21 & 22 Jump Street (2012 & 2014)

American crime comedies directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (on both), starring Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum and Ice Cube.
An unlikely pair of cops are really bad at their job and get sent on an undercover mission. In 21, they go to high school, searching for dealers and suppliers of a drug called HFS "Holy Fucking Shit". In 22, they are sent to college and the drug is called WHYPHY "Work Hard Yes Play Hard Yes".
Very entertaining. The humor mostly mocked the genre of the film with jokes about exploding and non-exploding items or saying "something cool" when throwing a grenade. It also included the American-mandatory sex and potty humor. The plots held my attention and I cared what happened next. Same with characters, I wanted to know how these guys would solve problems. Mostly, I cared what the next joke would be. Video was not really my style with quick cut rates and closer shots. The effects were great though. In each film, the main characters ingest the drug in question and the effects are shown in an extremely visual manner. Audio was very uneven, with whispered dialogue and loud music or explosions. Despite production style disagreements with my criteria, they were fun to watch. I rate them both good and they should be watched as a set, but the first was better. You should watch this.

21 (2008)

An American crime drama directed by Robert Luketic, starring Lawrence Fishburne, Kevin Spacey and Jacob Pitts.
A math professor at MIT recruits a student who is trying to get into Harvard for his secret club. The club learns to count cards and goes to Las Vegas in hopes of winning money. Seduced by money, glamor and popularity, the students begin making mistakes.
Not bad, but not good. The stale plot branched off in predictable ways and the characters were not developed well. The main character (Ben), the professor (Micky) and the head of security (Cole) were developed some and had back-story, but nobody else did. I'm not saying that every character needs to be developed, but if they are important enough to be in like 5 scenes, they need some back-story. Video looked good, but very predictable for the time. There was some underexposure, but it looked chosen because all films show Las Vegas casinos being unevenly lit. Audio was actually a little bit loud, but generally seemed even. I rate it o.k. because it's a mediocre movie. Watch it or skip it, whatever.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

A German American crime action sequel directed by John Singleton, starring James Remar.
A racecar driver is now working with the cops and together with an old friend, they make a deal to deliver money to a crime boss. The cops are in on the plan and want to catch everyone.
Oh yeah, car racing is absolutely the most interesting thing to watch. He's driving faster, now the other guy drives faster. Clearly, the plot did not hold my attention. I thought the characters were shallow too. The video had lots of quick editing, but some creative shots like going through the back of the car into the bag of money. There was also more correct exposure than I expected. The audio had crappy music, but dialogue was all clear. It was at least mixed well. What we've got here is "just another American car chase" like I said about "just another Japanese gun fight" before. I rate it bad because it's not worth watching and should never have been made, but at least it didn't hurt to watch. Don't watch it.

1900 A.K.A. Novecento (1976)

An Italian French West German historical drama directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, starring Robert De Niro and Gérard Depardieu.
A rich boy and poor boy are born on the same day. The rich boy is the heir to a Padrone dynasty, ruling over a farm and making all the money, but doing none of the work. The poor boy is from a family of laborers on the farm who do all the work, but make no money. There is also a conflict going on between communists, socialists, fascists and Bolsheviks.
5 hours and 15 minutes! The plot included the 2 boys as they became men and grew old, but it also included the political and financial issues of the time. There were oodles of characters, but the 2 main characters were dynamic and developed. Video reminded me of spaghetti westerns and early gangster flicks because that's where and when it was made. Good thing it was not made in the 1960s, I would not be able to take a 5 hour peplum. I found a version with English audio and subtitles and could hear all of the dialogue. There were some sections with annoying music. One scene comes to mind, in which a group of peasants are singing and a different non-diegetic song is playing. Holding my interest for over 5 hours is a difficult task. I watched in smaller chunks, but could follow the story fine. Still, it did not captivate my attention. I would have liked it to be more about the 2 main characters, with less historical context and political material. There was male and female nudity including a scene in which the 2 boys compare penis shapes and an old woman displaying her breasts before being shot by a fascist. I'm glad that someone tried to make such an epic film, but if a film is over 5 hours, it should really be better than this. I rate it o.k. You should probably read more about it somewhere else before deciding whether to watch it.

17 Again (2009)

An American comedy drama directed by Burr Steers, starring Leslie Mann, Thomas Lennon and Brian Doyle-Murray.
A man regrets his life because he got married in High School and skipped college. His wife is divorcing him and his kids don't like him. A magical janitor makes him 17 years old again, but the rest of the world stays the same.
I thought 16 Wishes (2010) was bad, this is worse. The writing seemed like someone was having serious mental problems to think this was ok. Jason Filardi (writer) has not been involved in very many films. The only other things I've seen were when he acted in The Craft (1996) and Ricky 6 (2000) as an extra. I must assume that he has a developmental disability (A.K.A. he's a retard). The plot was a bad idea to begin with and stayed terrible throughout the duration. The shallow characters did not develop. Some of them changed slightly and the protagonist had his cookie cutter awakening, but I would not classify that as a dynamic character. This type of film just feels so contrived and forced that I can't see how 1: the filmmakers think it will work while creating it or 2: anyone can enjoy watching it. The video was mostly bright and saturated, but the audio surprised me with lots of audible dialogue. That and the Brian Doyle-Murray cameo (image) were the only good things about it. I rate this shit because you would have to be retarded to like it. DO NOT WATCH!

16 Wishes (2010)

A Canadian American fantasy drama directed by Peter DeLuise.
A teen girl has a wish list of what she wants on her 16th birthday. A magical girl gives her 16 candles which grant the wishes from the list. Everything seems to be going well to start, but then some wishes develop unexpected consequences.
Total trash. I knew this type of shit was coming eventually when I started on the list of "every film ever made". It is clearly made for a female audience under the age of 16 and contains anti-male programming. Every male character is stupid, not to mention every adult character. I think the only good thing about it was that the magic girl (image) looked like she would grow to resemble the woman from Thursday (1998), Paulina Porizkova (Dallas). The plot is trite and predictable. The video looked alright, except for the sped up time effect. This was really blurry and unconvincing. There were lots of sections with the clearly mainstream female oversaturated bright look, but not all of it was like that. Audio had good levels, but also had tons of crappy pop music. I rate this shit because it is to anyone either male or over 15 years of age. If you have read any of my blog and agreed with anything on it, don't torture yourself by watching this like I did.

Batteries Not Included A.K.A. *batteries not included (1987)

An American science fiction comedy directed by Matthew Robbins, starring Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy.
People who live in an old building over a cafe are being pressured to move out. Real estate agents have hired Latino gangsters to chase them out of the building. Robotic aliens arrive and begin helping the occupants by fixing things.
Classic '80s flair. The plot held my interest and the characters were dynamic. If I were to pick someone to greet aliens, it would be Faye (the old woman). Video looked good and I could hear everything on the audio. Special effects looked like a combination of physical effects and green screen. When the robot was on the counter in the diner (image), it was clearly composited, but other scenes looked like props on wires. I rate this awesome because it has that late '80s style that I like so much. Watch it.

...And Justice for All. (1979)

An American courtroom drama directed by Norman Jewison, starring Al Pacino and Jack Warden.
An honest lawyer becomes aware of corruption and apathy in the court system. He is asked to defend a judge he hates and tries to do a good job.
I would think of this as a Serpico (1973) sequel. Al Pacino is in basically the same situation, an honest man amid corruption. The plot definitely held my attention and the characters were developed well. Production looked and sounded very '70s. The video was a little under-saturated and grainy/gritty. The audio was mostly focused in mid-range and I could hear all of the dialogue very well. I guess this goes along with a theme of equality that I've been noticing in 13th (2016), 16 Blocks (2006) and 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992). The basic idea that I'm seeing repeated is that everyone should treat eachother equally and follow the rules, but that becomes difficult when those who make the rules treat everyone else as inferior and don't follow the rules they made. Yes, we live in a contradictory world to the point that when something makes sense, people suspect that something is wrong with it. I rate this good and I'm putting it in a folder with Serpico. You should probably watch it.

1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)

A French Spanish adventure directed by Ridley Scott, starring Gérard Depardieu, Sigourney Weaver and Armand Assante.
Christopher Columbus wants to sail west from Europe, seeking a trade route to Asia, but finds America. Then the problems really start.
Boring. The plot just failed to hold my attention. The characters were alright and I liked that Sigourney Weaver played the queen. Production was very much of the time. Video looked good and had a variety of shot compositions and lengths. Audio was good as well. I could hear everything and there were even leopard/jaguar screams for the American warriors attacking the Spanish conquistadores. I guess it was just too stale a story and too predictable. The viewer doesn't have any chance of wondering what will happen next. The scene with the giant bell was absurd. Christopher was standing in the center, pulling a rope like he was the only one working (image), borrowed Severus Snape's horse and suddenly everything worked. Ridley Scott really took a dive by directing this after Alien (1979), Legend (1985) and Thelma & Louise (1991). As far as I can tell, he came back to glory with Matchstick Men (2003) and that was it for him. I rate this poor because it was not even interesting.

16 Blocks (2006)

An American action thriller directed by Richard Donner, starring Bruce Willis, Mos Def and David Morse.
A detective has to escort a witness to trial, but stops and leaves the car on the way. A man with a gun approaches the witness in the car, but the detective shoots this man before he can kill the witness. The detective and witness hide in a bar and call for backup, but the crooked cops who arrive want to kill the witness. The detective disagrees and the chase starts.
How appropriate to watch after 13th (2016). Here is a film about that exact type of police brutality, black targeting and prison industrial complex, but a white cop breaks routine to expose corruption. The plot held my attention and the characters fit together well in it. I liked the team of Bruce Willis and Mos Def. I liked Mos Def's riddle:
"You're driving in a hurricane and you see three people at a bus stop. One is an old lady and she's sick. One is your best friend and he saved your life. And the third is the lady of your dreams. Now check it out, you only have room for one in your car, which one do you take?"
and Bruce Willis' answer:
"You give your car keys to your best friend, who takes your car and drives the old lady to a hospital. You stay behind with the love of your life."
Production was typical of modern action films. There was lots of moving camera and lots of fast editing. Audio was slightly better, with less whispering and mumbling than I expected from the year. I rate this o.k. because I could take it or leave it. You may want to consider watching it.

13th (2016)

An American documentary directed by Ava DuVernay.
A discussion on racism and the prison industrial complex in America.
Pretty good. It was definitely on-topic all the way through and looked at multiple aspects of the problem presented. On my documentary scale, this was more talk than techno and more information than entertainment, which is how I like them. What I liked most was that it didn't just stick to a racism problem, but included the whole financial problem of non-white ethnicity, jails and poverty vs big business, power and greed. It explained how what started as keeping slaves slaves after emancipation turned into a runaway system of crime and punishment. It was also not just black people talking about racism, but white people too. There was one section which unintentionally prompted humor from me. Repeated violent criminals were referred to as "superpredators" and it made me think of Stan Winston's Predator (of 1987 film fame) and what would a superpredator be like if that was just a regular one. I rate this adequate, but I think that non-white folks would rate it higher. You might want to check it out.

13 Ghosts (1960)

An American horror directed and produced by William Castle, starring Charles Herbert, Margaret Hamilton and Donald Woods.
A family inherit a rich and eccentric uncle's house. The house is supposedly haunted and comes with a maid who had been helping the uncle in his ghost research. The lawyer who informs the family is looking for money, which the uncle hid.
This was pretty hokey, but better than most modern trash. I would much rather see old double exposures, physical effects and editing tricks than CG ghosts that look like a video game. The simple plot did actually hold my attention and the characters were acted well. I could hear all of the dialogue and everything was clearly visible. This is important because some horror films from the late '50s and early '60s used underexposure to make it look darker and hide physical effects. This film doesn't really require a long review. I rate it adequate because it was hokey, but entertaining. You may want to check it out if you're into cheesy, not-scary horror flicks.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi A.K.A. 13 Hours (2016)

An American war (excuse me, peace keeping) film directed by Michael Bay.
American soldiers in Libya fight against Libyans.
Total crap. Love and war are my 2 least favorite film subjects. They are limited like blues music: no matter who is doing it or when, it's exactly the same. This had extreme audio problems on top of that. It seemed like the only microphones on set were attached to gun muzzles. The actors whispered and mumbled through their dialogue and then BLAM! KAPOW! AAAAAAAHHH! shooting and shouting. I thought I heard one guy call another "Snotface" Drop Dead Fred (1991), another was talking about a holodeck (Star Trek) and someone said something about "could be using a cell phone to guitar recordings". I previously mentioned that video is generally better in post-2000 films, but I must add that audio is generally worse. In fact, there was nothing good about this except the misheard dialogue. I rate it bad because even though there was nothing good about it, I've seen much worse. Don't watch it.

13 (2010)

An American thriller remake directed by Gela Babluani, starring Ray Winstone, Alexander Skarsgard, Mickey Rourke and Jason Statham.
An electrician steals a ticket to a game from a man who dies in the house he is wiring. The game involves men betting large amounts of money on modified versions of Russian Roulette.
Interestingly, Gela Babluani directed this, the original Tzameti 13 (2005) and 2 other obscure films. I have to say I liked Tzameti much more. This was like a dumbed down American version of that. If I remember correctly, the original was all in black and white. The plot of this did not hold my attention very well and the characters were shallow. Anything made after 2000 by a major film company is going to look at least alright. If Mickey Rourke and Jason Statham could be afforded, then decent cameras would have been used. The sound was kind of off, but I think that was the fault of whoever digitized and uploaded it. It sounded muffled and mid-rangey. What is most difficult to describe is the difference in "weight" between this and the original. Things in that seemed important because of film elements working together for emphasis. This seemed trivial all the way through, like a modern version of the 1980s Full Moon one-off flicks. I rate this tolerable. Considering how many options are out there, you would be better off watching something else.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

A British American drama directed by Steve McQueen, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti, Brad Pitt and Alfre Woodard.
A free black man who is a professional violinist is abducted into slavery, leaving behind his wife and 2 children. He is mistreated and has to hide his ability to read and write.
How appropriate for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The simple plot developed into many episodic side-stories about all of the things which happened to this man. The main characters were him, a female slave and a few slave owners. It's pretty clear to define protagonist and antagonist in this setup. The video all looked really good. I liked that exposure was done so well because I've seen it done badly so frequently. Audio was fine, but there was some whisper acting. I got a version with good English subtitles though. Moral and ethical implications of films seems to be something that needs to be addressed when reviewing stuff like this and 125 Years Memory (2015). The scene with Chiwetel kind of being saved from being hung was disturbingly powerful. It should be obvious that slavery is/was bad and wrong. The question to ask is whether today's monetary and psychological slavery is any better than physical slavery was back then. Their thoughts were their own and they could see and hear clear evidence of being someone's property. We are faced with a barrage of things which try to manipulate our thoughts and cannot see or hear the master's whip and chains. I rate this adequate because I liked watching it once and it was made well, but I wouldn't watch it again. You may want to check it out.

125 Years Memory A.K.A. 海難1890, Kainan 1890 (2015)

A Turkish Japanese drama directed by Mitsutoshi Tanaka, starring Seiyō Uchino.
A group of Turkish sailors are shipwrecked in Japan and the people of a small village save them. Years later, some Japanese people are trying to get out of the middle east on a Turkish rescue flight.
It took that long to tell this story? 2 hours. Why? The plot was absurdly simple and characters developed some before being discarded, never to be seen again.  It all looked and sounded great. The subtitles I got were a little screwy, but on time. I just don't see why it had to be so long. Sure, there's a great message about helping others. I'm not saying I dislike that, just that it could have been done quickly. I rate this o.k. because it was fine, just too long. Know what you're getting into before you dive into watching movies.

12 Monkeys A.K.A. Twelve Monkeys (1995)

An American science fiction directed by Terry Gilliam, starring Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Christopher Plummer.
A man from the future is sent back into the past to gather information about a disease which kills many people. He meets a psychiatrist there who tries to help him.
I don't know whether I really like or hate this movie, but it's nowhere in between. The plot holds my attention (I've seen it a few times before) and the characters are developed some. Video looks good, with excellent shot variety and uncommon angles. The audio on the version I just watched was a little low, but nothing major. It's not an identifiable film element which makes me question whether I hate it. All of that is done really well. It may be that I watched it in a bad situation of some kind the first time. Brad Pitt's acting in this made me want to see a late 1990s film with him and Johnny Depp. Just one of those strange thoughts. I give this a weird pink rating because I can't decide whether it's best or worst. You should probably read some other reviews if you're deciding whether to watch it.

11:14 (2003)

A Canadian American black comedy drama directed by Greg Marcks, starring Rachel Leigh Cook, Ben Foster, Clark Gregg and Barbara Hershey.
Separate series of events involving different groups of people all converge at 11:14PM in a car accident. 5 parts are shown.
This was about plot. Each of the people was shown in their own segment and with each passing segment, more of the pieces of the puzzle fit together to show what happened. Characters were kind of temporary and shallow because there were so many of them. I didn't really notice cinematography or editing and the audio seemed fine. There were also good subtitles on the version I found. Most folks seem to like this, but Time Out seemed to find it boring. I liked it because it held my attention. I rate it good and you should probably watch it.
On a side note, I have switched movie lists of what to watch next. I found this list of "every film ever made" https://alphabetizer.flap.tv/lists/list-of-every-movie-ever-made.php and figured I could just start at the beginning and watch whatever I found. It sure beats watching a list of the worst movies, if only for the element of chance involved. My old list was so long that I might as well try a list claiming to be every movie. I've also figured out how to make images start out at the top and centered.

12 Angry Men (1957)

An American courtroom drama directed by Sidney Lumet, starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley and Jack Warden.
A jury deliberates over a murder case. Most of the men vote guilty at the start, but one of them begins to convince the others that the defendant may not be guilty.
This is one of those classic films that everyone talks about, and for good reason. The plot holds my attention, even though I've seen it countless times. The characters don't even have names, but they are developed more than characters with names in other films I've seen. Besides, if I was on trial for murder, I would want Piglet (John Fiedler) on the jury. The whole thing is based on dialogue and that is what makes it good. This is an example of good writing making a good film. The camera-work and editing are not anything fancy, but the editing is so seamless that it goes unnoticed unless you really look for it. I rate this awesome because it takes skill to turn a simple idea into a good film by writing it well. Watch it!

'71 (2014)

A British action thriller directed by Yann Demange.
During conflict in Ireland, a soldier is separated from his group. He tries to find his way back to military headquarters while the opposing side has people searching for him.
Dumb. First, 2 things I noticed. After the bar bomb, the handhgeld camera works really well. It conveys confusion and disorientation perfectly. In some sections, there was a deep "boom boom boom etc..." sound that went on for too long at too high a volume. Anyway... The plot held my attention like a wet paper bag full of sledgehammers. No characters were developed at all. None. I think the video was the best part, with varied shots and good composition and movement. The audio was worst. It was almost all whispered dialogue in thick Irish accent. I rate it tolerable because it wasn't bad, just not good. You might not want to watch this.

.45 (2006)

An American crime drama written and directed by Gary Lennon, starring Milla Jovovich, Angus Macfadyen and Stephen Dorff.
A woman has an abusive husband and a lesbian partner/friend. Between the woman, lesbian, a social worker and one of the husband's friends, they plan to take revenge on the husband.
This had a very simple plot, but the style worked well. Between some scenes, there were interview segments with people related to the characters. The husband's mother got violent at a thanksgiving turkey she was cooking and the woman's mother got shouted at by her husband. The video all looked fine, but there were serious audio problems. It was almost all whispered dialogue. I don't feel like writing any more about this. I rate it o.k. watch it if you want.

Dead Mountaineer's Hotel A.K.A. "Hukkunud Alpinisti" hotell, Отель "У погибшего альпиниста" (1979)

A Soviet Estonian mystery directed by Grigori Kromanov.
An inspector is called to a hotel in a snowy, mountainous area. When he gets there, the owner says that he did not call. Unable to leave immediately because of weather and road conditions, the inspector stays at the hotel and meets the strange guests. Strange things then occurr, like a man strangling a copy of himself, cryptic messages, missing people, hidden guns and a supposed murder. The inspector tries to figure out what is going on.
Very strange. It almost looked like it was supposed to be an art film. There were tons of shots with only back lighting so people had glowing auras. It also looked more like 1969 than 1979, but that's just Soviet film technology. The plot was vague and not clearly presented. It could have made better use of fewer characters than it made poor use of many characters. There was tons of audio dead air noise, but again, Soviet film technology. I rate this tolerable. If you really want to watch it, be sure you know what it is.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

An American thriller directed by Dan Trachtenberg, starring John Goodman.
A woman has a car accident and wakes up in a basement. It turns out to be a fallout shelter under a farm. The man who built it has his construction assistant and her locked in because of chemical dangers in the outside air. When they find that the man is not being honest, the woman and assistant work on escaping.
This seemed like it needed a sequel, but it actually is a sequel to Cloverfield (2008). The plot definitely held my attention and the characters were memorable. John Goodman's character was deepest, the woman was shallow until the ending (not spoiling) and the assistant was on the shallow side. It definitely looked better than Cloverfield because it wasn't "found footage" style. Lighting and exposure were correct and there were some varied shots. The audio was pretty decent, but I think some of the subtitles were a little screwy. Special effects at the end looked convincing, but I would have liked to get a better view of the fictional items. Maybe that was intentional. It made me want to watch The Cloverfield Paradox (2018). I rate this adequate. You might want to check it out.

101 Reykjavik (2000)

An Icelandic black comedy drama directed by Baltasar Kormakur, starring Victoria Abril.
A young man lives with his mother and is a little bit of a slacker. He collects unemployment and hangs out with his friends. His nmother's friend comes to visit for Christmas and while the mother is away, the friend and son have sex. The mother returns and announces her lesbianism with the friend.
Not too shabby. This held my interest with plot and characters. I think the son's friends could have been developed better, but the main characters seemed realistic. It was in Icelandic, but I get good subtitles. The mother's friend was Spanish, but spoke English. I noticed some camera-work done from above ground level that looked good. 2 of the son's friends were using a crane to hang Christmas decorations in town and that was shot from a higher view. There was also a scene with the son going into a building and the camera was pointed through second floor windows from outside. I used to wish for more "good green rating" movies, but now I'm happier to get the "adequate blue rating" ones when they come along. I rate this adequate. You might want to check it out.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

An American romantic comedy directed by Gil Junger, starring Julia Stiles, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Larry Miller and David Krumholtz.
A popular high school girl is not allowed to date unless her unpopular sister has a date. The boys at school arrange a boyfriend for the unpopular sister and fight over the popular one.
Stupid stupid stupid. Even childrens movies are more intellectually stimulating than this teen crap. It was more about pop music than plot. It looked and sounded fine, if a bit too bright and loud. Everything else sucked. There is really no reason to go into a deep analysis on this. It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about movies. I rate this bad because it was, but I've seen much worse.

0.5 mm A.K.A. 0.5ミリ (2014)

A Japanese drama written and directed by Momoko Ando, starring Akira Emoto.
A young woman loses her job caring for the elderly and her home because of a fire. She drifts around, looking for misbehaving old men. When she finds one, she extracts room and board from him by threatening to call the cops and tell what he was doing.
There are many adjectives to describe this film: beautiful, tragic and Asian come up first. I've complained about 3 hour films being too long because they sucked, but this was worth 3 hours. Cinematography was absolutely amazing. I'm talking blocking of actors, camera position and movement, focus... It all looked great. Writing and dialogue were good too. I'm not sure if anything was lost in translation, but I understood what was going on and people seemed to be saying things that made sense. It held my attention and not only did I want to know what happened to the characters, but I cared whether they would be alright. The only thing in this whole film that irked me a little bit was the old man repeating phrases for too long. He was telling the woman about being in the NAVY and had these few phrases which he just repeated in different orders. It could have been shorter and still worked. When that's the only thing I don't like, we've got a winner "We've got a winner!" Requiem for a Dream (2000). I rate this best for being nearly flawless.

10 (1979)

An American romantic comedy written, directed and produced by Blake Edwards, starring Julie Andrews.
A music composer turns 40 years old and has an ideological crisis about love. He spends his vacation in Mexico before returning home.
So, this is what romantic comedy used to be like. I think we've lost a good genre in the past 41 years. In fact, we've lost many good genres, but that is outside the scope of this post. This was classy and all about characters. It looked a little gritty and there was good camera-work. The editing made sense and the audio was very level. This is the exact opposite of what gets called romantic comedy now. The current trend of the genre is so sickeningly sweet, with bright video and overly dynamic audio. The plots are idiot-proof to the point of not being mentally stimulating to those with down syndrome. The comedy was funny, instead of just a bunch of thinly veiled, crass sex jokes. The main character's novocaine antics were slapstick, but well written. Above all else, it held my attention. I rate this adequate. You might want to watch it.

Mac and Me (1988)

An American science fiction directed by Stewart Raffill.
A space probe picks up an alien family and they are separated on Earth. One of the alien children is befriended by a boy in a wheelchair and his friends help him to reunite the aliens.
Take E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and just change it just enough to seem different, then add product placement for McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Sears. That's what this was. Quotes from Wikipedia: "Raffill directed and wrote Mac and Me (1988) , made to provide royalties to the McDonald's Foundation and to have a lead with spina bifida" "amazingly bald-faced copy of E.T., even though this is E.T. in a sticky wrapper, left under the heater two hours too long" "thinly-veiled feature length commercial for McDonald's and Coca-Cola". With the obvious out of the way, was it fun to watch? I have to say it kind of was. The aliens were hokey, but charming. Seeing them sucked up in vacuums and splattered on a windshield was kind of funny. I'm skipping plot and characters here because everyone knows where those came from. Camera-work and video quality looked late '80s, which I liked. The audio was lots like my copy of Caddyshack (1980): dialogue was very quiet and music was very loud. Given my oral and ethical aversion to advertising, I liked this more than I should have. I rate it o.k. because it was an unoriginal corporate money-grubbing scheme, but fun to watch. Know what it is before deciding to watch it.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

An Australian American science fiction directed by The Wachowskis, starring Channing Tatum and Sean Bean.
A young woman finds out that she is the heir of a galactic estate which includes the Earth and people are trying to take it. A young man from space falls into the role of saving her at the last second.
This is what happens when special effects become a higher priority than writing or acting. It all looked great because it was made in a computer. Actors and sets were a minor element in the visual landscape. The plot was tired before it started. When the hero was closing in on saving the female lead the second time, I found it funny. It seems like it was written by copying and pasting from other science fiction scripts. Characters? who cares about them when we've got these alien monsters and explosions? Dialogue and delivery were stale and overplayed. How many times can films repeat the same old science fiction cliches with new video technology before folks stop watching it? Apparently, not enough yet because I watched this. I rate it bad because it's a polished turd. Don't watch it.

Jamaica Inn (1939)

A British crime thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara.
A young woman goes to stay with her aunt, but finds there are criminals there, working for a rich man who lives nearby.
Michael Medved put this in his "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time" book, and for good reason. The video was all underexposed and the audio was full of loud background noise that chopped off abruptly for indoor scenes. This was to the point that it physically hurt to watch. I got a headache from it. The plot could not hold my attention and was not clearly presented. There were too many characters with not enough screen time to identify them. All of the rich guy's servants and all of the criminals were just a mess. The rich guy also had old guests who just sat at the table for a single scene. Dialogue was a major problem because of wave sounds. There was no whisper acting, but sometimes even shouting would not cut through the waves. There was also fast talking and in British dialect, making it nearly incoherent to this American. Point is, I don't think there was anything that was not a problem in this. When I go looking for images of 16:9 films, I get 4:3 chopdowns, so obviously I found tons of 16:9 chopdowns of this 4:3 movie. I rate it shit because it actually did hurt to watch. DO NOT WATCH!

Jack and Jill (2011)

An American comedy directed by Dennis Dugan, starring Adam Sandler and Al Pacino.
A commercial filmmaker's sister visits for a holiday. He needs Al Pacino for a commercial and Al falls in love with the sister, but she doesn't like him.
Really stupid, like only Adam Sandler can make it this stupid. The humor was all "lowest common denominator" fart jokes, falling down, you know what I mean. Lots of the jokes like farting in the bathroom had already been done to death years before: Dumb and Dumber (1994) had a better bathroom fart scene. Al Pacino didn't do such a great job either. His acting seemed off like he wasn't really into it for obvious reasons. Everything looked and sounded fine, except for some whisper acting. The plot and characters were all stupid. Obviously because Adam Sandler was involved in writing. The only thing that really impressed me was special effects in the jumprope scene. How was Adam Sandler both of them and they touch? If they had not leaned shoulders and high fived, I would know it was just compositing. I rate this bad because it almost hurt to watch. Don't watch it.

Is That a Gun in Your Pocket? (2016)

An American comedy directed by Matt Cooper.
After an accident with a gun near a school, a housewife decides to lead a crusade against guns in her town and gets all of the women to swear celibacy until they are all gone.
Stupid. This is part of the new anti-male agenda waged by feminists. The basic idea of the movement is that all men are stupid (unless they are gay, then they can be intelligent) and women are better and always right. I guess the women's rights movement pushed through equality and now demand superiority and domination. This movie follows that ideology very closely: all men think about is guns, sex, poker night and football Sunday. The gay teacher is alright, though and the son of the main characters is completely clueless. The plot was trite and vapid, characters shallow and comedy thinly veiled lewd innuendos. Everything looked way too bright and cheerful and there was tons of whisper acting. I want that hour and a half of my life back. I rate this shit. DO NOT WATCH!!!

In the Army Now (1994)

An American war comedy directed by Daniel Petrie Jr., starring Pauly Shore, Lori Petty, David Alan Grier, Andy Dick and Esai Morales.
A failed electronics salesman and his best friend join the army reserves. They attend boot camp and are immediately shipped to Chad for active duty.
Most people would not agree, but I think Pauly Shore is funny. In fact, everyone seems to hate this movie. Maybe it's because I watched it when it first came out on VHS rental, but I like it. The jokes are not quite funny enough, but it follows the standard comedy format established in the '70s and continued through the '80s into the early '90s. Skwisgaar Skwigelf from Metalocalypse would say "little laugh, ha.". Sometimes it's nice to watch something with sentimental, but not intellectual value. The addition of Lori Petty (of Tank Girl (1995) fame) adds to this. I can't think of anything really wrong with this, but there was also nothing besides casting done really well. I rate it adequate. You might want to watch it.

In the Cut (2003)

A British Australian American mystery thriller directed by Jane Campion, starring Meg Ryan, Mark Ruffalo and Jennifer Jason Leigh.
A teacher gets involved with a detective after he thinks she might be a witness to a murder. She thinks that he might be the murderer because of a tattoo on his wrist.
This was not so great. The plot was really muddy and not clearly presented, but what was there was not very interesting. The characters were a little shallow, but the detective showed more depth than I thought he would as the plot progressed. There was a variety of camera-work going on as well as editing. My favorite was a dream sequence involving the main character's parents ice skating. There was far too much whisper acting going on. The sister was using "eigh" vowel replacements constantly and most of her dialogue was slurred gibberish. It wasn't really bad, but it sure wasn't good. I rate this poor. You probably should not watch it.

I Think We're Alone Now (2018)

An American drama directed by Reed Morano, starring Peter Dinklage and Elle Fanning.
A man is cleaning up a town after an apocalypse, when a girl crashes her car on one of the streets. Thinking they are alone, they become friends. Then the girl's parents show up.
This may have been on a list of "worst movies ever" but I thought it was mostly fine. I even liked lots of it. Let's start with what I did not like: the ending. Like The Breakfast Club (1985), this built some great early setup and mid-film bulk before falling apart. This just wrapped everything up way too quickly. If a direct sequel were made in the same style, it would complete the story and be great. What I did like was basically everything else. The plot was sparse, but held my attention because slow pacing oriented events coherently in time. The characters were not astoundingly deep or dynamic, but the combination of the 2 main characters worked well and the roles were well acted. Video was amazing: camera-work, editing, it was right. Most of the audio was good, although there was whisper acting. What do you expect in 2018 though? I liked the Rush-only diegetic soundtrack, but I would have pushed for more of it in non-diegetic sections. Maybe that would be a mistake though. If I'm writing this much and not poking fun or mocking, I liked it. I rate this good because it was, except the ending. Watch it.

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

An American thriller directed by Chris Sivertson.
A pair of twin girls are abducted and tortured by the same man. One of them has escaped and is mistaken for the other. She has to find the man in order to prove her identity.
This was nominated for 9 Golden Raspberries and won 8 of them. I think Lindsay Lohan may have some of the blame here and feel no compunction about spoilers. The whole disjointed mess was rife with bad acting, but what really took a dook on it was the antagonist reveal: It was her piano teacher! AAAAGH! Bad writing, bad acting, didn't feel continuous, pacing was lurchy, awards for worst movie... The piano teacher thing almost makes it funny. What was not funny was gore special effects. Watching Lindsay sew her own decaying finger back on disturbed even me. I rate this bad because I've seen worse. If you do watch it, try to find some humor.

Hurry Sundown (1967)

An American drama directed by Otto Preminger, starring Michael Caine, Jane Fonda, Faye Dunaway, Burgess Meredith, George Kennedy and Jim Backus.
Neighboring white and black farmers unite against a rich man's family trying to buy their land.
I didn't think this was so bad, but critics found it stupid, heavy-handed and coarse. My favorite quote was from Channel 4 "Preminger wears a liberal heart on his sleeve and then blows his nose on it". I liked that the poor farmers banded together against the rich land grabber, but that came after countless racist and sexist scenes. Filming was a nightmare because locals disagreed with desegregation and attacked the cast and crew on multiple occasions. I thought that the audio and video were both good. Panavision Technicolor is my favorite type of film because of the contrast, saturation and heavy grain. I'm boviously biased and unashamed. The plot and characters held my attention. I rate it adequate because I kind of liked it. You may want to watch it.

House of the Dead (2003)

A German Canadian American action horror directed by Uwe Boll, starring Clint Howard and Jürgen Prochnow.
Young people go to an island where a party was happening, but it has been disrupted by zombies. The outlaws who gave them a boat ride there and the cops chasing the outlaws are also drawn into the events.
I never want to see another slow motion bullet or fight move with the camera circling around what is depicted. Sadly, I will see these things again. I will also again regret watching a film based on a video game. This seemed like a 1980s campy horror flick done with 2000s technology. That is a very bad thing. At least in the '80s it seemed genuine. By 2003, characters should know to avoid blue smoke and fog at any cost. We also all know that jumping while shooting makes the bullets do more damage. I am so tired of writing about crappy movies when nobody reads it. I rate this bad. Really, don't watch it.
On a lighter note, I found an alphabetical list claiming to be every film ever made with title and year. Since I had been working on making a "movies to watch" list for so long and it has gone in so many directions that I no longer care what is on it, that is what I shall be using.

Homecoming (2009)

An American horror thriller directed by Morgan J. Freeman, starring Mischa Barton.
A football star returns to his hometown from college with a new girlfriend. The old girlfriend had to stay there and wants him back at the cost of the new girl.
Really cheesy and stereotypical. Otherwise, I'm stumped. I can't think of anything that was really bad about this, but there was definitely nothing good. Predictable. It was on a list of the "worst films ever", but was too mediocre to be there. I rate it tolerable. There are so many better films around, watch them instead.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

An American western written and directed by Michael Cimino, starring Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, Isabelle Huppert, Jeff Bridges and John Hurt.
After college graduation, a man goes to a foreign immigrant pioneer settlement to be a hero. He wants to leave with the woman he loves, but she won't leave her brothel. Military or militia guys show up and things get violent.
This 219 minute film can be summed up in 1 scene. Kris Kristofferson is trying to read a list of names to a group of immigrants and they won't shut up long enough to let him read (image) these immigrants in this room. Saying it had audio problems is like saying that walking from Argentina to Alaska takes a little while. Most of the scenes included mobs, crowds, gangs, parties and armies, complete with trains, wagons and horses. They were always all moving and shouting at once. Most films would have a directional microphone on the actors and/or do an overdub so we can hear dialogue without being overwhelmed by background noise. This did not. There are lots of films which have a plot worth spending 3 and a half hours on, but don't. This had about a 45 minute plot and spent 3 and a half hours on it. This may also be why the plot was not clearly presented. There were good things, though. The video all looked amazing. There was shot variety and lots of detail. Besides "The Walken Beast", nobody could ask for a better cast. In writing a hero, whenever he is needed for some official purpose, he's passed out drunk. It's just that there were serious problems which completely prevented me from enjoying it. I rate this poor because it could have been fixed with some editing. You probably should not watch it.

Gotti (2018)

An American crime drama directed by Kevin Connolly, starring John Travolta, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Stacy Keach and Chris Mulkey.
A gang boss rises to the top of his profession and brings his son up through the ranks to succeed his rule.
There's a little bit of information to know about this flick before I tell my opinion. The filmmakers spent far more money than was earned and it was rented by subscription through a New York company called MoviePass by the company releasing the film. 40% of the opening weekend tickets were purchased by MoviePass itself, which controlled the company which made Gotti. There was also a Rotten Tomatoes controversy in which the audience approval was 80% and critics scores was 0%. When you read quickly through, the company is acting like gangsters, but upon closer inspection it seems more like an extremely expensive publicity stunt. It has been nominated for multiple Golden Raspberry awards as well. I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, it was stereotypical and cliche, but what isn't these days? Besides being obvious, I didn't like that there was whisper acting. It looked fine, sounded good otherwise and held my attention some. It sure fit with the long line of gangster films I had just watched from my collection. I really wanted to post a still of the father and son, but the cameras are always over their shoulders. This was the best I could find (image). I rate it o.k. because it was just another gangster film. I would say to do some real research to decide whether you want to watch it.

Glitter (2001)

An American musical romance directed by Vondie Curtis Hall, starring Mariah Carey and Terrence Howard.
A young singer's mother abandons her and she works her way to fame while struggling with relationships.
What a piece of crap. There is no reason for anyone to watch this, besides reviewing the worst movies ever. Even fans of her music would have been better off with the album instead. I'm not complaining about cinematography, audio recording or any mixing or editing. It all looked and sounded professionally handled. What was bad was the writing and acting. Terrible music did not help. 2 of the best insults cited on Wikipedia were "Leaves you wishing the Lumiére brothers had said bollocks to cinema and gone down the pub" and "she wouldn't let anyone around her mention the film in conversation and that it was known as "the G word"" It also says that Carey was left in complete creative control and improvised most of it. Cliche was another frequently used word there. I think that says it all. I rate it shit. NEVER EVER WATCH THIS!!!

Glen or Glenda (1953)

An American drama written directed by and starring Ed Wood, also starring Bela Lugosi.
A cop goes to a doctor to discuss a cross-dresser's suicide. The doctor tells the story, with interruptions by Bela Lugosi and figurative scenes depicting the character's indecision.
This is claimed to be one of the worst films ever and I think it'as idealogically as well as cinematographically one of the worst I've seen. Much of it is unrelated scenes with pointless music. That's enough to earn a bad review here. What irks me is that it's all about men dressing as women and how bad that is. One woman was complaining about her brother stretching sweaters, but never thought to just tell him to get his own. There is a voice-over of men discussing why they don't understand trasvestites with footage of a factory (porobably a steel mill). It's really cobbled together and lacks the "women dressing as men" scenes which may have made it coherent. Also, the "problem" of men dressing as women is them not being accepted by other people. With all of the other problems in this world, a whole movie had to be made about some people's choice in clothing? The Bela Lugosi angle reeks of Haxan (1922) and demonizing any rejection of religion, but somehow making it all that much more appealing at the same time. (image) This is supposed to be funny, but was made before hippies existed. I don't get the goal of this or why it was thought to be a good decision to make. It ended up a pile of crap and I rate it shit. Do not watch!