Change Your Image
powermandan
Acting is my passion and I hope to make a living at it. But I will never stop doing what I love.
RIP IMDb Message Boards.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
May contain spoilers.
Reviews
WrestleMania (2017)
One of the Best Manias of Recent Years.
Like last year, this WrestleMania was a total of seven hours in length. I see Mania being the longest ppv of the year, but I personally think that six hours should be the bear maximum. I think this is the reason people criticized the second half of the show while praising the first half. Luckily for me, I recorded this and I went to be so I was less fatigued.
Seems like once every few years, WrestleMania is held outside. I know people praised the hell out of WrestleMania 31, but 90% of that took place in the burning sunlight where the pyro-technics and cool lighting were invisible. In terms of general looks for an outside WrestleMania, this was the best.
The kick-off show was two hours. First of three bouts was Neville and Austin Aries for the Cruiserweight Championship. These two men have revived the entire division. I wanted Aries to win, but I didn't mind the victor being Neville. 7.5/10
Second was the Andre the Giant Battle Royal. It appears that WWE is starting to push some new stars. Patriots footballer Rob Gronkowski even got involved in the match helping Mojo Rawley be the last man standing. I love Battle Royals and this was handled very well. And I am happy Mojo won. 8.5/10
The Intercontinental Title being defended in the pre-show was not a good move. It is too important. Because of this, Baron Corbin and Dean Ambrose refused to perform to the best of their abilities. Corbin sucks, but the match could have actually been good. Ambrose won. Worst match of the night. 4/10
The first of the main show was AJ Styles vs Smackdown commissioner Shane McMahon. This was probably the most acclaimed bout of the night. Certainly the perfect opener. Glad AJ won. 9/10
Kevin Owens defeats his former fake best friend, Chris Jericho for the US Championship. The storyline with these guys in fantastic. So was the match. 9/10
Bayley retained the RAW Women's Championship in an elimination match with Charlotte Flair, Sasha Banks, and Nia Jax. The Diva matches at Mania aren't usually very good. This is a major exception. Bayley's moment was wonderful. 8.5/10
A triangular ladder match for the tag team title was next. Enzo & Cass, Sheamus & Cesaro, and The Club would be carrying the tradition of Edge & Christian, the Dudley Boyz, and the Hardy Boyz. Before the match started, the New Day (the hosts) announced another team being inserted. Suddenly, the Hardy Boyz' music hits!! They are currently in a legal battle with TNA over their "Broken" gimmick, so we won't see that for a while. Team Xtreme won! The match was insane and the Hardyz' return was unbelievable. 10/10
The matches seemed to be getting better. But the mixed tag team bout with John Cena & Nikki Bella against Mia and Maryse proved otherwise. This was no different than the average match on RAW. And the build-up was great! Cena and Nikki won, followed by a heartfelt marriage proposal. Because of the proposal, I'm giving this bit 7.5/10.
Seth Rollins against Triple H was the RAW match I was looking forward to the most. Many people didn't even like the match, but the great story was brought into the match, so I loved it. All of Seth Rollins' accomplishments were made possible by Triple H. He later formed one of the most dominant trios in WWE history with Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns called "The Shield." Seth eventually sold out and joined Triple H and Stephanie McMahon's power-abusing and unfair "Authority" faction. I hated that faction with a passion. Last year, Seth got legitimately injured in his knee and was out for several months. Upon his return, Triple H prevented Seth from winning the vacant Universal championship. The building hostility and subtle change in both men (both for the better) was great. Seth got injured again by Samoa Joe a few weeks ago, so that just added. Done rambling! Seth won! 8/10
Randy Orton against Bray Wyatt for the WWE Championship. Was another letdown that could have been great. Images of maggots and cockroaches on the ring were so awesome and original, that ultimately saved this match. Randy won. 7/10
Next up was Goldberg against Brock Lesnar for the Universal Championship. This dates back to the 2004 Royal Rumble where Lesnar cost Goldberg the match. This led to their infamous disaster at WrestleMania XX. Nothing wrong with Goldberg winning, but the match stunk royally. Fast- forward 12 years and they meet again at Survivor Series 2016 where Goldberg beat Brock in just over a minute. Nobody wanted them to face off at Mania for the title for three reasons: their match thirteen years earlier sucked; the match would be too short; both are part-timers. Brock Lesnar's victory over Goldberg here is the only clean win over Goldberg in his entire career. Brock is a one- trick pony and the match wasn't that good, but I'll give it a pass. 6.5/10
Next was a six-way match for the Women's Championship. Naomi won. Definitely the lesser of the two Diva matches. But this was enjoyable. 7/10
The closer was Roman Reigns against the Undertaker. People have been hating on Roman since the Shield broke up, but his victory over Undertaker legitimized him being hated. Taker then retired. It made sense for this to close the show as WWE's greatest performer and Mania's main man called it quits. Remember WrestleMania 24 when Shawn Michaels retired Ric Flair? This is a similar case, but much more important. Both Reigns and Undertaker have done better matches, but this was actually quite good (aside from a botched Tombstone-reversal). 7.5/10. Thank you, Taker.
This Mania was full of so much emotion that it probably turned fans off. I loved it! There was very little not to like with this.
7.7/10
Saving Christmas (2014)
It IS As Bad AS It's Made Out To Be!
Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas officially joins Santa Claus (1959), Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny, and Santa Conquers the Martians as the worst Christmas films ever made. At least those films had a few moments that were so-bad-they're good. This is an insult to intelligence! It currently stands at number 2 on this site's Bottom 100. I would place it top 10...there's just a few other films I've seen that I found worse.
Let me start out by saying that I am a practising Catholic. I don't claim to be an expert on religion or the Bible as humility on the subject needs to be kept. Kirk Cameron could really use some of that too. Let me also say that there have been a few interviews where I agree with what Cameron debates. But this film made me lose all respect for him.
Saving Christmas looks like a mockbuster. A "mockbuster" is a low-budget (sometimes micro- budget) rip-off of a huge film being released at the same time that is meant to capitalize on the bigger film's success. They look like they have a budget of $4. This movie literally looks like a micro-budget film. It stars Kirk Cameron playing himself who's hosting a Christmas party. The scenes that show the party are agonizing. The acting is unbelievably bad! His brother Christian is sick of the materialistic nature that Christmas has become and wants to put "Christ" back in "Christmas." He hides out in his car to do some thinking where idiotic Kirk comes to talk to him about his insecurities. This is the plot and it doesn't sound that bad eh? Only Kirk Cameron and company could take a subject worthy of discussion and spin it out of control.
So what's so bad about the story? Sure the acting is horrid and the budget is low, but that's not the worst. The majority of the movie takes place in Christian's car with Cameron doing voice-overs in dramatizations of what he's taking about. Those dramatizations are very bad and unnecessary. It could have been a "My Dinner With Andre" style and kept the camera on them the whole time, but nooooooo. The technological issues are bad enough, and these little scenes just add fuel to the fire! And what Kirk talks about are all wrong and make no sense. The first thing that Christian complains about is the materialistic possession in Christmas and Kirk says all that stuff is great. Right away that's wrong. And he just goes on to randomly and falsely talk about Jesus' birth without even saying how that ties in with Christian's issue. Next is his shpeel about Christmas trees. Again, wrong explanation! And Kirk saying why Christmas is celebrated on December 25 is wrong too! Studies show that He was born around August. And that goes on and on with what feels like forever.
Kirk Cameron's buddy in Christian director and pastor Alex Kendrick who I think is great. He could not save this mess. Any self-respecting Christian or anybody with half a brain can see that this is not a good film. It practically makes a mockery of the Messiah! Cameron caused a backlash with what he said was done by "atheists." It's not just atheists, it is also Christians that know better than you, Kirk!
Instead of making a movie about Christ in Christmas, get somebody who knows their stuff to do a documentary on the subject.
In & Out (1997)
A Huge Letdown.
As a huge fan of Kevin Kline and the others in this movie, I must say that this was below them. It obviously wasn't going to be as great as A Fish Called Wanda or as funny as There's Something About Mary, but geez! This movie is like eating potato chips with no flavour that are overly saturated with salt.
I totally love Kevin Kline and he actually does a good job in this. He plays a high school English teacher named Howard Becket who is the most loved teacher in his school. Things seem to be going great for him: he's up for teacher of the year, he's about to finally get married (to Joan Cusack), and his old student Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) is the favourite for an Oscar win. Drake's Oscar-winning role is him playing a gay soldier, and when he wins he thanks everybody including his "gay" teacher Howard Becket. So of course, everybody thinks it to be true. Is Howard hiding something? Does Howard not know himself?
One thing that stung this movie was its predictability. It became very evident when Howard officially declares himself gay and what gags would come about soon after Drake's speech. But predictable or not, none of the jokes were funny! The only part where I giggled a little bit was at the climax. Other than that, very few times did I even crack a smile.
As I said, Kevin Kline is fine. His sheer talent as an actor made the character of Howard Becket somewhat interesting. Howard pulls off some partially gay vibes that are extremely subtle and easy to miss. Only the most talented can do subtle traits at this level. He was perfect. But the lousy script prevented him from pushing it to higher ground. The same years as this saw Kline star in the phenomenal flick The Ice Storm. Watch that and skip this.
The supporting cast is good too. Joan Cusack was nominated for an Oscar. If the film was better, she could have won. Tom Selleck was fun in this, but nothing special. Howard's students were good and so was Bob Newhart.
Kevin Kline and company couldn't save this, they just made it worth watching until the end. THat's why the rating out of 10 isn't lower.
Ladri di biciclette (1948)
It Must Be Said, This Is An Overrated Film.
I'm not saying this is a bad film. It is actually quite good. The acting and story are marvellous. I just don't like how much people praise this and call it Italy's greatest film. It's got nothing on films like La Dolce Vita or Life Is Beautiful. I do agree that this is the best Italian Neo-Realist film, but that was an overrated movement with just one of two well-known films. I'm not trashing this, I just don't think it deserves such high praise.
The Italian Neo-Realist movement was around post-WWII that focused on the country's oppression, using real people instead of actors, on-location shooting, and other shenanigans to capture the most real feeling. That being said, the technical aspect of this was good but nothing special. pretty good. Not as inventive as the French New Wave era a few years after, but still fine.
The movie's premise is what makes this film so good. The Ricci family is dirt-poor, but Antonio manages to get a job putting up posters around Rome. The only thing he needs to provide is a bicycle. If no bike, no dice. A few weeks before, he sold his bike in order to secure his finances. Now he is in desperation to buy a new one and earn a living to bring his family out of poverty. This first act that gives us an idea who the family are is perfect in terms of building up exactly who they are. During his first day, his bike gets stolen. His son, Bruno, and friends help him try to find it. There is no proof of who stole it, and with all the bikes in the city, they're looking for a needle in a haystack. Sure they are seeking a bike, but it is more than just a bike. It represents the family's future and what Antonio needs. Along the way, Antonio and Bruno's relationship between father and son grows as they try something that will take such a long time to do.
I totally get the deal with what the bike represents and the father-son relationship. And people often call the ending one of the saddest ever. I easily agree. But what do I have a problem with in this film? A man searching for the source of what he needs the most sounds like excitement will be stirred up. And especially in such a oppressive time period. There aren't any turns-of-events like there should be and not much unfolds. Antonio finding the culprit is all there is in terms of new information being brought to the table. There are some good scenes other than that, but they aren't awesome nor do they help advance the story. The drama could have been kept, but an increase in complexity and furthering the reach of the story would have made for a much better movie deserving of all the praise it gets. Maybe have Antonio steal someone's bike and successfully get away with it for a short period of time. Just a thought.
But nonetheless, what we have is just alright with me. The actors are fine and I really like the general premise.
Scale of 1-10: 7.5/10
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Did You Really Expect It To Be As Good As 1991's Version?
1991's adaptation of Beauty & the Beast is my favourite animated film. I honestly do think it is the best ever. No disrespect to Toy Story or Snow White, but the 1991 classic has such beauty and raw power that has an undeniably strong emotional impact. Sure there have been other adaptations of Beauty and the Beast, but none of which was a remake of the cartoon. When I found out that a live-action version of the cartoon would be made, I was thrilled. My favourite animated film ever is being made with real people! The Jungle Book and Cinderella are the recent live-action versions of Disney classic and they soared high. Okay maybe I'm babbling, so I'll get to the point: 2017's live- action version of the beloved Beauty and the Beast is good but not great.
Emma Watson dons the role of Belle. She was good, but not great. In fact, she may be the worst cast in this. Dan Stevens is almost perfect as Beast. For the costume he gets, there was no getting better. Luke Evans is pretty awesome as Gaston (I think that's how it's spelled). Josh Gad was great as his sidekick. And Kevin Kline was wonderful as Belle's father, Maurice. But how well do these character's mesh with everything else?
In the first little bit, Belle is popular and Gaston wants to marry her. The movie takes off when Maurice stumbles into the Beast's castle. Honestly, the whole chunk before that isn't all that special. The beautiful scenery and looks are what carry it...and the whole movie. This first bit didn't seem to have the joy and spirit that the 90's version had. It's rather bland. It doesn't suck, it just doesn't have much of a reaction on the viewer.
When Maurice winds up at Beast's castle, he becomes his prisoner. Belle rescues him and she takes his place. Now the movie is taking off and we're at the point where the cool things happen. All of the animatronics of the accessories were sweet and the castle itself looks wonderful. And of course, everybody's a sucker for the romance between Belle and Beast. The only flaws were that the magic was lost. The little furniture things were cool but not awesome, the scenery wasn't enchanting or glamorous, and it was all too dark. I was expecting the look to be as enchanting as the live-action version of Cinderella from 2015. This one got lucky a few times, such as (obviously) the "Tale As Old As Time" scene. In terms of looks, that Cinderella wins.
The other stuff that deals with Gaston is rather generic. When him and the town's people invade the castle, it is the battle between him and Beast that is actually the worst part of that scene. There was nothing special or intense about it like the cartoon had. With all this upgraded technology, they should have made it as awesome as the cartoon! But whatever, the payoff when Beast and all the objects turn back into humans is wonderful.
So the movie doesn't have the magic or charm that the 1991 cartoon had. So the pacing was off (almost fifty minutes were added, a simple fifteen or twenty would have been enough). So it was dark. The movie still has stuff going for it. The imagery is beautiful, the romance is strong, the music is fine, etc. Maybe they're not at the level of the old one, but this still does almost all those well enough. And the flaws I listed are reasons this movie wasn't totally fantastic and why I may not call it one of the year's best.
Nonetheless, I recommend it. It's hard not to compare, but this is too good to ignore.
Sabrina (1954)
This Movie Makes Me Feel So Good About Myself!
Feeling like a million bucks; high on life; all of these phrases apply to me whenever I watch the single most underrated film of the 50s: Sabrina. It stars Audrey Hepburn as Sabrina alongside Humphrey Bogart and William Holden, and is directed by Billy Wilder. After seeing these quick facts, it was pretty evident that this movie would be great. But I had no idea that it would be at this almost unreachable level.
This was the movie that made me fall in love with Audrey Hepburn. Her father is the chauffeur to the wealthy Larrabee family. She grew up with the hots for the son David (Holden) but he never noticed her. She spends two years in culinary school in Paris and returns home a knockout. I'd say the sole flaw of this movie is Audrey Hepburn is too beautiful for David not to like her back. Her look when she returns is not that much different. But whatever. When she returns, David finally takes notice to her and they start a romance. But he is already engaged to a woman who is right for the family business. But David is a playboy who is a little bit irresponsible. His older brother Linus (Bogart) is a workaholic who happens to also fall for Sabrina soon after. Which brother is right for her? Which one will she pick?
Something I love about this film is it actually makes me laugh. I mean actual belly laughs. Maybe not as frequent or intensely as Wilder's Some Like It Hot, but close. And the romance that blossom in the love triangle is so beautiful as we watch the love and characters grow.
It honestly doesn't matter who Sabrina ends up with. The movie makes too much love and glory to be disappointed by her decision.
Easily one of my ten favourite films of the 1950's.
The Accused (1988)
Foster & McGillis Knock It Out of the Park!
The Accused has three things that make it great: Kelly McGillis, Jodie Foster, and a case where lots of the blame is placed upon the victim. You must look at your own principles and see just how far in the wrong all the parties were, and the two leads make sure you think long and hard.
Jodie Foster may be a child star, but this movie was her breakout role as an adult. Sure she did Taxi Driver before she was even a teenager, but in this we get the next stage of Jodie Foster. And out of all the roles in her illustrious career, I honestly think that her performance as Sarah Tobias stands as her best. Even better than Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. Sure Silence is a better film than The Accused, but looking at both of Foster's performances it is clear that Sarah comes out superior.
While Foster was the standout and the movie as a whole did receive praise, I just wish that there was more praise towards Kelly McGillis. She actually was a victim of rape when she was was young and initially wanted the part of Sarah. But she does just fine as the determined prosecutor Kathryn Murphy. Jodie Foster isn't that much better than McGillis. She is, but just by a little bit. McGillis plays the role with such conviction and power.
So the general story of The Accused is a trashy young woman gets gang-raped in the back of a bar after they all get drunk, so she gets a lawyer to bring justice. The max that the rapers will get is 5 years in jail, but they will likely get out in less than a year. This is because since all the parties got drunk and Sarah was practically putting on a sleazy sex show, so she arguably instigated and provoked her own rape. I'm not siding with the perps or sympathizing with them, but she needed to be the one to control how much alcohol and pot she consumed. She is pretty low-class so she must know that creeps hang out in bars, she must have experience. But this movie is trying to say that no matter what, rape is NOT okay.
The other part of the case deals with the hecklers who cheered while the rape was in session. Those guys get put behind bars, and the actual rapers get the full sentence. The lawyer that defends the hecklers is incredibly stupid as I just kept saying "Duuuuhhhhh!!" every time he finished a sentence. It is also during this last act when a flashback of the rape is shown through the honest eyes of an onlooker too scared to intervene.
Even if law does not interest you, watch it just for Kelly McGillis and Jodie Foster.
Logan (2017)
Really Not Very Good.
I've never been a big fan of the X-Men series. The Wolverine spin-offs haven't impressed me either. So far, this instalment has maintained a very high rating on this site. It is different enough from the others to be considered different, but different does not always been better.
The first noticeable thing that is different with this is its R-rating. There's nothing wrong with a movie being rated R, especially an action movie. But this movie seemed like it tried to capitalize on the successes of Daredevil and Deadpool by making it similar in tone and grittiness. But honestly, the action here wasn't as amazing as you'd think. It is good, but not great. There is lots of blood and guts, but that literally does nothing--it neither diminishes nor elevates the quality of the action. Maybe if this was directed by the same ones that did Deadpool and some Daredevil episodes, the action would probably have been great. I guarantee it.
So Logan apparently takes a more realistic and humane approach than the others. Okay I totally disagree with that. Anyway, Logan's powers are dwindling and he makes a living as a chauffeur. His latest client makes him stumble into a wild scheme that involves doctors trying to replicate mutant DNA since the mutant population is shrinking. He also must care for Professor Xavier.
So what other problems do I have with this? Right off the bat, it is way too long! It goes on and on trying to forcefeed the bogus relationship between Logan, Xavier, and the girl. And the storyline is too dull to fill up that much time. And it is told so much dryer than I could have imagined. And finally, Hugh Jackman. I've never understood the big fascination with Hugh Jackman as an actor. He is far too forceful in his delivery. I didn't buy it. None of the others were good either.
So good action, and not much else.
The Descendants (2011)
The Movie Could Not Have Been Better. George Clooney's Finest Hour.
Despite being one of the biggest stars Hollywood has seen in over twenty years, I've never been fond of George Clooney. He's pretty overrated. Some of his movies are awesome, but he went much of a standout. Ocean's Eleven was a dazzling film, but Clooney didn't do much for me. He won an Oscar for 2005's Syriana, but I didn't think Clooney was good in it. Only in Michael Clayton and Up In The Air was I impressed with his talents and only then did I see what his fans have always loved. This review may be six-years-too-late, but I am thoroughly proud of what George Clooney brings to the table and I hold this movie in higher regard than most.
Most reviews of this film say that it could have been better and that Clooney might not have been the best choice. Could somebody else have done better? Sure. But then I would not have a Clooney performance that I could call "truly remarkable." As for the other stuff this movie has, every time I thought more should be done or something could have changed, it did right away. This movie read my mind.
George Clooney stars as Matt King. His family has lived in Hawaii for generations, and him and his relatives own thousands of acres of land. He works as a realty lawyer who tries to raise his two daughters properly. He wants to give them enough money to do stuff, but not too much to do nothing. That's perfect. He doesn't want them to grow up to be spoiled rich brats. Despite not having a strong relationship with them, he evidently tries.
The movie opens up with Matt's wife Elizabeth being involved in a boating accident where she falls in a irreversible coma and is given only weeks to live. Matt is heartbroken, and scared that his girls will grow up without their mother. He takes his rebellious teenage daughter named Alexandra from a boarding school to spend as much time together as possible before all ends. So far, it seems to be a light-hearted family drama about his father wanting to reconnect with his estranged daughters. Well that is what the movie is about, but it takes drastic turn into sheer originality that is executed to perfection.
Alexandra and her mother did not get along at all. Their bitterness started when she found her mother with another man. That man is Realtor Brian Speer. Speer is surprisingly well-played by Matthew Lillard. I'm so used to seeing him as jokesters like in Scream and Scooby Doo, but this change for him is well-suited. Matt wants to find out exactly who Speer is, and so does his daughter. Remember when I said the movie is about a father wanting to reconnect with his daughters? Well their common ground is seeking the culprit that broke their family apart. Along the way, shocking truths about Elizabeth and Speer arise that are very heartbreaking. But at the same time, she's a vegetable.
Being near death really takes emotional tolls on Matt and his family. This whole situation is enough to prevent his daughters from becoming brats. And Matt wanting revenge on Speer was perfectly set up. We all know not much will happen (Matt won't beat him to a bloody pulp or anything like that), but enough emotion is stirred up around Speer's subplot that is just as strong as the main.
I totally love what the movie tackles. Usually when people die, others mourn. But with Elizabeth, she was not a very good woman. Is is honourable to bash a soon-to-be-dead person? I also love the blossoming relationship with Matt and his daughters, and the subplot with Brian Speer. The icing on the cake is the beautiful images of Hawaii culture. The boarders in the credits lets you know that you are in for a good time. The sun shining, the palm trees, the acres of land, all of these prevent you from looking away. Not impressed with the story? Well the movie contains images too beautiful to turn away from. And the crown jewel is George Clooney. He was nominated for an Oscar, but lost. I honestly thought he was the best of the year.
Here is a movie made to perfection. **** out of ****
She's All That (1999)
I Was A Total Sucker For This.
She's All That has so much going for it that made a guy like me fall in love with it. First, it is so 90's. That was the last great decade where everything was perfect. Teen movies were perfect, romance was perfect, the music was perfect. The timeless pop song "Kiss Me" by Sixpense NonetheRicher was used for this movie. And the other reason why I love this is that it's the modern teenage take on my favourite musical ever: My Fair Lady. Most people that didn't like this must not have liked the element of that. Luckily, I fit in where I love the whole 90's aspect as well as the roots of the film. I'm probably the only person that feels this way, but I don't mind. In fact, that makes me feel like I have a special bond with this film.
My Fair Lady is about a well-respected upper-class Englishman who bets that he can transform a cockney woman into somebody classy. She's All That features the most popular guy in high school (Freddie Prinze Jr.) betting that he can transform the biggest basket case in school (Rachael Leigh Cook) into the prom queen.
So the plot sounds pretty good eh? It is a process kind of plot where it all depends on the outcome of the idea. Fortunately for this, everything even before is handled just right. We get to know our main characters perfectly and feel for them. We get to know why our leading lady is so timid and our hearts go out. As our leading man falls for her, our heart goes out too.
There is real chemistry and perfection behind the characters. This was made back when teen movies were made properly, back when party movies were well done, and when modern day adaptations were faithful to the original but still had their own spunk. I recommend this now more than when it came out.
5.8 is much too low.