Star Trek Into Darkness (Spoiler Filled Edition)

As I promised, I'm going to do a spoilery review of Star Trek Into Darkness, because most of my qualms with the film involve some spoilers. So, consider yourself warned: There be spoilers ahead.

As I said in my other review, all of the problems with this movie come from the script. The acting is nearly flawless, and the direction is marvelous. You are about to hear be complain a lot about the script, so just remember one thing: I loved this movie. Don't forget that.

Star Trek Into Darkness Review (Spoiler Free Edition)

I don't think I need to tell anyone of you how much I love Star Trek. I grew up watching TOS with my Mom and later TNG and all of the movies. I have always been more of a TOS guy, I just love the group dynamic with Kirk, Spock and McCoy (Bones has always been my favorite.) I remember back in 2009 how excited I was to see JJ Abrams take a stab at a franchise that I was so very much in love with; and I remember how perfectly he captured the essence of Trek in his first film. Because of that, I was unequivocally excited for Star Trek Into Darkness. I can't say it was phenomenal, but it definitely wasn't bad.

American Mary Review

I really don't know where to start when talking about American Mary. It is a movie by the Soska Sisters (people I had never heard of) and starring a bunch of people I don't know. I only heard about the movie because I troll around the internet every once and a while and find movies that I think sound interesting. Of those movies, I usually watch about 30% of them. And of that 30%, I usually like 10% of them. This was one of those few movies that I really liked. 

American Mary is the story of a promising young medical student, Mary Mason (Katharine Isabelle), and her decent into the world of body modification. I don't want to say much more about the plot, because I really think that anymore would be spoilers, but I think that should be enough to get you interested. 

I really think that this movie had a lot working for it. The key, in my opinion, was how well the script matched the visual style of the film. The Soska Sisters clearly knew exactly what they wanted to do with this movie while they were writing it, because it really shows. I think they also knew exactly how to cut this film to take it away from the Saw/Hostel genre of torture porn and keep it in the vein of horror thriller. For this being their third (?) feature, I was really impressed with how well they melded the scripting, filming, and editing of the film. I hope to see them do some more films in this genre, because I genuinely think they could make some game-changers. 

The acting in this movie was just...odd. I don't mean that in a bad way, per se, just that I can't quite put my finger on it. I thought that Katharine Isabelle was phenomenal as the lead, and that her transition from perfect med student to insane underground surgeon was absolutely perfect, but the rest of the cast was kind of hit or miss. I don't think it particularly matters, though, because this film really focuses on Mary, and that was the only strong performance they really needed to nail this movie. 

The writing on this movie was probably it's weakest point. That isn't to say that the script was bad, just that it wasn't as strong as the rest of the film. The story was excellent, but I think it was the dialogue that threw me off at points. Sometimes the dialogue just didn't match the scene that was taking place, or just felt disjointed. I think that this was a good effort from the Soska Sisters, but could have been a little more cohesive. 

------------------------------------------------

This movie really fit the genre of horror thriller. It really hinged on the perfect performance of Mary Mason by Katharine Isabelle. The Soska Sisters have really made a splash with this movie, and I hope to see more from them in the future (though, they may want to stop acting...) Overall, an excellent character piece with some great characters.

Writing: 6/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 6.5/10

Rewatchability: 6.5/10

Score: 6.6/10

I Give It A Year Review

I feel like I've talked a lot on this blog about how starting this blog has led to me seeing a lot of movies that I probably wouldn't have even heard of, let alone seen. This past weekend I watched two of those movies...and really liked both of them. Both of them I heard about through the website that I talked in depth about a while back. I saw a few people review the movie and give it generally positive reviews, so I gave it a chance.

I Give It A Year is a fun rom-com in the same realm as Love, Actually. It follows the story of Nat (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Rafe Spall) at the start of their marriage. The whole film revolves around the concept that the first year of marriage is insanely difficult, and this one is exacerbated by the fact that they get married after only 7 months of dating.

Like I said, the movie really feels a lot like Love, Actually. It is a story that is really about the concept of "there is someone out there for everyone." Yes, even the severe asshats out there deserve someone. I found that this point was really well shown by the various different characters that were strewn about in this film. We are introduced to so many different personality types, which really helps the film drive in its point. I think it especially helped that they made me really hate one of the main characters, but almost like him when he finally gets his shit together.

You won't believe me if I tell you that this movie was written by the same guy that helped write Borat and Bruno. This movie feels nothing like the other films that he has worked on. This movie isn't offensive, but a really interesting and insightful view on relationships and how we deal with our choices in terms of our love lives. I found the dialogue to be very witty, and the situational humor to be excellent.

I thought the acting in this film was great. It was filled with actors that I don't see often enough like Rose Byrne, Anna Faris, Stephen Merchant, and Simon Baker. And they all delivered brilliantly. The casting was really spot on where we get to have Baker playing the brilliant, handsome business man, and Faris playing the hilariously sarcastic activist. All of the characters were very written, and even more well-acted.

------------------------------------------------

The entire time I was watching this movie, I was trying to figure out why the main character was such a douche. I really hated him from the first minute, and it made the movie a little harder to enjoy. But once I understood what the movie was trying to do, it made it a little better. It was a funny, cute rom-com that I will definitely watch again. 

Writing: 7/10

Directing: 6/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Pacing: 6/10

Rewatchability: 6.5/10

Score: 6.6/10

Pain & Gain Review

I don't even know where to start when talking about Michael Bay. His directorial resume is a smattering of awesome and absolutely shit. He never really hits the middle of the pack for me. I either really love his films (Bad Boys II, The Island, and The Rock), or I want to murder him for wasting my precious time (Pearl Harbor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon.) Bay has become synonymous with explosions and over-the-top action, and it's really becoming obnoxious how much he plays up to that ridiculous stereotype. While he isn't a terrible director, I've always thought that he needed the right project (preferably something where even he couldn't add unnecessary explosions) to really show off his directing chops. I think Pain & Gain was that opportunity.

Pain & Gain is the surprisingly true story of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) and the crimes he commits to gain a ridiculous amount of wealth. He and his friends, Paul (Dwayne Johnson) and Adrian (Anthony Mackie), decide to kidnap and extort a millionaire (Tony Shalhoub). I won't spoil anything here, but, needless to say, shenanigans ensue. This movie is in no way a serious film. It is a pseudo-comedy that border on the dark comedy genre, but doesn't quite make it there. It is more of a farce than a dark comedy, but I digress.

I think that this movie was really written for Bay's unique direction style. It feels like a return to form (a la Bad Boys) in that he so perfectly captures the feel and tone of Florida. As always, he is using really awkward camera angles to show us...normal things. He uses his usual first person view for a total of three or four shots. And the look of the film is the same as it always is: odd. I really don't know what it is about Bay's films, maybe he uses a specific filter, or films all of his movies in the same exact place, but they all have that same weird look. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just undefinable to me. And let me not forget another great Bay trope: shitty female characters. This movie, like all it's predecessors, had no real female characters. The only two girls in this film were either: a) there for pure comedic relief and added nothing to the movie (Rebel Wilson) or b) a terrible stereotype of immigrant-turned-stripper-retard. I feel like it is a requirement for his to film a script that it have no strong female characters. Either that or he just cuts that part out whenever possible.

I think that the script for this movie was pretty decent, but was kind of irritating in some ways. I really thought that the script benefited the most from the fact that these people were real...and they were unbelievably stupid. All of the turns in the plot and character choices seem so ridiculous that you really wouldn't believe it if you didn't know it was true. It reminded me a lot of Compliance, but as a comedy instead of a messed up psychological film. These characters seem so unbelievable that I imagine writing this script was just so easy. Don't change anything...the true story is already pure gold! I must admit, though, I did find that the obscene amount of voice over to detract from the overall tone of the film. I'll admit that, at times, it was a good choice and important for plot/character development...but it was overused.

I thought the acting in this film was probably it's strongest element. In all honestly, Wahlberg might have been the weakest of the three male leads. And I think that says a lot. Dwayne Johnson and Anthony Mackie really nailed their roles in the movie. While I thought that Johnson's character was a little oddly written, and had some oddly quick character changes, I thought he was excellent. Whether it be his ridiculously religious character or his turn as a drug addict just looking for his next score, Johnson was always on. And Mackie was no different. His character so perfectly contrasted Johnson's to make it the perfect combination.

------------------------------------------------

This is a return to form for Bay, avoiding the obnoxious amounts of explosions that we have seen in his last three features and replacing them with hilarious characters and a too-good-to-be-true story. The biggest drawback of the film was the run time (129 minutes) which dragged in all of the transitional scenes (pretty much between all of the 'acts' in your traditional three act structure.) If this film had been 40 minutes shorter, it could have been one of Bay's best films. Instead, it has to settle for decent, but not great. 

Writing: 6.5/10

Directing: 6.5/10

Acting: 8/10

Pacing: 4/10

Rewatchability: 5.5/10

Score: 6.1/10

Iron Man 3 Review

I don't think I need to tell anyone how excited I was for this movie. This is the reunion of my two favorite people, Robert Downey Jr and Shane Black. Most of you probably know that their last collaboration, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, is my favorite film, so you can only imagine what I was expecting from this movie. Needless to say, I got everything I wanted...and more.

Iron Man 3 is a real throwback to the first Iron Man film. It takes Tony Start out of the suit (for the majority of the film), and, metaphorically, puts him back into the cave (this time without Ho Yinsin.) Conversely, the tone of the film is nothing like what we have seen in it's predecessors. This film carries a lot darker undertones, while also having a lot more comedic scenes. It truly is a dark comedy; one that perfectly balances the dark with the comedic mastery of RDJ.

I think a lot of the success of this film goes to Shane Black and Drew Pearce for their superb script. The witty banter that was exchanged between all of the characters was absolutely spot on. Whether it be Tony with Pepper or Tony with Harley, the wit of the dialogue never falters. That being said, this hilarity would be lost without these phenomenal actors that can do such quick banter, and deliver lines in such a way that personifies the script in the best of ways. This is the perfect melding of writing and acting that I haven't seen in quite some time, and I am always in awe whenever it happens.

This being a huge summer blockbuster, I was expecting a lot of action, but was hoping for less unnecessary action than Iron Man 2. To say I was happy with the action sequences in this film would be an understatement. I found every single fight to be perfectly choreographed, so that I was never lost and always immensely entertained. I should also give huge points to director Shane Black and his DOP John Toll for being absolutely flawless in their filming of such elaborate scenes. I think the biggest standout action scene (to me at least) was when Tony is fighting baddies with only one Iron Man gauntlet and one leg. Whoever choreographed that scene really knows how to entertain, while also not overdoing it.

I think anyone thing that earned Iron Man 3 huge brownie points for me was it's independence from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). This movie didn't try to be a stepping stone to a bigger picture, like a set-up to Guardians of the Galaxy or even Avengers 2. This was it's own film, focusing on the character of Tony Stark and investigating just how he deals with his own demons. It is a great critical analysis of exactly who Stark is, and has very little to do with the Iron Man persona that he has dawned. This is just another reason why the script was so excellent. 

The final point I want to make is slightly spoilery, so if you haven't seen the film, skip this paragraph and come back to it when you have! I have seen that a lot of people are up in arms about how the Mandarin was treated in this film. To those people, I have to concede that I was a little disappointed (upon first viewing) about how underused Ben Kingsley was, but after a second viewing, I see that it was a good choice. Yes, I would have done it differently and utilized Kingsley's talents in very different ways, but I think that the message is a lot deeper this way. The Mandarin isn't a person so much as an idea. So, yes, those who are familiar with the comics and wanted to see the Mandarin they know and loved will be disappointed. But if you can see past that and see what the filmmakers were trying to do...I think you will enjoy what is put on the screen (and especially enjoy Kingsley's hilarious performance.)

------------------------------------------------

Summing this movie up is hard, but I'll try. This movie is haunted by the ghost of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, whether it be in the dialogue, or just from certain shots bringing back old memories (Tony and Rhodey at the end felt exactly like Harry and Perry. No joke.) The writing/directing of Shane Black was perfect, and exactly what this franchise needed. And he coaxed some spot on performances out of all of his actors to accentuate just how perfect this script was.

Writing: 9/10

Directing: 8.5/10

Acting: 8/10

Pacing: 7/10

Rewatchability: 10/10

Score: 8.5/10

It's a Disaster Review

So, the few people that read this blog probably know that I like to listen to a movie podcast called Operation Kino. It is really fun to listen to the podcast for several reasons: 1) it feeds my movie addiction 2) it gives me topics to talk about on here (ie my Rant of the Week...which I haven't done in a while) and 3) it gives me movies to watch that I probably wouldn't have heard of otherwise. It's a Disaster is one of those movies.

It's a Disaster is anything but your typical disaster movie. Yes, there is a disaster, and yes, a lot of tropes come into play, but it is anything but formulaic. The film follows a group of friends who are getting together for their weekly(?) couples brunch. There are four couples that vary from third date to married. During their brunch, a catastrophic event happens outside...and hijinks ensue.

There aren't a lot of big name stars in this film. The biggest name is probably Julia Stiles, or maybe David Cross. The only other recognizable person in here is America Ferrera, but she is the complete opposite of anything else you've seen her in. The acting is really excellent in this film, accompanied by an equally excellent script.

The writing for this film was superb. It doesn't focus so much on the disaster that is going on, so much as the disasters that result from it (aka characters' varying reactions to the imminent apocalypse.) I really love how each character has a completely different reaction, and you get to see how each person copes with tragedy. The writer took every "disaster reaction" trope and threw it into one house at the same time...and it was absolutely hilarious.

------------------------------------------------

An excellent (and original!) script coupled with several great performances make this an excellent spoof-esque film that everyone should see. It is a very short (only 88 minutes) film, that is worth every minute. I highly suggest this one! 

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 6.5/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Pacing: 7/10

Rewatchability: 7/10

Score: 7.2/10

The Call Review

The Call is one of those movies that I heard such mixed things about that I felt like I had to see it so I could at least weigh in and see just how good (or bad) it was. I never intended to see the movie, I thought it looked pretty mediocre and not worth my time...but it couldn't be worse than some of the shit I watched this year...right?

The Call follows the story of Jordan (Halle Berry), a 911 operator, and how her life changes when she takes a call from a teenage girl (Abigail Breslin) who has been abducted. While this doesn't sound like a very exhilarating story, I think this film benefited from some good direction, and solid performances from Berry and Breslin.

The writing in this film was pretty mediocre. I wouldn't call it bad, because it strung together a pretty good story, but with some fairly bland dialogue. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the story was entertaining, but what people were saying seemed fairly to very irrelevant. At some points, I though that Breslin's character was attempting to turn her mouth into a dog whistle. Not only was it irritating, but it was also nauseating. But, hey...it wasn't that bad.

The direction in this film was, surprisingly, above par. I thought that the director did a great job of building tension with cramped shots, and used odd angles and interesting framing to increase the tension throughout the film. It was no surprise that this was the same man that directed the phenomenal The Machinist.

While this was, by no stretch of the imagination, and Oscar winning performance for Berry, I was really impressed with what she did with the role. Her character isn't inherently likeable for the first...let's say 40% of the film, but towards the end I actually found myself rooting for her and wanting her to find the kidnapper. Berry is an amazingly capable actress, and she really showed it in this movie.

------------------------------------------------

While I wouldn't say you should rush out and see this film immediately, I would say it's worth it if you want something to watch on a Saturday night and it's available on RedBox. The story is thrilling, thanks to some excellent direction, and the acting will keep you enticed until the very end.

Writing: 5/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 6.5/10

Rewatchability: 5/10

Score: 6.1/10

Oblivion Review

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I was kind of excited for Oblivion. I thought it looked like an interesting and original sci-fi film. The trailers looked reminiscent of some great Philip K Dick stories, so yea...I got my hopes up. I wasn't expecting anything phenomenal, but was expecting a pretty decent, well scripted sci-fi film...sadly that's not what I got. 

Oblivion is literally a mashup of a couple of recent (and original!) sci-fi films. It draws greatly from Moon (one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time, let alone the last decade) and Daybreakers (which was a great twist on the vampire genre, especially in the wake of the awfulness that is Twilight.) It you can imagine what those two movies would look like mashed up...you might see a, conceivably, good film. Sadly, this film takes two great storylines, but fills it in with absolutely crap. 

The biggest problem with this film is definitely the writing. Whoever wrote this didn't have a single original idea in their head. They pieced together a couple of great sci-fi plots, but couldn't connect them well enough with their own originality that it all fell flat. And the dialogue was absolutely abysmal. Everytime a character spoke, I wanted to vomit a little bit. Now, when I say the movie wasn't "original enough," I imagine a lot of you are going to complain about how most movies nowadays aren't original, as they are remakes or adaptations. But this is a whole different story. This is a movie that claims to be original, but just regurgitates other movie plots...and poorly at that. I wasn't even a tiny bit surprised when I found out the writer also directed the horrendous Tron: Legacy. 

Other than the script, the rest of the movie was fairly mediocre. The acting was nothing special, but not awful at all. I was really disappointed with how little they used the best actors in the film, those being Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (aka Jaime Lannister) and Melissa Leo. It focused far too much on the less talented people (sorry Tom Cruise fans, but he's been going downhill for a while now.) I also wouldn't have minded a little more Morgan Freeman, even if I did find his character's dialogue to be the worst...but that's might just be because I have a man crush on his voice.

The direction for movie wasn't very good. This movie had a lot of opportunities to wow us with some stunning shots of a war torn Earth, but it didn't capitalize at all. Instead, it just threw a ton of obviously CGI'd landscapes at us and expected us to find it amazing. I really think that if this movie had included some large set pieces, or maybe even used some biggatures, it could have had some impressive shots, and really impressed a lot of people. Instead, we get the guy who did Tron: Legacy, who just loves CGI, apparently. He went crazy with this movie, and it was really disappointing.  

------------------------------------------------

This movie suffers from poor writing, it's really that simple. The acting was nothing special, and the direction was pretty bad, but the bland, unoriginal script stood out as the biggest failure for this film. I think a better life decision would be to sit down and watch Moon and Daybreakers back to back instead of wasting two hours on this film.

Writing: 3/10

Directing: 3/10

Acting: 5/10

Pacing: 5/10

Rewatchability: 3/10

Score: 3.8/10

Welcome to the Punch Review

I have a weird fascination with James McAvoy. Call me crazy, but that guy is a pretty great actor. Just like any sane human being, every time I see him, I instantly start screaming "OH MY GOD, IT'S MR. TUMNUS!!" But seriously, this guy is a phenomenal actor, and I will watch anything he is in...and yes, that includes Gnomeo & Juliet.

Welcome to the Punch is your typical "cop out for revenge" plotline, so there isn't much here that makes you go "wow, I need to see that." It really is quite generic in it's story, which makes it hard to really recommend. The story revolves around Max (McAvoy), a cop who is obsessed with catching a notorious villain, Jacob Sternwood (Mark Strong). Sounds pretty familiar right? You even get those corny pieces of dialogue like "YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO THIS CASE!" etc. But, surprisingly, that doesn't make the movie bad, just...less good.

The story for this movie may have been generic, but for some reason it didn't feel like I was being shown something for the billionth time. I found the characters to be pretty well written, and character motivation to be pretty interesting. I was really a fan of the script up until the very convoluted ending. I feel like the ending tried to be much more than it should have been, and really failed. Other than that, the writing was pretty decent. Nothing special,  but not bad in any sense of the word.

The acting was what really held this movie together. When you have two great actors like McAvoy and Strong leading the film, it almost demands that the supporting actors bump up their performance. I thought that everyone did a very good job, which kept the movie interesting instead of bland, as I assumed it was going to be.

------------------------------------------------

While Welcome to the Punch might not be a great movie, it is definitely entertaining and worth seeing at least once. I wouldn't rush out to see it, but it would be worth picking up on RedBox, or seeing when it (inevitably) winds up on Netflix. Just watch it and fawn over the amazing-ness that is Mr. Tumnus...I mean...McAvoy.

Writing: 5/10

Directing: 5/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 5/10

Rewatchability: 6/10

Score: 5.6/10

G.I. Joe: Retaliation Review

Let me get this out right now: I was super excited when I heard they were making a GI Joe movie back in 2009. I went out and saw a midnight showing of it...and was severely disappointed. After that, I had no faith that this franchise could be anything more than a bunch of campy dialogue and shitty non-plot related action sequences. I was partially wrong...but mostly right.

Apparently, someone realized that everything about G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra was horrendous and decided that none of it should be in this movie. That was probably the best decision ever. Yes, Channing Tatum carries over for about 15 minutes, but that doesn't count, and they kept the one thing that really made the original bearable: the ninjas. So, I basically am calling this a reboot. It is very loosely tied to the first film, but it is so independent that if you only saw this one, you wouldn't be asking what you missed. You just wouldn't hate yourself for having seen the worse film.

I think the biggest saving grace of this film was Dwayne Johnson. The Rock was the perfect guy for this role. He pretty much played himself, a super badass, who was trying to save the name of his group (the GI Joes.) The dialogue is as corny as you would expect, but somehow when it's coming out of his mouth, you just find it oddly fantastic. Without him, this 'reboot' wouldn't have been as successful.

While the dialogue wasn't fantastic, I found that the general plot of the film was pretty solid. As someone who used to watch the GI Joe cartoon when I was younger, I thought it really felt like a typical GI Joe plotline. And, even if that plotline feels campy in terms of normal action films, it works as a GI Joe action film. The writers really knew their genre and what kind of whacky stuff they could get away with. I applaud them for toeing the line so perfectly.

------------------------------------------------

While this movie wasn't terrible, it wasn't that great. It had a lot of camp to it, but it fit with what it was. The dialogue was a bit dry, but the plot made up for that. Parts of the film felt disjointed (everything in Tokyo seemed/looked like a completely different film), but it really didn't matter. This is a slightly-higher-than mindless action film that would be a great movie to see with a group of friends.

Writing: 4/10

Directing: 4/10

Acting: 5/10

Pacing: 4/10

Rewatchability: 5/10

Score: 4.4/10

Evil Dead Review

Anyone who knows me knows that I love Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy (with Evil Dead II being my absolute favorite.) So, you can imagine how I felt when I heard they were doing a remake (reboot?) of The Evil Dead. I was a little standoffish, but had hope that it would be faithful to the original, and keep it scary as all fuck. Thankfully, with the input of Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi, Fede Alvarez came through.

Evil Dead is virtually the exact same plot as the original film, but with slightly more substance. The main characters this time around aren't going on a vacation, they are at this cabin for a reason. Our characters are there to help the lead, Mia (Jane Levy), to go cold turkey. They are all her oldest friends and want to keep her at the cabin until she is clean. Then hijinks ensue, as you can imagine.

The first twenty minutes of this film seem a little forced and contrived. It isn't the best dialogue in the world, and at times, it seems like the worst. But overall, it isn't bad. It tries to set up relationships and show us why we should care about certain characters, but it doesn't quite succeed. We don't really learn much about any characters besides some back story on Mia and her brother, so it really becomes hard to care about who lives and who dies. After the initial introductions and such, that's when the movie starts to get good, and I think it's because it doesn't rely so much on dialogue as it does on what you are seeing.

Going into this movie, I expected to see a crazy amount of gore, just like The Evil Dead had, back in 1981. I was not disappointed. Once the shit hit the fan, Alvarez knew exactly what to give the audience and how to do it. While there weren't a lot of jump scares in the film, there was a lot of "holy shit what is happening" scares. I don't want to give anything away, so I will just leave it at this: the amount of gore in this film puts the original The Evil Dead to shame. In the last half hour alone, they much have used several hundred gallons of blood. It was awesome.

I really enjoyed all of the homages to the original The Evil Dead that were thrown into this film, and didn't find any of them to be over doing it. Like, the fact that the car from the original was sitting in the yard all rusty and shitty was a really subtle (and awesome) reference. There are a lot of things like that scattered through this film that will make fans of the original just smile, while it won't effect the quality of the film for newcomers.

------------------------------------------------

This was a solid remake of an already great movie. I felt like it really differentiated itself from the original film enough to make it a quality film, but it didn't forget to give a few nods to the originators of the cult classic. I suggest this film to anyone who enjoys a good scare, and can handle an ungodly amount of gore.

Writing: 5/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 9/10

Rewatchability: 9/10

Score: 7.4/10

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone Review

I'm starting to think this whole writing reviews thing is getting bad for my health. I've already seen some horrendous movies this year solely for the purpose of writing reviews on them (see my review of Identity Thief and Broken City if you don't believe me.) I vaguely remember saying in my Identity Thief review that it was the worst movie of the year: sadly, I was horribly mistaken.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone looked, on the surface, to be a mindless comedy that would have  one or two hilarious scenes, and then be shit otherwise. I could not have been more wrong. There wasn't a single part of this movie to enjoy. Just the concept on it's own seems like a terribly stupid idea, then you add on some terrible writing and atrocious acting, and you have the perfect storm of shit.

I really don't know where to start, so let me just say this: whoever wrote this movie needs to be put down. Seriously, there wasn't a single piece of dialogue in this film that even made me chuckle. It's really upsetting to me when people go from writing great, hilarious material (Horrible Bosses) then follow it up with completely unfunny drivel. This script isn't worthy of the actors that read it...but when you watch it, you might tend to think it's the other way around.

The acting in this movie was awful. I can't even begin to explain how bad it was. I don't know if the actors were just like "this script is awful, so I'll just phone it in and still make good money," or if the director was telling them to be overly campy or something, but it was ungodly. Steve Carell made me want to drill a hole in my skull. And let's just talk about all the wasted talent in this movie: Steve Buscemi, Olivia Wilde, Jim Carrey, James Gandolfini, ALAN FREAKING ARKIN! All they did was get a bunch of talented actors and have them play awful characters with poorly written dialogue, carrying out a half-assed story.

------------------------------------------------

Sometimes I tell people: "Wait until it's out on DVD" or maybe "Wait until it's on TV" but this movie is a serious "Don't waste your time." There wasn't a single redeeming quality about this movie; strike that, there wasn't even a single redeeming scene in this movie. This was one of the worst movies that I have actually sat through, and will never sit through again.

Writing: 0.5/10

Directing: 1/10

Acting: 0.5/10

Pacing: 1.5/10

Rewatchability: 0/10

Score: 0.7/10