Hate movie spoilers? Good! You'll get straight to the point, quick, and spoiler-free movie reviews to help you spend your time and money wisely on movies. I'll give you the Good, the Bad, the Reason, and the Rating about each movie. ***Please disable any popup blockers***
The Good:
One thing that I found interesting about this film was how it wasn't entirely about King Arthur himself. While Arthur is obviously a main character in the film, he's almost like a co-star to the sword itself. It was nice to see more of the origin of the sword, and the literal power that it possessed. If you're a fan of anime cartoons, then you will easily see the similarities this movie adapts when it comes to the power the sword gives to the wielder.
Charlie Hunnam was clearly in a role that catered to a lot of his strengths. He could be witty, charming, inspirational and physical in the action scenes. Eric Bana was a personal favorite of mine. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I just felt he played his part so well that he's probably one of the few characters you may actually connect with despite his smaller role.
Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was the notion of sacrifice. It was a theme that gets played in a number of ways with various characters. In particular, I loved how it was used with Jude Law's character. It added a level of depth to his character that makes him a more complex villain in the movie.
The Bad:
The movie has a lot of long and slow pacing parts. The film is about 2hrs and 6mins but it really felt like 2.5 hrs. The dialogue and banter contributes to this greatly. Furthermore, the story in itself is rather predictable. While this is a fresher and probably more original take on the story of King Arthur, you can see the intentional twist and turns coming from a mile away.
I can't help but to think that maybe the combination of the thicker English accents and dialogue were a bit of an issue. There's a lot of dialogue used to tell the story (or hypothetical situations) and it can maybe get a little confusing mixed with the constant camera visuals switching back and forth.
When you think of King Arthur and the sword Excalibur the one other character that typically gets associated is Merlin the wizard. I was really disappointed in the fact that they only mentioned him by name and briefly showed him on screen. It would almost be as if one were to watch the Lord of the Rings and only hear mentions of a wizard named Gandalf. I think that was a missed opportunity to highlight one of the central characters to the legendary story.
When it came to Jude Law's character, he felt like one of the bigger disappointments. His character felt poorly developed despite the fact that his character had a lot of potential to be really deep. We don't get to necessarily see what motivates him to do the things that he does outside of just a generic reason like "I want power" or something to that degree. It's hard to really tell why he chooses to do the things that he does, and to some degree you just stop caring and go along with it.
Lastly the most notable issue with the film is the blurry CGI action scenes. Similar to my criticisms in Man of Steel, a lot of the fast paced action scenes were really blurry to make out. To the film's credit, they did provide some slow motion sequences to help you follow the action, but overall it was poorly depicted. In so many instances you'll feel like you've gone from watching a movie to a video game. (You may even notice the Mortal Kombat similarity with the final battle.)
The Reason:
This film had a lot of potential to be much better than it was. As an admirer of the King Arthur tale, I really wanted to like this movie. I don't terribly dislike it. It just feels like it'll be forgettable in about a week or so. I completely disagree with the reviews who claim that this movie is "trash" because we've seen far worse movies than this.
This is a Guy Ritchie film. He's the same guy that brought you the Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr. (Which I loved) and Man from U.N.C.L.E. (which was okay). He's got a very distinct style to his movies. As with any distinctive art, you will either hate it or love it. For me, this movie wasn't one of his strongest films.
While King Arthur: Legend of the Sword may not be something you have to rush to the movie theaters to see, I can still see some appeal in it. If you're a Charlie Hunnam fan, then this will be watchable for you. Given the number of Game of Thrones characters in the film this movie felt like Game of Thrones + Assassin's Creed. You can most definitely wait on seeing this film.
The Rating: 6/10 Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
One of the most obvious highlights of this film will be the many musical performances. There were a number of popular hits that will be relatively familiar. One thing that helped this film was the fact that it did play off of the American Idol audition angle. It was enjoyable to see the characters that were bad to really outstanding. Similar to the movie Zootopia, Sing does a nice job of blending a variety of animals to evoke most of its jokes and humor. While it strives to be funny, there were actually a few touching moments. (The Father/Son Gorilla moment kinda got to me.)
To my surprise, there was a bit of an unexpected twist in the middle of the film. The film did a nice job of emphasizing the notion of following your dreams, and I do believe that the ending finale does salvage the movie in terms of a slight pay off.
The Bad:
Unfortunately there are lot of issues surrounding the music of this film. The first issue was the lack of original songs throughout the movie. That's usually the main highlight for many song-based films, and Sing really didn't capitalize on that opportunity. Instead it felt more like a series of karaoke songs.
The other musical issue was that if you're not familiar with those songs, it'll be a little hard to connect with the film. There seemed to be both a lack of variety in the song arrangements and a noticeable gap in the type of music. For instance, it felt as though if you weren't a fan of Taylor Swift, Katy Perry or Frank Sinatra then there just wasn't necessarily a song you'd connect with.
Besides the musical issues, I think one of the biggest disconnects with Sing is that the movie didn't really appear to connect with kids. There were adult related issues (ie: being a stay at home mom with a lot of kids) that I don't think children will resonate with. So it's not going to be much of a surprise if some of the jokes go way over their heads.
The Reason:
Sing gets some things right, but also misses a lot of opportunities to really hit a home run with children. I think it tried too hard to appeal to different demographics and in the process feels a bit lost. As I said, if you're not familiar with some of the musicians I mentioned earlier, then this movie may not be up your alley. It may still be worth watching if you have children, but I'd double check their iPods to make sure the music from the trailer is something they'd actually appreciate.
If you do decide to check it out, it will be playing at the Chicago Film Festival!
The Rating: 6/10
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
Well this movie wasted no time at all to get the ball rolling with the horror. Rather than build up the creepiness and anticipation of the scary moments, it's simply thrown right at you from the very beginning. The ghost/monster thing (who I like to call "Dirty Diana") was pretty terrifying even though all you could primarily see is a dark figure. As usual, I will give this some points because it is pretty original in the sense that this is a fresh, new angle to approach horror characters. The concept of playing on the fears of darkness while being crippled to the safety of light is one we all can relate to from our youngest childhood fears.
My favorite character has to be "Bret" played by Alexander DiPersia. I can't go into detail about what he does or doesn't do, but I will say that got a round of applause during my screening of the film. His character possessed a much needed element that a lot of horror movies tend to lack.
The Bad:
Almost all of the characters, except for Bret, are pretty annoying. Their naivete and incompetence invoke instant eye rolls. I mean they go beyond just the "Oh what's that? Let me go investigate" level of stupidity. Many of the of the main characters KNOW what they're dealing with (or just that it exists) and still act clueless about handling the situation. When characters get that dumb, it completely distracts the audience from taking this film seriously. Matter of fact, the idiotic actions of the characters make this movie more comical than scary.
Speaking of which, for a horror, this was a pretty lackluster. Yes, there were plenty of jump-scares. However, the setup for them felt so rushed and, even worse, predictable. Despite having James Wan (Insidious, The Conjuring) as a producer, very little use of his style of setup and delivery were utilized. The film could've easily borrowed aspects of the first Insidious film which created an atmosphere in which you had no idea when something scary was going to happen, or if it was sitting right in front of your face the entire time. The Reason:
This movie is what it is. It's a basic horror film, that was inspired by a really good, award winning horror short movie. (Watch the original short here.) This was a pretty forgettable film that sadly won't have you taping your light switches on at night. If you did decide to see this, this would probably be a good date movie or something to see with a group of friends. You'll probably get a bigger kick out of laughing at the movie rather than going to get some real terrors. Feel free to see this as a matinee or wait to watch at home. Maybe if you watch it at home with the lights off it may make the movie just a little bit scarier.
The Rating: 6/10
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
Support this site by clicking the pic to buy your tickets
The Trailer:
The Good:
From the beginning of the film, there's no shying away from the gruesome, and very graphic visuals. It is war after all (the Civil War more specifically). The historical nature of the film is full front and center. I appreciated how some of the portrayals of the historical events really challenged what many of us would like to believe according to "Public Memory". In other words, you may have been taught in history classes that certain events happened a certain way, but this movie shows you some of the uglier truths. It's fair to say that in some aspects of the film it kept things pretty honest.
There were some nice twists and turns as the movie progressed. If you're unfamiliar with the character and/or the history, then it's even more interesting to see it all unfold. Matthew McConaughey doesn't disappoint in bringing yet another great performance we've now come to expect from the Oscar winner. His character, Newton Knight, seems like a rather interesting and compelling one. His resolve and fight for justice and equality is something that most of us today would probably look at and revere. A lot of the supporting cast deserve a lot of credit as well. Mahershala Ali, who played "Moses", did a wonderful job in his role as one of Newt's friends. (I'll address this later) It was nice to see Ali's character growth for the entire film.
The Bad:
The film felt a tad bit longer than needed. There were were multiple times when I thought the movie was going to end, but instead it just kept on going. The "Time jumping" sequences felt a little out of place and they were kind of distracting. When you finally realize why they were there, the reveal just didn't seem to live up to the built up anticipation. (Though, I must say I appreciated the irony it presented in the end) The Reason:
As I suspected, this movie is going to call for the uninformed viewer to probably go do a lot of fact checking. Thanks to one of my colleagues at EveryMovieHasALesson.com, you can just click here to see how the film actually stacks up to the real historical events. (Careful, there are spoilers in that link)
A concern I did have with this movie that I will reserve from labeling as a "good" or "bad" is whether or not this movie fell victim to using Hollywood stereotypes. I was rather disappointed that certain characters and events were created and/or never existed. I think because of the additions, the movie may have fell victim to stereotypical character roles. An example of this would be like "The White Savior Complex" who uses the "Black Best Friend" character as a catalyst to elevate their emotional states or motivation. (Think Robert Downy Jr and Don Cheadle from Civil War)
Overall, Free State of Jones means well, but I'm not sure if it's the type of movie that must be seen by average movie goers. If you like period pieces, or have a love for historical movies, then I'd say this is right up your alley. You'll know if you want to see this or not based on however you feel by the trailer. The Rating: 6/10
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale
10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The visuals in this film are going to be the best aspect of this movie. You can tell pretty early on that this movie was fully intended to be seen in 3D.
The Bad:
*cracks knuckles and pours a full cup of coffee* I think that for a movie of this nature, two hours was about 30mins too long. It was just too far drawn out, and it's not like the story line was that deep either.
While many of the 3D special effects were very entertaining to see, there some moments where it simply failed miserably. In the story, the “gods” are portrayed as being much bigger and taller than normal sized humans. For whatever reason, the special effects used to depict their size difference made the scene look of lesser quality. In many of the fighting sequences (i.e. when the gods fight a monster) a lot of computer effects were used. It looked cheap when you compare it to all of the other great 3D visuals during the movie. It would have been much better had they used more practical effects, or even just actors dressed up in costumes.
If you’re familiar with Egyptian myths or lore, then you’ll probably be a little dismayed at the fact that the story changed up a good majority of it. My guess is that it was probably more so to make the movie more PG-13, rather than rated R, given the fact that some of the Egyptian myths were much more “adult”. (Check out Horus’birth story here compared to how it’s watered down in the movie, for example)
One of the biggest criticisms this film received even before it was developed was for its lack of diverse casting. Many people felt as though having lead actors like Gerard Butler (a Scotsman) or Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (a Dutch actor) could hardly pass as Egyptians. It probably didn’t help much that the majority of brown to dark skinned actors were cast primarily as servants/slaves or ordinary people with less than significant roles. Although, it should be mentioned that Chadwick Boseman, who played the god of wisdom, was cast for whatever that’s worth. (His character was actually enjoyable.) Either way the casting is more than likely going to bother many other movie goers who are conscious and aware of the consistent lack of diverse representation in leading roles in Hollywood.
Whether this is good or bad, I think it was a bit of a loss on Gerard Butler’s end as he really didn’t do anything different in this role as he did in 300. He was basically King Leonidas except with magical powers.
The Reason:
Gods of Egypt is like Clash of the Titans but set in Egypt. You may even think that you're watching a Michael Bay film given how the gods looked like Transformers and Power Rangers when they changed form. Here’s the deal with this movie; You’re either going to be offended by it and not watch it, go see it because all those listed “Bads” don’t matter to you, or you won’t see this at all. This is hardly the type of movie that will be remembered in the next couple of years, let alone a couple of weeks. It will come and go just like Exodus: Gods and Kings did, which also suffered from similar criticisms. Matter of fact, even a recast of this film wouldn’t really save it. Regardless of your views about this film, I don’t think it’s really necessary to go see. Honestly, if you don’t see it in theaters for the 3D aspect, then it’s more than definitely not worth watching at the end of the day. Save your money and time.
The Rating: 6/10
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
Click the picture to buy your tickets from Fandango.com
The Trailer:
The Good: Ed Skrein, who plays "Frank Martin Jr", does a nice job of giving us his own version of the Transporter. In other words, he doesn't come in as a replacement Jason Statham. It was kind of like how you have different Bond characters who bring their own flavor to the table. For all of you action junkies, get ready for tons of chase scenes, and plenty of fights where the Transporter seems to have the odds stacked against him. Lastly, this time around we're given a little more insight about Frank Jr's character as we see him interact with his father Frank Sr., played by Ray Stevenson. Their onscreen chemistry worked out nicely. The Bad:
This movie must've taken notes straight out of the pages of Fast and the Furious because so many scenes were terribly unrealistic. Even though with most action films you give them a pass, some of the scenes may just have you rolling your eyes. In this movie's case, the writing is just inexcusable. It failed numerous times to explain why or how it was Frank Jr gets caught up in random fights. I mean it was literally like they ran out of ideas on how to smoothly transition into a believable fight scene. Instead it went something like this: "Frank walks in. Random thugs appear. FIGHT!" In the previous Transporter films, trouble found Statham's character in a somewhat meaningful way. In Transporter Refueled, some of the fight scenes just felt extremely generic, cliche, and unbelievable. (And that's by action movie standards.) Worst of all, the big finale scene was a kind of anticlimactic. I couldn't tell if the fight was supposed to be funny or just sad. The Reason:
If you're a fan of great looking Audi cars, then you may like this movie. Most of the movie felt like watching an extended car commercial for Audi. Hell, I want an Audi now. (But the way my bank account is set up...) :-/ To be honest, I'm not really sure why this movie was created to be a reboot in the first place. Yes, a reboot, which means don't expect Jason Statham to show up. I don't think that I could find a way to recommend this to people to go see, and that includes even for the matinee price. If this comes on TV (probably TNT), then it'll be worth a watch. In the mean time, you can find better things to do.
The Rating: 6/10 BONUS:
Check this out! I was recently featured on a podcast by a prominent Chicago film critic, Ian Simmons, from Kicking The Seat. We got a chance to sit down and chat about this film in a little more detail. You can listen to the podcast here. (Be warned, this chat does contain spoilers) Guys...I'm almost famous. Momma, I made it! :-)
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The film picks up pretty close to where the previous film left off. So the story does expand a bit and introduces some more insight on the evil character of "Bagul" and the children he encounters. There are a lot of references to the previous Sinister film, so it would be somewhat helpful to watch it before watching this sequel. The church scene is probably one of the creepiest/scariest moments in the entire film. Surprisingly, one of the best performances came from the unlikely character of "Clint Collins" played by Lea Coco. He was extremely convincing in his role as the father to the children in the film.
The Bad:
The film stopped being a horror and turned more so into a thriller. Rather than focus on scaring you with Bagul, the film relies on what I could only call "Torture Horror". You'll notice the "Torture Horror" in the many instances when we're shown a number of home videos showing children gruesomely murdering their families in various ways. (If you have a fear of rats, be forewarned now) At times, it gave off a vibe similar to the movie Hostel.
One of the biggest annoyances to me was the focus on the children. The children are focused on like 70% of the movie. Even worse, there's never an explanation as to how exactly one child is able to subdue their entire family. Let alone, how a child is able to physically set up some of the elaborate murder scenes. The ending "chase" scene was probably one of the most unrealistic scenes I've seen in a horror film in a while. Think to yourself, if Chucky, the killer doll, were chasing you with a knife, would you really be afraid and run in terror? (You'll know the scene I'm referring to when you see it.)
The Reason:
You come into this film looking to be scared, and you simply don't get that at all. Unless you have a phobia for rats, this film simply won't scare you outside of the one or two cheap jump-scares that are thrown in. The previous Sinister, at least, kept to the traditional formula for horror, but this one almost felt like a different type of movie. I just don't see how seeing people die on video is supposed to be scary. It's not scary, just disturbing. I think you can definitely wait on this to come out and watch it at home...for free.
The Rating: 6/10
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
Click on the picture to purchase your tickets from Fandango.com
YouTube:
The Good:
First off, let's give this some effort points for being original. This version of the film tries to go a bit beyond the traditional comic book story and attempts to give a more realistic origin. You also get a couple new and interesting variations of their powers compared to the previous films. This especially applies to Toby Kebbell's character, "Doom", who possess a number of new powers. Michael B. Jordan was probably one of the few bright spots in the film (no pun intended) due to his wise-cracks and humorous one-liners.
The Bad:
(Grab a chair, this may take a while.) This film tried way too hard to be different. I don't want to spoil it, but let's just say that their origin story may draw a lot of comparisons to the origin story of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. (You'll know EXACTLY what I'm talking about when you see it.) There was entirely too much time devoted to the characters, starting even from when they were children. As a result, you're not even given enough quality time of seeing what you want, which is the main characters using their powers, and fighting the villain.
Speaking of which, the character of Doom reminded me of some type of Darth Vader-like character, with no clear explanation as to why he's "evil". It just seemed counter intuitive to devote so much time into developing a character, and then under develop the explanation as to what motivates their actions. (Couldn't tell if he wanted revenge, or if he was just an evil Captain Planet.)
As for the fight scenes, get ready to wait about 1.5 hours for it to happen. The main fight scene was short, cheesy, and some parts just seemed lazy in my opinion. The end of the scene seemed to be covered up in so much flash and special effects that it's very difficult to make out what exactly happened. I'm not sure if this was done intentionally or not, but they practically stole a scene right from the script of Avengers: Age of Ultron. (So much for originality.)
The Reason:
*Deep Sigh* As you can probably tell by my face, this movie was a bit of a let down. Now to its credit, it was better than the previous Fantastic Four movies,but that isn't saying much at all. The previous films tried to stick too close to the comics and this one went too far off. In other words, this film failed to find the happy medium. A perfect example is the fact that this film tries to appeal to younger audiences with the super hero aspect, but then goes a little too dark with some semi-gruesome killings. Even one of the main actors, Miles Teller (who plays Reed Richards) said that this movie wasn't going to do well. Question is, "Eman, should I go see this for myself?"... My response would be, "Sure. Give yourself a root canal while you're at it too." (Okay that's too harsh, but you get my point.) I would recommend that if you don't believe me, and still want to see this for yourself, please find the CHEAPEST matinee price available. Otherwise, you can absolutely wait for this via rental or download. Lastly there is no end credit scene, so do not bother waiting after the credits. In the many movies I've seen, I can't recall the last time I heard so many boo's from the audience. :-/
The Rating: 6/10
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good: Similar to the movie Insidious, this film presents a nice, creepy interpretation of the spirit world. It also tries in many ways to pay homage to the original Poltergeist (1982) film. You'll notice some memorable scare tactics are used and some quotes as well. The film also makes a decent attempt at utilizing the 3D special effects in combination with the scary scenes.
The Bad: This was what I call, "ABC-123 Horror". It followed the typical formula of the horror movies we're already accustomed to, and that takes away a lot of the scare factor. You'll see the setups for the scary parts coming a mile away. They'll still get you with a jump scare, but you won't be having any nightmares later that night. (Unless you're afraid of clown dolls. If you are, you're screwed.) The movie also has some points where it tries to lighten the mood with very subtle humor, but it only further distracts from the overall feel of horror. There are some scenes that seem to have some serious potential for being really creepy and then...nothing. (Kind of reminds me of this). Carrigan Burke (played by Jared Harris) serves as the spiritual expert in this film, but falls short of filling the shoes of the late Zelda Rubinstein. (You'll miss her famous line even more now.) Last but not least, I cannot forget to mention the characters. One minute they seem rational and brave, and the next minute they're just stupid. The kids are all bad and annoying. I'll just say this... I couldn't be their parent. -_-
The Reason: One would think that this film would be modernized for this generation but sadly it just doesn't come close. It almost seemed like the film was stuck on using 1990's horror tactics, and not even come close to the likes of The Conjuring, for example. The jump scares are there, but again, you get over them rather quickly. I feared that this film had much more expectations riding on it due to it's hype back in the 80's. The movie just misses the mark at being a solid horror, and I expect it will sadly be forgotten rather quickly. If you do decide to go see it in theaters, (which I'm not recommending), see it as a matinee. Oh, and save your money on the 3D. It just wasn't enough to justify even the few extra dollars. On second thought, I'm not sure I'd recommend this even as a watch at home/rental/download. Just writing this review is making me feel even more disappointed. *sigh*
The Rating: 6/10
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good: Well the anticipation for this film was whether Idris Elba could play the villain or not. He does, and he does so very convincingly. There's an okay level of suspense when the movie picks up the pace about 20 mins in, and there's also an interesting plot twist towards the end. Lastly, the movie didn't take very much time to get to the point. (Total run time of only 1 hr 24mins)
The Bad: Don't be surprised if you're able to predict about 85% of the movie. Outside of the mild plot twist towards the end, everything else you'll see coming from a mile away. While I do believe that both Idris and Taraji P. Henson are respectable actors, I do believe that they were both the victims of really poor writing. The fact that Taraji's character was sooooo dumb is almost nerve wrecking. She did so many unrealistic things in the movie that you'll probably be too busy yelling at her or pulling your own hair out at her character's stupidity. Whether it's how she deals with strangers, or how she simply doesn't understand that hitting someone one time doesn't keep them down, you'll be frustrated with her character for the most part.
The Reason: So here's the deal. The only reason this film is being reviewed is because there have been a number of female fans of Idris requesting a quick review of this. (I do serve the people after all) Is this worth the time for the average viewer? No. Does it make for a good watch if you're interested in having an excuse to see Idris take his shirt off and be very aggressive? Sure. Watch at your own discretion.
The Rating: 6.0/10
Enjoyed this review? Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email every Friday.
The Good: Really nice performances from Skylan Brooks (Mister) and Jennifer Hudson. They do a pretty nice job of portraying the dynamics of a strained mother/child relationship affected by drug use and poverty. I suppose if I have to say something good about Anthony Mackie I'd say he did a great job at looking like NBA star James Harden in this film.
The Bad: The character development of many of the supporting cast just didn't seem well grounded. For example Jordin Sparks' character seemed to just pop out of nowhere, and her friendship with Mister just didn't come off as natural. Seemed like the director just put her in the movie as a favor or something. Not only was the character development lacking, but so were many other issues in the story itself. There seemed to be more holes in the overall story than actual resolutions. (e.g. The store keeper's actions at the end, or Anthony Mackie's character entirely)
The Reason: This wasn't an entirely bad movie to watch, but it wasn't something you could plan your night around either. It has some rather depressing or sad issues that it deals with, so it's far from a "pick me up" type of movie. This would movie would probably be best for someone who's taking a sociology class or someone who can relate to being in the inner city. It's on Netflix and is ONLY worth the watch if you like the trailer. It is also available on DVD here as well. Otherwise, you're not missing much if you don't see this.
The Good: You've gotta love the cars. The car chases and racing were probably the best highlights of the movie. Gamers will appreciate the various 1st person, driver views just like they have in the actual game this movie was adapted from.
The Bad: Right off the bat, you can tell that the storyline is pretty basic and predictable. The acting was pretty cheesy and the comic relief was forcibly chuckle-worthy at most. Outside of Aaron Paul (Jessie from Breaking Bad), you probably won't really care too much about the characters. The 3D visuals were practically non-existent and seemed like a complete false advertisement.
The Reason: This movie was made primarily for two people: Car fanatics, and hardcore video gamers who loved the Need for Speed series. Outside of that, I don't believe that the average movie goers will really appreciate what the film was trying to do. All the car models and spec references may just fly over your head except for "Yeah, this car goes really fast", or "There are only 3 made in the world." Unfortunately this did end up being a Fast & Furious minus the star power, and the budget for better special effects. I do not recommend seeing this movie unless if you fall into one of the two categories I previously mentioned. Do NOT waste your money on seeing this in the theaters nor should you dare pay for it in 3D. This is a rental at best.
.jpg)
