1. “The Avengers (2012)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    “The Avengers” could NOT allow itself to fail, for doing so would bring the wrath of millions of angry virgins upon the filmmakers. It must've been just as terrifying as it would be exciting. Yet they should not worry, as “The Avengers” was...freaking...AMAZING! This movie left me squealing like a little fanboy, and I've never even read the comics!
  2. “Wrath of the Titans (2012)” movie review

    Posted by
    /
    Despite being financially successful, I doubt many felt "Clash of the Titans (2010)" warranted a sequel. At worst, people loathed the movie and at best, people...well, could barely remember it. When I saw it during its theatrical release, I made sure to avoid the reasons people were so vehement about it. For one, I hadn't seen the original 1981 film of the same name, so I had no nostalgic ties there. Two, I stayed away from the much maligned 3D conversion. I personally thought it was harmless entertainment, but it didn't hold up very well upon subsequent viewings. Will "Wrath of the Titans" be cursed with the same fate? I'm not sure, but I personally prefer it over its predecessor.
  3. “The Hunger Games (2012)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    “The Hunger Games” is one of those movies where half of the crowd will hail it as an instant classic, a stellar example of all around great film-making! Everyone else will complain about its fans, who over-hyped what is a good movie, but nothing special. Expectations can be a movies best friend or its worst enemy, depending on what the public says about it. I entered the film with no real hopes or concerns about the movie. I hadn't read the books and the trailer simultaneously made the film look epic but “Twilight”-ish. Plus, the premise isn't especially original, but it's one I continue to enjoy. So now that I've seen the film, which party am I? Both.
  4. “John Carter (2012)” review

    Posted by
    /
    "John Carter" is one of those movies that can be enjoyed if you go into it with the right mentality. If you just look at it as another conventional epic that's only purpose is to show off some cool special effects, or you want a high spectacle/low plot ratio, then you'll likely find the movie to be agreeable enough. The problem is it should've been more. Armed with a $250,000,000 budget and a lot talent (behind and in front of the camera), it should've bitch slapped us with the golden arm of cinema. But it didn't and in the end, it's just another CGI-fest, high on spectacle and low on everything else.
  5. “Out for Justice (1991)” review

    Posted by
    /
    If you're even vaguely familiar with my reviews, you should know about my love-hate relationship with Steven Seagal, the man with iron double chins. When you think about it though, even his older movies weren't so hot. “Above the Law” and “Marked for Death” were full of unnecessary subplots and “Hard to Kill” (based on what I remember) had some awkward tone issues as well as uneven pacing. Yet since Steven Seagal himself was so cool, he redeemed these films until his coolness began to drown in an ocean of blubber. "Out for Justice" isn't any better than those films, technically, yet it also one of my favorite Seagal movies.
  6. MOVIE REVIEW: “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World (2010)”

    Posted by
    /
    When “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World” bombed upon its opening week,, fans were flabbergasted. “How? Why? What the hell!” they cried like little fanboys. Everybody liked this movie! Even the Critics did! Yet really, is it a surprise that this made no money? It was a hybrid film, having action, comedy, romance and that usually isn't the box office gold that we'd expect it to be. It was released at the same time as “The Expendables” - which stole the action crowd- and “Eat Suck Love” (or whatever that crap was called)- which stole the romance crowd. Even the comedy crowd went ahead a watched "The Other Guys" again. Yet the reason I avoided it was completely different all together. -Signed by MartialHorror.