I’m getting around to “Sleepaway Camp” right now.
Why this film, and why now, you may ask? Well, it was the first film on Joe Bob Briggs’s first movie marathon since 2000 (which took place on Shudder), and I figured “Why not?” I would much rather be starting out with “Basket Case,” but this one comes first in the lineup of the marathon, so this’ll be the first of fourteen reviews, with “Blood Feast” and “Pieces” excluded and “Demons 2,” “Basket Case 2” and “3” and “Hellbound: Hellraiser II” added for good measure. Let’s get going.
Perhaps the number one issue I have with this movie is that it doesn’t know what kind of horror story it wants to tell. It seems to be caught between a surreal dive into insanity and, as Joe Bob himself says, an ’80s slasher movie. Either way, both feel underdeveloped, especially towards the end, and they don’t even compliment each other well, like they would in something like “Oculus” or the original “Haunting.” There are also a ton of storyline inconsistencies and production snafus that do occasionally create plot holes themselves. (I’ll get into those with more vigor later.) Overall, it seems like something that could’ve had potential, but it needed to be proofread more before the script was written. (Or during, even.) Long story short, it’s pretty bad.
Story Grade: D-
Very flat and rather dull, with the exception of Mr. Slausen, whose actor is far too good for the movie. And I will get to that in greater detail later.
Characterization Grade: D
It’s roughly on par with most ’80s slashers, with similar gaps in logic and human psychology along for the ride. This is not good for a movie that wants to play with genre expectations, which shadow this movie in hindsight, whether fair or not. Still, it’s got an occasional line from Mr. Slausen that’s… effective enough, I guess.
Script Grade: D+
As I say, there’s production snafus everywhere, and that’s at least two letter grades marked down. It would’ve been a C average without those.
Direction Grade: F
As Joe Bob says, you can’t go too wrong with Chuck Connors. I mean, he keeps your attention even when the camera spends too much attention on him, which is another production problem (not just a snafu), but is still impressive. The others are mostly pretty good, especially Jocelyn Jones, but sometimes, it can get a bit underdone or hammy. Still, one of the better overall parts of the movie, honestly.
Acting Grade: B
I’m gonna be honest, this part is rather successful, especially if you let it scare you. It’s certainly helped by Robert A. Burns’s excellent effects and Pino Donaggio’s atmospheric score, as well as some legitimately disturbing scenes, like Tina getting her face plastered to start the process of her becoming a mannequin and that bit with the soup and crackers. There are parts, however, where the movie leans too heavily on violence and shock tactics, but that can be overlooked rather easily in comparison to everything else regarding the shaky feeling of the movie.
Scare Grade: B+
As I say, there’s production snafus everywhere, including bad voice overdubbing and a dripping noise in the basement that never has its source shown (far from the only unexplained sound effect), and those snafus pop up everywhere, even in scenes that are supposed to be scary, which renders those scenes utterly laughable as opposed to scary. (I say this standing by that when the movie is scary, it’s really scary.) But, as mentioned, the effects and score are fantastic, so it’s not all bad. I struggle to find a good enough grade for this area of the movie, as it’s such a mixed bag, but I guess the effects and score are good enough to earn it a…
Execution Grade: C+
This movie is such a missed opportunity in so many respects, but in others, it delivers exceedingly well. On one hand, it has a confused story, bland characters and production snafus galore. On another, it has an excellent score, exceptional effects and some genuinely scary and disturbing scenes. I wish I could award a grade for effort and vision instead of results, but since that’s not my job, the movie shall have to settle for a…
Final Grade: C-
I am so glad to get this review out there so I can be done with this movie. Tomorrow, I’ll be posting a review of the next movie in the Joe Bob marathon, “Sleepaway Camp,” which I’ve heard really good things about. I’ll see you then.
I’m sure many of you will ask me where my reviews of “Lifeforce,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “The 36th Chamber of Shaolin” are. Rest assured, I’ll get to those later. (When, I don’t know.) Just not today; today, I have to review the direct predecessors to a movie coming out in theaters this weekend.
This trilogy of reviews will be different than the status quo, as these movies are unusual and require a lot of rethinking of what they are. I will front that when I saw the original movie, the movie I’m reviewing today, I was a bit confused in a “it’s fine, but why does this movie have 90+ on Rotten Tomatoes” way. With that being said, I have more to say to its advantage now, but this still won’t be easy to describe without people having seen the movie. Enough buildup; let’s get to it.
I wouldn’t say that this movie has a coherent story so much as it does a coherent way of telling it and a coherent, perfectly well-rounded worldview to back it up. It also contains one of the best twists ever to be found in an animated movie aimed at kids. Once that twist hits, the movie goes from enjoyable to making as much sense as it possibly could. (It makes a little less sense later on, though, but I’m not gonna fixate too much on that.) This twist makes the entire movie’s point all the stronger, and it’s one of the better examples of this kind of movie, and shows that there’s a lot you can do with movies or TV shows that are “just” toy commercials with a story. (If only Hollywood had actually taken note of how it executed itself, we may have actually gotten a good “Emoji Movie.”) The story isn’t perfect (there’s not that much in way of structure to it, and there’s some rather gaping plot holes), but sometimes, that’s okay.
Story Grade: 82% (B-)
Emmet is a fine protagonist, and Lucy is a fine love interest, but Lord Business and Vitruvius are where this area of the movie shines. Good Cop/Bad Cop was also really funny. What more can I say?
Characterization Grade: 85% (B)
The script is really funny, seemingly knowing exactly which jokes to run with, which ones to use sparingly, which ones to pull back after a while and even which jokes are okay to run into the ground. (It’s so great when writers get that last part right, because it’s usually not a good idea to run any joke into the ground.) I do wonder if Morgan Freeman (Vitruvius) was a bit embarrassed by the amount of times that his character says “Cloud Cuckooland,” though.
Script Grade: 95% (A)
The animation is great (if a bit choppy in places where it shouldn’t be), and the overall speed of the animated sequences is really something to behold.
Directing Grade: 90% (A-)
Chris Pratt and Elizabeth Banks are great, as well as really funny, and Will Ferrell is funny in his live-action and animated forms. (I’m usually on the fence about him, but here, he really shines.) Morgan Freeman is great, but how could he not be? (He was born in my home state, BTW.)
Acting Grade: 95% (A)
The action is large-scale and very well-staged.
Action Grade: 98% (A+)
I don’t think there’s a single joke in this movie I didn’t like. Even the small ones that are almost in the background get a laugh. Some of my favorites include Unikitty’s “no consistency” remark, Abe Lincoln’s “A house divided would be better than this” comment, and Shaq’s “Are you ready for this?” “Oh no, they were ready for that” line. But what am I saying? It’d be hard to rank them, anyway.
Comedy Grade: 100% (A+)
There’s an unbridled joy in watching this movie, and I have no way of doing it justice by merely describing it.
Execution Grade: 90% (A-)
As I said, I didn’t always think much of the movie, but as time went by, I realized that I was thinking of it in a slanted way, as it’s the kind of movie where, the less said, the better. I can’t say it’s easy to say why the critics praised it high heavens, but it’s a lot better than I initially gave it credit for, and there’s a lot more to like about it than not to. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s a perfect movie in terms of what it’s trying to do, and sometimes, that’s enough.
Final Grade: 80% (B-)
Well, that’s all for now, but my “Lego Movie” week will continue on Thursday with my review of “The Lego Batman Movie.” Spoilers: I’ll have a bit more to say about that one.
animated movies, Film, film review, lego movie multiverse, lego movies, movie review, movie reviews, movies, summer movies, superhero movies, the lego batman movie, the lego movie, the lego ninjago movie
Yeah, I knew I had to make this at some point. On Tuesday, I’ll have a review of “The Lego Movie,” and on Thursday, I’ll have a review of “The Lego Batman Movie.” Then, on Saturday, I’ll have a review out for “The Lego Ninjago Movie.” I encourage my readers to watch the movies on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, respectively, as that’s when I’ll be watching them.
Hey guys. Uh, the “Lifeforce” watching is taking longer than I thought it would, but in the meantime, I thought I’d give you a different review, and one of a double feature, to boot. So, look at this as two-and-a-half reviews in one. What’s the half? Well, you’ll see in a little. For now, let’s talk about the feature-length movies, “Planet Terror” and “Death Proof.” (As usual, if you don’t wish to see a bunch of horrible violence and gross scenes, don’t watch this movie. By all mean, read on, but don’t watch the movie.) Let’s start with the first feature, “Planet Terror.”
For the most part, the story here accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, with the only exception being the ending, where it’s not addressed how the world survived the presumed outbreak at all. But it’s totally forgivable when you look back at the fun time the movie was up to that point, and the overall quiet mood of the last scene is a decent decompressor after the crazy stuff of the rest of the movie. It’s one heck of a thrill ride, and the story only goes slow during points where it needs to. If you were to look at the story from a purely academic standpoint, it’d be awful, but this ain’t that kind of movie, and the fact there’s a heavy dose of self-awareness that it has a (by most accounts) awful story means that writer and director Robert Rodriguez is able to focus on what the audience is expecting (lots of action, lots of high-octane stunts and lots of over-the-top violence), and somehow get those analytical thinkers in the audience to come along for the ride. I don’t know why, but this movie’s story got me right in the mood for what to expect, and for that, I salute it. But, that aspect of being intentionally (again, by most accounts) awful means that I can’t give a higher grade than…
Story Grade: 78% (C+)
This is, objectively, better than the story, but it still has plenty of issues. The only characters who aren’t blank slates (Dakota, the sheriff, etc.) are given one or two traits to identify them. This was, of course, done intentionally, but it does count just a wee bit negatively towards the total of the sum of its parts, as characters are pretty important to me. Thankfully, the characters aren’t insufferable unless they’re supposed to be. ([coughs] Doc Block.) This allows me to enjoy the movie on the virtue of not wanting to see the characters suffer. (Actually, now that I think about it, that seems to be a reason for the movie working so well.) Still, their lack of a fully-rounded personality holds me back from anything higher than a…
Characterization Grade: 82% (B-)
To the point, with a very wry sense of humor to the proceedings, to boot.
Script Grade: 85% (B)
This is one area where the movie really shines, and I can totally see the technical expertise of Mr. Rodriguez that put him on the map with his $7,000 debut film. (No, I am not understating the budget of his debut movie.)
Directing Grade: 88% (B+)
… What can I say? Given what’s happening around them and how ill-defined their personalities are, the actors do the best they possibly can. (And yes, I’m including pretty much every actor involved in that equation.)
Acting Grade: 85% (B)
Despite some explosions being there with no real context, the actual action is very well-done. The scenes with Cherry (or Palomita, or whatever she’d like to be called at the end) shooting people and mutants with a machine gun attached her leg stump without pulling the trigger while flying through the air to boot, especially, make not a lick of sense, but sometimes, it’s fun to give the middle finger to reality/logic and merely sit back and enjoy the show. And because of the way everything in the movie is constructed, this is definitely one of those times.
Action Grade: 100% (A+)
The way that things are executed is the reason this movie is so fun to watch. Even during the slower set-up periods of the movie, it’s constantly on the move, only pausing to catch its breath when it absolutely needs to.
Execution Grade: 95% (A+)
The story here is very simple. This is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. I could describe the story of the movie in one, maybe two paragraphs, and yet the movie has a lot of sitting around and talking to bring its running time up to even longer than “Planet Terror,” which, despite being the shorter movie, has much more story action in it. So, the question begs to be asked: Is the sitting around and talking interesting? Well, it depends on what you’re looking for. I’ll have more on that in a moment, but the two final car chases and Stuntman Mike’s brutal beating make the movie… worth it, I guess? I mean, I’m glad I saw it, but I can certainly see why it’s often considered a weak Tarantino movie, even among his fans, and even though (confession time) I haven’t seen another movie of his yet. (Will I? Absolutely. Have I? No.)
Back to the story, though, I can’t say that it’s uninteresting, and it does deliver what it promises, but it takes a long time to deliver it. Honestly, as far as “carsploitation” movies go, I like “Mad Max: Fury Road” more. As for this movie, I can’t actually say I have much of an opinion on its story. At the time of writing, that’s never happened to me, and so I’m giving this area my first…
Story Grade: N/A
They’re a lot more interesting than the ones in “Planet Terror,” but that’s a low bar to clear, and they’re still rather two-dimensional. I liked spending time with them, but that’s mostly what I have to say.
Characterization Grade: 85% (B)
If you’re looking for dialogue that’s truly compelling or great or whatever, you’re not gonna get it; with that being said, the dialogue isn’t terrible, and even has a lot of witty jokes in it.
Script Grade: 80% (B-)
Solid, especially when it comes to the final two car chases and the dialogue said during them.
Directing Grade: 88% (B+)
Solid, but what else would one expect from a cast including Kurt Russell, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Rosario Dawson?
Acting Grade: 88% (B+)
When it comes up, it’s pretty much every bit as good as “Planet Terror.”
Action Grade: 98% (A+)
What can I say? It’s well-done, but I was expecting such.
Execution Grade: 92% (A-)
Before I get to my concluding thoughts, I suppose I should bring up what I meant when I said at the beginning that this was two-and-a-half reviews in one. It’s because this movie has fake trailers. They don’t count towards the overall double feature, but let me give you my brief thoughts on them by ranking them and giving a brief overview of my thoughts on each of them. (I’m electing to leave out the Canadian-theater only trailer “Hobo with a Shotgun,” as I’ll save my thoughts on that one for my inevitable review of its feature-length adaptation.)
4. “Werewolf Women of the S.S.” Very bland and unmemorable in comparison to the others, but could be worse, especially considering writer-director Rob Zombie’s actual films. Two-and-a-half stars out of five.
3. “Thanksgiving.” More slasher movie violence, slasher-movie-related cheese, and black-humored Thanksgiving-related puns than you can shake a stick at. Not personally big on slasher movies, but still, three-and-a-half stars out of five.
2. “Machete.” The one with the most defined story, and more action-packed than a “trailer” has most rights to be. I thought for a minute about which was better, this or “Thanksgiving,” but since I like action movies more, I chose this one. Three-and-three-quarters stars out of five.
1. “Don’t.” This one is my favorite simply because it’s the one that made me laugh the most. It still has a lot of gory violence, but if you have the stomach for that, I’d actually recommend you looking for this one on YouTube to see for yourself. It not only works as a trailer for a phony Hammer-era horror film, but also as a great parody of those stupid trailers that sell themselves really aggressively without telling you a thing about what’s in the product they’re selling. I’ll stop here, as I could gush about it for a while, so… four-and-a-half stars out of five. In the words of Joe Bob Briggs, “check it out.” (Bonus points for you if you got that reference. Oh, and it was directed and written by “Baby Driver” director Edgar Wright, just so you’re aware.)
In the end, this double bill is worth it for three out of the four fake trailers and “Planet Terror” alone, and even my personal lack of a defined opinion on “Death Proof” can’t bring it down. If you’re in the mood for a violent, nonsensical and crazy turn-off-your-brain movie, check this double bill out, but do be prepared to be stumped about what to think of the second feature.
Final Objective Grade for “Planet Terror”: 80% (B-)
Final Personal Grade for “Planet Terror”: 90% (A-)
Final Grade for “Death Proof”: N/A
Collective Grade: 81% (B-)
And that’s just about all I have to say. Look out for my review of “Lifeforce” later today.
Perhaps more than ever, I must warn you away from this post if you don’t want the movie spoiled, as I can’t talk about movies in-depth without spoiling them. Especially not movies like this. Got that? Well, let’s press on.
This movie is even darker than its predecessor, and perfects that tone to a T, on top of that. I’ll admit that I was a little put off by how built-up the second meeting with the Colonel was in the first hour, but the fact that that hour flew by at a very quick pace (for me, at least) should tell you something. Once that second meeting with the Colonel happened, though, the movie started getting really, really good. By the end, I was utterly and completely enthralled. The story is so well-crafted that it’s hard to even know how to say why. I’m gonna give it…
Story Grade: 98% (A+)
The apes are as interesting as ever, and the introduction of “Bad Ape” could’ve very well turned out horribly, and too distracting from the movie’s tone, but they knew exactly when to use him. And here’s the best part: While downplayed in comparison to the previous two movies, the human aspect of the story is actually great and not bland in comparison. The Colonel is one of the best villains I’ve ever seen on film, not just because of how evil he is, but because of how understandable his evil is, which almost makes the line between what’s right and wrong in this movie so gray that there’s no “black” to compliment it. What else can I offer except the tip of my hat?
Characterization Grade: 100% (A+)
About on par with the script of “Dawn,” so I’ll repeat the grade I gave there.
Script Grade: 95% (A)
The best direction I’ve ever seen of any movie in the trilogy so far. I mean, the motion capture technology was pushed so far, and the action scene at the end is pure eye candy. And the expressions of both the apes is incomparable, and the body language expressed by the speaking and mute humans is incredibly expressive.
Directing Grade: 100% (A+)
For Caesar’s first fluently speaking role, Andy Serkis once again cemented his status as the Master of Motion Capture. Woody Harrelson is wonderful, and the actress playing Nova is brilliant.
Acting Grade: 100% (A+)
Like I said, pure eye candy, and caring about what happens is more important to its effect in this movie than ever.
Action Grade: 100% (A+)
This movie does indeed have “it,” and I love it. What more can be said?
Execution Grade: 100% (A+)
What more can I say? I’d have to see it again to find anything else to say.
Final Grade: 92% (A-)
Personal Final Grade: 100% (A+)
So, would I like to see more in this series? If they’re gonna be as good as “Dawn” or even “Rise,” I’d say yes. That’s all for now. See you soon!
Yeah, I hinted to you in that clue last time that I was reviewing a “Planet of the Apes” movie. I may or may not get to the original series at some point, but I’m gonna focus on the rebooted series for now. (On a mostly unrelated note, I’m actually writing the reviews for this movie and its direct successor on Monday, even though the predecessor’s review will come out on Monday, and the successor’s on Tuesday. Why? I figure one a day is enough for my readers. Oh, and for certain movies, I’ll be posting a score about what the movie means to me on top of the more “objective” score I have for the movie from now on. Not for all movies, just a couple, like “King Kong.”)
Anyway, this is the first movie in the umbrella “Planet of the Apes” franchise I ever saw, as I was raised by a father who didn’t care for the original movie as much as many people do. So, what did we think of this movie? Let’s find out…
If there’s one positive thing I can say about the story here, it’s that it’s miles better than the stories written by James Cameron himself (the effects were done by his company). (I generally like his movies quite a lot, but the stories are easily the weakest aspect of them.) Also, the story knows a lot about how to build up what happens at the end and delivering on what it promises at the end. With that said, though, the story isn’t perfect; it has some rather glaring plot holes that, to the movie’s credit, would probably take many viewings to spot, but once you do spot them, they’ll stand out like signposts. However, none of the aforementioned plot holes are ruinous to the overall product, and the story is rather refreshingly original. The first time I saw it in the theater, I genuinely had no idea where the story was going to go. (Well, I knew the general direction the story was likely to go, but even that was subject to quite a lot of surprises.)
I do have a lot more to say than that, but I think I’ll save that for later; for now, I’ll just say, it’s very solid, and surprisingly thoughtful to boot.
Story Grade: 88% (B+)
Caesar and Will share a genuine friendship that is helped tremendously by the restrained pace of the story, which allows you to really care about what happens in the story even before the climactic action scene. Caroline is rather bland (apologies to Frieda Pinto, but it’s true), but Charles (Will’s father) definitely isn’t. Caesar is quite interesting himself, and his body language is outstanding. The other apes (Maurice the orangutan especially) are also quite interesting. And I’ll shut up and give this area a grade now.
Characterization Grade: 95% (A)
It’s… well-written, but it’s rather basic, so there’s not a whole lot to say.
Script Grade: 90% (A-)
This is one of the few areas that isn’t so strong. The actual execution of the non-dialogue aspects of the scenes is excellent. The actors, however, suffer a little, often giving monotone deliveries where they’re decidedly not welcome (like a scene where they’re supposed to be happy or just neutral). With that said, though, it’s not… awful, so…
Direction Grade: 78% (C+)
As I said, the actors aren’t given a whole lot of favors (except for John Lithgow), but the body language on the part of the apes is, as I said before, outstanding. Andy Serkis (Caesar) is often considered the “Master of Motion Capture” for a reason.
Acting Grade: 82% (B-)
The final action scene is really large-scale and packed with surprises, to boot. The way that they did it all the way they did is really impressive to me, and, as I said earlier, the fact that you care about what’s happening is a huge bonus.
Action Grade: 100% (A+)
You might be wondering why I haven’t talked about the motion capture yet, and the reason is that it’s all in the execution. I will say that it’s done with the best care possible. What more do you want me to say?
Execution Grade: 95% (A)
When I saw the movie in the theater, I thought it was close to amazing, and though it’s since lost a bit of luster, nothing has diminished its overall impact much. My father even said that it was better than the original movie. Yeah, so what’s my grade?
Final Grade: 85% (B)
Tomorrow will see the publication of my review of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” and the next day will see the publication of my review of “War for the Planet of the Apes.” After that, I’ll move on to something else. What is it? You’ll have to see. Bye!
Well, I didn’t exactly strike while the iron was hot, but I did strike when it was warm-ish. Anyway, the last month or so has been crazy, as I recently moved, but I’m back, hopefully to stay. And don’t worry too much about those reviews of “Dr. No” or “Wonder Woman.” I’ll get to one of them soon. Which one? You’ll have to wait and see.
Okay, enough beating around the bush. So, you might be wondering why I’m reviewing this movie. Well, it’s rather simple; over the past few months, I’ve developed an interest in kaiju movies. What’s that, you may ask? Short answer: A movie with a giant monster, sometimes of determinate species, sometimes not, going around destroying things and, often, battling another monster of similar scientific grouping. (Some may argue that a person in a suit playing both monsters is an intrinsic part of the deal, but I’m not personally one of them.) And what better way to start then with going back to the genre’s origin? Yeah, without “King Kong,” we wouldn’t have giant monster movies being made today or in the 1950s. So, did this movie do anything for me, specifically? Let’s find out.
The story, truthfully, is a bit sparse. Well, okay, it takes its sweet time building up the eventual conflict involving Kong and the island natives, but there’s just a lot of very efficiently-presented nothing happening during most of it. Maybe I’m being a bit harsh in context, as this movie was made at a time where just having a movie with talking and a fully-orchestrated score running through it all was a novelty, let alone such a movie with so many new techniques at providing the illusion that they were seeing something that didn’t exist. But, quite frankly, the first forty-five minutes or so were a bit of a chore for me to get through. It doesn’t exactly help that it wasn’t until that point that I found a character I liked. But I’ll get to that later.
The point is, that part wasn’t interesting to me, but at around forty-five minutes in, which was about the point that Ann was captured by the natives, the movie grabbed me, and wouldn’t let me leave my seat until it was over. This part of the movie was everything the first forty-five minutes should’ve been and more. On top of that, it has what I’m terming “it.” You know, that unexplainable quality of a movie where it takes hold of you, holds you under its spell, and makes you praise it to hell and back once it’s over. The story was just as sparse as it was in the earlier stretches of the movie, but the movie itself was much more interesting, much better paced, much more well-presented and overall, just better in general. It was here that I saw what made everyone praise it to high heavens now and forever. Does this make the other parts “okay?” I don’t know, but this area still ends up succeeding wildly, despite those parts. There’s not a whole lot to say about the story itself, except that it’s presented flawlessly starting at the forty-five-minute mark.
Story Grade: 90% (A-)
Jack was really the only character who did a whole lot for me, and even at that, it took longer for him to become likable than it should’ve. The rest of the cast is made up of greedy chauvinists and a chauvinist’s fantasy woman (Ann). The reason Jack endeared himself to me is because he eventually showed that he had more layers to him than the typical male character in the movie.
Now look, I’m not gonna criticize the movie too much for that, since it was made at a different time, and those problems were intrinsic to that era of American history, but since I find characters I identify with an important part of any movie, especially one that takes itself as seriously as this one, I’ll say that this area is rather bland, except for Jack. (Kong himself is a lot more interesting than the human characters, though, so there’s that.) However, credit where credit is due, the movie does acknowledge Denham’s greed, and calls him on it towards the end. For that reason, I’m going to give this area a…
Characterization Grade: 80% (B-)
Passable, but there’s not much more to say than that.
Script Grade: 85%
The direction of the segments after the island natives kidnap Ann are directed perfectly. The direction on the other scenes is… okay, I guess?
Direction Grade: 82% (B-)
This is one area where the human characters do shine. It only partly makes up for the blandness of their characterization, but the movie is almost perfectly casted, and for that, I salute it.
Acting Grade: 95% (A)
Couldn’t be happier with this area. The foreboding score makes it more dramatic than it needs to be, IMO, but it is legitimately entertaining.
Action Grade: 100% (A+)
I think I’ve said my piece on that, truthfully.
Execution Grade: 90% (A-)
I really wish that I didn’t have so many bad things to say about this movie, as I really like it a lot more than I, by rights, should. But I can’t bring myself to say that, despite its technical mastery, that it’s not dated and not chauvinistic. It decidedly is those things, but those things are more easily forgiven by me than I ever could objectively describe.
Anyway, that’s enough from me. Calculate My Grade, what’s my score?
Final Grade: 81% (B-)
If I was rating it based on how I personally feel, it’d receive a 90%. Not kidding, it’s really that good in my eyes. But looking at it objectively, there’s too much bringing it down to grade it any higher than 81%.
Well, that was uncomfortable. And I really am dreading the flood of negative comments coming my way from my sterling fan base, but you know what? I stand by what I said, because that what an opinion entails. Just know that this review is about it as a film, not a marker in film history; if I’d done it that way, it would’ve gotten a 100%. Anyway, I will get to the Peter Jackson movie from 2005 soon, as well as the other movies and Godzilla, but next time, I’m gonna lighten the load with a movie I greatly respect and truly like all the way. What is it? It’s part of a movie series whose opening entry has a twist ending. See you then! (Or not. It’s up to you.)