Reviews

This will probably be the entry in the Scooby-Doo franchise that is going to equally divide its audience, with each side giving its own valid reasons. Some viewers are going to appreciate the modernization of the story, while others will wish it had stayed in the late 1960s. Some are going to get a kick out of the pop culture references, while others will ask themselves why they are in a Scooby-Doo movie. Some will appreciate the superhero theme, while others will forget that Blue Falcon and Dynomutt have existed in the past. Some will recoil at the childish crude humor, while others may giggle at it. Some longtime Hanna-Barbara fanatics are going to love the tie-in with other characters, while others are going to call it a forced attempt to kick-start a shared universe. It'll be very interesting to see how the overall consensus falls, and it'll also be up to the individual to form its own opinion. At the end of the day, it's a kids' film. That's the best anyone can say about it. It does what it can to introduce this franchise to a younger generation through those quirks and contemporary computer animation, while at the same time, it does have enough weight in the story and aims closer to the source material than more recent attempts, even when it doesn't always digest easy. It'll be up to you to decide where this lands. Obviously, it's more focused at entertaining today's kids than being a great entry in the Scooby-Doo canon. However, if it connects with the long-time meddling kids that grew up with the characters for over half a century, then it has definitely earned its extra Scooby Snack points.

It's been roughly over 80 years now, and anyone who really likes to keep up with the entire history of film is still wondering how the heck did this dud ever came about. It has a lot of promising elements. It has Clark Gable and Myrna Loy, both phenomenal actors, and John M. Stahl, who's done pretty good films before. But for some reason, they weren't bringing their best to this biopic about the Irish politician Parnell. For brilliant actors, both Gable and Loy are uninvested, and their chemistry is unconvincing. If something like that's going to happen, it would have to come down to the direction of Stahl. He had no idea how to properly interpret this real-life story, which got padded down by too much fluff, inaccuracy, and a running time that leaves you bored out of your mind. And whoever did the makeup job on Gable should've been fired. Yeah, there's some cinematic intergrity to be found here, but for the most part, it was an off day for the talented people at the forefront of this movie. Eh, it happens.

Score: 27/100

Columbus is written and directed by Kogonada, and it stars John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson. In this movie, Jin (Cho) is a Korean-born man that has to travel to Columbus, Indiana after his father went into a coma. During his time there, he meets a young American woman named Casey (Richardson), and they both form a connection.

You want to talk about a disappointment? After seeing its Tomatometer score at 97%, and then reading the reviews that called it one of the best movies of 2017, I took that as a positive sign. And yesterday, I saw a Facebook post of someone really raving about it. So I commented on it, saying "I'll be watching that tomorrow". I wanted to believe that guy's word on it, and I really had high hopes for this movie. So as you can see where this is going, I just never felt connected with the majority of Columbus. And it's a shame, because it just got added on Hulu, which meant that I didn't have to spend $5 on an iTunes rental. I don't know what happened, you guys. It just didn't click with me like I was hoping it would. It's not like it was a terrible film. The actors are very strong, and I really liked the choices on the directing and cinematography. I think the pace of the story was moving too slow for me, and it wasn't catching my attention consistently. I literally had to pause the movie about 8 or 9 times, because I had other things I was thinking about or doing that this couldn't pull me away from. And it's not like the story or screen writing was bad. It just lacked that element of engagement that I wanted to feel.

I want my indie romance films to connect with me and make me care about the characters and what they're going through. It was like they were missing that part, at least in my opinion. It's not a bad film, but it was a disappointing one that I really wanted to like more than I do.

Eh, it happens.

Score: 49/100

Recommendation: Any fans of indie romance films will have better luck with the story than I did.

Now when it comes to Christmas movies, the normal viewer will likely watch a theatrical release from years ago that are either classics or contemporary hits or even a current Christmas movie that's out and receiving a lot of buzz. They may also be likely to watch a classic Christmas special that you grew up on because it gets you into the best holiday spirit. And then, more often than not, they may be likely to watch original made-for-television Christmas movies that are too sanitized to have any substance to it, especially considering the channels that air these Christmas movies (in this case, Hallmark and Lifetime instantly come to mind). When you look at the posters, the previews, and even the synopsis for A Christmas Prince, you're quick to assume that it falls into that category. And while you're right, you're also quick to assume that it's from Hallmark Channel, Lifetime, or Freeform's 25 Days of Christmas lineup. But it's not. This is a Netflix original starring Rose McIver (iZombie) as Amber, a reporter from New York who gets called on an assignment to do a cover story on Richard, an Aldovian prince preparing to take the throne after his father's passing. Upon arrival, she finds herself in a forced position to keep her mission a secret once she gets mistaken as a tutor for his disabled sister, Emily.

I don't really watch these made-for-television Christmas movies in this kind of vein, but I've noticed my family watch enough of these around this time of year to understand the formula. And when I watched this movie, my expectations were mostly met. It's one of the most basic sanitized contemporary made-for-television movies that lie on the romance/comedy/Christmas spectrum, despite the fact that this one doesn't have a lot to do with the Christmas holiday. It's just a Christmas movie by default, because it takes place during that holiday. It pretty much lacks the excitement, and most of the focus is on Amber's mission and eventual relationship with Prince Richard.

Now, what does work for this movie is some of the acting. I like Rose McIver as an actress, and her performance here is mostly solid. Another pleasant surprise was the performance of Honor Kneafsey as Emily. She puts up a wall between her and Amber at first, but she quickly opens up and becomes her partner while Amber's in Aldovia. I liked seeing her character open up and allow me to learn more about herself. We don't get a lot of her character throughout most of the movie, but when we do see her, she steals the scene. This movie also did good with introducing most of the twists and turns. We eventually see Amber learn that Prince Richard has a secret of his own that could compromise his ability to become the King of Aldovia, even though he hints that he may not be 100% ready to have all that responsibility in his heart.

I feel like I need to sound off on what worked against the movie, but in all honesty, it's too basic of a made-for-television romantic-comedy styled Christmas movie to really have a major flaw. As such, A Christmas Prince is a decent holiday flick. It doesn't do too much in its favor, but it doesn't do too much against it as well. It's formulaic, but it at least follows the formula.

Score: 57/100

Recommendation: If you're curious enough to find something Christmas-themed Netflix title other than a fireplace on an endless loop.

Brilliant shark movies are rare to come across nowadays. The first Jaws set the bar for this sub- genre (and perhaps the summer blockbuster, for that matter), but you can say that its legacy was somewhat tarnished by the sequels, especially the last two. Infamous schlock films like Shark Attack 3: Megalodon and Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus proved to be insultingly terrible. And even though contemporary movies like Sharknado and Deep Blue Sea are too unintentionally hilarious for us to hate, you have to admit that the shark movie sub-genre is ripe for a good representation during these times. Enter The Shallows, which was directed by Jaume Collet-Serra. In this film, Nancy (Blake Lively) goes on a surfing vacation to an island that is secluded, but has a significant memory tied to her late mother. As she catches a late wave, she gets attacked by a shark and left stranded on a rock in the middle of the ocean. Nancy has to use only her smarts and skills to find a way back to shore. The Shallows isn't just an excuse to show off lead actress Blake Lively in a bikini. It's a female-centered version of All Is Lost, the 2013 solo sea-survival movie featuring Robert Redford. While Blake Lively isn't the lone acting talent in the movie, she uses the solo time she has to command the screen with a passionate, intelligent performance, along with a small amount of help from a seagull called Steven Seagull (think of it as her own version of Cast Away's Wilson). In a role where she finally gets to shine, Blake gets to kick the ocean's butt and look pretty good doing it. It also helps that the film itself looks pretty good as well. The cinematography's vividly and colorfully alive, the digital effects puts the electronic devices to good use, displaying the surface screens of the cell phone apps and the stopwatch as pop-up projections, the action scenes come packed with intensity, and the script keeps a short, yet simple story going without any drifting. At a running time of 86 minutes, The Shallows is slim, trim, and to the point, resulting in possibly the best shark movie in over 40 years.

Score: 84/100

Ordinary World stars Billie Joe Armstrong as a middle-aged divorced father approaching his 40th birthday and yearning for his early days as a punk rocker. It wasn't just the premise that drew me to this movie. It was also the fact that it was being played out by an actor whose day job is a punk rocker. And not just any punk rocker. Billie Joe Armstrong is the lead singer of the famous punk rock trio Green Day, which formed back in 1986 and broke into the music scene in 1994 with the album Dookie. I've been a Green Day fan since they put out "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)", and I've grown up listening to Dookie, American Idiot, and 21st Century Breakdown, which are some of my favorite albums ever. This year, Green Day has put out an album titled Revolution Radio, and it includes a track called "Ordinary World", which this movie not only features on the soundtrack, but also got named after. While "Ordinary World" is the best track off of Revolution Radio, this movie isn't quite on the same par as that song of the same name. It is a pretty solid movie, though. It's a nice, meaningful middle-aged story that comes from director Lee Kirk, but fits Billie Joe's perspective quite well. And although the story doesn't have a clear mission that our main character goes on, it's easy to understand what it's aiming for. Also, while Billie Joe Armstrong doesn't have a lot of acting experience, he does give a quite convincing performance. Putting into consideration the time he went to rehab during the band's 2012 trio release era that was as unstable and disastrous as the ¡Uno!, ¡Dos!, and ¡Tré! albums themselves, you can understand his character's thinking and feeling, and it definitely relates to his own life. It may not be a perfect film (not that it was trying to be one), but Ordinary World is a pleasantly harmless movie that serves as a good side-project from a famous punk rocker.

Score: 68/100

Recommendation: Any fans of Green Day

Over a year and a half ago, I reviewed a Bruce Willis movie called Vice. Okay, it was less of a review and more of an annihilation. I not only said that it was the worst film of 2015, which earned that distinction in only the third week of the year, but I also called it the worst film of the 2010s thus far. I also said that it would be impossible for anyone to take that title of "the worst film of 2015" away from it. While no movie did that, despite Fantastic Four's valiant effort, at the end of the year, another Bruce Willis movie came out in the action thriller genre that also got a VOD release called Extraction. If you read my Vice review, one of my most mind-boggling discoveries that I brought up was how that movie had a 0% Tomatometer score and a 0% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of its release. Well, I am blown away by the fact that this ALSO got a 0% Tomatometer score on Rotten Tomatoes. And while Vice's Tomatometer score had gone up to 4% in the months that followed, this movie's Tomatometer score actually held up at the time that I'm giving it its own review.

Now, in my opinion, this is a better movie than Vice. But that's the only good news I have, because it's another Bruce Willis movie in the action thriller genre that only got a VOD release playing to the top-name actor's pedestrian-level abilities. I wish it were easy to leave it at that, but really, even this autopilot action thriller has a lot of baffling moments. From the dialogue to the acting, to the terrible effects, to the "Bingo"-level editing job, to the sexist behavior, to quite possibly one of the worst twists in film history, it's quite bizarre. And even by the standards of the action thriller formula, or even the Bruce Willis formula, it's quite unpleasant.

Score: 8/100

Recommendation: None

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation not only stands as one of the best Christmas movie staples around the holiday season, it's one of my all-time favorite movies. This is the third entry in the National Lampoon's Vacation franchise, and it follows the Griswold family setting up their house for the arrival of their relatives. Along the way, Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) encounters a few situations that hilariously go wrong. The comedy is inventively funny, as it takes some of the recurring jokes in the Vacation movies and refreshes them for the holiday theme. The acting talent is brilliant. Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Randy Quaid, and Miriam Flynn all reprise their roles from the previous Vacation movies, Cape Fear's Juliette Lewis and The Big Bang Theory's Johnny Galecki step into the roles of Audrey and Rusty this time around, and there are supporting performances from Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Brian Doyle-Murray, Doris Roberts, and Mae Questel. Each performer does great in their roles, especially Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie, who steals most of the scenes. And the writing is incredible, as it balances out the comedy with moments of Clark trying to realize the true meaning of Christmas. Christmas Vacation is one of 5 sequels in the National Lampoon's Vacation franchise, and it's easily the best one. It may not eclipse the first Vacation movie, but with its holiday theme, it stands on its own. It's a timeless classic that continues to hold up today, and it has managed to stand as one of the best Christmas movies, as well as one of the funniest movies of all-time.

Score: 99/100

Recommendation: The highest of recommendations

It's Spring Training, Charlie Brown is another Peanuts special centered around baseball, as Charlie Brown and his team start up spring training in preparation for their first game of the new season. Even though it was produced in 1992 and was set to air on May 28th of that year on CBS, the network canceled the airing and became the first Peanuts special to not air on prime time. And 23 years later, you can see why. This special, which eventually got released it on video by Paramount in 1996 alongside Charlie Brown's All-Stars, doesn't have the animation or writing as strong as it was 30 years earlier. But the biggest thing that drags it down is the music. Unlike previous specials, which followed present-day setting, but always maintained the feel of the 50's and 60's (partially thanks to the Vince Guaraldi trio score), It's Spring Training, Charlie Brown is put off by a score completely drenched in the 90's. The composer for this special was Judy Munsen, and most of her composition contains electronic backgrounds that make it sound like a bad 90's Saturday morning cartoon. I understand that it is an animated special that came out in the 90's, but we're talking about a Peanuts special. It doesn't fit the overall tone at all, and given that it was on the shelf for 4 years, it sounds dated. But then, the music goes from bad to laughably bad. At the first game, the gang performs the Hokey Pokey (they can't afford the National Anthem?), and then Franklin comes in and inserts a rap song.

A RAP SONG! NO, REALLY! I'M DEAD SERIOUS!

I was laughing the entire time, just thinking about what it's all come to. Rap music exists in the Peanuts canon! It's hilariously dated like many other corny rap songs from the 90's. This performance is on par with Vanilla Ice's rap in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II.

So you can say that It's Spring Training, Charlie Brown feels like a typical 90's cartoon, in terms of animation, writing and scoring. And you may think I'm crazy, but it is worth a watch. The story and message still feels like a Peanuts cartoon, as the gang learns that they need to be motivated to achieve a goal, and they are able to finally win a game and earn jerseys. There are still comedic moments, both unintentionally and intentionally. And you definitely need to watch for the baseball rap. It's one of those things you need to see to believe.

Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown was the third feature film that starred the Peanuts gang. In this one, the gang goes off to summer camp, where they instantly run into trouble with a trio of ruthless bullies that continuously dominate the camp competitions with the dirtiest tricks in the book. As you may have guessed, the gang gets their rears handed to them early, and it all comes down to a river race that is the basis for the entire plot.

The first problem in the movie is that the bullies are written as the biggest one- dimensional tools on Earth. They have no other character outside the cocky jerks that say the same "We're #1!" trash talk in all their dialogue. I should also mention that they have no name for their gang. They don't even have names for themselves. Each bully character is literally credited as "Bully". That's how big of one-dimensional antagonists that we're dealing with. Another thing that bugged me in the writing was the girls. They form a democracy and take votes on everything. I understand that the Peanuts franchise has emphasized feminism several times with its characters and story lines, and this movie is trying to show that girls can be independent. But this democracy stuff?????? One of their votes was to decide on letting the girls stay inside the cabin for the night or having the boys sleep outside the cabin, which they found first on their own, and they don't even let the boys vote. That is something I'd expect Republicans to do.

So the writing is not as strong as the Peanuts' best work, based on those two things, as well as the repetition in dialogue and editing. But the rest of the stuff in there does hold up from my memories of seeing it as a kid. It still has a lot of plot structure, clever comedy, entertaining moments, neat animation, and valuable lessons that the Peanuts franchise is always best at.

With only one day until The Peanuts Movie comes out, I'm writing about the first big- screen adventure the Peanuts gang took for today's review: the 1969 animated feature, A Boy Named Charlie Brown. This is where the unfortunate characteristics of our hopeless protagonist, Charlie Brown, are on full display. The beginning features every unlucky situation he's ever used to. He can't fly a kite, he can't win a baseball game, and he can't kick a football. The one person that loves to mock him of his shortcomings, Lucy Van Pelt, suggests that he not necessary suffers from a lack of luck, but rather from a lack of confidence. Taking her advice into consideration, he ends up winning a class spelling bee, and the next thing he knows, he's traveling to New York to compete in a national spelling bee. The wonderful thing about Charlie Brown is that he resembles a lot of hopeless people with a lack of confidence out there, and I've definitely been in these similar situations many times. This makes A Boy Named Charlie Brown that more special, because on top of its colorful animation, funny writing, original sound effects, and charming soundtrack, its story aims to make our hero relatable to as many of us as possible and provide a little hope for us in the most downer situations.

Like the Charlie Brown Christmas special one year earlier, this special also centers itself around a national holiday. This time, it's Halloween. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown is one of my favorite TV specials ever, because it's a lot more comedic. You know how during some holidays, adults pass on to kids stories about these imaginary characters that give gifts to good kids (like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny), and they make them believe that those imaginary characters actually exist? Have your parents made you believe that there's a Great Pumpkin that gives toys to good kids every Halloween? No, they never did that. No one does that. That's not how Halloween works for kids. Every Halloween, kids dress themselves up in costumes, go around the neighborhood, and receive candy from their neighbors. Linus, on the other hand, made himself believe that there's a Great Pumpkin that gives toys to good kids every Halloween. So this special features him waiting out in a pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin. That's the thing that makes this a great special, because it sets him up for the hilarious outcome when the Great Pumpkin never appears. In the Peanuts universe, Halloween is the only day of the year where one of the kids is a bigger fool than Charlie Brown. And all he got is rocks.

This one is a lot more centered around young piano prodigy, Schroeder. He spends a lot of time playing in the style of Beethoven, which attracts a few of his friends, especially Lucy. Since Schroeder has never returned the same feelings she has for him, Lucy tries to win him over by having him play at the PTA meeting. The catch is, he has to perform rock music in a band with Charlie Brown, Pigpen and Snoopy. Though the Peanuts rarely make pop culture references, this special has some clever commentary about musicians selling out in order to achieve wide recognition, and Schroeder decides to stick to his guns in the end. It's a lesson that still feels relevant with today's music industry.

Score: 76/100

As much as I don't agree with all of director James Cameron's ideologies, I do respect him as a filmmaker and a storyteller. For better evidence, I looked into his grand epic, Avatar. Released in 2009, it brought innovative visions in CGI, motion capture, and 3D. With a total of $760 million in the US, and over $2 billion worldwide, Avatar sits on top as the highest-grossing movie of all-time. Interestingly enough, the last movie to hold that honor was James Cameron's last prior release, Titanic.

A lot of movies come with the 3-act structure. With a running time of 2 hours and 41 minutes, I assessed the plot of Avatar by dividing it into 4 even quarters. The first quarter is where Jake Sully becomes an operator of a Na'vi-human hybrid, or an avatar, as part of the Avatar Program over at an RDA camp on Pandora. Jake enters his avatar form by going to sleep. It's slow-moving at first, but as Jake's avatar stumbles upon a tribe of Na'vi, the second quarter kicks off. At that point, the plot begins to build up as we are introduced to this unique species that it centers around. Jake and his crew begin to delve further into the Na'vi, as his avatar becomes one of them and even gets initiated into the tribe. Here, we see how the Na'vi live, survive, and act. It even leaves an impact on Jake as he resists Colonel Miles Quaritch's orders to make the Na'vi abandon their home. The third quarter kicks off when Quaritch leads an attack on the Na'vi and their home. This is where the conflict comes in to interfere with our characters and the Na'vi's trust with Jake is tested. Finally, the fourth quarter is where the battle between the Na'vi and the RDA takes place and brings our movie to an exciting climax and eventual resolution.

Together, these four quarters present an engaging story that builds up at every moment. Avatar finds James Cameron changing the game of filmmaking. It justifies his place as one of the best in original storytelling, as he invents a new species, a new location, a new language, and basically, a new culture. It's not only original in storytelling, but also in visual effects and cinematography. Avatar tells a story about a new world, and it tells us how James Cameron became the king of the world, twice.

Score: 92/100

Recommendation: Anyone

The mid-2000s are known for two things: movies that were terrible and sequels to movies starring Jim Carrey, but didn't really bring Jim Carrey back. In the second Jim Carrey-less sequel to be screened in theaters during the 2000s, Son of the Mask, which came out 11 years after The Mask, passes the disguise with sinister powers over to Jamie Kennedy. After using the mask for a Halloween party, he keeps it on as he makes love to his wife. As a result, she gives birth to a son who carries the powers of the Mask. So on top of the crummy writing, terrible acting, weird production design, and unflattering cinematography, it also contains the most horrific and rotten CGI effects ever put to film. Son of the Mask is the sorriest excuse for a Jim Carrey-less sequel. At least Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd was a prequel set in their high school years, and at least it had a redeemable factor in the form of an explicit Bob Saget rant. This movie doesn't have anything salvageable at all. The overall lesson is to always practice safe sex. Even an cartoonish alternate personality can get you pregnant.

Score: 1/100

Recommendation: None

Back in the seventh grade, I had to read a book for class called "The Giver". I wasn't that interested in the book when I first read it, but that was because I never got excited. I felt a little bored by the story and failed to interpret it. Last year, I had to read it again for a college class, which was on young adult novels. When I read it again, I really appreciated the book a lot more at age 23 than I did at age 13. It's a shame because the story aims at that kid-teen transition period that my class was going through back then and did a great job at selling that coming-of-age message, and now, I have to defend the book against this heinous film adaptation. I don't want to go into too much detail on what it got wrong, but what tipped me off the most was the character, Jonas. In the book, he's a 12-year old. Here, he's 16 YEARS OLD! Even more flabbergasting is that the actor playing him is in his MID- TWENTIES! That's way past the description of Jonas given in the book. I'm only going to mention that part, but trust me, the movie didn't stop there. This YA- adaptation tries to cater to the high-school audiences waiting for the next Hunger Games and Divergent sequels. Instead, it spits on the actual coming-of-age morals displayed in the source material.

Pinocchio is one of the most iconic fairy tale characters of all time. He debuted in the 1883 children's novel, The Adventures of Pinocchio, written by Italian writer Carlo Collodi. The Adventures of Pinocchio has been adapted many times over the past 132 years. One of the most beloved adaptations came from Disney's 1940 animated classic, Pinocchio. It is a timeless movie that has been passed down to every generation. There was no need for anyone to top that adaptation in film.

Unfortunately, in the source material's country of origin, one filmmaker wanted to make a movie on Pinocchio from an Italian's perspective. To do a remake of a movie that was made in America, but was based on a story from your country, is okay to do. Just keep it in your country. Roberto Benigni's Pinocchio didn't. Released in 2002, Pinocchio was the most disastrous adaptation to ever come to the United States. It got slaughtered by everyone, it only made $3 million in the box office, and it received 6 Razzie nominations. Where do I begin explaining this atrocity?

Let's start with the director himself, Roberto Benigni, who also plays the title character. Roberto Benigni grew up on the talents of Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Peter Sellers, and he became recognized as an improvisational actor who eventually developed a career in directing. Now, he was never a bad talent. He was in great Jim Jarmusch movies like Down by Law and Night on Earth, and his turn at acting/directing/writing in the Oscar-winning 1997 movie, Life Is Beautiful, showed he was capable of doing a movie right. In Pinocchio, Roberto does everything wrong. Not just the movie, but also the representation of the source material.

Here, we have a FIFTY-YEAR OLD Roberto Benigni playing a boy character! The thought of it doesn't even work. As he tries to take on this iconic character, he forgets that his age difference isn't going to make anyone take this performance seriously. Sure, some adults have gotten away with playing younger fairy tale characters. But Pinocchio is a BOY, and a BOY is in the range of 2 to 12 years old! Even worse, he isn't even made to look like a wooden puppet. He's already looking like someone in human form. It's like having a cat play Lassie or the Tin Man dressed up in rubber. This kind of costume and makeup design is something you can only get away with in middle school plays. Even worse, his acting here is way too childish and clownish. It resembles some of Robin Williams, Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, and Adam Sandler's worst performances ever. Sure, it's a children's movie, but for an Oscar-winner in the Best Actor category, Roberto should've known better.

But Pinocchio isn't the only character this movie got wrong. The talking characters in the story, like the Fox, the Cat, and the Talking Cricket, don't even look like a Fox, a Cat, or a Cricket. The actors are all in human form! There was no attempt to give them any costumes to make them look like animals. They could've done CGI characters, but they didn't. Even the hideous, squeaking mice in the opening scene were CGI. It's not that hard.

Now, the production and story are no better off. One of the film's first scenes has a log bouncing around the village and causing chaos in the style of unfunny slapstick. The cops even take action and try to arrest the log. IT'S A LOG! YOU CAN'T ARREST A LOG! The next thing I'm going to point out is when Pinocchio ditches school, he goes to a play and joins in with other performing "wooden puppets". They get trapped by puppet master Mangiafuoco after the play, and he's huge. Like Gulliver's Travels huge. Pinocchio is seen around the village in normal size and height like the other villagers, but he only appears small in front of Mangiafuoco. That's another disadvantage of having an adult play Pinocchio. The sizes of the puppets are so inconsistent, that you can tell when they're using a green screen effect.

And if you listen closely and observe the screen, the dialogue doesn't match up with the actors' lip movement. That brings us to the movie's biggest problem: it was filmed in Italian, but here, it's all dubbed in English! You do not do that for a foreign movie playing in American cinemas! BUT THEY DO IT EVEN WORSE ON PINOCCHIO! Seriously, this is the worst dubbing ever done for a movie. The movie's US distributor, Miramax, admitted that they needed to do post- production looping to insert the English dub for the US release. Why? Did they know that just the sight of an adult playing Pinocchio was going to fail? This only adds onto the problem. You a FIFTY-YEAR OLD Roberto Benigni playing Pinocchio and SOUNDING LIKE THE STONER FROM CLUELESS! You have a Talking Cricket not looking like a cricket and SOUNDING LIKE A MEMBER OF MONTY PYTHON! You have the Fox and the Cat not looking like a Fox or a Cat and SOUNDING LIKE COMEDIANS OF OTHER ETHNICITIES!

I wish I could elaborate more on every other problem, but I made my point clear. This is the worst adaptation of The Adventures of Pinocchio or any other children's fairy tale book in general. I'm sure Italy was looking to do a remake of a movie based on a story from their country. Heck, I come from an Italian heritage, but I never would've trusted the actor that killed the Pink Panther franchise with a wooden project that deserves to be turned into paper.

Score: 0/100

Recommendation: None. I'd even recommend Jonathan Taylor Thomas's performance in 1996's The Adventures of Pinocchio before this movie.

Nicolas Cage is pretty much the master of insane acting. Yet, with Vampire's Kiss, this is the movie that makes you want to ask him, "What is your major malfunction?" His character supposedly gets bitten by a vampire, and he begins to believe he's becoming one. We almost buy into it until he's taking a shower in one scene, he invites a vampire in, and we see no one else other than Cage. It becomes evident that Nicolas Cage is a complete moron. He basically spends the entire movie acting silly, screaming like a maniac, and abusing his secretary. The writing doesn't make matters better. There's no explanation what he's suffering from, why he thinks he was bitten by a vampire, or if he was even bitten by anything at all. This movie is nothing but nonsense.

Score: 53/100

Recommendation: As stupid as it is, this movie does get a recommendation, considering it justifies Cage's reputation of acting like a lunatic.

Class is another one of those 80's sex comedies you've seen already during that era. For the most part, they have more focus on the sex than the comedy, and this movie's no different. What saves it, though, is that they're putting more time and effort into the comedy scenes with slapstick writing that plays out like a domino effect. The execution in those scenes also benefits from the fresh performances of upcoming actors that went on to become key heartthrobs in the biggest teen movies from the 80's, such as Rob Lowe and Andrew McCarthy (St. Elmo's Fire), as well as Alan Ruck (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) and John Cusack (Say Anything). There are even some deep moments too, which touch on maturing into adulthood and building trust within male friendships, especially when McCarthy's character has a sexual relationship with Lowe's mom. Does Class have any class? Not a lot, but with a clever narrative and solid performances, it's worthy of consideration.

As a movie fan throughout my entire life, I can definitely tell you that the only movie to ever make me cry was Edward Scissorhands. Now it didn't make me cry last night, but when I watched it for the first time 10 years ago, it did. I don't know how, but apparently, the romance between Edward and Kim got to me. I can't hate them for it. The story itself is beautiful, heartwarming, and really moving. Edward Scissorhands is a Johnny Depp character at its finest. Even with his sharp touch, he's absolutely harmless. Every time you see Edward Scissorhands, you feel for him. This movie also benefits from the style of the cinematography and the production design, which perfectly blends in with the odd story to convey that emotion. Director Tim Burton and Johnny Depp would go on to collaborate on more movies ever since, but Edward Scissorhands remains as a masterpiece for both of them.

Score: 99/100

Recommendation: Anyone

Can a movie-musical feel so compelling and so complicated at the same time? It can when it features Anna Kendrick. Based off a musical written by Jason Robert Brown, The Last Five Years tells the story of a five-year relationship of Jamie Wellerstein (Jeremy Jordan) and Cathy Hiatt (Kendrick). Both sides of the story are told, with Cathy's going from end to beginning and Jamie's going from beginning to end. The movie's script is nearly filled up with songs, and only few breaks for dialogue take place. Sometimes, the songs are extremely corny and redundant, but they do fit into the story. The main thing about this film is that it feels more like a musical than a movie, which can be its biggest downside. However, there have been musical adaptations that got away with that method before, and this use long tracking shots to make it all fair game. The best way to appreciate this film is to have seen a prior production of The Last Five Years or to have seen your fair share of good movie-musicals already. If not, then you'll probably have a hard time watching this movie. However, Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan are a perfect combination to have sell this movie, and with the compelling approaches that The Last Five Years takes, it's a movie-musical that does justice to the source material.

Score: 84/100

Recommendation: Movie-musical buffs and fans of Anna Kendrick.

If the 1990s have taught us anything, it's that basketball players can't act. Michael Jordan bombed with critics in Space Jam, and Shaquille O'Neal flopped in Kazzam and Steel. But nowhere is this theory supported majorly than in Simon Sez.

This is an action comedy that serves as the second major acting credit for former Chicago Bulls player Dennis Rodman. His prior appearance was in 1997's Double Team, alongside Jean-Claude Van Damme. For a terrible action flick, it did get points for a climactic coliseum showdown, complete with Coca-Cola product placements. You're better off watching that again than this movie, in which an Interpol agent named Simon (Rodman) is given an assignment to rescue a close friend's daughter, Claire Fence (Natalia Cigliuti). Assisting him in his quest are two cyber monks and his sidekick Nick Miranda (Dane Cook).

Dennis Rodman's acting is just like what we've seen from him in Double Team. In other words, it's another acting attempt by an NBA superstar. To his credit, though, he's actually the best actor in this movie. Now, it's not signaling a good performance, but it's a huge compliment in comparison to his co-star, Dane Cook. With Simon Sez as the second movie he's ever done, Dane Cook is best known as a stand-up comedian who's had more acting credits than his co-stars overall. Now, he's way better as a stand-up comedian than he is an actor. He did have some good movies like Horton Hears a Who and Dan in Real Life. However, he is totally obnoxious in this movie. His idiotic comic relief character even makes Dennis Rodman look like Marlon Brando. There are more terrible comedy acting where that came from. There's also Micro (John Pinette) and Macro (Ricky Harris) as the two cyber monks, which is actually defined in Webster's as "unfunny computer nerds that spend too much time playing Dungeons & Dragons in their mom's basement". These comedic characters are all written in the most unnatural way possible. They're not just bad. They're annoyingly bad.

This is an action comedy that heavily borrows from better films like 48 Hours, Beverly Hills Cop and Rush Hour, except in an agent theme. It also tries to come off as an action film when it completely feels like a comedy film. And when the plot and action kicks in, the movie suddenly goes on autopilot. They make the storyline and development so uninteresting, that it's not even on the same level as the awfulness in the first act. Although, you probably stopped caring about this movie after you're introduced to Cook, Pinette and Harris.

In terms of action comedy, Simon Sez is sterile and boring as an action flick and even worse as a comedy. Dennis Rodman gives a better acting performance than he does in Double Team. Yet overall, Simon Sez is not only the worst movie to star an NBA player, but it's also bar none the worst movie to come out of the 1990s.

Score: 0/100

Recommendation: None

Stephen King has had more books receive film adaptations than any other author. While several of these film adaptations were very good, Stephen King is a fan of very few of them. So to determine whether or not he should never allow another film adaptation, he decided to direct a film based on one of his own stories. Maximum Overdrive is based on a short story titled Trucks, featured in his short story collection, Night Shift. In the trailer, he said that he wanted to see someone do Stephen King right. Several years later, he confessed that it was a "moron film". Should Stephen King be that ashamed of directing this movie? Not necessary. Sure, it's complicated, it's twisted, and none of these supernatural trucks are explained very well. And sure, Stephen King probably has more to hate about this film than having to play the guy who gets called an a-hole by an ATM machine. Yet, with its intriguing characters, oddly interesting activity from the trucks, and electrifying soundtrack, Maximum Overdrive serves as dumb, over-the-top fun if you choose not to take it too seriously.

Score: 47/100

Recommendation: Fans of Stephen King and the movie's soundtrack composer AC/DC