Change Your Image
joberfeld113
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Almost As Bad As Batman & Robin
Batman V Superman seemed promising, but unfortunately it is boring and empty. The film is set 18 months after the events of Man of Steel. Aparrently Batman is suspicious of what Superman may do and wants to eliminate him as a threat. The story is virtually nonexistent. There is no explanation for anything such as character background or story. In an action movie there has to be a point in the action. The characters need motivation. This is also a problem. There is no clear explanation to things. An example is the only scene with Flash. Flash says to Bruce that Lois is the key. This is one of many pointless scenes. Every scene feels pointless. I also don't like the grey color pallet. The grey pallet feels depressing. A superhero movie needs to look warm, fun, and inviting like a majority of the Marvel films. Jessie Eisenberg was concerning for maybe a few. Unfortunately he is a miscast. Even with proper casting, it would have been hard to make this Luther work because he has no motivation. The lone bright spots are in Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, and Henry Cavil. All of them do a mostly decent job, except Affleck. Affleck's interpretation of Batman is hardcore which is fine, but unfortunately as I already mentioned, there is no point. Because I am limited here in length I am going to refer you to my review on Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/id/900037159/ratings
Aliens (1986)
While Alien perfected slow-building, atmospheric tension, Aliens packs more of a punch, and features what I think is Sigourney Weaver's best performance.
Everyone says that sequels have a tendency to suck. Then there are the sequels that do not improve upon the original, but are still good movies on their own. Then there is Aliens. A sequel that is not like other sequels. Aliens is one of those sequels that is either as good as or better than the original. The film continues Ripley's story arc at exactly where the first one left off. Ripley has been floating around in stasis for 57 years. When she returns home, her employer, the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, asks her what happened. Ripley tells them the entire story which none of them believe. She is also suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Ripley is told that there are now colonists on the planet LV-426 which is the crew she served with found the ship from the first film. Burke, a high level representative from the company, tells Ripley that communication with the colony has stopped and convinces her to return there with marines and be an adviser. Unfortunately when they get there, the colony is destroyed and the colonists are nowhere to be found except for one survivor, a little girl named Newt. They find out that the colonists did discover the ship and everything that happened on the Nostromo is now repeating itself in the colony. This sequel was directed by Terminator director James Cameron, not Ridley Scott. But it still does not matter as Aliens has a lot of what made the first film great. H.R. Giger's designs from the first film are improved upon. That goes more than double with one of the aliens late in the film. The marines in this movie are armed with state of the weapons that can easily kill, but the film keeps all of the tension by having them completely outnumbered and at a disadvantage with them not knowing what they are up against, despite Ripley telling them earlier in the film. While there are the dumb marines, Hicks, Vasquez, and Hudson either leave a lasting impression or remain quotable. Newt is not your typical kid character. Most kid characters in films get annoying, however Newt is a lot fun to watch. She is also smart and realizes that the best way to survive against the aliens is to run. The acting in the film is also impressive. Sigourney Weaver returns as Ripley and owns the role so much that it is likely the best performance she has ever given. Hicks, Hudson, and an android named Bishop are all played by Cameron film regulars Michael Biehn, Bill Paxton, and Lance Henriksen. All three of them suit their roles very well. Aliens is another one of those movies that ages so well over time. It probably gets better and better with each viewing. While Alien perfected slow-building, atmospheric tension, Aliens packs more of a punch, and features what I think is Sigourney Weaver's best performance.
That's My Boy (2012)
Burn the Damn Thing
If you thought that Eight Crazy Nights was awful, it still is. While I was able to get through that, I turned That's My Boy off. Adam Sandler plays an irresponsible man child who is the father of Andy Samberg. Samberg was conceived through a 12 year old student and teacher relationship. Yeah. Sandler has sunk down to the statutory rape level. Sandler is broke and seeks Samberg for help or I don't know because I stopped caring after the first half of the first frame of the opening logo and that has to be a record. The movie is filled with gross out aka lazy humor along with offensive humor and from what I hear child molestation. This movie does not even deserve a one out of ten. Adam Sandler does not seem to realize that stuff like what a character says, does, or their background can be funnier than gross out humor.
Eddie Murphy: Delirious (1983)
Absolutely Textbook
Delirious is Eddie Murphy's ultimate masterpiece. Eddie is one of the funniest comedians in history. His recent work may not say that, but Delirious solidified his status as a comedic legend. Everyone who wants to be a comedian should watch and study Delirious. The timing and jokes are perfect. He tell you everything about a family cookout, his mom throwing shows and hitting her target like she is Clint Eastwood, and the ice cream man. You will die of laughter at the end of this seventy minute show. Skip Beverly Hill Cop, Dr. Dolittle, and the Shrek movies because Delirious is Eddie Murphy at his best. And by the way, the Ice Cream Man is coming.
The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
What the f**k?
Anyone who says the Star Wars prequel trilogy is bad, you have not seen anything yet. And anyone who thinks that this is great should see a proctologist so they could get their head removed from their ass. There are so many reasons why this is awful. Here is a list: 1. Luke looks like a Ken doll. When he first appears, I wanted to ask him where Barbie is. In Empire and Jedi he looks more like the modern day Jon Bon Jovi. 2. Chewbacca's family is annoying. The only one who has a name that sounds a little original belong to Chewy's wife. 3. Continuity. In a bar scene we spot Greedo. Han killed him. 4. The storm troopers are terrible too. One trips over his own gun. 5. The footage that shows the outside of the Millennium Falcon is from the first movie. 6. There is no explanation as to what is going on. It is like watching the first half hour of Resident Evil Retribution. 7. The directing makes Uwe Boll's work look as great as Spielberg's. 8. There is no explanation as to what is going on at Chewbacca's place. 9. F**k this. I am done explaining s**t to you. It is true. This thing is really bad. So bad it makes Starship Troopers Hero of the Federation look as good as the original Star Wars. I mean come on. At least Ford said in an interview that it was in his contract to do this. Even George Lucas agrees that this does not deserve the Star Wars name.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
A Rare Conclusion to an Amazing Epic
The Fellowship of the Ring was great. The Two Towers was better. Those two thoughts put a lot of pressure on Peter Jackson's film adaptation of The Return of the King. So is this a rare third installment? The Ugly: For a third straight time. NOT A F**KING THING. GOT IT? The Bad: The Return of the King runs at least half an hour longer than the first two. That again depends on which version of the trilogy you are watching. My Rare The Great: Everything. Just look at the movie. Final Verdict: Saying The Return of the King does to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy what Return of the Jedi did to the original Star Wars trilogy is an understatement. Return of the King deserves to be called a winner of Best Picture the most thanks to how political the Academy Awards get.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
A Simply Excellent Movie Despite Its Length
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is Peter Jackson's first film adaptation of JRR Tolkien's best selling epic. But does this movie have what it takes to be a powerhouse? The Ugly: Nothing. The Bad: Its 3 or 3.5 hour depending on which version you are watching. The Good: Nothing. My rare The Great: Enough thrills to make the time you spend watching worth it. Fellowship is well acted. That is an understatement for Ian McKellen's performance. He makes Gandalf super cool. Peter Jackson's stylish directing sends the movies down the right path. The visual effects are great. That is most evident during the action scenes that required them and Gollum. The characters are influenced by real life people and are just as believable and interesting. Final Verdict: The Fellowship of the Ring is so much fun that those who watch this mighty trilogy in order will be eager to watch The Two Towers and Return of the King. This is how amazing trilogies are started.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
One of the Rarest Sequels
The Fellowship of the Ring was an amazing first installment. Everyone knows that sequels are nine out of ten times worse than the first. In the case of The Two Towers, it is the tenth out of ten tries to improve upon a first installment with the first nine failing. What makes The Two Towers a rare film? The Ugly: Same as Fellowship. Not a thing. The Bad: The Two Towers' theatrical cut runs the same 3 hour length as the first installment original cut. The extended edition runs at almost four hours. My Rare The Great: A rare sequel that is as good as or better than the first. The Two Towers was the best sequel since Toy Story 2 three years earlier. The cast also has a greater variety of actors that the first did not including Bernard Hill (Titanic). Final Verdict: Everything is better in The Two Towers than Fellowship. And that is saying a lot because Fellowship of the Ring was an amazing movie.
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
There's More Ugly or Bad than Good.
I did enjoy the first four Resident Evil movies, but less with each new installment. Retribution is the same story. As my review's tittle says, there is more ugly or bad than good. First the ugly: 1. Returning stars look like they are not trying anything new with their characters. Especially Jovovich and Rodriguez. The only other movies that were the fifth installment of their franchise or saga where the cast tries this are Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (Yoda fights Dooku), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (a lot of characters), X-Men: First Class (tell an origin story of every character), and the upcoming A Good Day to Die Hard (take John McClane to Russia). 2. Paul W.S. Anderson's directing is at its weakest. Maybe do not need to explain this. 3. There is no character development which I find frustrating because Anderson finally adds Leon Kennedy. Leon is always a character that the fans want to learn more about because he was immediately so cool when he was first introduced in the second game and has never sunk to a level this low. Even in Degeneration and Damnation which are both much better than Retribution. When you do a movie you need to give each character a background story. Bruce Wayne's is a childhood without his parents. Jack Sparrow's is a life as a pirate. All the best characters in movie history have an excellent back ground story. 4. The writers were also very lazy in coming up with the story. Instead of a story that is not cannon with the games, why not give one that is. 5. What ever is going on in Retribution is tough to follow for the first half-hour except for about five minutes. 6. The acting is awful. Awful acting could easily kill a movie while great acting can save it. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy needed a great cast and got one. A lot of actors or actresses in video game movies really can not do anything. Retribution clearly backs that up. 7. The movie will not put you at the edge of your seat. You will just wonder when are they going to put you there. Movies like 1964's Goldfinger, 1977's Star Wars, 1989's Batman, 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day, 2003's Return of the King, and this year's Dark Knight Rises are great examples of how to put an audience on the edge of their seat. Second the Bad: 1. The movie tells you what is about to happen instead of staying silent about it. Staying silent about what is going to happen in the next few minutes is what made the story ark for other movie franchises or sagas great. Just watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes or Die Hard. 2. The ending. If you just watch it you will see why. And finally the only good that comes out of the movie: 1. The franchise still does not care. It just tries to be fun. I am fine with that. That is what movies are suppose to be. Unfortunately Retribution is no fun. Maybe Anderson should ask Titanic's Oscar winning director James Cameron how to make a follow up better than its predecessor. Two of Cameron's sequels have followed one of my favorite movies. If I have not reviewed them here yet, then when I do you will probably know which movies I am talking about. You may already. So that is both good and bad. 2. The only crew members who do not seem to be getting lazy is the visual effects team. With each new installment they have been getting better and better. They also took advantage of the 3D technology they were given to use. Retribution is the best looking live action Resident Evil. I can not think of any explanation needed here. Final verdict: Resident Evil: Retribution is visually awesome and that is the only redeeming value. Retribution is a soulless and uninspired installment in the most successful (and only one too) video game movie franchise.
Halo 4 (2012)
The Best Graphics I Have Ever Seen One Game That Every Gamer Must Play
Halo Combat Evolved introduced us to the Master Chief and Xbox. Halo 2 introduced fans of the first game, Xbox, and Master Chief to Arbiter and Xbox Live. Halo 3 brought the original trilogy to amazing conclusion. Halo Wars was awfully good for a console strategy game which is rarely done. Halo: ODST brought us firefight which is one of the best features that has been featured in the series. Halo Reach was Bungie's last hurrah for the series and sent their contributions to it out with a bang and one of the Xbox 360's best games. A lot happened in the world of Xbox between the release of Halo 3 and 4. Bungie became an independent company, Call of Duty became the most played game on Xbox Live, Halo lost the tittle of best looking Xbox game, the announced film adaptation from Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson and Neil Blomkamp (the team behind the 2009 Best Picture nominee District 9) was canceled, and what may scare fans more is that development of future tittles from their much loved franchise is now being done by a new studio. But have no fear fans, Halo 4 is amazing. The most amazing game I have ever played. Halo 4 is not your typical first person shooter. Halo 4 is more focused on the story than previous installments. This time the story is personal. Cortana is suffering from rampantcy and the Chief and her crash land on a Forerunner planet. There they awaken an ancient evil and must race against time to save humanity and Cortana. The weapons basically look the same as they did in Halo 3 only with more detail, but are still at their most impressive in Halo 4. This at its most noticeable with the new enemy's weapons. Also, 343 really beefed up the audio. The AI is also more difficult. The graphics are also at their most impressive in this game. Anyway Halo 4 is a perfect 10 out of 10.
21 Jump Street (2012)
Best Cop Movie Since Live Free or Die Hard
Now Channing Tatum could stand next to Johnny Depp and say "21 Jump Street made me a star." The TV show was really good and had very good acting. If it was still running then it could win awards very easily. Most of the time when unknowns are a part of the cast of a film adaptation of a great TV series it turns into a disappointment. For example, the only redeeming value of the Lost in Space movie were the action sequences. But still, they couldn't overcome a lack luster story. However, 21 Jump Street is different. It is actually a great movie and made me a fan of the TV show too. Holly Robinson's cameo reprising her role as Hobbs is okay, but she only appears once and that is for just a few seconds. The best cameo goes to Depp and Peter DeLuise as Hanson and Penhall. 21 Jump Street could be the only movie that prevents Ted from winning the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Very Entertaining
Each of the last few decades have had a really popular book turned into an amazing movie. With Jaws, Die Hard, Jurassic Park, and Lord of the Rings. The currently decade already has one that lives up to the standards set by the previously mentioned films. Jennifer Lawrence is riding high into "The Hunger Games" after being nominated for a best actress performance in "Winter's Bone" and as Mystque in the Stan Lee comic book based "X-Men: First Class". Lawrence gives a very memorable performance and continues to show her talent. Josh Hutchersen may not exactly be my choice for Petta, but he does a nice job. Woody Harralson gives a great performance and Lenny Kravitz turned out not to be a bad choice. For the first half the movie really only develops the characters and saves focusing in on the action scenes for the second half when the games start. While a lot of the deaths are off screen, they are very clear none the less thanks to Gary Ross' directing and a terrificly written script. The characters are very likable and realistic. The whole story is realistic with young men and women going war. And in the world of Panam, that's exactly what The Hunger Games are. All out war. The action is also well crafted. For example, I was rather drawn into the movie when Katniss raised three fingers in respect to Rue right before District 11 is destroyed in a riot. The Hunger Games is a one movie that will get people talking for Acadamy Award nominations and made me anxious to see Catching Fire and Mokingjay on the silver screen.
The Return of the King (1980)
Confusing and not even worth its name
Because I felt that the Ralph Bakshi adaptation wasn't as entertaining as I thought it would be, I wonder what ABC and Warner Bros were thinking when they decided to adopt one of the most beloved books in the whole galaxy into a cartoon that starts its main story late into the book. By the time the cartoon starts the main story, so many important events that the viewers may not know about have seemingly passed. The Bakshi cartoon ends with Frodo and Sam capturing Gollum. This take on The Return of the King starts with Sam searching for Frodo in Cirth Ungol causing the story to skip about half of The Two Towers. They also skipped over the parts with The Witch King of Angmar which include very important parts of the book. Another portion of the story that was skipped, was where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli go into a cave to search for the Undead Army of Rohirrim that was cursed by Isildor, an ancestor of Aragorn, for not helping him in The Battle of Mount Doom at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. Each part that I just mentioned takes up about an hour or more of movie that could have made the cartoon easier to understand. This cartoon is so awful I don't think even deserves a 1 out of 10 and it makes the other one, which is based on the first two books look like Godfather or Pulp Fiction. If you want to watch The Lord of the Rings movies without reading the books and enjoy them, I highly recommend skipping this cartoon that is not even at home video quality and watch the Peter Jackson films.
Doom (2005)
Should have been better.
Doom is one of the best, if not the best first person shooter video game of all time. Many video games have tried to copy its success to various degrees. Since Doom is a very important contribution to video game history, seems as though a movie would be inevitable.
I like that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Karl Urban, and Rosamund Pike, all of who had already done action before in films such as The Mummy Returns, The Lord of the Rings, and 007 were signed on. An action film based on a video game franchise loved as much as Doom needs a cast that has experience with action. There is also fan service in the film. The first scene features a scientist named Dr. Carmack, an obvious nod to the game's creators John and Adrian Carmack. Fans will also be pleased that the film has elements from not only Doom 3, but also Doom 2: Hell on Earth in a scene late in the film that has all of the chaos finding its way to Earth. The Rock also gets a super badass gun called the BFG. This is easily one of the best looking props in the film. The film also tries to replicate the visual look of the games with the lighting, cool looking creature designs, and first person shooter scene that is easily the best scene in the movie.
Despite all of the fan service, there is still nothing that can hide the major flaws. While it was stated that the film would be based on Doom 3, it really is not. The plot follows a group of space marines sent to investigate strange things that are happening at a research facility on Mars, but they find themselves at the mercy of genetically enhanced killing machines, while Doom 3 is about an unnamed silent space marine who takes on Satan's army. In the film, the way that these killing machines multiply is basically through infecting someone. But this infection thing does not stop there. It only does that based on what kind of person you are. If you are Charles Manson, you turn into one these things, but if you are a sweet little old lady, you gain some sort of super power through a twenty-fourth chromosome.
I know what you are about to ask me. You are wondering if I could try explaining all that to you again, only in an easier way to understand. Truth is I cannot. The plot in Doom 3 is simple and has little to no science, the plot and science in the movie are more complicated than it needs to be. That is a major problem that this movie has. It does not know how to keep the story and science from getting too complicated.
The acting is also a problem. Despite the fact that it is a movie that is based on Doom, no one in the cast looks very interested. It is like Urban thought to himself, "I was in Lord of the Rings. What am I doing here?" With everyone looking bored, I started to feel my boredom growing with them.
The fact that the film tries to replicate the look of the video games kills the lighting. A lot of times you cannot see what is going on. While films such as Alien and Jaws are proof that what scares you the most is what you cannot see, Alien and Jaws still had the visuals lit so that you can see what is going on.
The characters are also joke. Every one of them is a horror or action movie cliché. There is the laid back black guy, the rookie, the guy with no personality, the one who is obviously going to live, and the asshole. The biggest problem with these is that none have anything likable about them.
Doom is just like other video game movies. It should have been better. While it does have excellent fan service, I cannot give Doom any higher than a three out of ten because of its confusing plot and science, boring acting, clichéd and unlikable characters, and awful lighting.
Bon Jovi: The Circle Tour Live from New Jersey (2010)
Good, but not the full show.
I would have given this a perfect 10 if it was an hour longer. It was only an hour and thirty-seven minutes because Jon's brother Anthony Bongiovi, the director, was only given a short amount time to edit the footage together. There are also songs not included that I would've added. A few examples are Runaway, Always, Bad Medicine, Who Says You Can't Go Home, and Lay Your Hands on Me. Those are five great songs. Each one of them are better than Superman Tonight and When We Were Beautiful put together. But still, this concert film had some great moments. The crowd provided a lot of energy, the shots of the band were great. Really, it was a fun show to watch. I just really hope that the band releases a director's cut.