VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Spy Kids 1 (2001) – Machete’s first appearance

2.8/5 stars, 5.8/10 from both of us.
Native ratings: 3.4/5 (Netflix guess for us=3.2/5), 5.5/10 IMDB.

This could have been better, but some of it was waaaaayyyyy too convenient at times.

Still worth it to see the first film appearance of Machete, who was a character in the Spy Kids movie before he had his own movie.

Also cool to see Cheech Marin.

But yeah. Even with low expectations, this was a slight disappointment. It was still entertaining and enjoyable, just not very much.

I mean, it’s the same director as Sin City, Planet Terror, and The Faculty. Robert Rodriguez apparently has a decent range for directing different kinds of movies.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227538/

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Goon (2011)

3/5 stars, 7/10 from both of us.

Native ratings: 3.7/5 (Netflix guess for us=3.6/5), 7.0/10.

So for once, we rated lower than average. Probably because we despise sports. Yet, this was a quite serviceable sports comedy, and I have no regrets watching it. We laughed. And apparently it’s a “true” story, albeit turned into a comedy. A bloody, bloody comedy.

However, the ONLY reason I convinced myself to watch this was that it was co-written by a  writer who worked on Pineapple Express, Superbad, Da Ali G Show, and The Green Hornet. And the other co-writer? Jay Barchel, the gangly kid from Undeclared, Knocked Up, Tropic Thunder, Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Fanboys, & The Rules Of Attraction.

Actores include Seann William Scott (Stifler from American Pie) — who seemed to be breaking his previous acting range, playing a soft-spoken, humble character, instead of a full-of-himself asshole. His acting was actually a treat. Also with Alison Pill (Kim Pine from Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World), Liev Schrieber (Sabretooth from the X-Men movies, Cotton Weary from Scream 1-3), and Eugene Levy.

Yea, this was an enjoyable sports comedy. And most people seemed to like it even more than we did.

“Two rules, man: 1) Stay away from my fuckin’ percocets; and 2) Do you have any fucking percocets, man?”

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456635/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: John Carter (2012)

Clint/Carolyn: 5/5 stars, 9/10. Clint is considering upgrading to 10/10.
Native ratings: 3.8/5 stars (Netflix’s better guess for us=4.3), 6.9/10.

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs books, this movie entered development in 1931, and was almost the first animated movie in America. But things got held up for (puts pinky to corner of mouth) ***79 YEARS***. It finally left development-hell in 2010, and they’re already working on a sequel.

I’m glad once the studios finally move (a literal lifetime later), that they are rushing to do as many of these as possible.

BECAUSE THIS WAS EXCELLENT!!!!!!

Would have been nice to see in 3-D, but completely unnecessary. It is a great story, and a long movie that properly fleshes out characters and plots. I’m not going to go into too much detail, but simply: Science fiction done right, with an epic story and an epic budget. I’m still trying to figure out if I should really be rating this movie 10/10, because there’s not really any flaw.

(BTW, You may recognize the main couple in this movie as Gambit and Silverfox from X-Men Origins.)

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Event 16 (2006)

New Zealand low-budget time travel movie not available on Netflix.

Got a 3.6/10 on IMDB, but Clint gave it 6/10 and Carolyn gave it 7/10.
We both rated it only 3 stars, but then later Clint changed it to 2.8/3 stars after seeing its rating in comparison to other 3/5 star movies and realizing this is a worse movie.

The effects were super-cheesy — like someone just did it all on their computer. And the story was confusing. David Lynch-level confusing by the end, with characters actually being other characters. And since  it wasn’t directed well enough, I didn’t even understand which characters were becoming which other characters. It was just hard to follow. And the New Zealand accents sounded really bad.

But the story was still kind of interesting, and we are such huge time travel fans that we sought out and found this movie despite its rarity and low rating.

It was still enjoyable.

Just not really GOOD.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831289/#comment

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Ginger Snaps 3 aka Ginger Snaps 0 aka Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.  (Again deferring to Carolyn’s rating.)
Carolyn: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.3/5 stars Netflix, 5.8/10 IMDB.

Not as good as the first one, but on par with the second one.  This was set in the 19th century.  The IMDB trivia says that the second and third movies were shot back-to-back.

Carolyn thinks she liked the third one ever so slightly better than the second one, though she rated both identically. I am unsure, myself.

This movie sacrifices the opportunity to continue moving the original story further forward, and that is a major points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 2.

But by making it a prequel about 2 girls who just so happen to be the EXACT SAME 2 girls (but in the 1800s), they created an opportunity for Ginger to return as a lead character. This brought back a lot of the chemistry and sisterly character interaction that Ginger Snaps 1 had, but that Ginger Snaps 2 lacked.  So that is major points for.

However, they aren’t in high school… Or even modern american culture as we know it. The unique aspects of the original characters don’t shine in the same light when held to a completely different time and culture, and that is points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 1.

In the end, it’s kind of a wash. This movie is good in ways Ginger Snaps 2 wasn’t, and Ginger Snaps 2 was bad in ways this movie wasn’t. They were filmed at the same time too, so there’s no discrepancy in production or acting. So it’s just another sequel that’s really a prequel.

While I would recommend that 100% of people who liked Ginger Snaps 1 *MUST* watch Ginger Snaps 2…….. This movie is not required viewing. However, it does feel more like Ginger Snaps 1 than Ginger Snaps 2 did, so you still might want to watch it if you were a fan.

Directed by Grant Harvey.

Written by Christina Ray & Stephen Massicotte.

The 2 main characters of course remain:

Emily Perkins (Juno, Insomnia, 35 eps of Da Vinci’s Inquest, 26 eps of Hiccups, 3 eps of Supernatural) as Brigitte.
Katharine Isabelle (Freddy Vs. Jason, 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days, Insomnia, Titanic, 1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of The L Word) as Ginger.

But also, from Ginger Snaps 2:

Brendan Fletcher (1 ep of Smallville) as Finn. He played Jeremy, the librarian in the second movie… Gracious of them to let him return.

The rest were new faces:

Nathaniel Arcand as The Hunter.
JR Bourne (1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of 24) as James, the douchebag.
Hugh Dillon (Trailer Park Boys: The Movie) as Reverend Gilbert.
Adrien Dorval (Twilight 2, Chronicles Of Riddick, 1 ep of The L Word) as Seamus.
Tom McCamus (Siblings, 2 eps of Friday The 13th: The Series, 1 ep of Puppets Who Kill) as Wallace Rowlands, the leader of the fort.
Matthew Walker (The Wicker Man, 1 ep of Smallville) as Doc Murphy, the doctor.
David MacInnis (1 ep of Smallville) as Cormac.

They sure seem to use a lot of Smallville people…

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365265/combined

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10. (I’m deferring to Carolyn’s rating as I’m kind of unsure of my feelings.)
Carolyn: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.2/5 stars Netflix, 6.4/10 IMDB.

Not as good as the first one.  This one follows Brigitte as she deals with being infected by the lycanthropy.  It was still entertaining enough.  It was still good. Just not nearly as good. It was a good horror movie, but they kinda dropped the whole sisterly aspect of the first one that brought much of the interestingness to the original. So the chemistry was completely different, and it didn’t have that Ginger Snaps 1 feel that they brought back with Ginger Snaps 3 (which I’ll be reviewing next).

What this movie has going for it is that it is a continuation of the same original story. It’s canon. Ginger Snaps 3 is not. So this is it. When you watch this movie, don’t be tricked into thinking that the story will continue. That’s it, it’s over, and it’s kind of messed up.

Also, just what was unleashed? If anything, that’s backward. But I digress.

This is worth watching simply as a way to coast by on the good feeling you get from how awesome Ginger Snaps 1 is. I’d definitely recommend watching this. Definitely. You need to see how the story concludes. But this movie doesn’t stand on its own as being particularly special, other than how it connects to the greatness of Ginger Snaps 1.

Directed by Brett Sullivan. Written by Megan Martin.

Only the 2 main characters were from the first movie: Ginger & Brigitte.

Emily Perkins (Juno, Insomnia, 35 eps of Da Vinci’s Inquest, 26 eps of Hiccups, 3 eps of Supernatural) as Brigitte.
Katharine Isabelle (Freddy Vs. Jason, 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days, Insomnia, Titanic, 1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of The L Word) as Ginger.

The rest were new faces:

Brendan Fletcher (1 ep of Smallville) as Jeremy, the librarian.
Tatiana Maslany (Stir Of Echoes 2, 11 eps of Orphan Black) as Ghost.
Janet Kidder as Alice.
Pascale Hutton (Fantastic Four, 3 eps of Smallville) as Beth-Ann, the mean girl.
Michelle Beaudoin (24 eps of Sabrina The Teenage Witch) as Winnie.
Eric Johnson (24 eps of Smallville, Flash Gordon in 21 eps of Flash Gordon) as Tyler, the guy who returns favors.
Patricia Idlette (Scary Movie 3) as Dr. Brookner.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353489/combined

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Hostel 3 aka Hostel: Part III (2011) (direct to video)

5/5 stars, 8/10 from Clint.
3/5 stars, 7/10 from Carolyn.
Major disparity here.

Native rating: 4.7/10 (vs 5.8,5.4 for first 2 movies), 3.1/5 stars (vs 3.2,3.2).
Netflix guessed 3.9/5 for us. Considering I rated the first 2 Hostel movies 5/5 stars, Netflix really should know better.

I thought this was one of the more sinister Hostel movies. The major spoiler of the movie is WAY more evil than anything that was done in the first two Hostel movies.

I actually think the franchise has been improving with each release, which is contrary to most popular opinion and common sense.

Hostel 2 > Hostel 1, because after seeing the 1, watching 2 is an exercise in extreme paranoia. But after going that route, Hostel 3 is more of an experience in “living large” and making the franchise more grandiouse, with the hell on earth no longer in a 3rd world eastern European country, but in Las Fucking Vegas.

This is also the most unique of the 3 films (due to large similarities between Hostel 1 and Hostel 2).

I am glad that in the IMDB comments I found other people who liked this better than Hostel 1 & 2. It is probably the opinion of a 10% minority, but I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks 3 > 2 > 1.

FREAK ALERT! John Hensley, the fucking idiot son from Nip/Tuck, plays a handicapped person here. Interesting to see him again, if only to be reminded of how much I hated his character on Nip/Tuck. He also has a kind of weird look to him, which lends itself well to playing someone with a physical malady.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255916

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 816 other followers