lkdg32 Reviews

Water for Elephants (2011)

Good but bad movie

[7/10 · 24 April 2011]

The movie is watchable and the scenery and environment (circus) was good but little else.

The problem with the movie is Christopher Waltz (whatever his name is) character. His was mean, nice, mean, mean, and mean in the movie. It didn't make sense when he was nice for 15 minutes or so in the movie and was inconsistent with his character.

Also this movie advertises a big circus tragedy. Since it has to be of epic proportions and couldn't simply be a death or two at a circus, it obviously had to be a circus fire, yet this movie didn't have it at all. Instead the main bad guy's character dies at the end and some animals escape.

Lastly, it made no sense that the elephant killed Waltz' character at the end. There is no way it could distinguish good from bad like that and I doubt it was waiting for its revenge that long to take it out on him. The only possibility is that the elephant could smell or detect death somehow (Witherspoon's character about to die) and therefore it went ballistic.

The Conspirator (2010)

Good movie

[7/10 · 20 April 2011]

Most people don't know there is a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. When one thinks of a conspiracy they think of an unsolved conspiracy not a solved conspiracy in Lincoln's case.

The premise is interesting. The story isn't. But the movie is well made and watchable.

It never is explained why the son didn't return in time to stop his mom from getting killed but then again he abandoned her in the first place and physically assaulted her.

Also, it isn't explained why the lawyer defends the woman but not the other prisoners. Why does she get a right of a trial but not they? Or why is he only referencing her but not the others? Other than that pretty good movie but nothing that will blow you away.

Scream 4 (2011)

Bad movie

[2/10 · 20 April 2011]

The beginning of this movie is stupid and happens too fast. They don't develop any story or try to recap you of prior Scream films. They just get into it too fast.

The movie is a joke, killings happen every second, it is too much of a comedy instead of a serious whodunit? Lastly, there is no development in determining who the killers are. They just randomly happened. Emma Roberts as the killer makes the most sense, but is very generic. Again, there was virtually no clues other than her motive that would make her the killer.

Definitely skip this movie.

Criminal Minds (2005– )

Dislike this show

[2/10 · 7 April 2011]

Just saw the latest episode of the brown hair women killing people because of the grief of the loss of her son.

The only issue I have with this show is the profilers more or less guarantee what they say is true. They never say "if we profile this person it falls under this category, but on the otherhand, there is a chance this could be a crazy person who just does random things".

Therefore, this show is a mess.

Lastly in the latest episode it made no sense for the security guard to go off in alarm when a motherly figure checks on a child if he is OK. This makes no sense as we live in a sexist society, in which the security guard would definitely check on a male who did the same thing as he would suspect child predator but would never suspect on a female as he would think "motherly figure".

Source Code (2011)

Generic sci fi movie ruined by lack of suspense on train

[5/10 · 4 April 2011]

This is your typical generic sci fi movie with twist movie that you have seen before.

However, the "who did it?" on the train is ruined by the fact the movie is so short (90 minutes), the fact that after every time Colter dies he has to go back to the command center to chat for 5 minutes, and there is little suspense/action on the train to find out who did it.

Initially there was little suspense/action on the train, but suddenly mid way through the movie they tell us was the bomber. That is pretty lame.

Overall lame movie and pretty boring too.

Insidious (I) (2010)

Pretty lame

[4/10 · 4 April 2011]

Another one of those child is abducted by evil spirits movies. Can't they come up with an original idea? In this reason, everything is fine but unexplainably boring in the very beginning of the movie. Then all of a sudden Dalton falls off a ladder and spirits move outside of him for no reason.

He is fine and can walk to his bed, but unexplainably goes into a coma. Then for months the house is haunted but the idiot father can't see it. They move into the new house, and they see it is the kid not the house.

For no reason, two of the people they hire are comedians, not serious actors, the "computer guys". There was also a Martha Stewart looking lady. This movie was not scary at all but the only difference between this movie and other generic scary movies is this one goes inside the kids'/dads' head to the other realm. Other than that it was the same thing you have seen before.

In the end the Martha Stewart looking lady for no reason takes Patrick Wilson's picture.

Yes Man (2008)

I didn't like this movie

[2/10 · 3 January 2009]

The beginning and middle of this movie were good. It was about Jim Carrey living life, but the end, the rug is pulled beneath him and he is told not to live life so much. I didn't get it. Other than that, Jim Carrey was good as far as being comedic and this movie didn't seem as much as a Liar Liar ripoff as when you see the trailer. Overall a really disappointing movie, but I give it an extra star just for the Jim Carrey comedy. Another point I want to make (that had no affect on my rating) is that I thought Jim Carrey had too many friends in the movie (Bradley Cooper's character, his boss, and that fat friend of his with the beard who joined him in the Yes Man seminar). I thought they should have just nixed the Bradley Cooper character because he is so stodgy and stuck with the other two.

Doubt (I) (2008)

I doubt this movie

[1/10 · 3 January 2009]

I thought the trailer of this movie looked so good, but when I saw this movie, it was pretty bad. First of all, instead of the serious, to the point trailer, this was more like a drawn out comedy. Amy Adams character's bubbly traits completely contradicted the seriousness of how this movie should have been. Meryl Streep's character took forever to get to the point of the movie and start yelling at Philip Seymour Hoffman's character. Also Viola Davis's character had the pointless subplot of "having to get to work". That had nothing to do with the point of the movie and took away from it somewhat. Overall I was very disappointed with this movie after seeing such a great trailer.

Lakeview Terrace (2008)

Worthwhile movie

[7/10 · 29 September 2008]

This movie, in my opinion, can be misleading. When you see a quick preview of it, you think it is a movie about nice cop Samuel L. Jackson trying to stop neighbors from harassing the interracial couple because they are prejudice. That is exactly what I thought when I was watching this movie and it was difficult to watch for the first 45 minutes because it didn't make it clear that Samuel L. Jackson's character was against the interracial couple until then.

However, this movie is excellent (asides from the ending). The cinematography is beautiful, the acting is great, it is a great story. However, it isn't really explained well why Samuel L Jackson's character hates the interracial couple so much. This is just a nice movie experience asides from the generic ending.

Superbad (2007)

So so

[5/10 · 22 August 2007]

The movie started really well. Seth was carrying the movie and then all of a sudden he gets boring and the rest of the movie goes downhill in the middle of the movie. The movie drags through most of the rest. The only other notable parts after the beginning is over is some of the cops and Fogell stuff. Maybe I wasn't watching properly but this is how I saw it. I could have been turned off by something after the beginning and didn't watch properly for the rest and thus didn't like it. I didn't get how Seth could be so funny in the beginning and then be a virtual non entity for the rest. Just one off topic point: Evan was a huge waste. Maybe he made 1 or 2 funny jokes but he was pretty boring for the amount of time he took up. They should have used better lines for him or had a different actor.

Hostel: Part II (2007)

Not in same league as Hostel 1

[4/10 · 10 June 2007]

This movie was silly. It wasn't serious like Hostel 1, and the movie suffered because of that. If you like silly movies (with lots of violence), then this one is for you. If you liked Hostel 1, you probably won't like this one as it is much different.

There isn't as much slow pace character building as in the previous one. Nor is there torture chamber suspense. This movie doesn't creep you out when you leave the theater like the first Hostel does. It is pretty forgettable. Hostel 1 had a great ending that was very memorable (Paxton killing the Dutch businessman in a violent way and leaving on the train), this one didn't. I don't know why these movies (Saw, Hostel) need to go the less serious route in the 2nd movie of the series. It doesn't work.

This movie is not recommended.

Click (2006)

Bad

[2/10 · 7 July 2006]

This movie had some humor but I feel the generic family stuff overrode it. And the generic family plot wasn't even that good or interesting. It was barely developed throughout the movie. In bits and pieces it was but throughout, no.

Adam Sandler looked sort of out of it during the movie. He brought more energy to his earlier comic roles (Billy Madison, Happy Gillmore) in the mid 90s.

Not a recommended movie.

The advertisement of this movie was also bad. It focused on the remote too much and it made the movie seem like a Rob Schneider (insert random dumb role) movie, except instead of a random dumb role it was just "look, now Adam Sandler has a remote control, see what he can do" movie. The only reason I saw this movie was because I walked out of Superman, which was even worse than this movie.

Superman Returns (2006)

Boring

[1/10 · 7 July 2006]

The movie was very dull so I walked out about 40 minutes after the movie began. Some points to note from the first 40 minutes or so: When the plane landed in the baseball field and people got out of the plane, I don't think that it was a natural reaction the baseball crowd gave the people who got out of the plane (a joyful cheer). Something more realistic would be a cheer but not with the amount of joy the crowd gave it.

Superman was a terrible actor (at least as Clark Kent). His face looked strange for Superman and he couldn't act as Clark Kent. He barely said anything.

The Lex Luthor stuff in the beginning was boring and unclear.

What a waste of a movie.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

VERY underwhelming

[4/10 · 21 July 2005]

I hated this movie and the only thing I liked about it was that Depp and the fat kid were funny. The fat kid was over the top and did the most with his character except going more over the top eating all the candy when they were at the main candy area before he fell in the river. The actress who played Veruca Salt was awful (unlike in the first movie), the parents were very uninteresting for the most part unlike the somewhat memorable parents from the first movie. Violet was more entertaining when her gimmick was just being a obsessed gum chewer (in the first movie). The fat kid's mom was fine for just looking the part and Violet's mom personality was good but she didn't do a very good job in the movie. Grandpa Joe's and Charlie's relationship just wasn't there, except somewhat in the start of the movie (the 71 version did a better job with their relationship).

Charlie was more noticeable in the 71 version than in this version where Charlie looks the part, and only memorable thing was the predictable "I won't leave my family" statement at the end. The old version seemed to put much more emphasis on Charlie and Wonka. We see more of Charlie in a shorter film it seems. For instance the fizzy lifting drink scene. Wonka was very memorable in the first movie and sang a great song (Pure Imagination). In the newer version he brings nothing to the table except being funny to watch (like him getting really happy and moving along to the Oompa Loompa songs).

There are much better quotes in the old version, and a better ending. In fact they built up his home AND his school for instance so when you see Charlie pointing down and mentioning his home and school in the elevator, it means something because we experienced both of them in the movie. The old version had an excellent song by the owner of the candy store, whereas in the new version the songs are entertaining to listen to but none of them are very memorable except maybe for Augustus's one. It was funny though at first when Mike Teevee mentioned that after the Augustus song was finished he thought that what just happened was fixed.

The old version had the entertaining teacher of Charlie. The newer version had the somewhat funny grandma. There have been much more characters like the out of touch grandma in movies than of Charlie's teacher in the old version, so I prefer Charlie's teacher. The old version had a more straight forward story and it moved better. The story about Wonka's father in the new version wasn't very entertaining. The old version had the memorable menacing character of Slugworth, the new version does not. The candy area where the chocolate river is in the candy factory in the old version looked much better, and bigger than in the newer version.

The Oompa Loompa songs were much more interesting and subtle in the first version than in this one, like they were expecting the bad things to happen to the bad children and giving their thoughts on children in general (the Oompa Loompas in the old movie that is). In the new version most of the parents were horrible like Veruca's dad who just stood there when Veruca was about to fall in the hole. Mike Teeve's dad was incredibly boring, unlike his mom in the old version where she didn't have any interesting personality, but at least she interacted in the movie. In the old version the dad and Veruca interacted much more and much better. Gene Wilder was so much better as Wonka and much more interesting than Depp. I watched the new version and I thought of Wonka as a crazy moron and never did I care to know about his backhistory.

The time in and before the factory seemed much longer in this version. For instance in the new version they took more than 5 seconds or so (unlike in the old version) to explain the story of the guy with the fake golden ticket. There was also the computer that tries to know where the golden tickets are storyline that was amusing. In the new version the time in the factory seemed quick and the experience was underwhelming. The old version it seems a fairly long while they are in the factory. There wasn't any interesting interaction in the inventing room unlike in the prior version. In the new version they skip the everlasting gopstopper (or whatever its call) part for the most part and go right away to the 5 course meal gum part. There was also the great "I've got a golden ticket" song in the first movie.

The Oompa Loompas weren't very memorable in this movie, they stood out much more in the old version with their hair and makeup. I think if the new version is more like the book than the old version, than the old version of the movie is better than the book. I definitely felt better for Charlie, Grandpa Joe, and their family when Wonka told Charlie he won the factory and can take his family than in the newer version when I didn't care at all. I watched the old version of the movie as a kid in awe the first time I saw it, when I saw the new version all I can say is I was somewhat amused, bored, and underwhelmed.

Batman Begins (2005)

Boring

[3/10 · 19 June 2005]

The beginning was slow at parts but pretty good. The last 2/3 of the movie was very bad. There was no entertaining bad guy other than Scarecrow who didn't have enough on screen action. Batman and Batman Returns were good because of their colorful and enchanting atmospheres and entertaining villains, this movie lacked both except the Scarecrow who wasn't in enough scenes. The movie is very boring and it can cause you to miss a major or major plot points so you just have to assume what the story the rest of the way because it is too hard to catch on. Without understanding the plot you can clearly see Katie Holmes is wanted by the bad guys because she is a DA and that the movie is about stopping the guys with drugs and stopping the plot to destroy the water supply. Michael Caine is good though he doesn't have enough screen time to develop a bond with him. Christian Bale is non charismatic, as were I believe the past Batmans in the other movies, but it doesn't have to be about Batman, it can be more about the villains, with some Batman, as long as it is entertaining.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Boring

[1/10 · 17 January 2005]

This movie does not connect you to the characters at all, in fact you should doze off and have thoughts about something else several times in the movie. The main things that happen are: Girl wants Eastwood to be her trainer, Eastwood agrees because he is down, girl wins a lot of fights in the 1st round, girl gets seriously injured, family won't support girl (I actually read this, I dozed off at this part because it was so boring), Eastwood pulls plug on girl. Obviously this sucks for the girl, but there is no attachment to her or any of the other characters. The retard character seems to be filler. This movie is long and you should be just waiting for it to end. This is no Mystic River. Zero stars.