andrewshieh0712

It's pretty surprising to see Project X on the top of the most illegally downloaded movie of 2012 beating the Dark Knight Rises, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and The Avengers. It made around 50 million dollars at box office which was "meh", so what is Project X so special about?

Actually, there isn't much special about Project X and not much to say about is. Project X is a humongous, out-of-control, high school party which was held by some not-so-popular teenagers. So if you are expecting something like a twist or even a story in Project X, like me, just don't because you're watching Project X because you want have a blast.

As I just mentioned previously, I was expecting something before watching Project X since I was literally thinking "that just can't be it" after watching the trailer. I had no idea what Project X is about since all I see is music, people, and alcohol in the trailer, there is no story going on, so I thought it might be something like Chronicle. I guess I'm half-right-half-wrong.

Project X starred Thomas Mann, Oliver Cooper, and Jonathan D. Brown who I never heard of. The only actor I heard of is Miles Teller who is just himself in the movie. So, basically, these three teenagers are the three teenagers in Superbad. There's the main character that is not in the popular group, the guy who just thinks he knows everything, and the other guy who's just not cool. Basically, they're going to hold a party while the parents are out. That's all it's about.

I know I've been saying this a million times, but Project X is literally a guy recording a high school party. So I don't recommend to the adults who are 35 or over, because this movie is just for teenagers or young adults who had been to these kind of parties. Thus, Party X might recollect the memories in high school for some people, but others, might not. Project X is also a found-footage which I find no problem with it. It's all about a party so I guess it's the best way to introduce the characters, and to go deep into the party.

Project X is nothing new to the genre and you've see many movies about parties going wild, such as Superbad, the Hangover, and other films that released after this, such as, 21 and Over and the Neighbors. And to me, Project X is not as funny as both Superbad and the Hangover. But as a whole it could still be enjoyable (if you like parties). The acting are convincing since they do like buddies in real life throwing a real party and the editing is not bad, too. The soundtrack is also pretty nice (party songs, of course).

Overall, even though Project X is unoriginal, predictable and has nothing deep about it, it could still be enjoyable if you don't take it too seriously. I didn't really like Project X, but I don't hate it either. So, I guess you can go watch Project X if you're a party animal. Cheers.

Since Rogue Nation is just released, I decided to start watching the previous installments since I haven't watch any of them. So here I am with Ghost Protocol which I chose to watch it since it has the highest ratings among all Mission: Impossible movies.

Ghost Protocol is actually one of the most intense action movies I've seen for some time. Mad Max: Fury Road was very action-packed, but it's not the same kind of movie and I guess you all know what I mean, so let's just put Fury Road aside. Other than that, most action movies are either poorly filmed or lack the excitement that one action movie should have. However, Ghost Protocol achieved all of them.

To begin with, I want to first talk about one of the most unforgettable scene in the movie – the scene where Tom Cruise climbed the Burj Khalifa. Not amused with my reaction, that was definitely the highlight of Ghost Protocol. That scene was so breath-taking and after knowing that all the climbing were for real, I'm very impressed with Tom Cruise as an action who do crazy stunts by himself even though he's getting old.

If you're worrying that the Burj Khalifa is the only fun part of the movie, you're wrong. Ghost Protocol is action-packed from the beginning to end. You are constantly delivered action sequences which were handled very well, and most importantly, the tension doesn't stop. After the IMF accomplishes one mission, they are immediately been tossed an even harder mission to complete. Each mission is not likely more difficult than the other, but more intense than the other.

Besides the action, I'm so glad that Ghost Protocol isn't a one-man show. I've seen so many action movies that all of the actions were done by the protagonist and the rest of the crew is only sidekicks. Though we're pretty sure that Tom Cruise is the main character of the movie, the rest of the crew is so important that one mission couldn't be complete when missing one of them. Simon Pegg is superb in Ghost Protocol. He constantly brings some laughs and humors to the serious atmosphere and they're never cheap or leave the audience in that awkward chuckle. Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner are both outstanding while I like how Jeremy is developed as a struggling character. This kind of reminds me of the crew of Furious 7, each character has an important part of the movie, and never is one being over-the-top.

Nevertheless, Ghost Protocol is not a flawless movie. One of the biggest problems of this movie is that we got a very weak villain. Yes, we do get action sequences throughout, but we never have a chance to know about him. All we know is that he wants to destroy the world, just like every villain would do. We do not get direct conversations of the villain with Tom Cruise, but chase scenes in some parts of the movie. It's kind of a waste that Ghost Protocol never really developed the character of the main villain. Besides that, Ghost Protocol is nearly perfect.

Fant4stic might be one of the worst superhero movies for quite a while. I have to be honest that it actually looks very good when the trailer first came out, it has a wonderful cast, a promising director who brought us Chronicle, and it's a Marvel movie! How bad could it be? However, Fox ruins it again.

I went into the movies expecting to see something very, very bad after looking up the reviews, regardless on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, or the reviews on Yahoo Movies (Taiwan). Every one of them said how Fant4stic it is. and I guess they're right.

The first act of the movie is actually pretty good. You get to see Reed Richards and Ben growing up, which kind of reminded me of the intro of the Guardians of the Galaxies. To me, it seems like a good start.

However, Fant4stic is extremely boring. At first, it does look good when it introduces each character and doing their researches, but it really bores you out when it didn't make any progress after 70 minutes of unnecessary dialogs. I kept yawning and checking the time on my phone throughout the movie. Yes, the cinematography does look good, but there are no action sequences but inferior-quality special effects. Seriously, the movie makes you doubt was there a problem with its budget.

The third act is where I hated the most. When you finally receive that fight scene you've all been waiting for (after 80 minutes), the villain just died within 10 minutes. This might be one of the weakest and worst villains I've seen in a movie. Dr. Doom finally appeared in the last 20 minutes. He got send back to Earth, he went insane, he started killing people, he went back to his planet, and then he got killed. All of these happened within 15 minutes. That 15 minutes simply just made me hated the movie even more after all of the boredom.

Oh, and the ending, I'm speechless. I really like Miles Tellers as an actor, but what he concluded in the movie really wanted you to punch him in the face real hard. That was one of the cheesiest dialogue I've heard, not in a romantic way. I have no idea what these producers and screenwriters were thinking when they had such a talented cast to say such idiotic lines. That ending just made the audience sighing and sneering while they leave for the exit.

When you actually look back to the 2005 version of Fantastic Four which wasn't that great as a superhero film, Fant4stic actually really makes you wanna re-watch the 2005 one again. At least, the 2005 has enough action sequences, and I'm not saying about those awful 100% CGI battle scenes in Fant4stic, I want to see the streets, the cars, the citizens. I want a sense of humanity which makes it actually make the 4 real superheroes.

I'm really disappointed with Fant4stic and all I can say about the positives of this movie is that it has good cinematography and good performances that not always worked well. The rest of the movie is just clichéd and lifeless. I think Fant4stic really took itself too seriously; it has a very strange atmosphere just like having a dark atmosphere in an Adam Sandler movie. But the truth is, it isn't good enough to put it on a shelf with the other Marvel or DC superhero movies. It just doesn't fits.

Lastly, just don't go watch it in the theaters. Go watch the 2005 version. At least it gives you a couple chuckles and enough fighting scenes to satisfy you.

To the people who enjoyed Chappie, sorry, but this movie is a huge disappointment to me. I'm not talking about the visual effects and I have no problem with what director Neill Blomkamp is good at, but Chappie has a weak and misleading narration which irritates me.

First of all, the trailer was just extremely misleading. Before I watched this, according to how I learned from its trailer, the movie is mainly about the conflict between Dev Patel, the representation of robots with self-conscience, and Hugh Jackman, the main villain. However, from what I see from Chappie is Chappie hanging out with some gangsters and learning to steal and hurt people which the trailer should have tell us at the first place. The trailer didn't reveal even one information about Chappie getting raised by the gangsters!

If I knew what the main direction of Chappie would head, I might not feel as disappointed, but still, I dislike this movie. I have no problem with the acting in the movie, but the characters are just so annoying and you just don't care about them. The movie wanted us to like Ninja and Yo-Landi and see them as the protagonist, but I can't stand them teaching Chappie how to curse and steal cars. What I was expecting is Chappie getting to learn from Dev Patel and how they would prove Jackman wrong. Instead, the main story is about the gangsters which I think it's completely unnecessary and gone to the wrong direction. It's just very hard for me to accept that there are 100 times more bad guys than there are good guys in the movie.

*SPOILERS*I know many people who enjoy Chappie would say that Chappie has a deep message which many people neglected. I didn't, and I know it's about "What is consciousness?" But the third act and the ending of Chappie is just... a total rip-off from the Johnny Depp movie from last year, Transcendence. Even though Transcendence wasn't a good movie, it has a pretty cool concept and has potential. However, in the case that I watched Transcendence, I can't stand that Chappie uses the same concept from Transcendence. I'm not kidding, it really the same! It just left me speechless.

Chappie could have been good; however, is just another good-looking, but unoriginal sci-fi, action movie with annoying and undeveloped characters (the cast, also, kind of wasted), and a misleading narration. I really wanted to like it but the characters are just very unlikable, and I really don't want the gangsters to be the main focus of the movie.

Woman in Black is an old-fashioned horror movie directed by James Watkins and starring Daniel Radcliffe. I've seen many reviews praising that it is very creepy and stylish but I don't think the Woman in Black is made for me.

The setting of the movie is around the late 19th century of a young lawyer is heading to a deceased house to sort out some stuff, and then unfortunate things start happening. Something that I like about this movie is its cinematography. Every shot in this movie really make you feel that you're in that period of time. I also like how the director moves the camera from the first person view which it tries to imitate the sight of Radcliffe. You know you are ready to expect an unexpected scare since the camera moves very slow. The house itself is also very terrifying. All of the things inside the house, including the strange dolls and the long, dark hallway all elevate the tension of the movie.

I do not mind all of the jump scares in the movie as long as they're used in the right time and place, but some jump scares are just cheap, especially in the first act of the movie. You got crows flying everywhere, or just random noises that just came out of nowhere. Something that I really do mind about the Woman in Black is that I'm confused with what direction it is going. You are been delivered some very creepy atmosphere every time is should be scary, but I think they could've given more especially when this is a slow- going movie, like very stuffy. We got to see Daniel Radcliffe walking through the hallway and exploring every room of this house, but as a whole you don't really get everything from the 25-minute walk-through. For example, you can see the shadows of the woman standing far from Radcliffe but that's all you're given in that scene. It could've given more to the audience. It's not scary to me, but just very creepy. All of the dolls and decorations help to build up the creepy atmosphere but not really a thing just scare you (except the jump scares).

I think that Woman in Black could've given as much terrifying scenes as its creepy atmosphere then this movie would just be incredible. Otherwise, the Woman in Black is just a very smooth, stuffy movie that has great performances, moody atmosphere, and stylish cinematography but lacks the most important element to become a horror movie - real excitements. I didn't really mind the ending but after the movie ends, the first thing popped in my mind is sigh... this is such a slow- going and stuffy movie! Maybe this kind of movie isn't made for me I guess.

Poltergeist is a horror remake of the 1982 original. I've heard a lot about the original and was quite surprised that many people hated the remake. This new remake got a 5.0 on IMDb which is comparably much worse than many horror flicks. However, after watching the new Poltergeist, I have to say that it definitely doesn't suck like other remakes and even though it has many places that could've been better, the 2015 Poltergeist is a slightly above-average horror flick (definitely worth more than a 5.0).

One thing that I heard the most from the audience is that Poltergeist has nothing special. It didn't add many new ideas rather than turning it into a cash-grabber. In some ways I agree, but since this remake has already exists, I think that it still stands pretty well on its own. I'm gonna be honest that I didn't finish watching the original. What I remember is that there are many lines and scenes in the remake that are nearly 100 % same as the original, but still, if we set aside with the original, Poltergeist is actually pretty decent.

I do like many ideas that are used in the remake, such as the shadow part which I found it refreshing, and also how the movie is presented. Poltergeist isn't like many failed-to-be-stylish horror flicks which tried too much on maintaining the atmosphere then ending up suck very bad, just like Annabelle. Though you can still find many reused concepts from other horror movies and yes, many jump scares, Poltergeist still has some pretty scary scenes, especially in the first half of the movie, which I thought that the director paved the direction real well.

However, something that I felt really annoyed with this remake is the overuse of its CGI. This Poltergeist has some many CGI that it made it so unrealistic and unconvincing. Some of the CGI scenes look so unreal that it looks like a view from a video game. Horror movies should make the viewers get scared by its realism, however, Poltergeist failed. At first, I was pretty satisfied for the first half, then the second half ruined it with tons and tons of CGI. CGI shouldn't even exist in the horror genre, because it's really unnecessary. Except for Silent Hill which has a lot of CGI, but at least it's used in the right place. But Poltergeist can stand on its own without CGI.

When I was watching the movie, I have mixed feelings. The movie is just unpredictable, and it's not in a good way. I really like how the director handles the part where Poltergeist could have ended but didn't, but then the real ending is just so abrupt and I thought it could have been better since the movie already wanted itself to have more. (It's really hard to describe without spoiling it out.)

I found that the acting was decent and thought that the family is quite convincing and not overly clichéd. However, I didn't really like the little girl. Even though she's like 5 or 6, has reactions toward ghosts are just stupid. I like the boy the most because he, at least, feels real which he actually behave like most people would behave.

So overall, I feel that the Poltergeist remake isn't as bad as many people thought, to me it could have a 6.1 on IMDb instead of a 5.0. It has what a horror movie should have, except for the CGI and I like the while tension throughout the movie. The movie could be better but I think the Poltergeist is still better than most horror movie remakes in history. I can still enjoy at least 60% of the movie if I'm going to re-watch it.

I'm just gonna be honest: I did chuckle for a couple times in the movie, but DAMN, this is AWFUL. To me, 43 is not a movie. If you ask me what Movie 43 is about, I don't know how to answer. All I can say is that Movie 43 has a bunch of funny (sometimes it isn't even funny) YouTube clips played by stars all combined into a full-length movie.

First of all, I would rather watched a bunch of videos on YouTube that I would enjoy rather than watching this. Each clip in Movie 43 has nothing to do with one another, not even a link. All it gives you is a crappy premise that a bunch of ass-kids are finding Movie 43 and that it will end the world. Seriously, nothing makes sense in this movie. It involves time traveling, apocalypse, and explosions that will just leave you thinking WTF.

One thing that I hated the most is that how did so many celebrities ended up in this movie? In the first clip, Kate Winslet is having a dinner date with Hugh Jackman who got balls hanging on his chin. C'mon Hollywood, having an Oscar- nominated actor and an Oscar winning actress in this garbage isn't a good idea. All I can say is that Hugh Jackman does have balls taking this role.

Basically, each clip after the first one is either the same level with the first or even worse. I might even considering the first one as one of the funnier ones. Later in the movie, you got Naomi Watts and Leiv Schreiber humiliating their homeschooling son, Chris Pratt shitting on Anna Faris, Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott kidnapping Leprechauns for gold coins, and Halle Berry making guacamole with her boobs.

That's all you got from Movie 43 and now I spoiled it so that you won't have to see this movie. You're going to thank me later. Just sayin'.

Looper is a sci-fi, time-traveling movie starring Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis. For short, this is an awesome movie with superb performances and a very delicate- written script. For an time- traveling movie, it is hard to explain the script and not have flaws among the story; however, Looper accomplishes all of the issues turning it a cleverly- written movie.

Though in some scenes, Looper looks like an action film; however, it's not. Looper actually spends more time explaining the story thoroughly than having bunch of action sequences which can be unnecessary at times. To me, I prefer think more about the story, or even mind-bending, rather than watching a mindless popcorn flick. I'm not saying that Looper is not an action film, it has enough action scenes, but you can see that the director concentrates more on its story, which is a well-made choice. The ending scene is kind of a plot twist and I liked how it ended it. Not gonna spoil it.

The two lead actors are awesome in the movie. Joseph Gordon- Levitt playing a looper who deals with the bodies of criminals sent from the future, and Bruce Willis plays the older Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I love the interaction between the two lead actors and it's actually very interesting of how you dealing with yourself. In some times, Levitt and Willis actually look very alike. There is a kid who wasn't mentioned in the trailer and will appear in the third act. He is very talented and will be a rising star.

Looper is definitely worth watching, if you want to have a great time thinking about the story. With a clever and original story, and great performances, Looper stands out from other time-traveling movies.

Jupiter Ascending is directed by the Wachowski Brothers, the directors who brought you the Matrix; however, the Wachowski Brothers' eye catching visuals failed to save it of becoming a disastrous mess. First of all, as a whole, Jupiter Ascending looks like a tremendous feast filled with eye-popping special effects. And to be honest, the Wachowski Brothers once again succeeded on what they are always good at- the visuals. I have no reason to deny how well they managed on the special effects, the Jupiter atmosphere, Channing Tatum and his flying boots, and even the kingdoms, are all a pleasure of watching.

But the bad thing is that the story is a total mess. I have no idea what I was watching. It is disorganized which makes every fight scene which supposed to be exciting pointless. Though each scene tend to make the audience intense, by having Mila Kunis make some difficult decisions, then Channing Tatum will definitely pops out to save her. For the first few time, it works. But the same script is used too many times which leads to boredom.

There are also some very unbearable lines in the movie that is just ridiculous. Like every movie, Jupiter Ascending will definitely include some romance, but the lines are just so stupid that you keep face- palming. You'll know what I mean after watching it.

Some of the actors did great in the movie. I like Sean Bean being the supporting actor; he's just very likable. Tatum and Kunis did okay, but I really hope the movie could develop more on their chemistry if they really mean it.

Jupiter Ascending can be passed on if you really miss the chance to watch it. It's fun to watch the special effects, but they can't save the entire movie. This movie could be better if they put as much effort on the plot as they put on the visuals.

I'm so glad that I discover this movie which i downloaded in my laptop for months and never bothered watching it. I'm pretty sad that how could everyone watched Matrix, Inception, or even the Butterfly Effect but never heard of Dark City ( I was one of them)? Dark City is so underrated that I would even consider of being one of the best mystery/sci-fi movies I've seen so far in my life.

I will try my best of not spoiling the plot of this movie because this is one of those mind-bending films.

The movie starts off very confusing but interesting which drags you into the main character, John Murdoch, who has lost his memory but we never know how. The movie then leads you to an unexpected journey which reveals to you small clues and patterns that would eventually leads to a complete enigma.

I am glad that they chose to set the background around the 1950s to 60s. It makes the perfect atmosphere which makes me associate with Zodiac, which is another great mystery/suspense movie. The vision is stylish and unique even though the whole movie is always dark (as the title). As to the special effects, I love how the director handle his imagination then reflects it into the movie, such as the twisting and moving buildings and the stunning visionary. However, I was quite pulled out a bit once it changes its settings, from suspense to sci-fi, which I somehow find it unrealistic. However, as a whole, the special effects are wonderful for the sake of being the movies produced in the late twentieth century.

Another reason I love Dark City so much is its originality. You can actually see many miniatures of suspense masterpieces that were later on produced. I definitely see the Matrix, which was released a year after Dark City, and Inception which was released more than a decade! However, Dark City does have similarities to another movie which was another movie released in 1998 and I'm not gonna spoil it to you.

As a whole, Dark City is very confusing but mind-bending, which I guess some people who hated it would say that it's a mess. However, I love how the direction of the movie goes. Because the director sets for the audience to explore the movies by themselves, there are always plot twists for the audience to experience throughout the movie and that's what made it so attracting.

It has been so long that I saw a movie as great as Dark City; this movie really gives me chills. It's suspenseful; it's mind-blowing, and absolutely visually stunning (for a movie produced in 1998). I strongly recommend everyone to see this movie; this is one of the best suspense/mystery/ sci-fi movie I've seen. If I'm going to set Dark City on the scale in comparison with other mind-blowing movies, this is nearly as good as the Matrix and Inception (though they have better CGI and stuff), and is even better than The Butterfly Effect, Predestination, Interstellar, Triangle, Cube ,and so on. Please! Everyone go watch this movie even though it looks old and out-of-date just like how I thought before I watched it. I was actually so bored that I was digging from my old files and I glad I did! Dark City definitely worth a try!

I found The Uninvited on IMDb and saw it got an okay rating (6.4) as a horror/suspense film.(Usually I think that horror movie above 6 could give it a try) So I watched it and thought... meh.

First of all, I can probably get what the director is trying to leave the audience to. I was expecting a better and more surprising plot twists than the ending gave me. It was implausible and unconvincing and made me feel that the first 90% of the movie suddenly became trash. I was confused with I finished it, then thought for a while while it gradually makes sense but still filled with tons of flaws. I really expected the director to clarify more on the ending.

Secondly, I felt that the movie wasn't scary. There are some jump scares but it's just not scary. It's more suspense than it is scary. There are many scenes that could make it even scarier, but it didn't. However, I do like the cinematography, you can actually tell the difference comparing to other remakes, and The Uninvited stands out from the others.

The acting was above-average. We got Emily Browning as the teenage girl who just got out from the mental hospital, Elizabeth Banks as the evil stepmother, Arielle Kebbel as the sister, and David Strathairn as the father. I especially like, Emily Browning who absolute suits the daughter and Elizabeth Banks. I really like how the two actresses interact with each other.

The Uninvited is like those movies which stuck between the kick-ass movies and the suck-ass movies. It is definitely not as good as Insidious or Sinister, but is way better than the Grudge and One Missed Call. Since this is a remake, the Uninvited has lots of potential, but failed which turns it into a confusing movie. I am not saying that it is bad, I still find it quite enjoyable, but reviewing from the whole, the ending could have been way better.

In my memory, I didn't really enjoy Pitch Perfect and thought they it was way overrated than it is. It has a very predictable plot, unevenly balanced characters and the only thing I like is their acapella. In their sequel, though most people don't like it as much comparing to its predecessor, I enjoyed quite a bit.

First off, though the story is very predictable, there is still some twists and turns where the Bellas struggled, from both internal and external pressure, Beca's future, and so on. Unlike the first one, which goes through rounds of competitions then got the champion at the end.

I thought that the acting is okay, still a bit uneven which some girls in the Bellas have barely said anything and the others are only remembered for their race. There are only Fat Amy, the new girl, Amy and Beca who's under the spotlight. I also think that there are too much Fat Amy in the movie, though I know that it is the laughing stock, in this movie, she seems like the leader.

Other than that, the soundtrack is fabulous and the performances are speechless. I had a wonderful time seeing everyone perform. I personally like the riff off the most; it was tense and very enjoyable.

To sum up, I love the music but thought the movie shouldn't only be about the music, still should still be some deeper character developments. Even though most people might not agree with me, I think Pitch Perfect 2 is slightly better than its predecessor (there's gonna be a lot of hate).

Kingsman is presented by the same people that brought us Kick-Ass, one of my favorite movies of all time. Therefore, Kingsman is one of the most anticipated films this year. I heard a lot about Kingsman when it first came out then I watched it in the theaters. I have to say that this has become one of my favorite movies by far. Matthew Vaughn has pleased me once again with his sense of humor and outstanding cinematography.

There is one think that I like Kick- Ass so much is it's "out-of- expected" humor which the second installment, not directed by Vaughn, didn't accomplished. It gives you a feeling of "parody", but not exactly. In Kingsman, clever lines are presented to the audience without using fart or stupid jokes. It has its own unique style that stands on its own very well. It's very different from other spy or action movies, and has combined with the comedy genre real well. The filming is also speechless, though a bit of shaky cam, all of the action sequences are very satisfying. It gives you so much action that you can't feel even more satisfied. The slow motion, the clever collocation of the soundtrack, and the sense of humor among the fighting all made me associate to Kick-Ass, and I love it!

The acting is also superb. I especially love Colin Firth in the movie; it is the best choice to be the supporting actor. He has the taste, he style, and the look to be a Kingsman. Samuel L. Jackson is great as being the villain with its weird accent. The main actor, Taron Egerton, did an excellent job being Eggsy, and he has got lots of potential in the future.

Other than that, there are always unexpected surprises delivered throughout the movie that makes you sweat, laugh, or even mind-blown. Kingman: The Secret Service is definitely worst watching and keeping. I have watched the second time today and it still doesn't bore me. I hope to see more movies like this or even Kick-Ass in the future. Oxfords, not Brogues.

Before watching Chapter 3 and realized that the director isn't James Wan anymore, I was expecting that the movie would suck very bad. By criticizing based on its trailer, I was even surer that Chapter 3 will be terrible. It has a brand new cast and a different director, how much worse could it be?

However, Insidious: Chapter 3 really surprised me. Director Leigh Whannell, who has been working with James Wan since the original Saw, has actually done a terrific job with the cinematography and the building of the atmosphere just like the previous installments. The prequel has proved that Whannell has the ability to stand on his own.

The new cast for this movie has done an outstanding job bringing its audience into the movie, all of the characters are appealing, especially the girl and Lin Shayne. Lin Shayne might be the main supporter that avoids Chapter 3 turning into a mediocre horror flick.

Other than that, Chapter 3 still suffers a bit from both the originality and plot: Originality of the the first and interesting story of the second. However, I don't blame for it since it's the third installment!! Sequels and prequels tend to suck! Btw, I almost cried at the end even though there are no plot twists. I enjoyed Insidious: Chapter 3 a lot and this movie has surpassed way more than I had expected. I hope to see more directing from Leigh Whannell and with the Insidious franchise the best.

Run All Night is directed by the same director who presented Unknown and Non-Stop. Compared to the two movies, it does feel similar but lacks a bit of the novelty. This doesn't mean that the movie is bad, it is way better than the Taken sequels and Run All Night has one of the better acting by Liam Neeson. On the cinematography, there are some pretty cool techniques. There's a kind that used several time in the movie which the camera zooms in and out into different scenes just like the presentation we see on Google Map which I find it refreshing. Other than that, as you can tell from the title, 80% of the movie happened at night, so I don't blame for having a so-so visual. Though the plot sounds a bit confusing but it works just fine. You don't need a lot of brain power watching this and you could actually enjoy the father-son relationship, thought the chemistry isn't the best. As like his other movies, Run All Night presents you the finest performance by Liam Neeson and has some cool elements throughout the movie even thought it's not his best movie. This is definitely fun to watch for a Friday movie night and recommend everyone watching.

Evil Dead is a remake of the 1981 original "the Evil Dead". I didn't have the chance to watch the original yet, so I'm going to review this without comparing it with the original.

The movie actually starts out pretty slow, for the first 40 minutes there isn't any creepy parts and it actually bores me. Usually, movies start off slow to develop they're characters or stories, however, I find the first 30 minutes unnecessary. However, Evil Dead deserves its wait. Evil Dead has some of the goriest and most disturbing scenes I've seen in movies. There's blood EVERYWHERE and the movie make them look real good! The movie mostly uses makeups and proves that a bloody movie can stand by its own without CGI.

Another thing I like about Evil Dead is the directing. There are many beautifully-shot scenes which makes the movie very enjoyable. For example, the director sets the cameras in different angles, such as the floor or close to the wall, which makes it extraordinary from other films.

On the other hand, Evil Dead lacks character developments, but for its own sake, bloody horror doesn't really need character developments. Characters make stupid decisions and eventually will die out one by one, so it's not really a big deal.

There isn't really a plot or twists in Evil Dead. Everything is presented directly. If you haven't watch this without watching the trailers, the movie is what you thought it will be.

Evil Dead is enjoyable for a movie night if you do not care too much on the details. Just sit back and enjoy the gore, it's real fun.

Project Almanac is filmed in found-footage style and has a lot of dizzy moments. I didn't really care much about the found- footage but thought that it was unnecessary and thought that it could better if it is filmed normally.

On to the plot, it sounds new but is actually used in many other movies for many times. However, Almanac is well- paced and the ending was not as bad as I thought. Though there are some paradox throughout the movie, at the end of the day, Almanac is still a teenage movie and shouldn't be viewed seriously. So overall I actually found it enjoyable and satisfied on how they end the movie.

The movie doesn't really develop much on the characters, but the chemistry between the teenagers went out pretty well. They still have feelings among their characters even though they're just a bunch of ordinary teenagers. This made me cared a lot about the characters.

Overall, Project Almanac has a premise that we've seen a million times with is filmed in a unnecessary found- footage technique (Back to the Future, The Butterfly Effect, and Chronicle), it's still enjoyable and still owns some cool elements.

Okay, I'm just going to be honest that I didn't watch the first three installments of Mad Max and I wasn't too enthusiastic with sci-fi movies (though it's actually not), I just prefer more realistic movies. However, after I finished Fury Road, I enjoyed it very much.

Fury Road barely has a plot. It's actually very simple. The characters travel from A to B then returns to A. However, it's the visual effects that explain the whole story of Fury Road. All of the little things in the movie are made delicately and is designed uniquely. This highlights that things can still be beautiful even though it's set in a wasteland. I can guarantee that everything in the movie is exclusive and can't be found in any other movies.

The character development in Fury Road is done extremely well, though there is not much on the talking throughout the movie. You can see the development through their decisions, actions, and even through their facial impressions. And that's what makes the characters stand out, because every character has their own personalities.

I have nothing to doubt on the credibility of George Miller's directing. It's incredibly and beautifully filmed. In most action movies that I have watched, most of them failed on using shaky cam which is just a lazily filmed technique used in action movies. However, in Fury Road, you cannot find a bit of shaky cam, every shot is either filmed from a distance or set in a point. It not only highlights the massive view but clarifies on every action of the characters.

The sound effects sound magnificent just by themselves. It's explosively loud but in a good way, though it's filled with heavy metal, it applies to the soundtrack extremely well. Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road is action- packed and explosively stunning. Fury Road is so beautifully filmed, that it's close to flawless. This is absolutely a masterpiece constructed by Director George Miller.

"Despicable Me" was a big summer hit grossing a surprising number 251.5 million dollars on the box office. It was ranked tenth on the all-time animation movie chart. Three years later, the sequel released wishing to make a blockbuster as great as the first movie.

In the first movie, Gru, a super-villain, planned to steal the moon by adopting three girls for his personal benefit. Slowly, these kids changed his heart. As a result, Gru turns from "superbad" to "superdad".

This sequel begins with Gru who has quit being a bad guy is invited to help the anti-villain league. Gru and his partner, Lucy are searching for the top secret formula which makes a cute, fluffy animal turns into a purple, savage monster. Through the cooperation, Gru and Lucy made an unexpected chemistry reaction, but when he saw his eldest daughter, Margot hanging out with another boy, he opposed like every father does.

This sequel comparing to 2010's "Despicable Me" is nearly as entertaining as the original, although it may not be as fresh, it still brings big laughs in this sequel. For example, after the first movie successfully caught the audience with the colorful vision and the charming characters (especially those cute, yellow minions), the appearances of "Gru's cousins" increased. The minions were a highlight since the first movie. This time, minions are everywhere! They sing, they dance, they make fun with each other, but most important of all, they sure make the audience enjoy the 98-minute movie.

There is a big difference contrasting to the original. The first movie shows the father-daughter love which makes us feel warm and cozy, this time, "Despicable Me 2" adds some romance into it. For example, the "Gru-and-Lucy" love and the little crush between Margot and Antonio. These all make the plot more interesting.

"Despicable Me" is my favorite animated movie ahead of "Wreck-it Ralph" placed in second. Although the plot of "Despicable Me 2" is not as great as the first one. It is hilarious, adorable and enjoyable. In 2014, the minions will have their very own movie. Though we might not understand their language through the entire movie, I am still looking forward to that movie.