Natenbox62

On the surface, K-On is about a group of four (later five) girls who are running a light/pop music club at a Japanese all-girls high school. And while that is generally an accurate description of what the show is about, that doesn't entirely give you a slightly bigger picture of what the show is in a nutshell. On a more objective level, most of the time, the characters don't always do or talk about music. More often than not, you'll likely see them goofing off by either drink tea or discussing things about what's going on in their lives. But on a more subjective level, the series is about trying to find purpose in life and connecting with others, or in the case of season two, learning to move forward in life as time goes on (while never forgetting what you experienced in the past). It hits me very well on an emotional level, as someone who remembers all the times that I had with my friends at high school and all.

What truly makes the series work so well are the characters. All of them are very entertaining, likable, and relatable in a lot of ways; not to mention that they get a lot of great character development as the series goes on till the end. My favorite character would easily be Ritsu (voiced by Satomi Sato in sub and Cassandra Lee Morris in Sentai/Bang Zoom dub), especially with her interactions with her friend Mio (voiced by Yoko Hikasa in sub and the incredibly talented Cristina Vee in dub). What also works super well is the atmosphere. It's probably one of the most relaxed and stressed-free pieces of entertainment that I've watched; there's a homely and cozy vibe about it that makes it very easy to get into.

Coupled with solid humor, visually splendid animation, fun music, and great voice acting, this is an anime series that I would recommend to anyone. Go check it out whenever you can. 10/10.

Current: To anyone who think that I came off as rather "red-pill" in any way from the older review.... I'm very sorry. After much realization over the years (especially when looking through Twitter), I do think that he is basically one of the dozens of these obnoxiously repetitive, boring, and overtly political "nerd" channels that are everywhere on YT.

I know that he is a self-proclaimed troll, but man is he super predictable (and honestly rather pathetic). There are better nerd-related channels that are worth checking out instead.

Original review (previous 4/10): While he does make some pretty decent points from time to time and makes some videos that can be quite entertaining and enticing, the other videos he makes tend to be rather repetitive and boring to sit through after a while. Not downright awful, just rather mediocre fare that is to be expected from these types of channels.

While his charisma isn't great, he does have a decent enough presence to make his content watchable (which is more than I can say about MundaneMatt and Jeremy Griggs). Though not my cup of tea, I can see why people likes his content.

The perfect example on why big effects, big budgets, big studios and big actors doesn't always end things out as a good film. I know that there's one other movie that's based on a board game, and that was the Clue movie with Tim Curray. The different with this and the Clue movie is that the Clue movie was actually a really fun and a witty film. This one however doesn't have any of that.

This isn't really a big review that I usually do but I just want this to get out of the way and say that don't waste your time on this pile of garbage, even if it had Liam Neeson or other known actors in it. It's pretty much the worse version of the Transformers movies, except that it's more redundant. Plus, the fact that no one have said this famous line (you've sunken my Battleship) actually makes the movie a bit worse than ever before.

Score: 1.6/10

Just skip this one and watch the Clue movie instead. You're not really missing anything all that much here anyway, so yeah....that's all I got to say for now.

(Aug 19, 2016): This was my old review of Maleficent, I made this review back when I used to make a butt load of reviews for this site (2014). Looking back at it now, this was by far the worst review I've ever done during that time. As for my honest opinion on the film itself,I don't like it. My current score for it is a 4/10.

(old review, Nov. 17, 2014): I finally saw it after renting it at Redbox, and all that buzz everyone had talked about, the ads playing so much, and making a lot of money, I was pretty much ready to see it on my Blu-Ray player. All I'm gonna say is this.....it was okay. Not great but good enough for a rental.

The pros:

Angelina Jolie's performance as the titular character, Maleficent (the most well known villain in Disney history) was perfect. She knows on what she's doing, every spoken delivery is spot on, and does feel like she was born to play as a live action version of Maleficent. The effects look great, action scenes were good enough. The tone is fine where it needs to be, and there were some changes from Sleeping Beauty that were okay enough for me. And the other cast were decent for the most part.

Now, the cons:

The biggest problem that I have with it really is just that how mashes with Sleeping Beauty and this one in a not so perfect way. It does kinda distracted me sometimes where they mentioned some stuff here from the 1959 Disney animated film that it supposed to have a twist on. The fairies were annoying. I mean like Jar Jar Binks annoying. Sharlto Copley did kinda felt phoned in here. And that the misleading marketing did kinda ruined the film for me. It was marketed to be like a dark version of Sleeping Beauty, but it's not. Stuff like that did ruined my experience.

Even with those big problems that I have with it, the movie is still entertaining regardless of its flaws. It might not be as good as everyone says it is but I think it's a good rental movie for your day. It might be on Netflix at some day, who knows, you might like it more than I do. And I think that's about it really. It was okay.

6/10

Usually, there are some animated movies that are really bad like The Nut Job and Troll in Central Park. But they're movies like this one that is just mind-blowing. This is an animated movie that's so bad, you swear that your brain was leaking by a fork on your head.

I actually did seen the other two animated Titanic movies like a year ago, and I will say that the one with the rapping dog is by far the best of the three (but that's not saying much). For those who want to know the story of Tentacolino, it's pretty much like this. Three years after Tentacles saved the Titanic from the OTHER animated Titanic movie (spoilers!, for those who haven't seen that one), our leads from the last movie boards in to this yellow ball that looks like it hasn't been made till the 30s-40s, just to find the sinking ship of the Titanic. Then, a bunch of jail wearing suit sharks find them and then after the sharks ate off the rope, it fall down to the floor of the ocean. And Tentacles had found it and he noticed the people who are in it, he tried to pull it out from the rocks blocking it but failed. However, everything is all fine and dandy now thanks to the......Atlantean people. And there's some sub-plots like the rat colony but they really don't matter. However, the ending is just amazing in so many wrong ways. I'm not really gonna spoil it but I'll say that it's such a continuity error that it makes the other Titanic movie and this one..to be never existed.

But everything else......it's pretty much have been said already.

Score: 0.8/10

All I can say is that this is the most astonishing worst animated movie that I've ever seen, but it's also the most fabulous worst one that I've ever seen.

If you're thinking of watching this and the other one without the rapping dog (obviously for the people that had tried to find the worst of movies), go right ahead but I must warn you that they can go insane out of everything, and you think that you can survived them easily from watching the reviews or hearing about them, but um..(small laugh)....you don't.

I seen this movie like dozens of times already, and I never got old from it. This is the first movie that I have heard of a man named Tim Burton, who done films like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and Batman (1989).

Anyways, the songs in this movie are so catchy. The first song 'This Is Halloween' is personally my second favorite song to use on Halloween, the first being Michael Jackson's 'Thriller'. The visual style of the movie might not be look innocent but it didn't cross the extra line of being too scary for your children. Plus, it looks amazing. The characters were memorable, the animation is fantastic, and again, the songs are just so catchy.

It may not the best movie I've ever seen, but man it had a big impact on me when I was a kid.

Score: 10/10

It's been a long time since I saw it in theaters, and I used to have a DVD copy of it for a long time. I think I remember liking it when I was 7. Finally, after 6 years later since my mom sell it out for a yard sale, because I didn't care about it, I seen it once again on the computer. I didn't like the movie that much now. I don't mean that it's "the worst thing that Disney had ever made", I just thought that even though I didn't think it is as terrible as people seemed to make it out to be but that I do had to admit that it was pretty bad.

For the story itself, the premise of course is just from the fable that is based on, but they're two different plots from this movie that are obviously not from the fable itself. One is this baseball underdog story that is pretty much a rip-off of Angels in the Outfield or other baseball movies out there from the 90s. And the other being about an alien invasion trying to destroyed the Earth (or so you think...Spoilers!). At the end when the aliens say that everything was an misunderstanding, and during the scene, the message from the fable about not worrying something of things happening, literally being absent. That wasn't a good thing to remove it at all, Disney.

Other than that, the story is cliché and predictable, the characters are obviously stereotypes, the references to better movies and putting pop songs that weren't from Disney were pretty unnecessary, and the tone was pretty mean-spirited if you ask me. But the worst offender of the bunch for me has got to be the main character's dad named Buck. I hate Buck. I never find anything redeemable about him. He didn't have any heart or caring for his son all because of something that he was embarrassed and never cared for his son anymore, and when he does pretend that he loves him (all because that Chicken Little's team won the baseball game because of him), it makes me to hate Buck even more.

However, there are still good things about this movie. First being that the animation, while not Pixar of quality, is pretty decent from changing the way to what Disney usually used to make 2D animated movies. The voice acting is great. And it was kinda entertaining and it wasn't all that boring.

But all in all, I can't really recommend it. But if you do have kids, it's something for them but other than that, just skip it. It's a pretty forgettable film, and not something that I would watch at certain occasions.

Score: 3.5/10.

I don't think I should call it a movie, it doesn't even deserve that word 'movie'. It's more like something that even the devil didn't liked, and it's obviously Friedburg and Seltzer's own Frankenstein monster to just pull in all the moviegoers and general audiences to see this 'thing', I'll call it a 'thing' for now. However, the audience were too smart to not see this monstrosity because they know that the twin clowns were treated them like they're brain dead (Date Movie and Meet The Spartans are good examples of this), and that's why it tanked at the box office but I don't blame the audience for that, at all.

And what I meant by 'Frankenstein monster', I meant that there's not a single reference or a gag that really work, or it just that it was made by a bunch of monkeys. The references are lazy, insulting, stupid and tiresome, the production value looks like it has a fungus growing on it, the visuals look incredibly cheap, the acting is beyond terrible, and the 'writing' is abysmal. There's nothing to say about it what it's already been said. And I wish that Friedburg and Seltzer will be disappeared from this universe because stuff like this should never exist.

This may be a shocker to you but you know what, I'll rather watch Battlefield Earth over and over again than seeing or even hearing about this thing ever againg. It doesn't deserve any number other than a zero, heck it doesn't even desrve a '1 star out of 10' at all.

Score: 0/10

There's no secret to anyone that I watched a lot of Disney animated movies when I was a kid (well except for Home on the Range....I will talk that movie when the time comes). I watched them repeatedly and still have fun with them...this movie is no exception.

The story (of course that we all know today) is about a girl named Alice who grows bored of listening to her older sister reading aloud from a history book of someone that I just don't care about (sorry, Brits). Alice tells her kitten Dinah that she will live in a nonsensical land called Wonderland. After she daydreamed about it, she spot a rabbit called..White Rabbit, who's late for something that has to do with the Queen of Hearts's stuff or ceremony. Alice and her kitten follows the white rabbit and Alice goes inside the rabbit hole and falls into a place called (you guessed it) Wonderland. A place that's so weird that it's better not to explain it at all. (Spoilers!) However, all of this was just a dream from Alice, and she, Dinah, and her older sister just go went back home and it's obviously time for tea.

The way they show Wonderland was very, and I mean very strange. There's a Dodo bird that sorta looks like Christopher Columbus, fishes that have no problem breathing without water when doing this dance, Tweedledee and Tweedledum telling a story about the Walrus and the Carpenter, a short guy with a hat and his rabbit celebrates tea party and 'unbirthday' all the time, the Queen of Hearts and Alice herself playing croquet by using a flamingo as a mallet and a hedgehog as the ball, and there's this caterpillar, and and and......IT'S WEIRD!! But you know what, it's so much fun because of that.

The animation is colorful and top notch, despite (again) the weird imagery it had. The songs are catchy. The voice acting is great as every Disney animated movie out there. And the pacing is wacky but necessary.

But, there were some flaws. One being that the Alice character wasn't all that convincing. The running time is too short. And some of the weird imagery may be too much for my taste.

But in all seriousness, the movie is still a lot of fun and it's easily recommended. For those who want to know about my thoughts about Tim Burton's version of Alice of Wonderland, I thought it was decent but nothing special, however I'm obviously gonna do a review of it but for now, you'll just had to wait. This movie though weird, is a fun ride for your kids and yourself.

Score: 8.7/10

Yeah, before when James Cameron made The Terminator, his first time of making a sort of film was none other than this one. Let's go to history. Cameron was a truck driver around the mid-late 70s (no kidding, it's true), but he was inspired by Star Wars so much that he wanted to make a short film, with his friends, to enter the movie business. He convinced several local dentists to invest of $20,000, wrote a screenplay with his friend, he make small robots (obviously for the stop motion animation) all by himself, studying how the effects work in Star Wars were and practiced the stop motion shots in his living room. It was that point when they were all finished. He tried to show the short to other studios that if he can make a feature film out of it, but it got backfired. However, he and his friend, Randall Frakes, did got a job to make miniature spaceships for Roger Corman's film Battle Beyond The Stars, and Cameron became one of Corman's visual effects specialists. Now...let's go to the short itself.

There were some things that will later on be borrowed from Cameron's other films like a cyborg hero (T2: Judgement Day), a strong female protagonist (any movie he made), camera shot of what's the hero doing in a vehicle or a machine (The Abyss), and bio luminescence (The Abyss and Avatar). I'll say for a short that cost like so cheap to make, the effects were surprisingly good and the way they handled the live action bits and the stop motion bits, together, looked spot on. However, don't expect the quality or the acting to be amazing because the quality is VHS like and the actors aren't professionals, which does kinda show.

But that doesn't ruined the short at all. For what it is, it's surprisingly good. You can easily find it on YouTube, so it's not hard to find it on the Internet. This is for the ones if they want to know more about the history of James Cameron and how he became to what he is today. For everyone else, it's at least worth a look.

Score: 7/10

Let me tell you something, I remember seeing the teaser trailer (when I was there going to see The Dark Knight Rises with my dad as always) a year before the movie came out in theaters a year later. I had mixed feelings about it by the teaser. On one hand, you have filmmakers like Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan making a grittier and serious Superman movie, to me it sound like a match made in heaven. But on the other hand, before this one the recent Superman film we had was Superman Returns and that movie was a big disappointment, and Zack Snyder did do Sucker Punch, which wasn't the best movie that Snyder had ever done. To be fair though, I'm not much of a big Superman fan, I just know very well about the franchise. Anyways, a year later after that, I saw it in theaters on the day it came out (June 14, 2013) with my dad and brother. We didn't expect anything from it. But what we saw blown away from our expectations. It was the day that I finished middle school, and I'll never forget that great experience. Now, on to the movie.

I heard lies from people (the ones that are obviously trolls) told me that the film sucks because of stupid reasons. They complained about Superman killed Zod (spoilers!). Really guys, did you seen Superman actually killed Zod in Superman 2? They complained about how Superman damaging everything. Sounds like you haven't even seen the movie, the only ones that are making damages to some towns and cities were Zod, his army, and the US Marines. Superman done little damage. The only damage that Superman did was this mountain, and even then no one was in the mountain. There was one guy on this website that I know of (I'm not telling you the name of that person, but let's just say he won't be on this website any longer) that think like Zack Snyder is the worst director in the world because of stupid reasons. Dude (the troll I'm talking to), did Snyder do something in your life? He didn't do anything, heck no one including himself, that made the movie, will ever listen to you because all you want is nothing but attention.

For the movie itself, I thought almost everything (and I mean almost) about it was perfect. The acting is great, everyone did a great job for what they had. The visuals are just as fantastic as any movie that Snyder had ever directed. The writing is great for the most part. And the running time honestly didn't ruined my experience as much as some people had. Everything you can think for technical stuff is pitch perfect. The score may not replicate to John Williams's score to Superman 1&2, but for what it is, it was fantastic. Again, I may not be a Superman fan, but I did enjoyed the first two original movies, the cartoon show, and the comic books as well. After all of the campy stuff that the Superman movies have (even though I liked 1&2), and after the second one, the later movies became not so good especially Superman 4 with that Nuclear Man. For this movie though, I'll say it's nice to change things up a bit, it is a reboot after all.

However, I do admit that there are flaws to this movie. What I meant by almost is that the flashbacks sequences does seems to make the movie at a stop sometimes. And there are some contrived plot-holes as well. And the romance between Superman (or Clark Kent if you want to call him that) and Lois Lane did felt kinda forced. But really, those are the minor problems that I have with the movie.

Overall:

Unlike my previous reviews (except for the Mission To Mars review) that I told you if I can recommend a movie or not, this one however I'm gonna let you decide what you thought about the movie after you saw it. It's your opinion anyway because film is subjective, not something that everyone is going to agree on. For me, I liked this movie a lot and I thought it was a great way to reboot the franchise. If you didn't like the movie that much, I had no problems with that. Just don't be like one of those trolls to think that it's bad and they think that everyone agreed to them, which it'll never be like that because look at the rating score that this movie had? It's like 7.3 out of ten. I'm now anticipating for that Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice movie even if it had Jesse Eisenberg playing as Lex Luthor.

Score: 9.7/10

I'm gonna give you a back story that before I seen films from Lynch like Elephant Man and this one, the only film I seen from him was Dune and I still mixed feelings about that film. During at early-mid 2014, I decided myself to watch three more movies from this guy. First, being Eraserhead. Second, being The Elephant Man. And the last, being this movie. All three of them I loved. Anyways.

This movie is anything that you would expect from a David Lynch movie. (Spoilers!, for those who haven't seen any of his movies): Dream sequences? Check. Same style like Lost Highway or some others? Check. Either weird or disturbing moments? Check. Anything that you can think of is there. Other than that, the acting is great, the direction is fantastic, the quality is pitch perfect, and the writing is greater than ever.

But, I will say that this movie isn't for everyone. If you are not into David Lynch's style or just don't like symbolism all that much, I'll say avoid it. But for those who like David Lynch's style and want something different for the indie film genre, I'll say check it out. For me, I loved this movie a lot and it's now my favorite David Lynch movie.

Score: 10/10

It's everything that you can expect from a Monty Python movie. Terry Gilliam's animation, wacky characters, some fourth wall breaks here and there, and a lot of gags. All of them work smoothly and perfectly used.

The writing is great. I can tell you that there's gonna be that occasional day for you that you're going to quote one or two lines from this movie. The acting was over-the-top yeah, but it was acceptable. The production is actually pretty decent even if the movie cost pretty cheap to make. Everything about this movie is perfect in every single way.

But, I'm not gonna say that this movie is for everyone. If you don't care that much about British humor, you're not gonna like it a lot. However, if you do like British humor and liked Monty Python too, well what are you waiting for? Check it out.

Score: 10/10

I'm not that much of a Bay hater, heck I like Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, and I actually do like the first Transformers movie. Well there are some missteps from him like The Island, I thought Bad Boys II was okay, Transformers 2 & 4, and Pain & Gain. This movie however....yeah....let's start with the good already.

The only good things about this movie were the effects, production design and the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor scene. That was a pretty emotional scene and a intense one, it was well shot and the action was well done. If it wasn't ruined by everything else.

Now the bad.

The acting is stiff as a wooden stick. They had talented actors in this movie, and only three of them (Aykroyd, Voight,and Gooding Jr.) did a valid job. The direction has no soul at all. The writing and dialog were cheesy as all hell. The Japanese (not to be racist) were nothing but stereotypes. And it's way too long. But none of them are the biggest problem with this movie. The biggest problem with this movie is the romance between Affleck, Harnett and Beckinsale being the main focus of the entire movie. They're obviously Jack and Rose from Titanic, except they are in Hawaii, it's the WWII era, you have another copy of Jack Dawson, and they're played by Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale. Plus, the only reason why the couple from Titanic worked in the first place is because the couple are in the RMS Titanic. This couple here are not in the Pearl Harbor most of the time, so why is this movie called Pearl Harbor then?

It should have focus on two friends or two brothers (it doesn't matter if one of them might be gay) working at the Pearl Harbor and after the attack from the Japanese, they had to go to Japan to drop a nuclear bomb but before they go there, they had to tell their girlfriend that they may not be back alive and that kinda stuff. Now that should be the movie, but nope, we got to have a love triangle, as if that we have never seen this stuff in a long time.

It's also blatantly inaccurate to the actual event. I mean like (spoilers!) I don't remember hearing about the Japanese planes attacking the hospital right next to the Pearl Harbor in my history class, because that never happened. It was stupid, insulting to the people who want to know about the attack and it's disrespectful to the people who either died or survived the Pearl Harbor attack. These kinds of things are why Michael Bay should never make a drama epic or a historical epic because he's more of a action oriented filmmaker, not a filmmaker that take things serious. But I know that they weren't making a documentary but you got to get the history right, Michael Bay, other than the time line.

Overall:

You know the sad thing about this movie is that I am a fan of war epics. I like movies from Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket or Platoon or Saving Private Ryan or any decent war epic out there. And I do like the historical drama genre. Stuff like Schindler's List, The Last Emperor, and heck I actually hate to admit that I did like Titanic. This one however, was by far the worst war epic and the worst historical drama epic (combined) that I have ever seen because even if the director may not be like Spielberg for drama, it had the potential to be a good movie. But I was not so pleased with this movie. If you want a Pearl Harbor movie, I'll suggest go watch Tora! Tora! Tora! or any documentary about the Pearl Harbor attack. This movie will disappoint you or let go of your interest about the tragic event.

Score: 2.3/10

I remember the trailers of this movie being everywhere in my old theater (like in February 2000), and even for a 1 year old, I got mixed expectations. I saw it in theaters (week after Gladiator) and man I was bored to tears from that movie. I saw it again and boy my opinion is still the same. This movie was doomed from the start since the idea of adapting a very outdated book from Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard.

Anyway, the story is about a guy named Johnny Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper) being captured by an alien race called the Pyschlos (bare with me) who rule the Earth in the year 3000 by scratch and haven't even checked Kentucky (you'll see why when you did survived through the movie like me). If you want to know why, it is because they all want gold (yeah, one of the Pyschlos might be none other than Mr. Goldfinger). The villain of this movie (I think) is none other than Terl (John Travolta), and he and his race are the worst villains in movie history. Because they're a bunch of idiots and Terl hasn't even checked the Pyschlo library to know what humans eat. Anyways, It is up to Pepper and his group of peoples to make the Psychlo race to an end and destroyed the Pyschlo planet (spoilers).

I had HUGE problems with the script, story and plot. First being that there is so many goddamn plot-holes that are bigger than my old jeans. Like I mentioned, the Psychlos are idiots (because how come they can ruled the Earth yet know nothing about us other than that we eat rats?) and the humans aren't even better either. They're obviously monkeys that are trying to be the heroes and being the smartest ones, when reality they don't know how the whole Pyschlo race works and they always make sounds (no wonder why Travolta called them man-animals). Of course they are the obvious ones like it is really stupid to think that there's still electricity for 1,000 years despite the fact that the whole human race is screwed, but I want to go to another topic so that way I won't feel so mad about myself.

The acting. Only one good thing about this whole entire movie and that's Forrest Whittaker, that's it. Everyone else looks like they don't want to be in this doomed project. Travolta's voice sounds like a overreacting girl by yelling at the co-stars and his delivery in this movie is worse. Pepper's performance is not interesting. Let's go to technical right now.

The technical. There is no good things about the technical stuff either, and it's funny when you think that this movie cost like $73 million to make. The effects look cheap and unfinished. The direction is horrendous (why so many Dutch angles?), and everything else is terrible, especially the score as well.

Overall:

If I find something worse than this (other than Disaster Movie), I will shoot my brains out. Don't watch this movie, it's not the 'so bad it's entertaining' type of movie and it'll never be. I mean like this movie is like what..14 years old, and it's still remembered for the wrong reasons and I'm glad for that. I'm gonna watch something good tomorrow. I'm gonna watch some Die Hard.

(IMDb score): 1/10.

(My actual score): 0.1/10.