Reviews

I had to watch this movie two times before I could give a solid opinion and rating.

I am surprised Emma Stone accepted the character. She is still so beautiful and one of the best in Hollywood. However, I got irritated with the script. The advertising was right. The cinematography and picture quality was dark and AMAZING.

I would never complain about Emma, but you can only take so much nudity in a film before it crosses the line of Pornography or just plain gratuitous. There was a lot of unnecessary sex scenes that went on for many minutes.

The part that I, and probably other critics, found the most disturbing was that Emma's character's persona is that of a four-year old girl. This means the many times she was taken advantage of, and by one man that was even aware of this conundrum of her having a grown body, but infant brain. This technically would qualify as openly sexually abusing an infant and/or taking advantage of the mentally inept. That was the problem with the film. Once the storyline fell into her discovering her sexual sensations, it fell down a spiral of frowned upon sexual appetites. Some of these appetites consisted of the presence of minor children. To be fair, the film DID NOT feature the children in the same frames as the sexual intercourse; but gives the viewer a sense of sick sexual pedophilia fetishes.

The film is an acquired taste. You have to be accepting of different views than American society's morals. A lot will not like this film and think it is derogatory.

Emma Stones acting is superb, as always. Willem Dafoe's genuine, as always. The movie is middle of the road and hard to rate.

Did I like it: 50/50.

A short phrase to describe this movie would be' "dark prophetic catholic horror." It's just that. The cinematography kept the atmosphere a dark aura in a lingering dreamy-like state. This is a horror movie, not a thriller. I think some critics seem to confuse this as them being one and the same, and they are not.

Honestly, I am a sucker for Catholicism/horror. I think the films atmosphere, the characters, and setting all combined to make this one of the best in the category. In most of these types of horror (revolving around Catholicism) the characters, actors, and script usually are all over-the-top, making them eye-rollers. This one actually played out well and was actually believable, without the feeling of it popping out of some kind of comic. The main villain (satanist) was very believable. Again, not over the top and just tense enough to be bat#**% crazy, and not stupid. He was the perfect sociopath. He played his character very well, as did all the actors.

I really liked the dark atmosphere the movie kept consistent with. It really added to a prophetical plot quite nicely.

There is a lot of graphic killings, which is to be expected of horror films. I would recommend this movie over most catholic related horror movies. Just keep in mind, it is NOT a thriller. I would even recommend it to some Catholics. A real Catholic does not fear the devil; unless you're one of those family-friendly, everything is goody type people. Then I would not recommend this film.

With all my opinions out there I thought this movie would at least be above a (5). Broaden your horizons and let a different type of story be told and I'm sure you'll agree with me.

In my opinion, the story wasn't very solid and I got the impression that the blonde girl may have been in hell while dealing with legion (maybe).

The characters back stories were nonexistent and came about in random "tidbits," providing no explanation to a lot of why the characters were they way they were. This made it nearly impossible to care for any of them at all.

I get the sense that the film had major budget restraints and they grabbed some decent looking women to run around with their boobs out in order to keep the "male" attention span. Lots of shirtless women; very little story. I do not like that about movies. Sure, who doesn't like seeing naked women? However, I want to watch a FILM, not a porn!

I have it a moderate rating for the decent acting for what they had to work with.

5/10.

Look. I have respect for Warwick Davis, he's a great actor. However, this is too much.

This does have a point: I was sitting in the waiting room at a clinic for my brief time in Florida, when I picked up a magazine that interviewed Jennifer Aniston about her part in the first Leprechaun. She said she couldn't believe she did it, and that she didn't know how he was able to even turn the series into a franchise.

My take is that the very first one was also dumb, but it was something NEW and dumb, making it kind of a fun take.

When ridiculous horror/comedies get this far (part 6), they usually suffer identical fate, which would be a good story or lack there of, or originality. I know it is supposed to be fun and not take too seriously. However, how long before it just isn't funny anymore? If you seen the first one, watching this would be the equivalent of an adult laughing hysterically at Nickelodeon fart jokes for eight year olds.

Each one has an attempt at a different legacy of the leprechaun, and makes a really poor attempt at dark ages banter. In the movie it said that the leprechauns predated Christianity. Well, if they came about to protect some king's treasure during the dark ages by "earth magic," then how does it predate Christianity? The Dark Ages were NOT before Christianity. This is just one of the poor attributes to this incompetent story.

Again, I know it's a movie you're not supposed to take seriously, but it's hard to see through the "stupid."

If you want to watch a movie in this series, watch the first one. If you're just looking for a quirky movie, I recommend that you watch something different.

2/10.

I was fooled about half-way through the film, and a bit confused. Without giving away the movie, the "parents" of this young boy have a captive and just decide to live with the individual as if nothing was the matter? I found this to be quite ridiculous. Furthermore, how did this boy even sleep at all as a child with this captive whispering to him, and the reality of the concept that the parents telling this child it is his imagination when he started hearing sounds in the walls would've only worked for a day, maybe two. These aspects of the film are way overlooked and over the top scenarios.

Later you will find out who this captive is, it tends to be an eye-roller. The entire story and overall concept seem to be quite lackluster and dull, deprived of any effort.

There was nothing wrong with the cast's overall performance. It wasn't Oscar movie acting, but it wasn't bad either. The camera work and scenes were done very well too. The whole problem was the unrealistic scenarios within the story, which made nothing in it plausible.

This review maybe quite stiff and blunt, but there was just something about this story that just didn't work for me at all.

5/10.

This game is a really good game. It is designed for people who love a friendly (classic) Mario challenge leveled with a good story and easy gameplay. It is definitely a game a person can relax to and avoid the nerd rage from anger because the game is so difficult. The game is designed to adapt to all types of gamers. I love this game and I am a Dark Souls advocate and have completed every title in that series. The gameplay in Luigi's Mansion is just that enjoyable.

I love the animations in this title. Everything is amazing in appearance, adapting a cartoon/family-friendly warmth. It will definitely ignite your Nintendo spirit. There's no doubt that this is a successful addition to the franchise. I find myself able to relax and enjoy the game. It is a game where you don't have to think too much into, yet provides an adequate amount of entertainment, keeping you indulged.

I rate Luigi's Mansion an 8/10. It is a great game.

This is a great movie. However, all of the key points in the story were clearly inspired/taken from a Sony PlayStation Mega Hit: The Last of Us.

Everything from the development of the story, to identical characteristics, were a collective of the video games character buildup. Even the entities (avoiding spoilers) were mirrored from the video game, as well as the back story.

The acting is good, and the park ranger lady is gorgeous. If the story had been a little more creative and had some originality to it, I would've given the film an eight (8). The film isn't overly dramatic or over the top at all. It finds a happy medium, and gives a good story. This is a drama horror in my opinion. The effects of the film are also descent.

I would've rated it higher because of the performance of the actors/actress, but I didn't due to the unoriginality of the script and storyline. Well executed, tact thievery.

6/10.

The movie is a great concept of the hidden concept of cloning, it's dark conspiracy, and what is can do in the hands of psychopath wealthy people utilizing hallucinogens. It delves into the minds of ruthless wealthy psychos with access to a cloning technology that is operated by a corrupt government.

The movies concept is like if The Influencer and Hostle had a love child. The movie also has a dark aura to it, which is why Mia Goth is so perfect for the role she plays. Mia Goth is like a dark Goddess of an actress. She is so perfect, sexy, and happily dark. Every film she is in has a dark aura, which is what I noticed most about her. Every movie except for X, that was stupid. Pearl was good though. Even "The Survivor" had darkness blanketing it. I view her as a painting of dark emotion, with a smile. This is all why she fits this role perfectly.

The acting in this movie was quite good, sense 90% (in my opinion) is based on the emotion of fear. I would have to think fear and sadness are the hardest thing for actors or actresses to emotionalize. It was very well done.

The movie leaves you wondering at the end "if that's really him," which I think was it's intentions. The movie throughout is a mixed bag of emotions AND genres. It took me down a path of horror, thriller, crime, and drama. This is unique in itself.

Over all I would recommend the movie, especially if thriller is at the top of your list. 7/10 (changed from 6 after closer analyzing).

There is not a lot that's explained in this movie. Why was there a bunch of fungus everywhere the boogeyman was? Why does the Boogeyman even come to these people, is it because the roomer of it was spread to the father that's a therapist? What purpose does this fungus have? So, so, so many unanswered plot holes.

The acting was good from everyone. There are some characters that needed work, like the father. His acting wasn't horrible, but wasn't the best either.

The only emotions I felt in the movie were sadness, anticipation, and confusion. I really did not want to connect with any of the characters and the "friends" of the eldest daughter just seemed to be a filler for screen progression rather than having any real purpose to the story or development. I could not care about any of them except for maybe a slight bit for the Asian girl, due to her attachment to the eldest daughter.

The story is vague and the script is very monologue. This movie had potential, but did not live up to it all.

It isn't that terrible of a film. It is good for a one and done for a time of a year+.

Midrange 5/10.

A lot of reviews seem to place this movie in a chaotic premise. I did not have trouble at all understanding this film. I am actually shocked that someone actually thought of a new idea, FINALLY! Furthermore, it is a sci-fi comedy, which we don't see a lot of these days.

The movie itself is a lot of fun. It is based on traveling to alternate realities, by doing something that you would never normally do. You could then get gifts from the alternate reality, physical or mental. It was overwhelming at first, but I started to understand about 1/4 through.

It's a fast paced movie, and never gets boring. It strives on everything from utterly ridiculous to serious and tedious short term plots.

You definitely won't get bored with this movie. It's quite intense. I would recommend giving this movie a watch. You'll have a CRAZY fun time.

9/10.

The movie had implemented an all out Mario universe. The games such as most Mario's, especially one, two (floating dress), and three (soundtrack/castle scenes/settings). There was also Mario Kart, Donkey Kong, etc.

The nostalgia factor was very cool. However, it aimed more towards remembrance than a story. The story was very quick and choppy, which feels like for purposes of video game remembrance with visualistic scenes. I found it hard to give half of a s#%^ if Mario succeeded or not.

If you're aiming to get a new child on board with this, they will love the visuals, but will question who Mario or Luigi are. This is like a new release on a cartoon concept. Only a 90s or previous baby will understand this to its fullest extent.

The movie itself isn't bad, it just doesn't meet par in my opinion. A very, very, very small and clueless child may love it. However, for that small of a child there might be some frightening scenes.

A whole entire town of fully grown men who have known what hardwork and sacrifice actually is get taken out by a bunch of ten to twelve year old kids? Are you serious? They don't even retaliate.

Somehow, the lead girl gets all of the adults captured and confined to one area (not spoiling it, but you'll find it's even more ridiculous once you find out how). At some point in the movie the lead child was also evaluated by police. With her mental health, "she's definitely okay to be released back into the public. No problems there." Again, ridiculous.

The lead crazy little girl did do a great job acting. She was by far the best performer they had. She needs to be on an A-list Hollywood roster. All the adult actors really sucked a**. It was cringworthy.

The story was "fumbly" and had too many gaps. So you never really care if these people die or not.

"He who walks" reminded me of that tree thing from GotG. They should've had him form into this giant upper body coming out of the ground - like huge. That would've been much cooler.

Because of the lead child actor, I say meh, I'll put it at midrange. I've seen way worse on an astounding level (survive the movie Ankle Biters. Then you can come back and say this is bad if you still think so).

5/10.

Movie was intriguing and unique. The acting was okay, except for the dude/fiancee. There's an awesome idea behind the story too.

The ONLY reason this movie got a five from me are the "beat a dead horse" worth of annoying stupidity in these types of movies. Without spoiling the film, I'll just say that if you witness a murder and run away from the murderer while have a unanimous lead, please go back to a fully functional vehicle instead of a place to wait for the murderer to come murder you. Is there really people this block headed out there? I swear if someone were to be that dumb, I would leave them behind, I don't care who they are.

That decision made me so agitated with the film. They could've sent it in a totally different direction - but of course not.

If it wasn't for that and a few other dumb decisions in the script I would've easily rated the movie a 7/10. The psycho's acting was really good.

5/10.

This movie was incoherent, and more of a Jerry Springer episode than anything else. It was teens in a desert whose vehicle broke down; how cliche. Then, it becomes a cesspool of what would make a great swinger party. Everyone just starts freckin on each other. There's no back story to any of the characters besides their intimate relationships.

My next complaint was the "thing" that was trying to kill them. What the hell was it. Apparently, it only sees light and glossy red, with a blurry recognition in its center vision. The acting was insanely bad. Whenever that thing would happen to appear, everyone screamed like a version of Barbie in a tryout session, as well as making the dumbest decisions.

The last part of my rant is the bile they called a closing point to the end of this garbage. What was the creature? It just showed some dude petting something on the head at the end. Was it some dog? What the hell? Who was the guy?

This whole movie seemed entirely pointless, and it made me not care about any of the characters. This movie sucks. I usually don't give extremely negative reviews, but it just seemed like there was no effort put into the script at all. No creativity- anything!

3/10 - for the effort of the film crew.

After watching this movie I feel like there's three aspects to the film, which involve three separate situations that join together as one.

Trouble can't stop these soon to be parents as they move from a gang invested cesspool of a neighborhood to the countryside. While there the couple learns about the myth of the Redcaps, which are tiny goblins that inhabit the forest just beyond a brick wall that divides the house from the forest.

Later on in the film the two start to fight for their lives as people rise against them and end up trying to murder them because of a previous death that was a misinterpretation. So the pregnant lady asks for help from the Redcap goblin people. Holy hell were they adorable, as well as creepy.

The ending doesn't make much sense to me at all. I don't even know why what happened did happen. However, this is a movie you don't have to think to much in, and is a good bit of thriller fun. I would give it a watch.

I remember when the Turtles were at their peak. Gas stations sold green ooze inside the Hostess filled pies, the toy merchandise was everywhere, and you couldn't go anywhere without hearing something about it.

If I were to have all the merchandise from when I was a kid, still boxed, I'd be a multimillionaire with no problem. It was the "thing" for kids back then.

I remember Krang's witty comments to Shredder often in the cartoon. "Shredder, you imbecile!" I still laugh at it today. I have the series on Apple TV.

They never really made a good Turtles movie. They always made Shredder the number one villain, and nothing about Krang; except in their lazy attempt in one of the movies where they turned the turtles into urban street thugs. Never once did they include a Technodrome in any of the movies, or a descent Rocksteady or Beebop. All the movies were terrible.

The early 1980s cartoon was a revolution to the eras comeback on cartoons, and made a voice loud enough for the world to recognize it.

I may have jumped to conclusions and reviewed the title too early. I will say however that it starts out eye gouging-like slow and generic. However, after more thorough and longer gameplay, it wasn't as bad as my last review had made it out to be.

Once you do open up the world a bit as you progress through the story, it does become rather enticing and "spacious." I am not used to the base infrastructure used in the FFXVI title, so it threw me off.

As I progressed the world opened up, and the story improved dramatically.

I am changing my rating from a six to an eight.

I do standby a lot of the negatives mentioned in my old review below.

Still not GOTY material.

8/10

------- OLD REVIEW BELOW -------

I am not impressed with the iconic titles being released lately. It all seems either like they're in experiment mode, or just becoming developmently lazy.

Seven hours in and the story is great so far, but it just doesn't seem like a main Final Fantasy entry.

1) No open World

This was mentioned in early development, but I didn't expect it to be this restricted. It seems like it's so linear that your items give you no joy when obtaining them. A lot of Final Fantasy games are based on discovery, with their witty activities and sidequests. Speaking of, the sidequests have absolutely no meaning or purposeful chain that affects anything in the story.

2) Leveling System

This leveling system is grossly generic. You have very little to actually level your character in, except one skill wheel with a handful of skills. Then, you have one for your nonhuman npcs and abilities, which is also generic.

I do not get the joy out of this Final Fantasy as I did previous ones. This game just comes off as flat out lazy to me.

If they would've combined somewhat of an openish world with this storyline, and implemented more Final Fantasy characteristics, this could've easily been GOTY material. I am disappointed.

I have been playing RPGs since Final Fantasy original on NES, the Immortal, Lagacy of the Wizard, etc. So, a really long time.

This Diablo was extremely hard to rate. The utilization of the UI is kind of frustrating at first, but has its similarities to previous Diablo entries. This time the inventory uses a slot system measured by a maximum amount of items, where previously it was a grid to measure space and therefore the size of the item would determine your inventory space. There's some changes to navigating the UI as well, which are tedious but soon adaptable.

The gameplay is not bad at all. Controls were precise and easy to use. The graphics were great for an overhead RPG. The cosmetics were excellent all around.

All this being said, let's talk about the logistics of the game. Previously, the Diablo franchise had used chapters or "ACTS" to maintain and divide segments within the Diablo world. Here in Diablo IV, they use one gigantic map. I said, "okay, I'll go with that." However, the enemies are packed everywhere. I know that no one likes an empty map, but they should've dialed it back a notch. You were blessed to catch a break sometimes, especially if you were a Necromancer and had skeletons that would constantly run after far away enemies. Furthermore, the dungeons are no longer randomized. You do them once, get the accolade for it, and that's all. You can redo the dungeon, but it isn't any different.

The storyline was ookkaayy. The ending was confusing and left you wondering if the whole thing was a setup by "someone else," to not spoil it. The concept of Lillith was great and so was the art. There was one part of the story that I deemed to myself- unnecessary. It involves a snake. I will not go into further detail due to spoilers.

I am convinced that Diablo may be turning towards an MMO platform.

--To Blizzard--

Change takes time. You have a great game here but this is the first MMOish type Diablo release. Let's try convincing players, both veterans and casual, that Diablo is a fit franchise for this. ESPECIALLY since the studio implemented microtransactions now. Anybody can say what they will, but this was a risky decision. Other games like the Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, etc, have enough material to create their own universes, due to length of existence and story development. I guarantee you made some previous Diablo players look at it as a "really?" I know, because I was one of them. However, I do think you may have pulled it off. You were extremely lucky. Now you just have to merge previous and new generation Diablo players that this is equally acceptable amongst both.

All-in-all I think the game made some drastic changes. Were they bad? I don't think so. They're just different.

Final Conclusion: You'll be playing a great game, but is it a Diablo game?

Don't get me wrong, it's an okay kids movie (I'd still watch it first as an adult because some things may rock the boat with concerns people have). I like Jim Carey in about 3/4 of the films he made, and his acting in this is good.

The movie is also cute and witty. All the video game concepts were accurate, and it was a movie that was done really well for being a video game based movie. Let's be honest, a lot of video game movies are a 2 or 3 at best.

All that being said, I believe Robotnik's personality is incredibly hard to associate with an actor. I believe Jim Carey had the right personality, but just didn't fit the part. Robotnik was a round guy with skinny legs. Jim Carey's physique kind of ruined the image of him in the games. There were also some other aspects I didn't care for, like the Chaos emerald's back-story.

All in all, a small to pre-teen child may enjoy it if deemed okay by parents to some aspects. However, if you're an adult, DO NOT COMPARE IT TO SEGA'S VIDEO GAME.

SEGA - I still love you.