JimmyG100

Remember that old gag from The Three Stooges where Larry, Curly, and Moe would all try to walk through the same doorway at the same time and they'd end up getting jammed? Well that scenario pretty much describes the plot of Jupiter Ascending, an ambitious attempt by the Wachowski's at crafting their own space opera, which while entertaining in its visuals and action, fails to keep up with its own ambitions.

First I'd like to say this movie is beautiful. The opening action scenes in Chicago are fun to watch and once we get off the earth we see an extremely detailed universe that you can tell had a lot of thought put into it. Unfortunately the best way you can tell is from all the exposition.

Now there's nothing wrong with exposition, it's necessary especially if you're going to do a fish out of water story about an earth girl that learns she's actually space royalty. Unfortunately the movie gets so caught up in its own exposition the titular Jupiter is never really given a chance to reflect on it all and just sort of nods her way through it. There's no real discovery of the new world she's been thrown into, it's just explained to her and she reacts accordingly.

Meanwhile there's a subplot about Jupiter's family back on earth and how her cousin is in trouble because he already spent the money he was expecting to get from Jupiter donating one of her eggs. This is played to comedic effect and it works a little, however, it's soon dropped so the family can be kidnapped by Jupiter's genetic... space son? So he can hold them hostage and force Jupiter to sign the earth over to him. This is her other genetic space son, not the one who wants to marry her and kill her so he can own the earth... are you following me?

I don't even remember what her genetic space daughter wanted, but all three of them are involved with harvesting humans to create a sort of fountain of youth they can bathe in to stay young. Basically the earth is like a farm where the space royalty grows and harvest humans every few centuries... I'm not sure if it's only every few centuries or if they wait for the population to get to a certain point then harvest it. It's not very well explained.

So, the main villain's plan seems to be to harvest the earth while he still owns it, but then Jupiter claims it as hers about halfway through the movie so that threat is gone pretty fast. Which is why the bad guy then kidnaps Jupiter's family to force her to sign the earth over to him so he can harvest it. No need to worry though because Space Wolf Channing Tatum is there to save the props previously known as characters from death meaning Jupiter can hold onto the earth and the bad guy meets his implied demise, although I have to imagine they left it vague to keep it open to the possibility of sequels.

I gotta say, I appreciate what's trying to be done here. Unfortunately there's not much room in the plot for characters to actually move around and develop. But because they spend so much time explaining things and setting up all these plot points it's impossible to get a satisfying resolution to everything and most of the points brought up are just dropped.

The movie ends with Jupiter back on earth, now the owner of it, yet the only thing that's changed for her is she's happier living her life as a housemaid because she gets to fly around the Sears Tower with Channing Tatum now. Shouldn't more have changed for her? Shouldn't more have changed for her world? She doesn't know what it means to own the earth, well maybe that's something that should have been explained by the end of the movie!

It may be unfair to compare this to The Matrix, but at the end of The Matrix you actually feel like things are happening, at the end of Jupiter Ascending you're left kinda wondering what the whole point was.

This movie actually may have played better as a TV show. Or even split into two or three movies. Stretch the exposition out a little so you can actually do something with it. And most importantly make Jupiter a real character with an arch, not just someone who just goes along with everything until she needs to be saved.

I'll even give the Wachowski's the benefit of the doubt and assume that somewhere there's a longer directors cut of this that actually brings about a better paced and more satisfying resolution. At least I'd like to see it if it does exist. I would totally be up for watching a 3 hour version of this movie that actually gives it room to move around in its elaborate world as opposed to this 2 hour cut that feels like it can't settle on what it wants to be about.

As is, this movie seems more concerned with explaining the world it takes place in as opposed to giving us a reason to care. It's not terrible, and it actually can be very entertaining at some points, but it just can't keep up with itself.

The irony isn't lost on me that I am reviewing a documentary that specifically targets critics. I don't review much, but I felt I had something to say about this piece.

Now, I find Jamie Kennedy funny. Not hysterical, but I like him in films like Scream and even his cameos in Harold and Kumar and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Hell I even get a chuckle watching some of his movies when I catch them on TV. I wouldn't mind seeing his stand up act. I certainly wouldn't heckle him.

However, this movie seems to be spreading the message that nothing is bad to everyone, and shame on us if we so choose to tell someone we didn't like their movie. I haven't seen Son of the Mask, but from what I can tell, it was truly an amazingly horrible film. What this film won't face up to is that, while there are many underrated movies out there, some things, in fact, ARE just plain bad.

But I'm getting off track, as this movie seems to. It is, of course, called "Heckler" and the first half of it covers the art of heckling and the response stand up comics have to it very well. I loved hearing the stories of every comedians worst heckler. I loved the different responses they thought to give and their thought process behind it. After all, nobody likes a heckler. You want to sit down and watch a show, what you don't want is some obnoxious person interrupting to contribute their own thoughts or lack there of.

But about half way into the movie it diverts from heckling into reviewing. As if to say harsh reviews are equal to heckling. It bashes movie critics as if they are all stupid elitists that have nothing better to do than poo-poo on the film you just made. And you know, I can see their point, especially in the harsh and unwarranted personal attacks critics put out there. However, critiquing films is not equal to heckling. Heckling interrupts the show, it ruins everyone's experience of it, it's not criticizing anything it's just being an ass.

The most ridiculous part probably comes during the Carrot Top interview. This is when Jamie Kennedy sits across from Carrot Top and seriously asks him why people find him to be an easy target. Carrot Top. I'm sorry, but when you look as ridiculous as Carrot Top when he preforms his routine, why not just design your own prop bulls eye?

You see what this film doesn't show is people accepting criticism for what they put out. They have Uwe Boll fighting his critics as if by fighting them that's going to make him a better filmmaker. You have Jamie defending Son of the Mask. You know what's better than making a documentary that goes after people that didn't like your movie? How about laughing at yourself and how bad your film really was? I mean appreciate all the people who liked it, but don't be so sad when someone posts a bad review of you online. That's not heckling.

I only wish this movie would've spent more time with stand up and less time asking why people are rude online. I mean overall it's a pretty good doc, the parts about heckling are great, the focus group stuff was interesting too and I wish they had gone more into that, but it gets a little too sensitive at times defending actors and directors for stuff that is really just plain bad, and I only wish they would admit that.

Is a rough way of putting it. And never mind those Scream rip-offs or all those other cheap alien/creature-feature films from the 90's. This is a teen horror movie that gives you everything you'd want from a teen movie and everything you'd want from a creature feature, all in one. But what else is to be expected when you got Robert Rodriguez behind the lens? Any other director and this film would be tossed aside as just a teen body snatcher movie. But Robert Rodriguez shows here that he has the style to make it more than that.

Now, I've read the script to this movie before I even saw it and I kept thinking to myself, there has to be another draft of this, no way this could really work and be taken seriously... or as serious as you can take a movie like this. Yet not only was I surprised to see how much of the original script Rodriguez kept in, but I was even more surprised to see how well things actually played out. Sometimes I really love being wrong.

This film delivers, just as much as any other Rodriguez picture that calls back to the good old days of the Grindhouse and makes us forget that those movies weren't even close to par with these "tribute" films that somehow manage to surpass the movies they're tributing. You get everything you want and leave wishing you could spend more time in high school... or at least at this high school.

This film, to me, is the second in Rodriguez's own unofficial Sci-fi Grindhouse trilogy. Starting with From Dusk Till Dawn and ending with Planet Terror. Want to treat yourself to some fun? Watch all three back to back to back. You won't be disappointed.

7/10

Who wrote this? Some guy named John Cohen. I guess this was the first screenplay he's ever worked on. Someone should've told him you're supposed to write dialog that sounds like something someone actually might say.

And who directed this? Scott Marshal? Son of Gerry Marshall. My the nut has fallen far from the tree. Someone might have wanted to let him know that you can, in fact, shoot a scene in a cab in New York, and it will look real, and you won't have to fake it with a blue screen for no reason. Might have also wanted to let him know he should stay away from Jessica Simpson, but hopefully he's learned that lesson now.

And Jessica Simpson... naturally she can't act. Hell, she makes Jessica Alba look like Audry Hepburn, and yet she's starring in this movie. OH wait, it was produced by her father. Okay, that's why she got the part. That's really the only reason I can think of.

So should I be surprised it's bad? No. Should I be amazed at how bad it is? I think a lot of people would if they saw as much of it as I did. I mean you expect a movie starring Jessica Simpson to be bad, but this... it's not just bad, it's the complete opposite of a classic film. Think of a great Woody Allen movie, this film is as bad as that film is good. It's the Anti-Annie Hall.

I am so glad I didn't pay to see it, I stopped watching ten minutes in cus I couldn't go on. No doubt I would've walked out of the theater sooner. In fact I wonder how many of the 6 people who saw it per theater actually stayed and watched the whole thing. The film starts out laughably bad, and then goes to the point of being so bad it becomes a kind of Chinese water torture. And then, around when the first act is ending, you realize it'll only get worse, and that's when you either need to leave, or kill yourself.

In conclusion, this film goes under the category of being so bad it should be used in place of water boarding at Guantanamo Bay. Although some prefer the water boarding.

Didn't quite know what to expect when I picked this one up at the store for $5. Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken in a Western set in 1930's prohibition? (you may think that is a gangster film, but trust me, watching this, it's not.) Anyways, I was forced to ask myself the question "if this film's so good why's it being sold so cheap?" Well I'm not one to shun a film just cus it's got a low low price, hell I picked up Street Fighter (the original Chiba one) for just a dollar. So I figured I might as well check it out see if it's really worth it.

Well it was. I'm not too familiar with Walter Hill, but he does a fine job in this film showing Bruce Willis blasting away at the bad guys. Watching it I'm reminded of a watered down Desperado. This whole film seems like a Robert Rodriguez film without the Robert Rodriguez attitude. And while that is missed, especially in the screenplay, it's still got some wonderful shootouts in it.

Based off the same story Sergio Leone's Fistfull of Dollars takes it's plot from, you'll notice many similarities between the two. In fact, you could even see this as a re-make of Fistfull of Dollars if you wanted to, but not in a bad way. To give a fair analogy, this movie is to Fistfull of Dollars as the Tom Savini 1990 re-make of Night of the Living Dead is to the original 68 George Romero film. Same basic plot, slightly different action, which one's better? Well you decide.

You want to see something fun, shot well, something that successfully mixes the two sub-genres of western and gangster films, something that's got Bruce Willis going Desperado on Christopher Walken? Pick this one up and have a good time.

Zathura entertains everyone. Jon Favreau is a great director for taking what is essentially a Jumanji rip off and turning it into a film that surpasses its predecessors and then some. It never gets cheesy and doesn't rely on dumb jokes just to keep the kids laughing. No, this film is the kind of movie you can watch as a kid, and then ten years later pull it out again and still enjoy it just as much as you did the first time.

It is fun, and not in a flashy eye candy and a few cheap laughs way like Fantastic Four. No, this film takes itself seriously while it gives you the wild ride you're looking for. The kid actors go great together, working off each other, bringing you back to the days when you used to fight with your brother over the littlest things. Kristen Stewart's performance is a comedic delight, and Dax Shepard goes above and beyond in his role as the rugged hero Astronaut. And to top it all off is Tim Robbins, a fine icing on this talent cake.

This is a movie that just works. It's nothing epic or mind blowing, but it's not a bunch of flash with no substance either. It is exactly what a fun family movie should be, not too dumb for adults and not too complicated for kids, it's something everyone can watch and enjoy. This movie works.

Superman and Superman II were two excellent examples of how a superhero movie should be. Excellent story, true drama, great performances. Superman III, however, takes a different approach to the legendary character. Not necessarily bad, but a little less serious than the Donner films and more of a focus on fun. Try to think of this film as kind of the story of an actual comic of Superman out of the 1960's. It isn't anything deep about Supes Kryptonian origins or furthering his love with Lois, it's just Superman off on another adventure facing a new evil villain along with Richard Pryor. It's pure meaningless fun that works pretty well and it is a definite recommendation to complete the Supes trilogy (but word of advise, stop at III, don't bother with IV or you'll just be disappointed)

This film comes included with the From Dusk Till Dawn Collectors Series DVD and it is quite a find. This isn't just about how someone did this or blah blah blah did that, this film is a real tribute to the entire crew of the film and the comradry that forms between them all on the set as well as off it. The film is basically a journey through the production of From Dusk Till Dawn from problems with the unions to sandstorms and burning sets to dealing with George and Quintin on set, which I might add, make one crazy pair (God I love that opening scene). Will you learn anything important about film-making? I'd say it's hard not to walk away from this a little more knowledgeable about the sheer heart and determination put in by people who's names you'd probably never give a second glance to but they deserve more than just a crawl by mention in the end credits and that's what this film gives them. So if you liked From Dusk Till Dawn... that doesn't necessarily mean you'll like this, BUT if you like going behind the scenes and hanging out with a film crew as they get drunk by a pool, I say you can't do any better than to go for the Full Tilt Boogie.

I remember growing up watching this film whenever it would come on TV and just recently I picked it up again on DVD having not seen it in at least 10 years. After all this time I'm glad to say it still has it's charm. Sure it does seem a little rushed, the performances aren't the best, and... well the action does seem pretty dull even by the 80's standards. Not to mention the fact that the CG spaceships look way too artificial (it would've looked much better had they just used regular models on a blue screen) Main point being don't buy this expecting Star Wars quality visuals. Still the film's got something, and it really is a great story overall. I wouldn't mind a special edition of this released maybe with a touch up on the CG sequences and maybe the director could dig around in the archives and restore some scenes, but that's a long shot. So I say just enjoy it for what it is, a great 80's sci-fi coming of age story, noting classic, but not too shabby either.

Second greatest cus let's face it you can't beat the original Dracula. You've got Robert Rodriguez, directing a story by Quentin Tarantino, in the style of Sam Raimi, with a plot akin to a George A. Romero zombie movie. How can it go wrong? It can't! Hell this film is a veritable orgasm of all that is great about horror and crime films. And don't take this for a simple vampire flick either, make no mistake this film is hard core with its crime storyline too. The entire first half of the film is exactly something you'd expect from Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, heavy dialog, gruesome violence, bad guys you love to hate, and bad guys you just love. But once the fangs come out all bets are off. Think of Night of the Living Dead, but in Mexico, with Vampires instead of Zombies, and with much more innovative weapons. Man you think Uma taking on the Crazy 88's was intense, Crazy 88's weren't blood sucking demons that could only be killed by impaling them through the heart with a huge chunk of wood. If you love vampire or zombie films, if you thought Pulp Fiction and Resiviour Dogs were just a ingenious as I did, if you loved Rodriguez's Mariachi series or even if all you know about him is how awesome a job he did with Sin City, you owe it to yourself to seek out this gem of a film. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

Classic, no other way around it this is one of the most influential horror films ever. The dead have risen to feast on the living! They get up and kill the people they kill get up and kill! George Romero has managed to create the most horrific vision of the end of the world. And it all starts here, in a small house in the countryside, where seven people try to survive the night. One of the greatest things Romero has done is not only document the people inside the house, but also show radio and television broadcasts covering the phenomenon. The use of the media is a shocking testament to the true magnitude of these events. If you've ever enjoyed a single zombie film be it Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, or even Shaun of the Dead, you owe it to yourself to see this film and find out where it all began.

Sure this movie could've been better, especially for a Spielberg film, but it's still got some great moments in it. This film will probably be most appealing to kids, silly at times, but full of swashbuckling fun. Dustin Hoffman does a superb job in the roll of Captain Hook and with Smee at his side I'm reminded of the Luthor Otis relationship in Superman giving a humorous side to our villain's evil persona. Robin William was also perfectly cast, after all who better to play a man who was the boy that never wants to grow up? Neverland itself is exactly what it should be, a wonderful fantasy world full of color and magic. And John Williams score is, in my opinion, truly one of his bests. I say treat this film like you'd treat Phantom Menace, as long as you're not too picky about some cheesy lines and bad kid acting it's a pretty enjoyable film.

Having never read any of Frank Miller's Sin City comics before, I can't say I truly appreciated the adaptation that Frank Miller's Sin City movie is. Instead I'm forced to appreciate it on all the other great efforts put into this movie. Sin City is a new kind of magic, not the normal movie magic we're so used to. This is a magic that could only come from a graphic novel... or "comic book" if you're looking for the juvenile term. This is a whole new level of live action comic. Rodriguez and Miller didn't film this movie they painted it. Alexis Bledel's beautiful blue eyes, the white blood leaking out of Hartigan, The yellow slime oozing out of the Yellow Bastard. This is a masterpiece of cinematography. The structure and storytelling of it is akin to Pulp Fiction, only Pulp Fiction is much more tame by comparison. A short opening followed by three different yet slightly intertwined stories; Heartigan, Marv, and Dwight and followed by an ending that brings the film about in full circle in a way that I can only compare to Honey Bunny and Pumpkin's destiny with Jules and Vincent in the diner in Pulp. But this is no Pulp Fiction. Better or worse? No, just different. While Pulp Fiction stood out with it's amazing dialog, Sin City's spark comes from what is not said. Unlike any other comic adaptation I've seen, this film takes you inside the characters minds, it doesn't even deserve to be called voice over (or what some would say is a cheap and lazy way to move along narrative in a screenplay). The use of thought in comics is never questioned, and I'm glad Rodriguez and Miller didn't exclude it from the film for what the industry thinks of it. Instead they use it in the only way it should be used, the way Kaufman used it in Adaptation, to take us inside the minds of each character and help us understand them. We may not agree with them, we may not identify with them, but we understand them more than any dialog could help us to. Sin City is a rare thing. See it.

While sure Smokey 3's no Smokey 1, still, it does have it's moments. Kevin Smith was right this is the best Burt-less movie ever made. Yes that's right for those who didn't know, Reynold's isn't in this one. Except for a small cameo at the end, the original Bandit we know and love is gone along with our favorite Frog, but fortunately we still got the Snowman to take up his former partners good name for one final job against the toughest Smokey that ever lived, Buford T. Justice fresh off retirement. Every dog has his day and this is theirs. Fights break out, cars are totaled, and love ensues for our fair heroes as they seek the answer to the question: Can Buford get a giant fish across the country in twenty four hours for a quarter a million dollars? The catch, the new Bandit's hot on his tail this time, his objective, take the fish and stop Buford and the quarter million is his. What's at stake? Should Buford fail, Little Enos gets his pride, his honor, his masculine libido... AKA his badge. Now I know what you're thinking if you're still reading, "Steal a big fish? What kind of stupid plot is that" But don't brush it off just now. Remember "It's not where you're going it's who's on your tail." Put your disbelief aside and give it a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Less Bandit, more Smokey, still a good ride. (Plus it's got some nice tit and ass shots at the end too, no not Bufords)