An hour and forty minute long Paranormal State episode. Ugh, so fake.

American Ghost Hunter:

Story:

Chad Calek brings a film crew to his childhood home in Iowa to assist his family with their paranormal experiences.

Review:

You know how you watch a scary ghost movie and think, "how did they do that?" or "wow those effects are amazing!"

No? Never did?

Well, at least American Ghost Hunter won't surprise you then. This is so heavily edited that it is obvious everything is fake. In fact, this goes to show that Ed and Lorraine Warren are the worst con artists this century has ever known. EVER. Evidently Ryan Buell was up to his old tricks when he helped with American Ghost Hunter

To get into why everything is fake, I will have to go back into what Chad and Ryan were doing before American Ghost Hunter.

They both starred in a 'reality television' show called Paranormal State with a group of other 'investigators'. This group consisted of members of the Pennsylvania State University Paranormal Research Society. This group would get messages from people all over the United States, asking for help in dealing with supernatural phenomena. The group would then go to the houses, bring a 'psychic' in to help with investigations, then do a session that they call "Dead Time," in which they are in the house by themselves and try to communicate with the source of the supernatural activity.

Over the course of the five season run, Paranormal State received a lot of complaints and criticism for how they actually did things. For example, the group would tell their psychic every detail beforehand, then make the psychic swear on camera that they never received any information before entering the house. Every bit of phenomena was heavily edited to make it look more 'real', as witnessed by people that had asked the Paranormal Research Society for help. The stars of the show would also mock and make fun of what the 'victims' were experiencing off camera. In fact, someone went so far as to make a site dedicated to showing how fake Paranormal State is:

http://paranormalstateillustrated.com/paranormal_state/HOME.html

Officially, it was one of those fake shows that hordes of mindless people would watch, thinking the events occurring in the show were real.

The reason I brought all that up is that I saw all the editing techniques from Paranormal State in American Ghost Hunter, which is something Chad and Ryan were in for every minute. Shadows moving in front of the camera? Edited. Weird noises? Cheap sound effects made after by a computer (you can tell). The whole "Iowa is cursed" bit? A hoax generated by Chad and Ryan. Lorraine Warren, an infamously known so-called paranormal investigator, guest stars in this documentary just to help cement the fact that Chad, his family, and Ryan are all a bunch of liars.

Yes, for those of you who know of Lorraine Warren, she is fake. She proved it way before this film by investigating the Amityville hauntings and proclaiming that those hauntings were real. She's a hack. Same with her husband Ed.

To add to all that, if someone is going to put effects in their documentary, AT LEAST USE THE EXPENSIVE EFFECTS. I understand this is a low budget film, but they could have at least scrounged up a bit more money to get some good effects in. I don't think anyone wants to hear the same cheap sound effects repeated over and over again, or see the cheapest visual effects put into an intense sequence.

This is unfortunate, as documentaries are based solely on telling the truth or opinionated truth. It is not a genre which a bunch of amateur hacks like Chad and Ryan should be going into just to make a movie they can fool a ton of idiots into watching. There's at least some truth in documentaries, but in American Ghost Hunter there is no truth to be found. This is basically an extended episode of Paranormal State.

Overall, I can't recommend this to anyone. Don't watch this movie, and tell your friends and family not to because this is a profound waste of space and time.

Live long and do fancy hand salutes

Star Trek: Into Darkness:

Story:

The crew of the Enterprise faces a new threat when the Federation is targeted by Khan, a dangerous individual hellbent on destroying the Federation.

Review:

Several years ago J.J. Abrams introduced us to his version of Star Trek, a faster paced adrenaline rush that introduced a new generation to a series that the older generation loved and respected. Now, the sequel is here, showing us a darker, more thrilling side to Star Trek, while keeping everything that made the first film amazing intact.

I loved Star Trek: Into Darkness. As the title suggests, it truly brings us to the dark side of the franchise with the terrifyingly malevolent Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. His intensity is horrifyingly real and he is pure evil with his role. Chris Pine is more serious as Kirk, and Zachary Quinto is both very human and robotic as Spock when the time calls for it. Not to mention the countless other amazing performances by the other cast. The effects are surreal, the story is brilliant, and the action is intensely amplified by the equally great soundtrack. This is a film made with effort and intelligence and it shows.

Overall Star Trek: Into Darkness is an amazing film and I now have high hopes for J.J. Abrams foray into the Star Wars universe.

The redneck version of Twilight. Still a heck of a lot better.

Beautiful Creatures:

Story:

Ethan, a normal teenager living a normal life, meets Lena, an immediate outcast. Together they begin to fall in love, unaware of the chain of events they have caused.

Review:

So much to talk about and so little space to talk about it. Just kidding.

If you want to read the rest of this without the part where I trash Twilight, then skip the two bits below this and continue to the third bit.

Remember when the only mushy fantasy film series to watch was Twilight?

I don't, but we should humour the Twihards for just a second so I can make my point. So Twilight rolled through theaters as a series of terrible films that most of us only watched because every film ended in a cliffhanger. The books were written by a formerly polygamist woman who trashed Stephen King, a man who is widely known for his stories. He got his revenge, and the wench named Stephanie Meyer forever held her tongue. Apparently a Twilight sequel was in the works, until a certain other filmed based on a Stephanie Meyer novel called The Host flopped and floundered because it was an even worse version of Twilight except with aliens. This all proves Stephanie Meyer is the Nicholas Sparks of Fantasy novels. They're both terrible and should never ever write again.

So why did I just go on a rant about that? Because unfortunately enough, drivel like Twilight is what brought other movies like it into theaters. Every movie studio wants their own slice of the teen fantasy pie. Beautiful Creatures is no exception, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS ACTUALLY GOOD.

Beautiful Creatures manages to do what Twilight could not: weave a romantic story together with both young and old characters all while keeping the integrity of everyone involved intact. The soundtrack doesn't distract you from the film, the main character is a realistic teen with a background story that a lot of teens can relate to, and his love interest is also a relatable character.

As for other awesome parts of Beautiful Creatures, the actors are really good and very genuine, the special effects are perfect if a little under used, and the plot is paced perfectly.

Hopefully Beautiful Creatures sees a sequel, unlike a certain film franchise that should stay as dead as half of its sparkly main characters are.

Hasta la vista, terrible movie!

Story:

A Columbian drug cartel leader tries to escape imprisonment by cutting through a small town, unaware that the sheriff is determined to stop him.

Review:

The Last Stand is one of those movies that you'll see testosterone pumped guys watching. It really doesn't contribute much to the action genre other than that it's a cliched action flick with three or four non-white characters. That wouldn't seem like too much of a stereotype but the two Hispanic characters are very racially stereotypical. Oh and The Last Stand is about a fictional bridge in Arizona that connects to Mexico, that is completely unsupervised. Even for an action film that is ridiculous.

Anyways, The Last Stand isn't very entertaining. All it has is a lot of bland shootouts and a few very short car chase sequences. Arnold is getting old and his age is really starting to show, the other actors were very forgettable and were honestly more wooden than Hayden Christensen was in Star Wars, and I didn't notice the soundtrack at all; yes the soundtrack is there, but it just goes by unnoticed. There is nothing about The Last Stand that is remarkable, even the main character is forgettable. By the time I was done watching it, I felt like I had just stared at a wall for an hour and a half.

This is especially odd because the director, Jee-woon Kim, is actually a fairly competent director, having previously directed A Tale of Two Sisters, The Good, The Bad, The Weird, and I Saw The Devil. I guess every director has their terrible film.

Overall, a forgettable film.

What do you get when two Japanese people are kidnapped, tortured, and killed? A ridiculous movie. Oddly enough, it's more ridiculous in a good way than a bad way.

Grotesque:

Story:

Two young Japanese people are kidnapped and tortured by a sadistic individual.

Review:

I firstly want to say I hate the people that recommended this movie to me. Grotesque is truly a film that lives up to its title. It is disgusting, disturbing, and discomforting. Ironically enough, it has a good background story and is oddly romantic.

As far as story, there's a surprising amount more than is implied from the synopsis, and it actually develops fairly well considering what this film is about. The romantic bit was well appreciated relief from the violence, and there is a part that can be viewed as comical if the person's sense of humour is dark and disgusting enough.

There is a lot and I mean A LOT of blood and gore in Grotesque, and I get the feeling this may have been made to poke fun at other torture horror films that were released before this one.

Overall this was quite a different film than I thought it was. Violent, dark, and disturbing yet also mildy romantic and mildy comical. The actors are genuine in their pained expressions and the plot is perfectly paced.

I don't know if I can recommend this to anyone. If you liked Hostel or Saw you might like Grotesque.

It was not A very Good Day To Die Hard

A Good Day To Die Hard:
Story:
John McClane goes to Russia to see his son Jack before he goes to prison. What he doesn't know is that his son is undercover attempting to exfiltrate Yuri Kamarov, a convict who has explosive secrets about a powerful figure
Review:
The first time I went to see this movie I unfortunately fell asleep in the first few minutes, too exhausted to watch anymore. I woke up at the end of the movie, having missed roughly an hour and a half of the action packed spectacle that the Die Hard series is known for.
I just recently watched this and found out it would have been better had I not watched the lastest Die Hard installment. It's an all action film with a ten minute story and a plot that is filled more with bullets than an actual plot. I am a fan of the series, and was extremely disappointed with this.
So let's get into what made this bad.
The lack of story is what bothered me. I mean, it had a basic story that established why everything was happening but that was it with the exception of three minutes later on. This is by far the one Die Hard with the least amount of story. There are more bullets per minute than story per minute. Not only that but the story is so typical it fits ANY movie in the action/spy genre. ANY. It's easy to imagine Steven Seagal doing this same film, or Jean Claude Van Damme, or Arnold Schwarzennegger except it would in fact be better with any of those actors.
That is not the only problem, since the director seemed more content making the one family bonding subplot one that is only five minutes of the film, and as such it's resolved too fast.
The action sequences are creatively entertaining and the special effects are dynamically explosive, but that isn't all that makes a Die Hard movie a Die Hard movie. It still needs a story. Every Die Hard film before that had a story that fit the McClane family's troubled connection into the story. A Good Day To Die Hard barely managed to do this, and tried to fix the barely existent story by filling it with bullets and explosions. That's not how you fix the barely existent storyline.
The actors don't help at all. With a barely coherent script that has less time than the bullets and explosions, they actually make the film flounder even more by barely acting and only having two emotions throughout the whole film (technically three for a few of them) that you can barely detect. Even Bruce Willis barely does anything except prove how old John McClane really is.
Overall not a very good action film. If anything, watch it only if you're watching one of The Expendables films first.

The most hypest of the visual films out there. Oh snap. I just got Gatsby'd. Or Baz'd. Or both.

The Great Gatsby:

Story:

A meeting with the mysterious Jay Gatsby leads Nick Carraway down a path of intrigue.

Review:

Anyone else feel echoes of Moulin Rouge when they watched The Great Gatsby?

It's like Moulin Rouge except with better actors, better story, and better visuals.

But before I go into detail about the good, I want to go into the bad.

This is a film built on what Baz Luhrman likes making films about: love. A universal theme hat is in basically every film created (or close to).

So why the problem?

They focus almost entirely on it throughout the film. To the point where I think they left content out of the book just to focus on it. Nick Carraway was the side character to Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, yet he was the most interesting character in the film and the film is told in Carraway's perspective. You could tell there was more to Nick that was never touched upon. Hell, there was more to every character that was never told.

With that said, it's time to get into the good.

The visuals are astoundingly amazing and I'm tempted to say they're perfect. The amount of careful effort that went into making each scene picturesque is astounding. Definitely an accomplishment that I hope is recognized by other viewers.

And what good is picture perfect visuals without an awesome soundtrack? Mixing modern with old, the soundtrack manages to capture the feel of the movie and actually becomes a part of The Great Gatsby at several points.

Combine those two with an awesome script, engaging plot, and beautiful story and you have an overall great movie. Highly recommended.

For a differing opinion from a fellow colleague, check out:

http://dannykaimak.com/2013/05/12/00002/

What happens when you put a camera crew, two innocent high schoolgirls, and a principal in a haunted school? A disappointing movie.

POV:

Story:

After a bizarre supernatural occurrence during the filming of a TV show, the camera crew and hosts investigate, leading them to a high school with a tragic past.

Review:

I like J-horror to some extent, as I've mentioned numerous times with movies like Noroi and Marebito. As such, I was excited when I found POV. It has multiple similarities to Koji Shiraishi's films, yet strayed in terms of technical skill.

To write specifically about POV, I'd have to say it's a found footage film with both Noroi and Ringu style scary moments, providing both clever and intense sequences instead of jump scares. I did however find myself forcing myself to keep awake while watching this.

Unfortunately, what ruined POV the most is the acting. Granted, most of the time it was evident the atrocious script was the cause, but the rest of the time the actors and actresses were just terrible. Two different facial expressions does not equal good acting!

The special effects were very well done, comprised of various low budget techniques that actually helped the spooky parts seem more real. But unfortunately that is the only good part about POV.

Overall POV is a very lacklustre horror film with some interesting low budget effects. I hope more films like this (but better) are released soon.

Cloudy with a chance of Atlas

Cloud Atlas:

Story:

One good deed forever shapes the course of the future.

Review:

Cloud Atlas is probably one of the better movies I have seen in a while, minus some makeup effects that were extremely overdone. The story that jumps between multiple characters throughout separate centuries is an exciting and compelling tale that kept me engaged until the end of the very end.

It was a bit confusing at times, with multiple story jumps happening in a five minute span. If the story had instead been told chronologically, I think that would have made it easier to follow. Also, as mentioned before, some of the makeup effects were overdone and it shows.

The actors themselves were great and it was amazing seeing Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, and Hugh Grant do a bit of almost method acting to portray some of their characters.

The soundtrack was one of the best I've heard in the past year, with different compositions fitting each time period, and some compositions fitting all time periods.

The special effects were hit and miss. I only particularly liked the very futuristic CGI that was used for one of the sequences in particular, since they seemed to be the only effects in the film that fit the time period.

Overall Cloud Atlas is a delightful and fascinating film, the story can be confusing to follow at first, but after a while it becomes easier to follow.

I was definitely Miserables when I watched this film.

Les Miserables:

Story:

The intersection of a former convict and a poor mother spark a series of events that change their lives and the lives of those around them forever.

Review:

I'm not a fan of musicals, so Les Miserables was more or less just an average movie to me. I watched it with an open mind and did enjoy some of the scenes, but it honestly felt sloppy to me. The editing was too haphazard, transitions too abrupt, and the overall story and film is too short despite the two and a half hour run time. The musical numbers were okay and the actors did their best, but the overall movie failed to get any emotional content out of me. Tobe Hooper's directing style does not mesh well with musical adaptations.

Overall I did not like Les MIserables, and as such I can't recommend it to anyone.

Opinion: The future of films

So I was recently asked by a reader what my thoughts are on the future of films, and instead of giving a direct answer, I figured I would give my answer on here.

In the future of films:

New innovative features brought to us by technological advances. Movies with new directly interactive innovations, and movies that are still original in content. Even though new ideas and gimmicky innovations are coming out, people will still want their films the way they have always been, with a linear story that only ends one way. In fact, I think we are going to once again see the rise of movies that provoke our minds and intelligence. That we are merely in a state where we lack the original minds to push uniquely original content, and the more we discover in technology the more we will want original ideas placed on film in the style of film we have learned is the best way: as a linear story. As a film that gives us original plot, original characters, original settings, and original soundtracks.

Anger Management: the romantic edition

Silver Linings Playbook:

Story:

Pat, a troubled guy recently released from a mental health institution, meets Tiffany, a girl with a troubled past of her own. Together they embark on a journey that will change both of their lives forever.

Review:

For the record, I am not a guy that's big on romantic films. They tend to be cheesy, overly dramatic, and so cliched that only the sappiest of people can watch and enjoy them.

Basically they tend to suck. They are underwhelming, unintelligent, overly mushy films that as stated before only appeal to those of us who make out with our significant others in public areas for up to half an hour, making everyone else in the public areas feel awkward/uncomfortable/irritated/any other emotion that that kind of PDA causes.

So when I finally got around to watching Silver Linings Playbook, I was pleasantly surprised to discover an intelligent and witty romantic comedy that is enjoyably uncomplicated.
The genius of this film is that it's not made for dumb people, yet manages to not be complicated by the various subject matter involving emotional health in the story. It is, without a doubt, what romantic comedies should be: films that manage to be full of story and emotion yet simple and realistic.
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are an amazing onscreen couple, and they seemed to genuinely spark.

That's not to say that the rest of the cast don't deserve praise. Chris Tucker was amazing as Danny, Pat's friend from the institution; Robert DeNiro was great as Pat sr., the superstitious sport gambler. There are obviously more cast, but I'm not going to go through an entire paragraph naming every actor/actress and every good job, so I will say overall that everyone did a great job.

Overall, I enjoyed Silver Linings Playbook. It's an actual romance film that manages to stray away from any other romance genre film, especially those stupid films based on Nicholas Sparks novels. Seriously, someone should tell him to stop writing. We all know his stories are the exact same formula just used over and over and over again.

Harvey Dent, can we trust him? Oh wait wrong movie.

Iron Man 3:

Story:

A post-alien invasion Tony Stark, fights his inner demons as well as a terrorist mastermind known as The Mandarin.

Review:

Several years ago, the first Iron Man film came out and was a tremendous box office success. It featured a rich guy fighting bad guys in a suit. A few years after that, Iron Man 2 came out, again with a rich guy fighting bad guys in a suit, as well as his military buddy in a suit. Again, box office success.

Both movies lead to the upcoming Avengers film, which featured several people with extraordinary powers/skills who united to fight an alien invasion of epic proportions. This film was the biggest success of the Marvel franchise, and even brought about the concept of multi-franchise crossover to the superhero genre.

Now, Iron Man 3 has hit theaters, accompanied by new director Shane Black and the returning cast from the previous Iron Man films.

So, how does this installment stack up to the previous films in the storyline?

Well for starters, it is a lot more serious, while also being incredibly cheesy. While that isn't entirely foreign to the Iron Man series, it is a slightly irritating signature of Iron Man 3. Never will you hear so many jokes as this one had. It almost felt like watching a Brett Ratner movie.

The forementioned cheesiness also hinders the story, which is for the most part, the most darkly serious Marvel story in film. The jokes during moments which would normally be serious serve to undermine those moments (and there are many of those moments).

As far as acting goes, Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, and Ben Kingsley all do their parts amazingly genuinely, with each character portrayed at their best.

Overall this is a delightful Iron Man 3 film, with what is possibly the most amazing ending action sequence in an Iron Man film and possibly in all the Marvel movies except for Avengers. The barrage of special effects just serves to be a visual treat, especially in 3D. Iron Man 3 just would have been better without the abundance of cheesiness.

That Awkward Moment When The Movie You Watch Is Worse Than Any Uwe Boll Videogame Adaptation

How to Avoid a Horrible Movie:

Have you ever had that time when you're in a horrible mood and just want something to cheer you up?

I bet that's a resounding yes from most of you.

For those of you that do have those moments, have you ever gone to the theater in the hopes that the film you watch there will bring your smile back?

Probably a few yes's.

And have you ever seen that movie that just makes your terrible day even worse? And that is a question directed to the average moviegoer as well.

Yep.

We've all seen these movies, whether they were the Grudge 2, Ghost Rider, Movie 43, or (shudder) Gigli. Movies like those are the worst offenders and it's surprising that they even make it to theaters and don't end up in the bargain bins at Wal-mart. They put us in such a terrible mood that we just want our money back for our tickets BUT NO WE CAN'T BECAUSE WE WATCHED OVER AN HOUR OF THE FILM. There's no way anyone can avoid making that mistake, right?

Wrong, and here's how you do it:

1. Always look up the track record of the directors and the writers before watching a film. Seriously, this can save you a lot of time and effort. The only reason I write generally positive reviews is because I always do background checks on the films I watch. Danny Boyle is almost always a safe bet, so is Marc Webb, Stephen Spielberg when he does sci-fi, Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Zack Snyder, Judd Apatow, Tim Burton, and Spike Jonze. There are other directors I haven't named, but those people are the ones that come up off the top of my head. The writers also have a very big effect on how a film turns out, since the script is what makes the actors and actresses do what they do.

2. Always AND I MEAN ALWAYS see what critics have to say after the critic screenings come out. Reviewers love watching films and have a very educated opinion of the films they watch. As such, if they say a film is terrible then usually that film is terrible. There's always a newspaper or an article online that has a review of a film before it's out in theaters. If a film did not have a critic screening then it is more than likely a terrible film.

3. Always listen to what your friends have to say about the film, especially the ones you frequently watch movies with. The ones you enjoy movies with are the ones whose tastes are similar to yours, so the chances of you liking a movie that they liked are fairly high.

4. Check the Metacritic score. This one is usually the lifesaver. For those that don't know what Metacritic is, they compile a big portion of the movie reviews, then put a score out that is a calculated representation of the median/average score according to the reviews by the critics. If a movie has a score below 60 it is more than likely that terrible film that will absolutely ruin your day. Also check the user reviews, because they tend to have their own summed up score. If it's below 6, then it's probably bad. Granted, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS, but those good movies with low ratings are rare.

I know assumptions are bad, but if you really want to avoid a terrible film, you have to do some research before spending those $11 to $13 on that ticket.

Dude! Wait! You promised I could have you over for dinner!

Hannibal (TV series):

Story:

Wil Graham, special consultant for the FBI, is paired with Hannibal Lecter, a mysterious individual who seems to have more to himself than meets the eye.

Review:

This is the part where you roll your eyes because it's an NBC show. BUT WAIT IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD. The actors including Laurence Fishburne and Madds Mikkelsen give their all to provide a story about the bond between patient and doctor, or more specifically, predator and prey.

For a crime drama/thriller, the jarring content is surprisingly well delivered, moreso after the pilot, which was directed by David Slade of 30 Days of Night fame. The story gets more intense the more you get to know Wil and Hannibal as their bond solidifies.

One of my favorite components has to be the analysis of the crimes by Wil. His technique is so profoundly unsettling that all you can do is watch. The effects for these sequences are especially amazing and are a highlight of the show.

This actually is the best American series I have seen in ages, and is very recommended for those who like the Hannibal books or Hannibal movies.