IHateBadMovies.com

VIP

8

Full disclosure - I am not a fanboy. I don't know all of the various secondary story lines and I really didn't care too much if there were minor plot holes. I generally don't like comic book movies and when I do watch them I don't take them too seriously. That said... I didn't mind this movie at all. Or the one before it. I did have a problem with 7 because it essentially felt like "hey, we've got the band back together so lets go re-make a movie that we've already made before". It has to be hard to close up this kind of series as I really don't think you can win. They could have beaten us over the head with cliches about the force (the dialog at the end of ROTJ almost kills the scene). They could have dipped even further into nostalgia. I think the final narrative (each of us has a choice at to who we are) is excellent and the people executing their will against their oppressors is timely. Did it feel like a video game at times? Sure. Overall I was entertained on the level that I was watching it.

One other note. There have been a ton of "rank all of the Star Wars movies" blogs coming out and many of them have this one as the worst of them. I didn't see the middle three (chronological order) for more than 10 minutes each but that was enough to see that they were unwatchable.

follow me at https://IHateBadMovies.com or facebook page IHateBadMovies

I decided to give this show a look because I was curious about the wide difference between what the critics think and what the audience seems to think. The first 20 minutes or so were ok. I like all of the actors in the show and Aniston appeared to be doing some really good work. That said, I said to my wife "the only thing keeping this show was a music bed behind the dramatic scenes".

And then came the music bed and it went full-on network drama. This is not a compliment.

The main problem with this show is that the story just isn't compelling. It might be one thing if something like this happened mid-series once we got to know the characters. The last third of the show was completely unwatchable. As good as Aniston was at the beginning it was uncomfortable watching her cry in scene after scene.

I don't get what attracted the actors to this show. There have been soooooo many good series on cable these days - couldn't they find a better one? This is especially true of Steve Carell as he has been in some wonderful dramas.

EDIT The show did get better in later episodes as new storylines and conflict developed. That said, it's pretty safe to say that in just about every scene where someone cries or loses their s*** it's a bad scene.

follow me at https://IHateBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies.

The reviews on this episode are depressing.

"It was too political" says the people that try to bring politics into everything
"It wasn't sci-fi enough" says the people that watching it on that level
"There weren't enough twists" says the people who watch this show on a superficial level.
"It was brokeback mountain for tv" said the homophobic people
"They've covered some of this stuff before" says the people that think that every story has to not resemble any other story in any way.
"They wrapped it up too quickly" says the people who value the destination more than the journey (shoot me now)

I don't know what more people want from this series. The series is meant to discuss the human condition in our quickly-changing world. It is meant to provoke thought and conversation and make us think about where we are going and the challenges we will face. In that regard it very much reminded me of San Junipero - probably my favorite episode of the entire series. While not being as uplifting as that episode (which is irrelevant as I don't watch media to be uplifted) it was actually interesting that the leads in the show had actually found what seemed to be a balance where they could co-exist.

There were so many layers and things to think about - I can't believe that others didn't see it the same way. While so many of their episodes are cautionary tales I thought this did a fantastic job portraying the complexities that we are now starting to do deal with in our relationships.

follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies. I look high and low for good movies to watch.

For quite a while I've been a fan of the coming-of-age genre and I've seen my share of good movies and bad movies. It seems to be a tough genre to navigate as it seems like it has all been done before. For me the major mistake seems to be the regurgitation of the movie Heathers (which doesn't stand up over time). We get kids talking in ways that kids don't talk and then throwing a large helping of quirkiness on top of it. Invariably we seem to be impressed when one is half-decent and thus give it a much higher rating than it deserves (I'm looking at you Lady Bird).

I wasn't terribly hopeful when the film started out and we see the traditional movie high school scenes that exist in no high school ever. The film has two things that I think really helped it not become a total cliche. First, the leads are fantastic. Absolutely perfectly cast. Second, the movie takes on the perspective that maybe the kids that did everything right maybe didn't do everything right. While they set out to change that in one night they really changed their lives.

follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook page IHateBadMovies

By now you've probably seen the rating. Yes, that's right - I've given what is widely regarded as the best sequal of all time a "7".

This movie had very little of what made the first movie so good. In my book the most interesting part of the first Godfather was the transformation of Michael Corleone from pacifist to head of the family. "2" featured the difficulty of both running the family and trying to legitimize their business. The result, from my perspective, was a mish-mosh. The movie never did have any flow. In fact, when it ended I almost fell off my chair. There were few high points in this movie the ending certainly wasn't one of them.

The worst part of the movie were the flashbacks. I understand that part of the reason to visit Vito Corleone's childhood and early life was to contrast his style of leadership with that of the heavy-handed Michael. Other than that, I really had no interest in seeing a 13 year old future mobster. The result was an already fragmented plot being torn apart that much more to take trips down memory lane (and a 2-disk movie to boot). It seems to me that a prequel would have made more sense. The only positive was that we got a break from Pacino's constant brooding. Quite honestly, I've seen better Sopranos episodes.

follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook page IHateBadMovies.com

As much as I liked the first installment of this movie, the second installment (more of a continuation than a sequel) blows Volume 1 out of the water. The violence and action-packed "Volume 1" sets the stage for an often thoughtful and humanistic storyline.

For me, the best part of this movie was seeing Tarantino at work. Tarantino the writer started with a completely blanks slate and made something that (not unlike is other films) is a little off-kilter. The story moves along at a pace that he sees fit and he isn't afraid to stop the story to go tell another story. Tarantino the director is even better here. I can't remember the last modern film where the director uses music and color to add flavor to his story. At times the story turns to black and white, at other times 70's funk plays to bring the viewer back to the genre that Tarantino grew up with. The opening scene is the perfect example of this: Uma Thurman driving a convertible down a road, almost romanticizing her vendetta. The wind barely touches her hair and she doesn't once look at the road. The since is shot in a surreal color scheme - not quite black and white, maybe more of a silvery effect.

Also, don't be afraid to watch this movie without seeing the first one.

follow me at IHateBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies

I saw this movie in the theater with a friend from high school. I remember the two of us walking about of the theater looking for the government bad guy that was surely hiding underneath my car. Neither one of us could believe how our government could do this to us. Over the next couple of years I read just about every book on the assassination. It is amazing how there seem to be a hundred times more that support a conspiracy theory than what actually happened. Fast forward (gulp) eighteen years. It has long been proven that Oswald had in fact acted alone. While I openly distrust the government I pride myself in the ability to call a spade a spade. But for this whole time I had still enjoyed this movie for the way it presented this (fake) drama. No more. Want to see the truth? Here it is. And now I'm disgusted. Disgusted that I enjoyed this movie for so long and disgusted that Oliver Stone could take completely liberties with the facts. It is one thing to believe that there was a conspiracy and show why you think that the government was involved. It is another thing to make up events, characters and situations that can be proven to be BS. follow me at https://IHateBadMovies.com

This movie came highly recommended by several people whose tastes in movies seem to reflect my own. The film did not disappoint. On the surface the movie might seem to be standard Hollywood fare - two sisters learn important life lessons while struggling through a hard life. Sounds familiar, right?

But the film was anything but the traditional crap that we've come to expect from Hollywood. The film did not need to tie up all of the loose ends. When the sisters had a falling out there wasn't a teary makeup session. When the lead realized that she did not need to impress her high school friends and that she could not relate to them there wasn't a "girl power" moment. Everything in the movie, right down to the 90 minute run-time, is pleasantly understated.

The funny thing is that I didn't see it at first. After the movie ended I swished it around in my head for a few minutes. I enjoyed the movie but it seemed like it could have been even better. It was then that I realized that I too had fallen into the same trap that I often speak of: being conditioned to expect what we usually get in these films. While it was by no means a masterpiece the director got it right in the end.

Before I begin, I need to get one thing straight. I watch movies because I like to see good films. I do not watch movies to kill time or feel good or to "not think for a while" as so many people say. It doesn't mean that I mind when a movie is inspirational as long as it is intelligent and gives me something to think about. The backdrops will change but quality should remain. This does not mean that I expect anyone else to watch a movie the way I do - I just want you to know where I'm coming from.

The more I think about it, the more I hate this movie.

The film is based on a real-life event where a rich southern family took in a semi-homeless black teenager. That part (and maybe only that part) is actually true. In itself, that story is amazing and incredibly touching. Too often in life we all look the other way when we see something uncomfortable on the streets.

It is this core story that is what is heartwarming. If I gave you the synopsis in one or two minutes you would be touched and your heart would be warmed. You're a better person for hearing about it. But there is a huge difference between relating the story and what was done in this movie and that is where my problem is. Just about everything that happened in the movie was contrived and superficial and meant to pull at your heartstrings.

And I know what you're saying - so what? It is a movie. If this were a novel or something like that, great. I can tolerate and even partially enjoy a movie like Serendipity that is meant to be pure sugar and meant to make you feel good. This movie had a touching core. The saccharin that was poured on top of it was at best unnecessary.

You want uplifting? Go see Precious. Now there was a film that was gritty, awful, beautiful and uplifting. It didn't need to cue the sappy music to let you know a scene was coming. The story stood on its own.

Anyway, here are the reasons why this movie was so bad.

The majority of the events never happened. Sandra Bullock didn't call the coach on the field during a game or run onto the field during practice to save the day. They didn't pick up the boy while he was walking along the street on a rainy night. There wasn't a dramatic moment where the coach fought to get the boy into school. All these dramatic scenes were standard Hollywood formulas for contrived emotions.

There was a single character in the move and that was the mother (Bullock). Every other character in the movie was either a prop (the boy) or a doormat (the husband, coach, etc). Worse, they all are expected to crown her as some queen while she insults them and ponders if this makes her a great person or not. Why? I think the answer is simple - it was meant to be a vehicle for Bullock and it was to be her show (even though, by all accounts, the real-life husband was very responsible for what happened).

Why are people so impressed with the sassy women? They should have called this movie "Erin Brockovich 2". I don't know what was more cringe-worthy: the scene where she drives into the hood and threatens some thugs with violence or where she verbally assaults the father in the stands at the game. If you met this woman in real life you'd want her dead. Can you imagine if someone called your kid's coach during a game to give advice (or worse, walking into a practice and treating the players like infants)? Would you talk down to him or your husband the way she repeatedly did? But for some reason people see it on screen and like it.

Speaking of condescending, what about her treatment towards the boy? He was essentially a pet in this movie. She ordered him to go here, there and everywhere. The big "trick" was teaching him how to play football. Think about it - he didn't have a meaningful line until the last 5 minutes of the movie and he was on screen more than anyone. I want to know what he thinks about the culture shock that he's been through. Was it difficult for him to move in with this family? What does he think of his past? We hear none of this because it is written to be a coronation of the mother.

I can see why black Americans were a little upset by this movie. Once again, don't get me wrong - it is admirable that they did what they did. But a bored and rich housewife takes on a project and they make a movie about it? There are scores of grandmothers that raised their grandkids because the parents weren't around - I can't imagine being one of those people and seeing this movie (and I can't imagine Hollywood making that movie). Also, the popularity of this film is more proof of the way we look at black Americans. We think that we need to protect them and be parents to them - you see it everyday in speech, movies, tv, etc. That is the real racism in this country.

Why the constant need to remind us that they are Christians and conservative? Besides, the message was hypocritical. Was it Christian to have academic standards to the Christian school? Was it Christian to live in that huge mansion? I think not.
Cliched. The whole movie was one cliche after another! You could see the next scene coming at every step of the way. Once again, this takes away from what the movie should have been about.

So, there you have it. If you like cheesy books written by the likes of Mitch Albom (other than "Morrie") or Glen Beck, you probably liked this. And I get that. But lets not pretend that it was anything more than a sunday night movie that you'd see on ABC (do they still have those?). Worse, lets not pretend that Bullock should have won the award. It is a crime that the leads in Inglorious Basterds or Precious didn't get it. Hell, I'd toss in the woman from Up in the Air also.

follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com (like this one)