Buttered Popcorn: Buzzmans Movie Review Thread

[Buzzman]

Do the Social Network next :yep:.


SN: It was P.Diddy in the movie, not Kanye.

I'm seeing it tomorrow then Buried on Friday.

 

[Buzzman]

New Nightmare (1994)

Plot: Freddy's back … and he's badder than ever! Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), the historical nemesis of the man with the satanic snarl and pitchfork fingers, discovers that a new monstrous demon has taken on Freddy's persona. Can Nancy stop this new threat in time to save her son?

Story: The nightmare series turned into a giant laughing stock after countless sequels kept dumbing down the character and turning a once fresh horror film into a comedy series with no end in sight. That is until Wes Craven had enough of it and came back to the franchise. His approach was very unique. He discredited the sequels and made a film that is more of a sequel then any of the others. The movie follows the life of the actress from the first film and the effect of playing the role of Nancy has had on her. After the Freddy character has reached an all time high in popularity, she starts to be terrorized by some unknown force, people are dying, and her son starts acting possessed. Is Freddy a real monster? That’s the questioned that gets debated the whole movie and it was a much needed twist into a dead franchise.

Characters: The acting is a bit annoying, but that is low on the list of expectations for a horror film. Freddy tries to get back some of that horror fro the first, but he just can’t shrug off the campiness that he has attained from the dreadful sequels. It was weird having Heather play herself, but Craven managed to make it work. Her character might have worked but the actions she did was constantly annoying. She always made the wrong choices. Her son was even more dreadful. Child actors usually have a hard time, but he was just horrible to watch. You just want to punch his character through the screen.

Others: It was definitely a more solid attempt in recreating Freddy Kruger. I don’t think anything like this was ever tried before in a movie, but Craven did decent with it. He at least made Freddy watchable again, but there are still flaws that he can’t overcome, with an ending that is so moronic, how someone could write it and still say it was a good idea, is beyond me. If you’re a fan of early 80s horror, this fits right in that window.

Overall Score: 6/10

 

[chazmaniandevil]

funniest part in greek, when theyre in the limo to the good morning show, and jonah hill has to do all the drugs and alcohol aldous is trying to do

"shut the fuck up man, im just trying to get my smoke on" while smoking a whole j and drinking all that vodka = so funny

 

[Buzzman]

The Social Network (2010)

Plot: David Fincher's biographical drama chronicles the meteoric rise of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) from Harvard sophomore to Internet superstar, examining his relationships with co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

Story: The story of Facebook’s creation is one of jealousy, popularity, and betrayal. It’s a character movie that has Facebook as a focal point but wisely leans more on the relationships between the creators rather then the website itself. The movie cuts between the past and present with the early build of Facebook then to the actual lawsuit against Mark Zuckerbeg. It creates a pre-built sense of downfall for Zuckerberg, and you watch knowing full well the end conclusion, but it actually improves the storytelling, helping get into the head of Mark. It offers far more questions then answers, but that’s what makes it a great film. It allows you to talk about and interpret it your own way.

Characters: Mark is a dick. Then thing is, he doesn’t do it intentionally, it is just the way he is. Jesse Eisenberg does a fantastic job. He doesn’t stray away form his awkward teenager role, but he amps it up and perfects it here. He sets himself up as a loner and develops into it almost instantly. It was hard not to like him. His business partner, Eduardo, is very likeable, but maybe that’s because you know his end path before he actually does. Garfield is a very likeable guy and I can see why he was cast as Spiderman. He has a natural screen presence that you can’t just teach. Timberlake was fantastic as Sean parker and his sense of paranoia, whether it was true or not, was funny yet depressing at the same time. Timberlake proved he can act with the right script.

Other: The Social Network is what they say it is. It defines what our generation is about. The reason why Facebook was created was so true and represents today’s young adults to perfection. David Fincher didn’t disappoint and made a so-so idea of a movie into a smart and current film of today. If you actually avoid this movie because of its focal point, you will surely be missing out on one of 2010’s best movies.

Overall Score: 9/10

 

[Buzzman]

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Plot: After experiencing what they think are a series of "break-ins", a family sets up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.

Story: The first one was very limited in the fact that it was all done on a handheld camera so someone always had to be behind the camera unless they were sleeping. It also was widely considered a boring film with a bunch of set up scares with no delivery. The sequel fixes both those problems by having majority of the footage on security cameras throughout the house, and by actually following through with their scares. Quiet noises actually lead to something big and gone are the lame tricks like bed spreads moving or wiji boards moving. Don’t get me wrong though, they still have some ghostly scenes that most loved from the first, but this time they flow into bigger scenarios. Speaking of the first, they don’t forget that it actually happened and handle the two stories very well by connecting them in believable manner.

Characters: Gone is the annoying Mika. That is one of the biggest upgrades. Instead of just two people, there is the mom, dad, daughter, baby boy, and the dog. None of them get the center of the screen, so none of them get a real chance to annoy you. They blend in really well and each face their own terrifying encounters, but it’s the mother Christie that ends up going through the scariest scenes. Her encounters make Katie’s from the first one look like a fucking cakewalk. The father is similar to Mika in not believing, but he’s funny. The baby son seems to notice the “demon” and has the most scenes that are consistently frightening.

Other: Paranormal Activity 2 does what every sequel should attempt to do. It fixed everything that was wrong with the original, made it it’s own story, and didn’t forget that the first one existed. The improvements helped create one of the best horror sequels ever made, and what is probably one of the scariest films ever made. This is coming from someone who hated the original with a passion because it was had no flavor. Even if your not a horror fan, this is one of the must see films of the year.

Overall Score: 10/10

 

[Houston]

Paranormal Activity 2 gets a 10?

 

[stevsta]

I personally liked the 1st one so I cant wait to go see 2

 

[Buzzman]

Paranormal Activity 2 gets a 10?

It was the scariest movie I remember seeing and one of the best horror films I've ever seen. It completely shits on the first one.

 

[dell71]

It was the scariest movie I remember seeing and one of the best horror films I've ever seen. It completely shits on the first one.

Wow. I'm a big fan of the first so I was dreading this, fearing it would be another "Blair Witch 2". Now, I'm definitely intrigued.

 

[Buzzman]

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010)

Plot: Trader Jake (Shia LaBeouf) tries to mend the broken relationship between his fiancée, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), and her father, Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), while avenging the fate of his mentor, Lou (Frank Langella), by getting close to Wall Street's new megalomaniac, Bretton James (Josh Brolin).

Story: The story is vastly different then the original, which shouldn’t have been a bad thing, but it was a little more confusing and bland instead of the simple money making approach the first one had. It has a revenge plot and a daughter with daddy issues, but the plan for revenge had a lot of confusing baggage that let to an understandable conclusion. Because the path taken was somewhat confusing, it got a little boring to follow. The daddy-daughter story was pretty good and they should have ended the movie 15 minutes sooner, but instead they ruined a perfect ending and turned it into Hollywood bullshit.

Characters: The obvious reasons why Gekko was for the recognition, but he was a complete mess compared to what he once was. He’s a poor broken man trying to rebuild a relationship with his daughter. He never got to spread his wings until the end, where they could have left his character off on top, but instead turned him into a sappy loving father. Jacob is good, not great. Shia doesn’t bring a lot to the character, but you never notice anything bad either. It’s just a forgettable role. Mulligan, coming off an Oscar nomination, doesn’t get enough screen time to show off anything other then the depressed daughter, she is a bit annoying because of it. Brolin was the wild card here. He brought purpose and greed to his character. He was the closest thing to a Gekko the film needed and saved it from becoming a bore fest.

Other: Money Never Sleeps was a sequel that wasn’t needed nor wanted. Other then the unnecessary role for Douglas and the stock market setting, the Wall Street in the title could have been dropped. I don’t know if it would have improved the film or not, but they didn’t accomplish anything here. It was a fairly forgettable film that won’t get a second viewing by anyone but hardcore fans. In my book, an average film is not a win. Moviegoers, who haven’t seen the original or didn’t like it, might end up enjoying this more then fans of the first.

Overall Score: 6/10

 

[Buzzman]

The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole (2010)

Plot: Kathryn Lasky's popular children's books are the inspiration for this captivating animated feature about Soren, a barn owl kidnapped from his peaceful forest home. His abductors bring him to an orphanage, where he must train to become a soldier. Despite the toil and hardships, Soren makes friends, and together the young birds attempt to escape.

Story: Animated movies have the great advantage of working outside the realm of reality. They don’t have to worry about the rules. Its plot is simplified down to two brothers, both with opposite intentions on opposite forces after being separated by capture. It’s one of the oldest tales ever told. Guardians suffer because it doesn’t do anything unpredictable, you can probably guess the entire movie on that sentence alone. It also seems to rush everything. Learning to fly, finding the guardians and even the battles happen so fast, you’d miss them on a bathroom break.

Characters: With every animated movies, comes a ragtag team of friends. This one in particular, doesn’t stand out from the rest. You have the courageous young leader, big hearted little one, the stupid funny one, and the underachiever. The roles were as predictable as the plot. The only cool character was the evil King Owl, but that was because he wore a metal mask and talked with a middle pitched rough voice that sounded perfectly with the voice, but of course, they never went to deep into his background.

Other: The animation in the movie is beautiful. With the 3D craze going on, Guardians actually fits the style that uses it correctly. The use of Owls was great because their constant flying added a lot of depth and created some great 3D scenes. The battles, while short, were cool with the use of fire and water flying at the screen. The big peeve for the movie was the relationship of the two brothers should have been the center point, but they barely shot scenes between the two and left the outcome of the feud for a sequel that will most likely never happen. The film also falls in-between its target audience. The movie might be a little much for a child to handle, but it’s not enough to entertain an adult. You should have an idea if this is your type of movie, so choose correctly.

Overall Score: 4.5/10

 

[Derrville]

Wow. 10/10? DAAAAAAAAANG

 

[Buzzman]

Jonah Hex (2010)

Plot: Enlisted by a Union soldier (Will Arnett), scarred bounty hunter Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) scours the Wild West in pursuit of Turnbull (John Malkovich), a crazed voodoo master with a scheme to assemble a devastating weapon that will destroy the government and lift the Confederacy.

Story: Jonah Hex represents why the sudden popularity of comic book to film adaptation is going to kill the genre. Hex just isn’t a character anyone wanted to see nor does he bring anything excitingly adaptable to the screen. The Wild West setting couldn’t have been more boring. Why does it seem every mediocre West film always has weapons far more advanced then they should be? The “ultimate” weapon at the end was a complete mess with its mini-nukes. The drive for Hex to avenge his family’s death was a complete unsatisfaction for the viewer because we never met them, so how could we want Hex to avenge them? I won’t even go into the supernatural aspect of the film because I had no idea what the hell was the point and it was a complete mess. The only thing that I got out of it is he can talk to the dead and is protected by crows?

Characters: Jonah Hex is a complete loser. He is basically a cowboy bounty hunter with the ability to talk to the dead and get revived by Indian folk. Did I mention he has the dumbest looking face make-up I’ve ever seen? Despite Brolin giving it his all, you don’t pay attention to anything he does; all you can do is stare at his poor excuse for a face. His foe, Turnbull, is played by a completely bored Malkovich who just stares at the screen with the expression “why the fuck am I here” look. He was a very boring villain. Megan Fox was completely out of place with her terrible accent. She was there strictly for show, yet we never got to see shit because she’s always wearing a huge ass dress. Such a waste.

Other: Aside from the horse riding, I don’t think you’d even realize this was set in the Wild West. The presentation of it all was terrible. Weapons more advanced to today’s standards appear and apparently you can travel very fast in short time spans. The entire movie was just a complete mess and might be the worst comic book adaptation since the craze started a few years back. The market is starting to become oversaturated with comic movies and not all need a feature film. This might be the future of the genre if they aren’t handled with more care. I can’t even tell if Hex fans would enjoy this let alone a person going in blind on the characters past. Avoid this one if you can.

Overall Score: 3/10

 

[Buzzman]

Due Date (2010)

Plot: When high-powered Los Angeles business executive Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) gets stuck in Atlanta after an airplane miscommunication just days before his pregnant wife's due date, he hitches a ride across the country with slacker Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis). As Peter desperately tries to get home, he must deal with Ethan's laid-back attitude, numerous delays and several mishap

Story: Just to get it out right away, yes, this is a remake of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, but for the raunchier crowd. The movie, while funny, staggers due to its predictable plot line and its missed jokes. It’s unbelievable that someone nowadays is limited to one option of transportation across the country, but if that’s what it takes in the script too pair Downey Jr with Galifianakis, then I’m all for it. The road trip formula has been done to death and nothing really happens that would shock you, the writing was a bit boring actually. It was the dialogue between the two leads that provided the best laughs.

The actually physical comedy was a bit awkward because the punch lines fell flat, leaving our characters standing still as if giving us time to laugh at this hilarious joke that was indeed not. Then there’s the serious factor that most good comedies work in at some point or another. Due Date is a hit and miss. When it mixed in the comedy, it was funny, but light hearted, but when they didn’t it didn’t hit as hard as intended.

Characters: Downey Jr and Galifianakis literally make the movie. They take a very poor script and turn into something you can enjoy. The two have great chemistry and work off each other that provide dozens of laughs. Downey plays a smartass, so himself, that uses vulgar language and when he gets mad, provides the best laughs of the movie. Zach G (tired of spelling that last name) essentially plays Allen again from The Hangover. He’s not as funny, but that is due to The Hangover putting him in funnier situations. If you loved him in that, you’ll love him in this. Some cameos from Jamie Foxx and Danny McBride are funny, but all of Foxx was basically seen in the trailers.

Other: Due Date has unfair expectations right from the start. You had an all star everything with the actors and the director, but even though it never fulfilled those expectations, its pretty darn funny compared to your average comedy. It features actors people love to watch and there’s not much more you can be mad about. If your into the raunchier comedies like The Hangover or Hot Tub Time Machine, this is definitely in your area, but if you want a smart comedy, you’ll want to pass on this.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

 

[Buzzman]

Unstoppable (2010)

It's a nail-biting race against time as an unmanned train carrying a load of lethal chemicals speeds out of control, and a conductor and engineer do everything in their power to keep it from derailing and killing tens of thousands of people.

This had a lot of negativity before it even released. Tony Scott and Denzel Washington were coming off their worst movie collaboration with the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable seemed all too familiar with that piece of shit. Instead though, the two couldn’t be anymore opposite.

Unstoppable is a suspense action-thriller that is nothing like you have seen in a long while. There is no villain looking to blow up America. The runaway train carrying highly explosive material occurred out of series of unlucky chain of events. In due part, the action pieces won’t be what you’d normally expect. They are all setup for stopping the train and watching the numerous attempts fail get very intense. The audio helps intensify the scene because when the train is simply moving you can feel the vibrations against yourself and at its tensest moments, all goes silent, giving a “hold your breathe” type of moment.

Our two heroes are great because they aren’t presented as some steroid badasses destined to save the day; they are just two normal guys who happen to be in the best position to stop the train from derailing. They also each have their own minor backgrounds that related to a lot of its viewers. One worker is on his way out, while the other seemed to take short cuts to get his job because of his family name. Its side stories that Unstoppable fails to build on, which is a shame because there was some room for a potential build up, but even without it, nothing felt left untouched.

Unstoppable at times might not have the best choice of dialogue, and maybe one or two amusing scenes, but it is a film that shouldn’t be overlooked. It is one of the most thrilling movies of the year. Don’t let anything related to The Taking of Pelham 123 come in the way of wanting to see this. They couldn’t be more different and the bang is worth your time, unless your one of the folks who enjoy mindless explosions and a testosterone level of 110%. This should be in the top two of the Tony Scott-Denzel Washington collaborations. (Man on Fire being the other)

Overall Score: 8/10

 

[Buzzman]

Saw 3D (2010)

Insane, intense cruelty is the calling card of the Jigsaw killer (Tobin Bell), whose twisted spirit and terrifying human traps -- recalled in flashbacks following his death in Saw III -- inspire another installment of the hugely successful gore franchise. Led by fellow survivor Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery), Jigsaw's past victims band together to support each other.

Another year means another installment into the Saw franchise. What should have been a standalone film somehow got stretched into mixed sequels of sorts, but this seventh installment was hyped to be something more. It’s said to be the final chapter into the franchise and questions will be answered.

Things have changed a bit, but it’s still the same movie as its predecessors. One main game is being played while other minor ones are played throughout a scrambled timeline. The film is a bit of a mess, jumping from scene to scene without much connection, and it ended as if they were never told this was the last installment until the end of the script with a rushed ending. In a plot twist everyone saw coming, secrets are revealed all the way back from the first film and they basically try and wrap the series up in one five minute flashback. It was very poorly done, but when you have ten different writers and directors over a series of seven films, it’s nearly impossible to neatly wrap them all up.

The decision to go 3D might have revived sinking ticket sales, but it really hurt any type of story they wanted to present. The film features a series high ten traps, all of which try and use the 3D, and they seemed content with just showing trap after trap, nine of which were very boring. They did however accomplish a great feat in creating there worst trap yet involving a fish hook instead a stomach and needing to pull it out in order to get the key. It was the sickest thing I’ve ever seen.

The other thing that really felt lazy was the main game. It seems like every single film nobody gets saved, lessons aren’t learned, and the film ends up being a complete waste of time for the viewer and its main player. It got old 2 films in, yet hasn’t changed a bit.

Hopefully, this really is the last installment because it was the perfect sendoff to such a shitty series that deserves to die in pieces. Unless you’ve watched every film in the franchise, there is no reason to start now. The only real reason to watch is to have a good laugh at what mediocrity looks like.

Overall Score: 1/10

 

[Buzzman]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

The first installment of the two-part conclusion to the Harry Potter series finds the bespectacled wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) walking away from his last year at Hogwarts to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes, putting an end to Voldemort's bid for immortality. But with Harry's beloved Dumbledore dead and Voldemort's unscrupulous Death Eaters on the loose, the world is more dangerous than ever.

The most successful movie franchise has nearly reached its end. The series has consistently gotten better with each sequel, which is very rare accomplishment. Part one of the Deathly Hallows doesn’t necessarily break that trend, but for casual fans of the series, it might bring a yawn to their face.

When they broke the film into two pieces, part one got the short end of the stick. Its story is mostly a setup to an epic conclusion that wraps up in the second part, which will also get all of the best moments from the novel. That is to not say the film disappoints. For the first time, the gang of three (Harry, Ron, and Hermoine) are not confined to the walls of Hogwarts and are traveling the real world searching for parts of Voldemort’s souls trapped inside various items so they can destroy them. It’s not your typical Potter film. Yes there is a main “adventure”, but it’s more about the characters then ever before.

The main theme has never changed, the bond of friendship is the most powerful form of magic any one being can have. It wasn’t until later in the series that it took such a more mature portrayal and the Deathly Hallows is the darkest of them all. The trio’s friendship is pushed to its limits through some very creative situations that got pretty intense, and it gave the actors a shot to show off just how far they have come. I’m not saying they gave Oscar worthy performances, but not being surrounded by their great supporting cast, they really impressed with the amount of impact they had on their scenes.

Its biggest strength is its biggest weakness as well. The film focuses so much time on the characters, the action sequences can be counted on one hand. They spend a good portion of the film sitting around, explaining information that is going to be vital in the second half, but not much fun to watch now. Like I said earlier, it could bore you if the adventure of the film was more to your liking then the characters. For most, Deathly Hallows should be a sure-fire hit that leaves you thinking it was the best in the series, but be warned that it could land at the bottom of the list for a select few of people.

Overall Score: 8/10

 

[Cody]

Nice reviews. Really enjoyable to read.

 

[Buzzman]

Monsters (2010)

Six years after aliens invaded Earth, a security force maintains tenuous control in the Infected Zone straddling the U.S.-Mexican border. Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a photographer, is documenting this war-torn area when he's interrupted by an unexpected rescue mission. Samantha (Whitney Able), daughter of a media mogul who just happens to be his boss, needs an escort home, and Andrew reluctantly takes on the job.

Monsters did a great job of marketing without giving away anything regarding the plot, which deserves reorganization in this time period. The premise was a fantastic setting to drop in a survival story. It was the perfect scenario, so how could it go wrong, right?

Well, they did a big fucking bait and switch on you. I understand a movie of this genre works best when the characters are the juice of the plot with the monsters lurking in the background, but this was flat out a love story that just happened to have a few bizarre scenes with flying octopuses. That wouldn’t be the problem though if they developed a clever tale or had two strong leads, but despite being on screen throughout the whole film, neither were given a chance to do anything. They walk around, encounter a monster for a few seconds, and then start walking again. It is one long, boring experience.

The monsters, for the little bit shown, are extremely well done considering the tiny budget they had, but because they looked like flying octopuses, they weren’t as fascinating as they might have been for the film; they should have stayed hidden in the shadows. They missed big concerning the man-made wall around Mexico and the events that occurred there. Add in the countless times a “what happened here” moment pops up and they leave everything for you to ponder.

The ending conclusion was supposed to be one giant metaphor that compares to our two leads, but it came off as a thoughtless monster reveal that just hammered in the boring feel the entire movie had going for it. To add fuel to the fire, if you catch the trick they pull early in the movie, the fates of Andrew and Sam are revealed, in a very anti-climatic way.

Monsters build into to something that never happens. It’s missing a lot, but one big monster might have saved it, but sadly it just doesn’t happen. It seems more then satisfied to have its characters bond for two long hours. It seems content to be average despite it’s fantastic background setup, which is a big shame when that was what they were marketing.

Overall Score: 3/10

 

[Buzzman]

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

In this animated adventure that rivals live-action adaptations, the wealthy Bruce Wayne is torn when an old flame returns to Gotham City. At the same time, the Phantasm, a "hero" who's killing Gotham's gangsters, confronts Wayne's alter ego, Batman. Through flashback, the film reveals the origins of Batman's costume and his ongoing rivalry with the devilishly villainous Joker

One of the most successful cartoon series of the 90s, Batman: The Animated Series, all begun with this tale of how Bruce Wayne became the caped crusader and the consequences he faced living a double life. The voices provided defined the characters for an entire generation, and to this day can’t see anyone else playing them.

The film starts off several years after the city of Gotham has grown accustomed to Batman and his heroic acts of justice. The film is very Batman centric, which it obviously should be, but based on what is occurring during the film, it would have been nice to see how much hope Batman gives to the citizens of the city. It would have fit in nicely with the rest of the plot featuring a vigilante that is mistaken as Batman, going around murdering members of the mafia.

Meanwhile, Batman is clueless about who is behind the attacks and reconnects with a former love. Through a series of flashbacks, Wayne’s first days as the bat are shown and how he almost gave it all up for a single woman. It’s not completely predictable, but the entire “who did it” scenario is a little played out. The Vigilante is fairly obvious, but once the Vigilante goes after the Joker, which Mark Hamil voiced to perfection, the action jumps up tremendously and you get a taste at how much of a foe the Joker will be to Batman.

Mask of the Phantasm is clean compared to the Batman of today, but there was a time when it was considered very gritty and you can understand why it was once the finale instead of the premiere. It’s not the best representation of Batman, but it’s the best one to go deep into the mind of Batman and his back-story. It’s a film for all bat fans.

Overall Score: 7/10