The Shining (1980) Review

           The Shining (1980) is a psychological horror movie where a guy named Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) interviews for the position of winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel and gets the job. He then brings in his wife (played by Shelley Duvall) and son (played by Danny Lloyd) to stay in the hotel during the winter months. Unfortunately, things don't all go well as slowly but surely, some crazy, weird psychological shit happens.
           After just viewing this for the very first time, I think "The Shining" might be one of my personal favorite movies. I'm serious. The way that the movie slowly builds tension as it goes along, while the creepy-ass score plays amidst all of this, made it all genuinely scary. Jack Nicholson does a great job of portraying a man who seems normal at first but then turns into a fucked up individual. Danny Lloyd also creeped me the hell out at times, especially during scenes where he seems to take in a different soul.
           This is the type of movie where at a few points while watching it you may be going, 'Wait. What on earth is going on?' I may have to spend a devoted amount of time after writing this just trying to comprehend what was going on in certain portions of it. But thankfully, it never bothered that I couldn't comprehend things while watching it because, it's so consistently entertaining from beginning to end that I never feel cheated on as an audience member unlike something like "Muholland Dr.". Everything just seemed to click for me from the acting, direction, cinematography, storytelling, and atmosphere.
           I'm officially starting to become a horror movie fan with "Psycho" and now this. I look forward to trying out more of these. This was a masterfully crafted creepy and memorable experience for me. I know I heard this movie isn't faithful to the book its based on (which I never read), but really, that doesn't matter since "The Shining" holds up perfectly well on its own as a movie. Definitely check this one out if you're a horror fan.
           I give "The Shining" (1980) directed by Stanley Kubrick a 10 out of 10.

Robots (2005) Review

          "Robots" (2005) is an animated feature from the same studio that made all the Ice Age movies (Blue Sky Studios). It tells the story of how Rodney Copperbottom (voiced by Ewan McGregor) dreams of being an inventor after he's been introduced to seeing this very influential robot named Bigweld (voiced by Mel Brooks) on TV. So Rodney invented this cute little gadget named "Wonderbot" although this invention of his doesn't seem to work that greatly in his hometown. So then Rodney decides to go to Robot City to meet his idol and show him his invention. But oh no, Bigweld's not around as somebody else is currently in charge of Bigweld Industries named Ratchet (voiced by Greg Kinnear) who's a greedy douchebag that just wants to make a profit. He discontinues the manufacturing of spare robots parts which could lead to a bunch of robots being turned into scrap, so Rodney and a group of quirky characters decide to stop Ratchet's dirty deeds once and for all.
           "Robots" has a lot of good moments in it. There's a very creative and visually good-looking robotic world that's realized here. I loved the idea that robots are born by being constructed. That was pretty cute. There were also a decent amount of times in which I laughed, some of which are provided by the character of Fender (voiced by Robin Williams). Hey, Robin Williams is a welcome addition for any movie he's in on my book with his comic energy. I also enjoyed Jim Broadbent as the voice of Madame Gasket. Another thing I liked was that there were a few fun, exciting sequences here. Two scenes are devoted into navigating the city which feel likes the most intense amusement park ride ever, and one really cool scene involving dominoes.
            Sadly while "Robots" is indeed pretty good and admittedly better than a lot of other crap that's out there, it's usually never great. Despite being in a world we've never seen before, it feels very by-the-numbers. You have your protagonist who's a determined leader that stands up to form's a plan to kick the villain's butt. You have your comedic sidekick that the audience is supposed to laugh at, and don't get me wrong, Robin Williams is funny here in this movie, but he somehow kind of feels like a less memorable version of the Genie from "Aladdin". Genie had the advantage of transforming into different variety of figures, while the humor for Fender is having his body parts fall off a lot of the time. And of course, you have a bunch of added stuff in here to help make it a feel-good experience from the pop-culture references, the inspirational speeches, attempts to bring in love interests for certain characters (which feels kind of forced here), to even having certain smaller characters you've seen in the beginning happily reappear towards the end. There wasn't really much here that feels fresh.
           Some of the voice cast, while not outright bad, do feel miscast. Ewan McGregor (a British actor) sounds kind of awkward trying to do an American accent, which begs the question, why not just bring an American actor to do the role if an American voice is what the filmmakers were going for? Now I like Mel Brooks, but I honestly don't think he's the right choice for voicing Bigwell. His character just never came across as an inspirational grandfather figure. And unfortunately, a lot of the other characters here like Piper, Lug, and even Aunt Fanny just don't feel like they added much to the story at all.
          I know I'm getting a little too in-detail here. I'm just a guy who like going into what works for me and what doesn't. Despite my nitpicks, I will say that at the bare minimum, "Robots" does work and is pretty fun. Just don't have high expectations going into this, and you'll do fine. I'm very happy I revisited this movie by purchasing the Blu-Ray for only $5. I would've liked something more to it, but overall, I did moderately enjoy it.
          I give "Robots" (2005) directed by Chris Wedge a 6 out of 10.

Hook (1991) Review

          Hook (1991) is a family action-adventure movie where Peter Pan as an adult (played by Robin Williams) struggles to get along with his kids, as he is so concentrated on his work. He pretty much lost a sense of fun too. Unfortunately for him, his children get kidnapped by Hook from Neverland. So Peter has to go back to Neverland to save them. However, in order to do that, he needs to reclaim his youthful spirit so he can challenge Hook.
          Alright, confession time: I watched the Disney animated version of Peter Pan a bunch of times when I was a kid. I still remember having fun watching the scenes where Hook gets attacked by the crocodile. Haha. Now, I have heard about this adaptation of Peter Pan a few years ago, and this going to sound really shallow but, I was scared of trying it for the simple reason of negative critical reviews this movie got. Yeah, it can be really hard sometimes to judge whether something is worth seeing since films are very subjective. However, I regret avoiding this for so long because I enjoyed "Hook" a lot.
          First off, I really enjoyed the casting. Dustin Hoffman is very menacing as Hook, Bob Hoskins does a great job of portraying a jolly yet somewhat bumbling fool as Smee, Julia Roberts is really cute as Tinkerbell, Maggie Smith is very charming as Wendy, and of course, Robin Williams is awesome in a role who lost all of his childhood sensibilities and happily regains them. Thanks to the acting, I actually found myself caring more about the characters than I initially expected. Also, the sets in Neverland all look beautiful and are filled with glorious detail.
          "Hook" does a very nice job in mixing drama with fun adventure and action, but beyond that, it also felt very magical to the point where I believed and wished this fictional place existed. I'm serious. I truly did feel like a young kid again. Out of all the Peter Pan movies I've seen, this might be favorite. I can't say absolutely for sure, but I might like this more than the Disney cartoon.
           I have a couple of complaints which really don't affect the movie that much. Some of the green screen effects (where Peter Pan is flying) have aged terribly, and while I was thankfully never really bored during its 142 minute running time, there were still a few moments where it felt like it dragged on a tad bit too long. Besides that though, I really had no problems.
           "Hook" is a really good movie that had me more emotionally involved as it went along. I'm very happy I saw it. I don't exactly understand the hate it got. I believe this is so much better than some people make it out to be. Definitely check this one out for sure if you haven't already.
            I give "Hook" (1991) directed by Steven Spielberg a 9 out of 10.

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987) Review

           Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987) is just simply one of those movies that I'm freaking amazed it actually exists. Especially since the first movie in 1984 was pulled out of theaters due to all of the controversy surrounding it. Actually, I haven't even seen the first one because I heard half of this sequel consisted of footage from the first movie in the form of flashbacks. So I just went right into this sequel here.
           In this movie, Ricky (played by Eric Freeman) is talking to a psychiatrist after he went on a insane murdering spree. He first tells him all of the past events involving his older brother Billy (which I will repeat that it consists of footage from the first movie). By the way, I honestly had trouble stomaching the footage from the first movie because of how sadistic it is. And really, they probably should've cut at least some of that footage out, because parts of the footage involves scenes that Ricky was either too young to remember, or scenes he never even witnessed. What the fuck?
           Later, the movie picks up a little when we get to see new footage involving Ricky's life as he grew older like his relationship, and how he became a killer, leading up to the point where he ended up getting caught. Some of the deaths were pretty funny (like this one time where Ricky impales a guy using an umbrella). Most of the acting just pretty much sucked ass but I did enjoy James Newman playing the psychiatrist.
           Also Eric Freeman who plays Ricky, was just really damn funny with his over-the-top acting. He's pretty insane with his excessive use of moving his eyebrows when he speaks. In fact, Eric Freeman is what saved this movie from being a total drag for me. It almost helped made this movie so bad it's worth watching except I was still bored throughout a lot of this movie.

           Yeah, this is really just nothing but a pile of shit. Trust me, if you just watched this entertaining overview of the first two movies (which I will insert the video to), you are not going to miss a goddamn thing as it shows ALL of my favorite moments from the sequel. Watching "Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2" was kind of a waste of time for me. Don't bother.
           I give "Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2" (1987) directed by Lee Harry a 3
out of 10.

Nutcracker: The Motion Picture (1986) Review

           Nutcracker: The Motion Picture (1986) is based on the Pacific Northwest Ballet production of the infamous Nutcracker play with illustrations designed by Maurice Sendak (whose well known for children's books like Where the Wild Things Are). In case you aren't familiar with the play, let me try to inform on it with the best of my ability. The whole play is basically the story of a young girl dreaming of a nutcracker prince and a fierce battle against the mouse king (who has seven heads in some adaptations, although in this movie, there's only three).
           However, when going into this movie (as well as the play), expect a lot of ballet dancing. That's actually pretty much what the entire movie revolves around. If watching ballet dancing doesn't suit well with you, stay far away from this movie. Actually, that's the main reason why I didn't like "Nutcracker: The Motion Picture" very much. It had really beautiful sets and costumes, and I loved listening to the musical score by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, but watching all of those ballet sequences were driving me crazy.
           Even if you don't mind watching a lot of ballet scenes (which admittedly the dancers do a good job here), the filming is kind of a mess. There were a lot of awkward close-ups of the dancers. I know Carroll Ballard was trying to make this feel more like a movie than a play, but seeing the performers full bodies the entire would've looked a lot better here. Also, remember that fierce battle against the mouse king. Yeah, I dare you to try to comprehend what on earth was going on in that scene. Seriously, this is perhaps the most poorly filmed action sequence I've seen in a long while.
           Alright, I give the movie some credit. The opening scenes with an illustrator sketching the sets and characters, along the dream-dancers on the bedsheets with the big sleeping girl in the background were well done. And while I overall wasn't thrilled by the dancing, I have to say I really like this one scene where somebody dresses in full costume as a fat Chinese tiger surrounded by four children. The way that tiger danced around had a personality and presence that I really enjoyed. I wish more of the sequences were like that.
           If you want to watch a film adaptation of the Nutcracker play, this isn't completely horrible, but it'll do little for everyone else who's not interested. And really, while I enjoyed the score very much, I can just easily listen to it on my laptop if I really wanted to, so there's no point in me revisiting this ever again. A few good moments just didn't stop me from finding this movie really dull.
           I give "Nutcracker: The Motion Picture" (1986) directed by Carroll Ballard a 4 out of 10.

Red (2010) Review

         "Red" (2010) which stands for "Retired and Extremely Dangerous" stars Bruce Willis as a retired CIA agent somehow having phone conversations with Mary-Louise Parker, even though they never met before. So I'm going to assume Bruce discovered her at an online dating site or something.
Well, it turns out that his phone has been tapped and people are trying to kill them. So Bruce goes all the way into Kansas City to try to protect Mary-Louise, all while later teaming up with Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, and Brian Cox.
          Now that sounds pretty badass, doesn't it? Also, back when I watched it back when it came out in theaters, I recall it had amusing moments in it. So I was really looking forward to revisiting it. Sadly, I was oddly underwhelmed with "Red". Even for an action movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, it needs to consistently entertain me the entire way through from the action scenes, the humor, and the downtime between the characters.
          The movie has some funny stuff in here with lines like "Are you going to take your knife out of my balls?", and some of the action was really cool, but it never takes off. Let's talk about the romance between Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker. It falls flat on its face. I seriously didn't feel any chemistry at all between the two, and if a romance in a movie isn't going to bring any sort of chemistry, what's even the point?
          I think part of this movie's problem too is that it feels like it really needed more action sequences and a whole lot more laughs to truly make the experience worthwhile. This also could've helped me overlook the really bland and boring story involving an illegal arms dealer and a vice president.
          Overall, I didn't exactly feel like I wasted my time, as this did help cheer me up from a bad mood as I like said before, there were fun moments in here. But compared to other action movies out there (including ones that don't take themselves very seriously), "Red" doesn't hold up that well. It might be a nice rental, but this is not a must-see by any stretch. It could've been so much better.
          I give "Red"(2010) directed by Robert Schwentke a 5 out of 10.

Inside Out (2015) Review

         "Inside Out" (2015), Pixar's newest movie delves into the question of 'What exactly goes on in our heads?' Well, according to this movie, it consists of five emotions controlling our thoughts which are joy, sadness, fear, disgust, and anger. In this movie, they are what make a person a person. I really don't want to spoil much of the story here because, this is one of those movies where I want you, the reader, to see it for yourself if you haven't seen the trailer.
          This is one of those rare movies where it had such a profound impact on me after I've watched it, that it made me so grateful to be alive. That's not an exaggeration at all. This is absolutely my favorite movie to come out on 2015 that I've seen so far this year, and Pixar's best since Toy Story 3. It made me laugh really hard a lot, while also making me very emotional to the point where I even honestly cried a couple of times. It never feels melodramatic, thus every heart-tugging moment in here truly felt earned.
          It's really great to see a kid's movie that treats its audience with respect. None of it contains any sort of worthless poop or fart jokes that would theoretically help appeal to young kids. I'm not saying those jokes in kids movies are necessarily outright bad, but they're over saturated to the point where I kind of find it inappropriate and pretty unfunny. This movie deals with very mature themes involving memories, and goes into very interesting creativity on what's go on in a person's mind when they're young.
          And of course, as expected in Pixar movies, the animation in this movie is brilliant. I know I sound like I'm obsessing my enjoyment of this movie, but I seriously can't help myself. I feel really happy that I saw it, and I want to openly share my love with it to all of you. This perfectly represents why I go to movies. I can't recommend this one enough.
          I give "Inside Out" directed by Pete Doctor an enthusiastic 10 out of 10!