imrational Reviews

Bullet Train (2022)

Absolutely a great bloody fun ride!

[10/10 · 2 October 2022]

Enjoyable action comedy thru and thru.

What if you made a movie along the lines of Tarantino or Guy Ritchie but amped up the action? You'd end up with something like Bullet Train.

Fast, funny, very violent, and with lots of little touches. By touches, I'm basically referring to them taking Chekhov's gun off the mantle, revealing that it's a machine gun, and spraying it liberally about.

Excellently paced, great characterizations considering how much was going on, action throughout but still allowing breathing room.

I'm trying to think of recent action movies I've really enjoyed... I think this places at the top of the last few years.

After watching this, i immediately started following the screenwriter and director. I am expecting much more excellent movies from them.

Under the Banner of Heaven (2022)

I'm an atheist, it is not just Mormons giving low ratings

[2/10 · 2 May 2022]

I'm an atheist and read the book the show was based on. This review is about episode 1.

The dialogue is bad, really bad. The cinematography has little flashes interjected throughout, but it really distracts and did not help the narrative.

So far, i actually hated the show. I only gave it a "2" instead of a "1" because the music and acting were decent.

I wouldn't have finished the episode, except i read the book that the show was based on... the book is REALLY good, but it's nothing like the show at all. The book just gives me hope that the show will improve.

Okay, i watched episode 2. Forget that i said the music was good. So disappointed in this horrible "adaption" of a really good book.

M (1931)

Didn't think I'd like it; I love it

[10/10 · 16 December 2019]

Watched over an acquaintance's home, I expected to be a little bored. I mean, early talkie movie? I expected a simplistic plot, a heavy hand with dialogue to impress the masses (like how 3d was over done when it first came out), and dated film techniques. I was so wrong! The sound and dialogue was handled incredibly well. Sound is indeed, a very important aspect in the movie, but it is handled in ways important to the plot without being over the top. Film techniques (angles, fade ins/outs, use of shadows) hold up. You can actually see thee influence it must have had on film noire. Acting is great and I can see how Peter Lorre became a star. However, my favorite aspect was the plot. It is many layered, dealing with the killer, law enforcement, criminal industry, and society in general. I was not expecting anything so complex. This movie got me watching more Fritz Lang movies. I love science fiction and always considered Metropolis impressive... but I enjoyed this movie more.

Panopticon (II) (2016)

promising ideas drowned in poor editing

[4/10 · 16 December 2019]

Acting was decent for a low budget flick. The movie had some great ideas, but they're not fully developed at all. Instead, we see the hint of some of those ideas repeatedly given over and over. Nauseatingly so. Editing is a severe problem in the movie. The vast majority of it could have been excised and it would have been a far better movie. As it stands, it is best watched on fast forward with some parts skipped entirely. I have this movie 4 stars because of the hints I mentioned above. I honestly don't understand why the director didn't develop any of those ideas. Some could have easily been done on the cheap. I would recommend this movie for people who are looking for science fiction ideas to develop; for those who love literal science fiction (and don't mind having to fast forward), and low budget directors looking too see how others have done it.

People wanting action sci-fi, big budget flicks, or cohesive/well scripted movies... give this one a pass

Woman in the Moon (1929)

Classic science fiction

[9/10 · 15 December 2019]

Amazing to think that science fiction from the 1920's might be more scientifically accurate than most of the science fiction of today. There are some obvious errors, like a breathable atmosphere on the moon, but still... many things are very accurate in it's portrayal. A good example of how scientists would envision going to the Moon back then. Fritz Lang was an incredible director and his films are definitely worth checking out. I picked up this one after some acquaintances had me watch, "M" (great movie there).

Aniara (2018)

Bleak, beautiful, and a great science fiction movie

[10/10 · 25 October 2019]

If you want action in your sci-fi, this will not be the movie for you. Likewise, this is not a happy go-lucky film either. However, I consider this movie to be beautiful and worth seeing if you like literary science fiction. I think the only other science fiction I've seen recently that comes close to its impact would be the wonderful Arrival.

Acting is well done. Cinematography is simple, but effective. The lighting was perfectly handled. There is minimal need for special effects, but those included are realistic.

The director used a lot of nuance. A glance, a detail glimpsed conveys so much. Definitely an expert at showing 1,000 words in just a frame.

I'd also like to point out that this is an old science fiction story with many adaptations. Definitely a classic in many ways

Singularity (I) (2017)

Singularity is a black hole; and you wish someone would have dropped this film down one.

[1/10 · 5 June 2018]

Numerous plotholes. Gigantic, Buick-sucking plotholes. Scene: in the near future, artificial intelligence is invented. It quickly wipes out humanity. Okay then we telescope time 97 years later. Humanity is down to a few scattered survivors... Roughing it in the wilderness with perfect hair, manscaped beards, clean and fashionable clothing in immaculate shape. With supplies running out, oh wait, where did that 1980's Polaroid instamatic camera come from? Why does its batteries work? Or why does it have film in it?!? Special effects I was okay with for a low budget flick. Acting was... passable for a low budget. The script however, oh God, the script. What a mess. They tried to have a twist ending, but it doesn't make sense with anything else. It's a crying shame that other movies are not green lit that stand the chance of being decent stories. This one should have been flushed.

The Boonies (2016)

Beautiful scenery, false drama

[2/10 · 24 February 2016]

Definitely some beautiful scenery. I wanted to like the show, I've always been drawn to places of solitude and would like to think I share some kinship with those wishing for it.

That said, instead of focusing on how these people live day to day or from season to season in isolation, we instead are presented with "dramatic moments" that ring resoundingly false.

For example, a man living in isolation on Beaver Island. His motorboat's prop breaks and maroons him on a small speck of land surrounded by Lake Michigan. What they don't tell you is that Beaver Island is a settled island and vacation destination with 2 airports, golf course, etc. It's kind of obvious that living in isolation with a gasoline powered boat requires civilization nearby.

They have a spelunker who lives like a caveman. Except they don't show how he lives, only him trying to navigate a series of caverns that are flooding. Now, the basic code of ethics for Spelunking is to leave no trace and do no harm. For example, you should wear gloves because the oils from your hands can permanently damage cave formations. You also don't go caving when flooding can occur. It is INCREDIBLY dangerous. Basically, by showing this guy, they are spreading bad ideas regarding a unique resource, something I thought NatGeo would have done better.

They have a couple living in a treehouse, but they make the guy sounds totally paranoid and dangerous. Perhaps he was, but it was more disquieting and disturbing than interesting.

Each case presented in the first episode had some element of drama, where survival apparently hinges on the actions of these solitary heroes. Yet, these little dramatic moments come across as incredibly forced and contrived. The show focused on these things and totally ignored the kinds of things I wanted to know about. Nothing really education was presented, if anything, you're presented bad info..

I am not interested in watching this show again, which is a shame, because I liked the initial premise.

Beyond (III) (2014)

Poor editing

[2/10 · 27 March 2015]

I usually have a soft spot for low budget movies. This movie was well photographed, but whoever did the editing did a horrible job. Scratch that, I sincerely doubt that this movie was edited.

The movie just drags and drags. At least half the movie should have been cut to make it flow better. Instead, the viewer has to suffer thru countless little melancholy songs while the main character does such interesting things like sitting on a sofa and watching television or standing in the woods and gazing sadly out at the horizon.

Whoever was able to watch this movie thru to the end without fast forwarding or picking up the crossword puzzle in the table on front of them... your Ritalin dose is too high.

I gave this 2 stars instead of 1 because the camera work is better than most B-Budget films and the acting was fairly decent (even if the script was faulty).

The movie description says it is a suspenseful science fiction flick.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

It is science fiction in name only. We see a far off spaceship hovering over the horizon in a couple of shots. Nothing more.

I honestly hated the main characters. We see them awkwardly flirt at the beginning before driving us nuts with bickering later on.

The ending (MAJOR SPOILER): Leaves us hanging without explanation. Yes, some films are better when they make the audience figure out the meaning of the ending for themselves. This isn't one of them.

It appears to be a flashback, where the main character is shot trying to find his wife and soon to be born child at the hospital before an asteroid wipes everyone out. We see him die? but then he is in a hospital bed with his wife present. The way it is shot makes us wonder,did he die? Was the future apocalypse just a delusion? Do you even really care?

It would have been a better movie if they axed the "science fiction"part, and did a sad little movie about the couple's relationship history.

The Bubble (1966)

Bad movie, great 3d

[2/10 · 27 March 2015]

The plot sounds interesting, like a Twilight Zone episode. However, the acting and script fail to deliver.

The special effects (aside from 3d) leave a lot to be desired. For example, in one scene, they use floating rubber masks... like cheap rubber masks you can buy at any Halloween store in October in the United States.

So, do not rent this movie for the plot.

Where this movie shines is in 3d. This is the type of movie where the plot and acting were incidental. It's entire theme is to show off 3d. You'll be treated to things like a guy raking thin air, with the garden rake filmed to be coming out at you.

You have two scenes of a bucket of dirt being lifted towards you, solely included because it looks somewhat cool in 3d.

The 3d effects are much better than most 3d movies of today. Things have depth and actually seem to come out of the screen.

However, let me reiterate once again, that is the only thing going for this movie.

Skyfall (2012)

Julian Assange as a Bond villain?!?

[7/10 · 12 November 2012]

Okay, there was a lot to like in this movie. We see the famed Astin Martin car used in Sean Connery's Bond movies, we have references to exploding pens, we see a new Q, get some backstory on Bond's history prior to MI6, some good action sequences...

Now for the problem. The mish-mash of threads/themes that churn on the screen like bad tequila and ice cream do in a stomach.

The movie starts out with a list of undercover operatives that has been stolen. This is never resolved. A simple line, like "it's on the internet now, we've should pull everyone in" would work, but instead, they only pull the operatives whose names are outed online. Instead, it is just left dangling.

We see Bond as being too old and probably washed up, yet, this is only his second adventure (Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace being linked together as one larger interlinked assignment).

I think the biggest theme which is mishandled is... the villain. It ends up being revealed that the villain is actually a former operative who was disavowed/sold off by his Majesty's government and with a legitimate reason for revenge against MI6 and M, but that reveal conflicts with the heavy-handed propaganda that the movie tries to force down our throats prior to that.

You see, the villain here is Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame, not a wronged former agent. This movie is here to sell the idea that the internet is a dangerous place and a hacker can manipulate events in the digital world and wreck havoc in the normal one. An island can be evacuated and taken over by a criminal organization without a single shot fired. Secret agents who are undercover and working to protect us can have their identities outed with the push of a button. Granted, this is realistic and would have made for a great villain/idea... but it is only left partially followed thru. The last third (after the capture of Assange) seems to have been done by an entirely different script-writer.

Yeah, Assange has revealed top secret documents and does pose a risk for governmental leaks, but he has also exposed many scandals thru his website that those in power do not wish to see the light of day.

Now, that would have made for a better Bond villain... have Bond be assigned to terminate an Assange character, let Bond learn that the "villain" is actually a good guy trying to expose government corruption and have him go thru the turmoil of deciding Queen and Country versus Doing the Right Thing.

Anyway, it is still in the top 10 of best Bond movies ever made... and I recommend seeing it.

Exit Humanity (2011)

Probably best zombie movie of 2012.

[7/10 · 12 November 2012]

I would probably consider this the best zombie movie of 2012. Keep in mind that there weren't much going against it. The latest Resident Evil movie was decent, but nothing really new.

Exit Humanity it a total B-Budget zombie movie done right. It is slow paced, which I know some people would hate on, but I enjoyed. The director got the atmosphere right with this one. You end up caring about the characters. Acting is well done, along with the settings and music score. Make-up was the only thing that really showed this as a B-Budget endeavor.

I would be willing to invest in a future film effort by this director. He's going to go up in Hollywood. Other directors have tried to do historical zombie movies, but this was the first one to actually do it well.

He obviously strived for "epic" movie, and managed to succeed. Well done sir!

Cloud Atlas (2012)

One of the best movies I've ever seen

[10/10 · 12 November 2012]

The only flaws I found in this movie are the following: a series of action sequences which seem lifted from the Matrix. In such a remarkable movie about humanity, I found the sequences too far-fetched and they brought me out of the otherwise totally immersive movie.

I also found the make-up on the characters to be too much. I understand the need, but it still looked totally fake and once again, made me pull out of the movie a bit.

Let me point out that these are minor quibbles.

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen and I'm planning on seeing this again in the theaters before buying it as one of my first blu-ray movies.

Now, "best" is totally subjective. These are the kinds of movies that I would include as peers to Cloud Atlas... The Matrix, Inception, Memento, Gandhi, Kinsey, Casablanca, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Amadeus, etc.

Deadgirl (2008)

Most disturbing zombie film yet.

[8/10 · 20 September 2009]

I would have rated this film a full 10 out of 10, but I have to admit, it was so disturbing to me that I couldn't give it the full score.

Imagine, one zombie-girl being held captive by teenage boys. The zombie isn't the monster here, it's the boys.

This is most definitely NOT a date movie. This is more a flick that a person sees on their own and discusses later on internet message boards.

Not much blood and guts, no dystopian future... so why is it so disturbing? A quick perusal of the plot/synopsis should tell you why, I'm not going to give away any spoilers in this review.

I will say that this movie does a great job explaining the motivations of its male characters. I think it captures the angst, drives, and suffering of teenage males. Granted, the movie throws all of it to extreme contrast... but that only helps underline and illuminate those things.

The movie does a great job with cinematics and pacing. I expect to see great things from the directors.

I'd also like to comment on the movie poster (showing a woman's lips at a 90 degree angle). Brilliant movie poster on several levels.

9 (I) (2009)

good visually, poor characters and worse plot

[3/10 · 9 September 2009]

My thoughts on the movie, 9

It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.

This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?

That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,

"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.

This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.

Okay... SPOILERS follow.

So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart.

The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.

The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2.

Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2.

They succeed.

#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.

The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots.

They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.

Hunh?!?

That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?

Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.

Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?

Right at Your Door (2006)

great b-budget movie... worth renting. 1 star reviews are totally unfair.

[6/10 · 20 March 2009]

A lot of people were giving this movie 1 stars. I think that is totally unfair. The movie operates on a very simple premise.

I recommend this movie as an entertaining little rental. It brings out some of the emotions of fear, paranoia, and confusion that people felt after 9/11 using a small budget and set. I commend the film makers.

SPOILERS What if 9/11 occurred, not in NYC... but as a germ warfare attack with dirty bombs? This movie follows one man as he deals with fear, paranoia, potential loss of a loved one, etc.

People have been criticizing the movie for plot holes. They are not plot holes. The character did things differently than they would. That's not a plot hole.

People have also said that the government said (SPOILER!!!) that the house was filled with a deadly variant of the virus and that this doesn't make sense, "how could they know what the air in the house was like". What they're missing is that the government was totally confused all along. I think this helped underscore how our government was giving such mixed messages after 9/11.

I gotta say, I think many of the comments about this movie are unfair. This movie does not deserve one star reviews. Those reviewers have obviously never seen a Uwe Boll movie or Dracula 3000.

The Plague (2006 Video)

A crappy movie, but good to make fun of

[4/10 · 15 March 2009]

The first third of this movie holds a lot of promise. Children of the Damned meets Night of the Living Dead, not a bad premise, eh? Well, this corpse doesn't walk ladies and gentlemen. It just lies there rotting. I'm giving it a 4 because the first third did hold a lot of promise and also because the rest of the movie is so bad, you and your friends can have a good time picking it apart.

Plot (including spoilers) All children 9 & under fall into a coma. Twice a day, they go into grand mal seizures. This occurs for 10 years. The economy falls into, and recovers from, a depression. People are rioting in some countries because the governments want to put strict controls on pregnancy... they don't want any more comatose bodies sucking up public funds. Insurance no longer covers pregnancy. You get the idea.

The main character is released from prison, supposedly for killing a man in a bar fight (the reason for the fight is never discussed) and returns to his hometown to patch things up with family and ex-wife. He walks into town with a copy of "the Grapes of Wrath" in his back pocket.

Well, it turns out the all the comatose children have been actually doing calisthenics when they have seizures and are in great shape. They all come back to life, eager to kill.

There is one great scene where a character climbs up a laundry chute chased by the kids... nicely done. Unfortunately, most of other scenes are totally predictable or just crap (usually both).

The hero & friends run around trying to survive in typical zombie survival fashion. Several subplots are set up, only to die in the dust. You can really tell that there must have been multiple people involved in the script because it is scattered all over the place.

Anyway, on pure chance, one character finds a diary for the local priest (who we also see killed at one point by the kids). The last entry in the diary describes a dream the priest had before leaving the faith two years previously (it also resembles a bible passage).

SPOILER At the end, he dies, she dies, everyone dies but for two characters. The hero & the heroine. They end up surrounded, but the hero... using the chanced upon diary entry, sacrifices himself for everyone else (ala Christ). It turns out that the children absorb the souls of people they kill. If people are scared or angry when they get killed, the children absorb that knowledge and emotion. They learn to sabotage car engines and how to operate heavy fire-arms. By being a willing sacrifice, the hero lets his noble personality traits get absorbed into the kids and they stop their killing spree.

The movie ends with the heroine at a farm house seeing the children in the fields and smiling. One of the child "leaders" has a copy of "Grapes of Wrath" in his back pocket.

Yeah. Crap with delusions of religious symbolism.

Some things to note: No T&A. I'm sorry, but if you're gonna make a crappy zombie movie (or something resembling a crappy zombie movie) could you at least throw some naked breasts in there?!? Geez! btw - Zombie Strippers? Yeah. They did it right. :)

The Barricade. Okay, the kids barricade a road leading out of town. The hero's vehicle is non-functional. He tells people to help bring down the barricade... but in a pan shot, you can see a very clear gate that everyone could simply walk through.

The priest. He leaves the church two years ago and is still living in what appears to be a catholic church? His diary is still there? Come on!

Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008)

Fanboys will agree that this movie sucks in a few months

[3/10 · 11 January 2009]

I hate fanboys who feel that they can't call a turd a turd if it belongs to one of their favorite franchises. I bet most of the people giving this crapfest glowing reviews will later recant and rip on it as well. They'd disavow their reviews here if they weren't saved on the internet for all posterity. I've seen fanboys do it with Romero's Land of the Dead and with Richard Kelly's Southland Tales.

RE Degeneration has decent computer animation. However, I thought it also had worse animation than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had... which came out eight years ago! So, when people are saying that they are not quite "Pixar quality"... keep in mind that it's not as good of quality as other computer animated anime from years ago either.

Sound effects were decently handled. Zombie moans sounded like zombie moans. What else can I say? The music score was okay, basically it just blended into the background. Basically, "eh".

The plot. Now the fanboys here will be telling you that this movie is for fans of the videogames. Bullcrap. I'm a big fan of the videogames. This movie was an insult to the fanbase. The plot... if you could call it that, is crap. I know of tons of B-Budget zombie flicks with better plots. The live-action RE movie had a far better plot than this. Hell, ALL the live-action RE movies had better plots than this one!!!!!

The only redeeming feature of this was we got to see some of our beloved RE characters again. However, they feel hollow in this rendition. I really wouldn't have cared if Claire got bitten by the end of the movie.

All in all... as a zombie-flick fan, I'm disappointed. As a Resident Evil fan, I feel betrayed.

Religulous (2008)

Definitely worth seeing or demonstrating against!

[9/10 · 19 September 2008]

I watched Bill Maher's new movie, Religulous at it's world premiere at the Traverse City Film Festival. It was one of the first films to sell out at the festival, selling out in just the first couple days of sales.

Okay... now for the movie review: for those of you who thought that Dawkin's "Root of all evil" or "Jesus Camp" were powerful statements, then you might want to wear diapers because you might just crap yourself. Religulous doesn't take prisoners. It addresses Christianity, Scientology, Mormonism,Islam, and other religions. Bill Maher travels around the word, visiting the Wailing Wall, USA Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and other locations while interviewing a wide range of religious leaders and followers.

Throughout the interviews, Bill throws out zingers and the joke timing is impeccable. Like the pro-creationist movie "Expelled", Religulous cuts to a variety of old film stock when making jokes. Although it fails at times, I would say the vast majority of the cuts connect and generates hearty laughs.

The first third of the film deals with Christianity and several offshoots of it. Here, the movie shines. It is hilarious! Poking jab after jab into insane ideas by asking simple questions.

Unfortunately, the move starts to slow down after he lampoons Scientology. Dressed as a vagrant, he appears in Hyde Park's Speaker's Corner and runs through Scientology's belief structure... appearing as a raving lunatic while accurately describing what that religion teaches.

By the time it deals with Islam, a lot of inertia has been lost. Although it still delivers some funny bits, the movie is much more subdued. Granted, anytime you are dealing with a subject so inflammatory that people have been killed over it, you tread lightly, but I think Christians will criticize the movie for being softer on Islam than on Christianity. The sad thing is that it's true. Being the more dangerous religion, people seem to be treating Islam with kid gloves. I wonder how long before other religions start adopting that tactic as they become threatened by critics? The ending is a fiery call to action for freethinkers. Rousing music & inflammatory speech hammer the dangers of religion into the audience. Propaganda techniques? Yes. Pretty heavy-handed about it too. However, I think it's needed. The flow of the movie needed something to bring things together and although thick with images and rhetoric... it is a solid ending.

Is it worth seeing? Hell yes! Will people be offended? Most definitely. Will there be protesters? There should be, this is far more blasphemous than "Dogma", "Passion of the Christ", or "The DeVinci Code".

Comparing "Expelled" to "Religulous", it's pretty quickly apparent that Religulous is the better movie. Bill Maher, with his previous experience doing standup and conducting interviews shames Ben Stein. Nicely done Bill!

Wall of Separation (2007 TV Movie)

A slickly made piece of dishonest propaganda.

[1/10 · 14 September 2008]

The movie does a slick job utilizing voice-over, interviews, photographs, and film footage to present a slanted view of the history of separation of church and state in the United States. They slyly try to set up the case that the United States should not have a separation of church and state.

Make no mistake, this is not a balanced documentary. It has an ulterior motive and is willing to use dishonest tactics to achieve its aims.

For example, it blatantly cherry-picks quotes from the founding fathers... and then dismisses other quotes that go contrary to its objectives. For example, they dismiss a quote of Thomas Jefferson that goes against their objectives, saying it was written 10 years after the Constitution (implying that the date makes it irrelevant)... but they freely uses other quotes that occur later without a problem.

They do provide some dissenting opinions, but these appear to be token voices. Many of their assertions go unchallenged... even though there are easily found refutations to their statements.

One thing that really irritated me is that they totally ignore the problem of how you can have religious freedom if certain religions are endorsed over others by the government.

I gave this movie 10 stars out of 10 because it is very slickly made. I think children should watch this with a knowledgeable adult. Children should learn about dishonest propaganda tactics. If you don't know to watch for them, you very well might be hoodwinked.

Southland Tales (2006)

proof that god doesn't exist

[2/10 · 8 August 2008]

If there was a god, then flaming wreckage from a 747 should have come down on the director's house before filming started.

How sad that fanboys attempt to write 10/10 star reviews for this movie. I wonder if they were the same ones who defended JarJar Binks in George Lucas's "Phantom Menace".

Some fanboys say that if you read the graphic novels before watching this, then more things make sense and it's an excellent movie. Maybe that would make it a better film, but that doesn't excuse the acting, the washed out film look, the script... heck pretty much the rest of the movie.

The humor almost connects. You can tell Kelly is trying to poke fun at Hollywood and the people in it... but the vast majority of us don't have access to that world, and frankly, I don't want it.

The emperor is not wearing clothes, is fat, and has a horrible sunburn with peeling skin.

The ONLY redeeming thing about this movie is, it is not quite as bad as a Uwe Boll movie.

For you fanboys out there... here's some rules for giving high ratings for movies. EVERY MOVIE IS BETTER ON DOPE! Before you give high rankings, watch it straight first! It might not be as good as you remember it was stoned. Oh, and yeah, we realize that you are loyal to your friends. But a friend should still have the guts to tell their buddy that they have bad breath. It's okay to say that this movie stinks.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)

Probably good for 3rd graders if you let them watch violent movies

[2/10 · 25 April 2008]

Okay, when I rented this movie, I did so not knowing that it was a Uwe Boll film. I didn't realize that until the end of the movie and seeing his name there, it all made sense.

This movie is really bad. If you watch it with a bunch of your friends while toking some homegrown wacky weed or having some beers... laughing at all the plot holes and stupid bits, then you might enjoy it (which is why I gave it 2 stars instead of 1).

I couldn't understand how Uwe Boll can continue to make movies and how he could recruit such an all-star cast for this movie. I think I understand now.

My first theory is that Uwe Boll is, in fact, proof of God. Because the only way I could imagine that he could still be making movies is if he had sold his soul to the Devil. However, I have since been educated that his films are backed by the German government. Corporate Welfare again rears its ugly head.

As to why such big names appear in his movies... I think I realize the answer to this too. The worst director of all time was Ed Wood. His movies are truly awful. They were so bad, that they gained a following of fans who would get drunk or stoned and pick apart how bad his movies were. Ed Wood gained further notoriety with the movie about him which featured Johnny Depp. I think Hollywood and Hollywood actors have come to the insane idea that Ed Wood was actually a misunderstood genius. That awful film will immortalize you just as much as a work of genius.

As I was watching "In the Name of the King", I paid attention to the acting of Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds, etc. I think they were having fun in their roles, not taking them seriously at all. They knew the movie was a steaming pile of fecal matter and they were reveling in it.

Anyway, I cannot recommend this movie. Not for rental, not to illegally download for free. If your kids think that Power Rangers are cool... then I would think this movie would be adequate for them. This is definitely elementary school level.