie, I wanted to get to an ending. I wanted to know what was going to happen, even though I had a pretty good idea throughout the whole movie. The few scary scenes were fun, but once they were over I didn't expect anything more. I suppose that's okay. But with my favorite horror movie being Alien, and memories of loving the fear and hoping for more, I can't call this movie good.

Rank - 2/5

The Family

I honestly can say I knew nothing about this movie going in. I caught the trailer maybe once or twice in other movies, and I constantly saw its release date coming closer and closer. But I never really took the time to learn anything about it, considering Luc Besson's filmography is mixed at best in recent years. Strangely, this movie was produced by Martin Scorsese, so it had that going for it. But I didn't care to read about it, had it low on my priority list, and didn't know what to expect or think.

I can honestly say, I still don't know what to think. It had its moments. It had its really brilliant moments. And its really terrible moments. And some moments that just made me raise my eyebrows. I understand that De Niro was at one point highly ranked in the mafia, I understand that his family is in the witness protection program. But why exactly is his family all extremely violent and unpredictable? It seems like a quirk written to be quirky, but not to have any bearing on the story. In fact, the reason the mafia finds them (oh stop bitching, what else did you think was going to happen?) isn't even related to the violence. Rather it's a silly slip up that frankly, I can't imagine would actually mean anything to anyone. It was one heck of a stretch. So we have this incredibly pointlessly violent family running around being incredibly pointlessly violent for no reason. It's not badass or fun, because there is really absolutely no reason for it. It was actually pretty disturbing. 

Then there's the awful narrative. It jumps between De Niro writing a book to get his thoughts down about his truth, mixed with his wife exploring their new town and getting into wacky shenanigans, the kids at school absolutely brutalizing their schoolmates, the daughter pursuing her math tutor in a particularly creepy subplot, and then out of nowhere the mafia chasing them down. Oh, and Tommy Lee Jones is there...?

That's the best way to describe the movie I suppose. Random. Really random. It never really knows how far is too far or whether or not the jokes are moving far enough. But it's also pretty clear that the creators knew exactly what they wanted this movie to be - a dark comedy, in the vein of perhaps a slower paced Red. But while Red had situations where violence was necessary (at least in its universe of badassness), this movie was trying to grasp too far to reality for me to believe that a family would be this unnecessarily violent. 

So I guess you could say I didn't like The Family. But I didn't dislike it either. It's just for those looking for a certain taste in their mouth, I'd hazard a guess that diehard family guy fans might enjoy the random violence and zany subplots, despite the slow pace. But it didn't necessarily work for me. 

Rank - 2/5

Riddick

l

I love campy sci-fi as much as the next guy. I mean, Dredd was one of the best action movies in recent years. But even I had some trouble swallowing the often too silly Riddick series. Often I felt bored or just frustrated with the stories which were so ridiculous and over the top. But I absolutely can see why people loved at least Pitch Black. More importantly, I don't even completely recognize what makes one campy sci-fi movie a success for me yet. I have a general idea. It's forming.

But what the first two movies have in ridiculousness, this movie has in blandness. Seriously, it is just so plain. It's so derivative that it loses all sense of being a movie about Riddick. And the story is so small, so contained, it makes the previous Chronicle's of Riddick look larger than The Odyssey. It's literally just about Riddick trying to get off planet by tricking some bounty hunters. I guess that would work, even in the same series, but not immediately after such a huge movie like Chronicle's. It feels so trite and so fleeting, almost like a TV special to make fans happy but to do not much else for the rest of us.

That being said, Riddick looks fine. I guess on that 38 million dollar budget I'd have to admit it looks pretty great. But at the same time, I hate the color scheme, this weird yellow tint over pretty much the entirety of the film. It was like watching Man of Steel with its awful grey filter. But at least this had a freakin purpose. The animals are fine looking from a technical standpoint, but they didn't exactly make sense to me physiologically, and they were so jarring in appearance that it wasn't like Avatar or Star Wars where I could just buy it. Those dog things were strange, maybe solely because they were mammalian on this desolate planet. But I'm nitpicking.

The characters in this were so uninteresting and boring, so forced and questionable, that I really didn't care for their safety. Which I suppose works to the films credit, I didn't feel upset at watching their heads get sliced off. But the lack of care for the characters did backfire a bit. I didn't have fun with their deaths either. They'd come and go, and that would be pretty much it. Maybe one or two would gross me out. But none were shocking, none left me laughing or even feeling excited. Instead, it came, it went, it happened. That frustrated me. These movies are great at having awesome death scenes. Maybe I'm spoiled from The Raid, Kick-Ass, and Dredd.

But to the films credit, it did have a fair amount of suspense. There were points that had me feeling a bit apprehensive and wondering what would happen to the characters that was obviously coming. But again, this isn't enough to carry a movie through to the end for me. And thus, I think the rank reflects how much I enjoyed it, even with that suspense.

Rank - 2/5

The Spectacular Now

The Spectacular Now is a movie that I wanted to love. There were two things that I did love, and their names were Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller. I expected nothing less from Woodley, who I've been rooting for ever since her dynamite performance in The Descendants. Miles Teller has always been someone I never much cared for, who now demonstrates perhaps not acting ability, but a true passion for what he's doing. He plays himself, but he plays a softer, more emotional version of himself.

Outside of that, the movie is cute enough. It's got a typical opposites-attract couple (perhaps a bit too painfully reminiscent of A Walk To Remember for my taste), typical high school characters, and a generic enough script with enough lovey-dovey lines to keep girlfriends happy, but not so many that the guys get sick of rolling their eyes. It never soars, though. Any emotion I felt was solely from Woodley making me smile. And lets face it, I'm all but in love with the girl. She could make me smile doing pretty much nothing. I had the distinct feeling watching this film that if I replaced the actors with two different ones, it would not nearly have meant as much. So, kudos to you two. But for the rest of the film, there's plenty to be desired.

By this point, if you've read any of my negative reviews, you know one of my biggest pet peeves is when a movie has no reason to be told. Why did I need to know this story? What made it special, different, worth watching? Sadly, I really have no answer for this. It felt like a pretty generic high school coming of age story, even by normal (not hollywood) standards. Granted, it had a twist of the beginnings of alcoholism, but it didn't use that so significantly that I felt too much dramatic tension from it.

Rotten Tomatoes has its consensus state that the film "avoids typical coming-of-age story trappings". I guess I can agree with that to an extent. But that doesn't mean it avoids generic plot devices. We all see what's coming with Sutter's father. We all know that Woodley's character is going to do (without revealing too much) exactly what she's going to do. There's nothing new in this film, and even though the two leads are adorable together (get away from her Teller...), it's just not enough to distract from the blandness. And that's it, really. I feel bad walking away from this movie thinking that it was only fine. But that's all it was. And sadly, that's all it seemed to strive for.

Rank - 2.5/5

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

I didn't read the book. I don't want to read the book. This movie has given me no desire to read the book. This movie is crap.

Let's start with the problem Harry Potter had later on - the title. "The Goblet of Fire," "The Order of the Phoenix," "The Half Blood Prince," "The Deathly Hallows." These titles are cool sounding, but in the end, the Goblet is only in the book for the very beginning, the Order is only a small plot point, you see my point. So why is this called City of Bones? It's simple. There's one scene in a place that is mentioned to be the City of Bones before the rest of the movie takes place elsewhere...

Problem number 2 - absolutely no originality. Why was this written? The story rips off of everything. Twilight, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Tithe, even bits of Eragon turned up in its story. It was so pointlessly, shamelessly written. Cinematically, it ripped off the same. Shots taken directly from Harry Potter really bothered me. If it wasn't ripping off shots, it wasn't doing anything at all. There was nothing interesting going on at any point. The special effects were so bland that there wasn't even joy from watching those. One part of the movie looked like it was shot, and then sped up. The frame rate looked like it jumped forward exponentially, and it looked really weird. Was the movement of characters too slow? You should have known that in time to reshoot!

Everyone in this movie had such a forced appearance. Nothing was natural. Lily Collins starts out looking generic before having her complete stylistic change. Get it? She's changed. The "Shadow Hunters" or whatever they're blandly called in this movie are emo looking brooding assholes. Because demons. The mother of course looks flawless. Because she's mom...? Werewolves are apparently all bikers...? For some reason vampires don't mask their appearance at all... And then there's a gay warlock. Why? Who knows! I'm all for homosexuality becoming a normalcy in film, but this felt more forced than the ending of ParaNorman. Which I loved. But it wasn't half heartedly trying to be both serious and a punchline. It didn't work.

The movie is so obvious, even to an uninitiate like myself. Of course we know where the cup is. Even if I didn't put two and two together about the nature of the spell, I knew very early on where it was. Of course the big "twist" was there. There was one line that completely gave it away. And then....well lets just say the movie becomes needlessly awkward. No drama. Just awkward. No care. Just shut up and move on you dumb teenagers. And of course, we're gonna see "team who-the-hell-cares" and "team obvious outcome" popup. But unlike Edward and Jacob, I think there's very little reason to care. Because this movie isn't doing well. No one knows or cares about this movie. No one is going to be picking fights that Twilight inspired. And because everyone in this movie is just awful. Just, terrible. Not arguably good, or even that attractive. Just AWFUL.

So, as someone who did not read the books, after seeing this awfully derivative story, painfully boring cinematography, piss poor acting, bland special effects, and stupid romance, I can say that I have no reason to remotely care about the book. I hope this doesn't break even. I don't want to see a sequel.

Rank - 0.5/5

You're Next

Between this and The Conjuring, I really hope we're not seeing an incredibly annoying trend. Both of these movies are getting critical praise for being "classically scary", reminiscent of classic horror movies, or, perhaps the dumbest, enough to satisfy horror movie fans. I hate the idea of settling for horror movies.

People think that I hate horror films in general. This isn't the case. I just haven't seen anything to revive my hope in recent years. Sure Mama had me creeped out, but at no point was I genuinely scared. The Conjuring was experienced with plenty of laughter and teasing. The last horror film I truly enjoyed was Cabin in the Woods. But that's if you count it as a horror and not a comedy. And at that rate, I guess if you consider Prometheus horror, add that. But no "pure" horror film has made me feel happy to be scared, or even scared at all, in a heck of a long time.

You're Next succeeds similarly to The Conjuring; It's definitely fun to watch. But unlike The Conjuring, it's obviously trying to be something far more interesting. The obvious character reveals, the forced exposition and character development, incredibly forced character dialogue, all of it comes together in a poor attempt to be something shocking and interesting. And even though the violence is definitely there, with plenty of blood to satisfy the average gore-lover, we've also seen violence that has made my jaw drop farther, and violence that's made me laugh harder than what this film offered.

All that being said, You're Next is fun enough. It has silly gore and even sillier music reminiscent of campy zombie and slasher flicks. The story itself would be fine and would work great for some gorey fun if it just stuck to that. Clearly there was an attempt to make us like certain characters more than others. But I would have had more fun hating everyone for their awful personalities than be force fed reasons to like or dislike them. All of this exposition leads up to an obvious "twist", unsatisfying, and stupid, followed by an incredible final death perhaps. It makes you laugh, but the laughs feel unintentional until the last third or so of the movie.

The audience was what made this fun. It was like watching a campy movie with the perfect group of friends, all yelling at the screen and making the best out of characters that, as my friend put it "have the least amount of worry for their safety (he's) ever seen". Even the characters who are supposed to be written out to be smarter than average make stupid choices. Why, the student who was raised in the harshest of circumstances and is now finishing her masters at one point jumps over a railing knowing full well her leg was just run through with a piece of glass...because...? It's moments like these keeping the film from being anything beyond a laughable passing attempt at horror. And for a movie with such high praise and such an obvious attempt to be something more, I don't think I can get over it.

Rank - 2/5

The World's End

Shaun of the Dead is one of my all time favorite movies. It's hilariously funny, brilliantly shot, superbly acted, even a bit emotional when it needed to be. It was what I loved about this absurd trilogy of movies, lovingly called "The Three Flavours Cornetto" trilogy. It showed how a perfectly good comedy could also show some strong emotional ties, maybe even make you feel more than the initial trailers suggested you would.

That all being said and loved, I have to say, I might have a new favorite in the trilogy. The World's End proves itself to be as well crafted and hilarious as any of the trilogy, while also keeping a great balance of character development to keep you interested, but not frustrated at the lack of laughs. It's brilliant. Enough said.

For those uninitiated, the "Three Flavours Cornetto" trilogy refers to Hott Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, and now The World's End. Although there is no story or character that unites these films, there are three distinct traits that unify them all. First, the cast and crew has always included Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Bill Nighy, Julia Deakin, Martin Freeman, and Rafe Spall, as well as being directed by Edgar Wright. The second trait is at least one scene of hilarious fence jumping. But the third, and most important trait of the three, is the Cornetto, a packaged ice cream cone similar to the Drumstick we're all familiar with. In each film, there is a different flavor used. In Shaun of the Dead, there is a strawberry cone, the red color representing the blood of the zombies. In Hot Fuzz, a blue cone is used (I'm not sure of the flavor of that), representing the colors of the police. In this film, I don't want to say too much about it, because it's brilliantly placed and perfectly colored. But it's fantastic. Truly.

And that's what makes this movie so brilliant. Every little detail is perfectly hilarious, but not overbearing. Even the names of some of the bars have significance to what goes on inside. When a robot (for lack of a better term, what the hell else are they supposed to be?!) is torn apart, we actually see a bit of how it's structured to work, but not so much that it's in the way or too silly. It just works. Hilariously.

As always, the one liners in each brilliantly structured dialogue leave you laughing harder and harder until a final zinger, which had my sides splitting. British humor is hit or miss for a lot of Amerians, but I'm going to have a hard time thinking of anyone who wouldn't enjoy this movie. Even if for some reason you're not really into the humor of the film (if you don't laugh then you're a robot), there's still plenty to appreciate. How about the AWESOME performance from Pegg, a man who literally has nothing to live for, has even lost all respect for himself, and is so desperate for self validation that his only hope for his pride is a freaking bar crawl. Nick Frost, who struggles to see validation for his own life even with his success, is another fascinating story. The interactions of these characters meeting back for the first time in years is hilariously spot on with some of my experiences. Although after this film, we are absolutely planning some epic bar crawl in the coming weeks...

This is absolutely a must see comedy. It's funny, smart, intriguing, and just all around great. I wouldn't change a thing.

Rank - 5/5

The Butler

As much as it pains me to say it, stories such as this are hackneyed in Hollywood. We see plenty of movies about racial inequality that manage to make us feel nothing. That's how I felt about The Help last year. This year, however, my standard was reset by the absolutely heart-wrenching and brilliantly written and performed 42. So, my standards for this film are very high, especially with the large amount of Oscar buzz surrounding it.

The trailers don't do this movie justice. This is not the story of a black man's importance in the White House. It's not a story about a black man overcoming adversary in a period of social instability. No, the story is far more interesting then that. The story is about a father, working the hardest he can in a field that he loves, fighting his son's lack of appreciation and desire to do far more with his life than his fathers subservient job. That's a fascinating idea, one I haven't experienced in such a way.

But that doesn't mean this film is free of problems. For some reason, this story about a butler working through several presidencies raising his Black Panther son isn't enough for the filmmakers. No, there's adultery, relationship issues, the usual Hollywood problems. And as usual, it wears thing. I'd much rather learn about the relationship between the two. To the films credit, I loved the structure. I really liked learning about Cecil Gains growing up, how becoming a butler started as a way out of the fields and became a passion. I loved watching the son start out questioning his fathers occupation, watching it grow into activism.

A lot of critics criticized the Forrest Gump style story telling, the fictional story (although it is inspired by a true story, it should be noted that the vast majority of this story is fabricated) mixed in with historical events affecting the characters in a similar sentimentality. Like Forrest Gump, the cast was talented and passionate about the project. But unlike Gump, there isn't a character like Forrest, one that is so lovable you can't help but cheer him on. In fact, unlike the true story, Whitaker's character manages to succeed rather quickly. His pay and equality in the work place is hardly addressed, instead opting to tell the story of his relationship with his son. That's all fine, but we have no reason to support Whitaker anymore. We have more of a reason to support his son Louis, despite the film painting his image to be more rebellious rather than mature.

All in all, the movie is definitely an interesting approach to the civil rights movement. There are scenes that work fabulously in demonstrating the struggle. But by the end, it suffered from the one problem too many movies suffer from - why did I need to know this story? I felt a little bit let down, again after seeing 42 earlier this year. But there's plenty to appreciate in this movie. And I'm sure we'll see it at the Oscars this year.

Rank - 3/5

Jobs

Steve Jobs is obviously one of the men this year that fascinates the public. Who was the man who created Apple? What was he like? What's his story? Why was he fired from Apple? The list of questions goes on, and this movie was going to be the first to answer it. But more importantly, American audiences simply aren't interested in an interesting man's story put to film. We want to learn about the man, learn the intricacy's of the story, and see the conflict that makes this story worthy to be a film.

Not even the public is satisfied by this film. That's saying something. Scoring an abysmal 25% and only a 50% audience score, this highly anticipated film managed to take its highly marketable status and barely finish in 7th place this week, losing to Kick-Ass 2 and The Butler. I wouldn't have called either of those. Poor audience score and low box office performance? (Granted it'll be profitable.)

There's only one way to describe Jobs - a misfire. It might be accurate, it might be flawlessly performed. But at the end of the day, this is film making at its worst. I have a sneaking suspicion this was a passion project, written and directed as a film that could not fail. But the film doesn't leave any emotion at all. Its formula is simple - something wrong, then it's fixed. Something wrong, then it's fixed. Something wrong, then it's fixed. It loses any sense of drama. Perhaps his life had a lot of short comings and problems, but maybe the best way to tell this story is to cut some of the stories. We don't need to see everything to see this as a success story. We don't need to know about his potential daughter (at least, not through the character this film creates). We didn't even need to know about his relationship with Bill Gates.

All this comes down to is a lack of an interesting character. And that's not necessarily Ashton Kutcher's fault. Granted, I don't like him very much as an actor, but I have to respect him for doing his very best with this role. Given a much stronger script, he probably would have seen as Oscar nomination for no other reason than the titular role. But the script is sadly very face value. There's no depth to what I'm watching. Sure, we know the ending. But films like Argo, Titanic, Lincoln, Frost/Nixon, they have the ability to make a known ending into a suspenseful, well written story. To take a man like Steve Jobs, a man who turned around a completely failing company into one of the most successful in history, how can you not make a story like that inspiring?

It's apparently simple - shove in as many stories from Jobs' life, keep characters only at surface value, keep the story from being able to explore Jobs' relationships and friendships, force some sentimentality by including his relationship with his potential daughter, and you have a story that tries to make you feel, but fails. You've watched a movie that maybe informed you on his life, but did no more to inspire you for success than a Lifetime original film.

It's sad. We all have hopes for a good Jobs movie...good thing we're getting the Aaron Sorkin script about Steve Jobs in the future. That will be magnificent.

Rank - 1.5/5

Kick-Ass 2

I went into Kick-Ass 2 expecting gore, guts, bad taste but awesome superheroes. What did I get? Gore, guts, bad taste, awesome superheroes, and a pretty great story too...

Ironic that I'm posting this review, considering I just posted an article about the use of Rotten Tomatoes, and here's a movie that I really enjoyed that's rocking a 28% on the site.

Critics are saying that the movie is violent. Jim Carrey himself pulled support for his own film recently as well. To that I say - seriously? It's titled Kick-Ass. The comic books are violent, the idea is violent. It's main villain is named The Mother Fucker. Doesn't that say it all about the level of violence? I'm kindof surprised actually that this is only now being called too violent, considering there were far fewer action scenes in this film compared to the first.

Critics are also saying that this film lacked humor compared to the first. I mean, sure. Maybe it lacked the same style of humor. But I had no problem seeing this as a continuation of the first movie. In this film, the jokes become fewer as the film gets more and more serious, more and more based in a sense of reality. Perhaps not a reality of what was happening physically, but a reality of what this would really be like if it did/could happen. If this was to happen in real life, I can see the emotions being the way they are, the reactions from law enforcement being reasonable. It was pretty crazy to watch all of these people with no super powers fighting each other to a very real feeling death, no moments of redemption or moments of potential life. For the most part, we saw realistic death. And more importantly, I felt it was more poignant that way.

I very much liked the superhero characters in this. Colonel Stars and Stripes, played by Jim Carrey, was a particularly fun character, and one I hadn't seen before - a violent but honest ex mafia man turned born-again Christian? That's definitely original to me. I loved the idea of Battle Guy being one of Kick-Ass's friends without either of them realizing who the other one was. Night Bitch was a throwaway character for the most part, but she did manage to have one particularly brutal scene that showed us a great villain character from The Mother Fucker - one who was thinking far more evil than he could actually perform. Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl is particularly great. For the first time, we saw a pretty great portrayal of a girl who was facing high school for the first time the same way a superhero would be on patrol for the first time. Sure, it was over the top and silly at points, but I very much felt for her and wanted her to embrace Hit Girl again, having at the beginning of the film promised to her guardian she would never do it again. We genuinely cheer for her to put her costume back on, and it never becomes hackneyed or frustrating as to why she just doesn't.

I thought the action was super exciting, never boring, always leaving something really cool to look at, especially any scene with Hit Girl. We saw fighting that succeeded in making her look like a badass, but never so ungrounded in reality that we wonder how probable it is. It's Hit Girl, she can do anything damnit! And Kick-Ass himself, though in this film pretty jacked out of his mind, maintains a certain level of weakness that we loved him for in the first film but a new found level of strength to do things that he normally couldn't, and he has some great fight scenes as well.

All in all, if you're on the fence about seeing this movie, I'd say give it a shot. I'm curious to see what audience ratings look like for this movie, I have a feeling they're going to be more satisfied than the critics looking for something more intellectual. But what this film lacked in a super smart story, it made up for in a shocking amount of believability and fun. I really liked it, and I'll defend it.

Rank - 4/5

Tom Ponders: Is Rotten Tomatoes Useful?

When I'm not working on my blog, I'm balancing the starts of a music career, school, and two part time jobs. At one of my jobs, a video game sales guy at Toys R Us, I have a close friend who I half-jokingly half-seriously refer to as "my friend with the worst taste in movies". Seriously, our tastes could not clash more. If I like it, chances are he'll hate it. If he likes it, chances are I think it's horrible. If he wants to see it, chances are it's at the bottom of my list. If I want to see it, he says he'll wait to see it on DVD.

One day we were talking about perceived quality from a critical standpoint vs. an audience stand point. One film we both dislike, Fast Five, has a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes. When I mentioned this, he became angry. "Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Sony, the company who distributed Fast Five!" he declared. "That's why it has a high score! They just want to have a good rank for their own movies!"

It turned out his facts weren't quite straight on that, but that's not the point. I actually began to wonder, is Rotten Tomatoes owned by a film studio? Do they have control over content like that? Are they really so disingenuous with scores as to favor themselves?

What did I learn?

What Is Rotten Tomatoes?

Senh Duong loved Jackie Chan. He loved Jackie Chan so much that he wanted to collect every review that he could find on every Jackie Chan movie ever made. That's where his idea started. He wanted to make a website where someone could easily find reviews for a film from a number of American Critics. In 1998, the site was launched with its first review for the film "Your Friend And Neighbors", holding a 77% score on the site. It was an immediate success, sparking the idea to team up with classmates and make it a full time website. By 2000, that was a reality. Rotten Tomatoes has always had that goal - to get as many reviews for a film as possible within particular categories, summarize them into a general consensus, and assign it a few numbers to help rank films easier. 

In 2004, the site was purchased by IGN, its first owner other than the creator himself. In 2010, the site was sold to Flixter, then an independent company. Flixter went on to produce it's now popular mobile application. Then, in 2011, Flixter was purchased by Warner Brothers, who currently owns both Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes. 

Rotten Tomatoes is a very simple idea. Staff members for the site collect reviews from authors that are members of particular writing groups - certain guilds and associations. These are NOT to be confused with the site's critics. Rotten Tomatoes actually uses USER reviews as its site critics. At one point, I was a member of these critics. I have since stopped writing, as sending readers to my blog was apparently against the rules. To become one of these critics, a "Super Reviewer" as they call it, your reviews must obtain a certain amount of "likes", at which point you receive a nomination, your work is reviewed, and receive the status. Then, there are Top Critics. These are notable critics, usually for a notable news paper. Michael Phillips, A.O. Scott, Peter Travers all qualify for this. 

Once the reviews are collected, they are simply checked positive or negative. There is no scale. If it's a hateful review, a disappointed review, a sad review, it's negative. If it's praising the film, or simply showing a bit of appreciation, it's positive. Finally, a percentage is found. If a film has under a 60% approval rating, it is considered Rotten. If it has 75% or higher with at least 40 reviews and five Top Critic reviews, it becomes "Certified Fresh" (unless, the score drops below 70 at any point). This also means that if a film has 20 write ups and all of them are positive, it won't be "Fresh" due to an insufficient number of reviews.

In addition, Rotten Tomatoes has a general "User Score". This is where the average user can rank a film on a scale from one to five. A three and a half or above is considered a positive review, anything lower is negative. This number then forms the Audience Score. This is the most unpredictable, and surprisingly least accurate number. Although it certainly does have its use. We'll get to why in a bit.

So now that we understand how the site works, what about the ownership?

Warner Brothers

It makes sense to distrust the company owning Rotten Tomatoes when they make the movies themselves. But from the model we looked at, is it really possible that they could push the negative reviews aside and see that their films are all positively reviewed? 

Well, that's easy enough. What were some movies recently from Warner Bro's, produced or simply distributed, and what were their scores?

We're The Millers - 42%
The Conjuring - 86%
Pacific Rim - 71%
Man of Steel - 56% (BUT IT WAS TERRIBLE GODDAMNIT)
The Hangover: Part III - 19%
The Great Gatsby - 49%
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone - 36%
42 - 77%
Jack The Giant Slayer - 52%
Beautiful Creatures - 46%
Bullet to the Head - 46%
Gangster Squad - 32%
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 65%
Cloud Atlas - 66%
Argo - 96%
Trouble With The Curve - 52%
The Apparition - 4%
The Campaign - 65%
The Dark Knight Rises - 88%
Magic Mike - 80%
Rock of Ages - 41%
Chernobyl Diaries - 21%
Dark Shadows - 38%
The Lucky One - 20%
Wrath of the Titans - 25%

I think that's enough to suffice. It's pretty obvious that these numbers are all over the place, we see a high of 96% for Argo, all the way down to 4% for The Apparition. In fact, the acquisition of Flixter to Warner Brothers' was made in May of 2011. What came out that month? 

Something Borrowed - 15%
The Hangover Part II - 24%

And then in June we saw Green Lantern earn an abysmal 26%. No, not until Horrible Bosses earned a 69% did we see a Warner Bros project receive a decent score. I think this is pretty decent proof that Warner Bros doesn't edit their scores. In fact, citing my last article, you would know they wouldn't need to - critics don't affect a films income at all. 

What About Audience Scores?

If there's any number to take the least seriously from the site, it's the audience score. But why is this? Am I implying that a critic has a more intelligent say in a films quality? No, definitely not. An audience decides what a classic will be. However, there is one truth many people don't realize about audience scores. Let me reveal it to you with the following question:

How often do you fill out an audience score?

If your answer was what I think it was, it's not often. In fact, many people don't fill out audience scores at all. Who does then? There are three types of people who do. I am the minority. I am someone who constantly ranks every movie that I see. We are not a large group of people. No, the rest of the audience score is controlled by one group of people who absolutely loved the movie, and the other group of people who absolutely hated the movie. So what do you get? A lot of super one sided arguments bashing down each other. Not to mention that to fill out a rank on Rotten Tomatoes, you need to have an account set up. Many people don't do this, instead choosing to look at the scores and walk away. I find that Metacritic has a more accurate audience rating.

But really, you shouldn't listen to those anyway. You should go see what you want to see. 

That's right. I said it. Don't let a critic change your mind. It's great that critics are around to help you, to let you know we didn't like a movie so maybe you should go see another movie instead. But that doesn't mean that we should tell you that the movie you've been dying to see is so bad that you'll hate it. That might not be the case.

And THAT is where the flaw is with Rotten Tomatoes. Not in its execution, but in its interpretation.

How To Use Rotten Tomatoes

I took an Earth Science class my senior year of college. If there was one thing that was hammered into our heads, it was the following statement - "Correlation does not imply causation." What does it mean? It means, in science, that just because there is a correlation does not mean that that is the direct cause. For example, just because many terrorists in the past have been of a particular ethnic descent does not mean that every terrorist will be of the same descent. Simple, right? So what does this have to do with Rotten Tomatoes?

People look at a score on Rotten Tomatoes and see it as a judgement of quality. I did the same thing for a long time. We think the lower the score, the worse the movie. And if we look generally speaking, this might be true. But lets recall a particular truth about how reviews are collected. They are simply called Fresh or Rotten. There is no rank. A review expressing a bit of disappointment and a review damning the film to the eternal fires of hell are both on the same level. 

Now imagine you have a film with 5% incredibly glowing reviews, with 95% of the reviews expressing that the film was silly and a bit boring. But now, put that in perspective with a film averaging lets say 25%, where a fourth of the reviews say that the film was passable as popcorn entertainment and the additional 75% of the critics write absolutely scathing reviews. These are two completely different films. And for me personally, it shows. In fact my lowest ranked film of the year so far is Man of Steel, a film averaging at 56%. My second least favorite is The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, at 36%.

So what does this mean? It means that, as with all reviews, Rotten Tomatoes should be interpreted with a grain of salt. But that's not all. We have to also bear in mind that Ranks bear no specifics on quality of the film, but rather the general acceptance of the film. So it's less of a rank, and more of a helpful tool with probability. If the score is lower, it's fair to say that the chances of liking a movie are also lower. But again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, a low score on Rotten Tomatoes does not necessarily mean that the movie is bad. In fact, I always argue that when a film is ranked in the 50's or 60's, the opinions are split enough that you might as well walk in with no expectations.

More importantly, a low score doesn't mean you won't like it. In fact, there are plenty of films that I liked that are ranked "rotten" this year on Rotten Tomatoes. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Great Gatsby even have ranks above 4. 

So What's The Point?

Just like any other film critic, the point isn't to tell you what to see. It's to be a tool to help you pick. If you see a trailer that gets your really excited, you should go see the movie. If you see a trailer for a film you know you're going to hate, you should just skip it. But Rotten Tomatoes is a great tool for the times you have a few bucks to blow on a movie, or are looking for a fun night out with your friends, and don't know what to see. What movie has the highest probability of being liked? Even though it's not a guaranteed win, it's definitely helpful to know what movies people are talking about positively the most.

How do I use Rotten Tomatoes? I use it a bit differently than other people. There are so many movies that come out in a weekend, especially during August, that I know I can't see everything (I'm not made of money). So when I need to pick, if I see a movie with an incredibly low rank and I don't think anyone would miss a review for it, I'll skip that before anything else. For example, this week we see The Butler, Jobs, Kick-Ass 2, and Paranoia. Even though three of those are doing badly, I know my audience will care far more about the Jobs film and Kick-Ass 2. Paranoia is definitely not the winning film this week. Therefore, I'll skip it.

I hope this helps you understand how Rotten Tomatoes more effectively. And I hope it gets rid of the notion that the lower the score the worse the movie. It's a great collection of reviews and a number assigned to show positive feedback, nothing more. And that makes for a nice help when deciding what to see.