Movie Review: God's Not Dead

This movie may be one of the greatest unintentional parodies of all time. If you're looking for a good dose of humor, you'll find it here (if you can bring yourself to appreciate it).

God's Not Dead is a faith-based movie starring nobody you've ever heard or will hear about. The main character is a college student named Josh Wheaton (Joss Whedon!?), who's super evil and maniacal atheistic professor is forces his students to say that God doesn't exist so that they can ignore a religion debate in his philosophy class. There are also some really weird and random subplots that come together in a way that makes it clear that the movie is begging to be seen as "smart".

The performances in this movie are legendary. Never have I seen someone able to deliver lines in a way that made me want to rip my eyeballs out in the way that everyone in God's Not Dead is able to do.

The editing and soundtrack are equally terrible. Characters will go from standing in one shot to sitting down in the next and the soundtrack sounds like it made by compiling a list of the most overused songs in movies of all time.

And the writing. Dear God, the writing. The story is mediocre at best. The dialogue is ludicrous. The characters are just... nothing. There's nothing there. No character has any unique traits in any way other than their religion. That's not to mention the non-nonsensical cameos from the Duck Dynasty guy and some Christian rock group. They don't add anything relevant to the story and serve only to push the filmmaker's agenda.

Overall rating: .5 out of four stars. It's like Crash but even stupider and even more preachy.

Reference scale:
Left Behind < God's Not Dead < Jesus Camp (I don't know if this counts as a faith-based movie... I'm using it anyway because all the other faith based movies really suck)

Movie Review: Hot Fuzz

I'd like to know exactly how many cuts this movie has. It's a lot. A lot.

Hot Fuzz is a movie written and directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead), that falls somewhere in the action/comedy/mystery/parody genre. It's... a strange movie, to say the least. But that's not to say that I didn't find it to be incredible enjoyable.

Hot Fuzz is about an English cop named Nicholas Angel who is portrayed as the most hardcore cop that probably ever lived. However, he's so good at being a cop that he's making everyone else look bad, so the heads of the police department decide to send him away to a little English village out in the countryside. There we're introduced to a seemingly endless variety of interesting and humorous characters, and after investigating what seem to be a series of tragic accidents, Nick starts to suspect conspiracy.

The both movie's writing and direction are what make it funny. The quick cutting, in parody of action movies, make the visual style of the movie not only original and unique but also surprisingly humorous. The writing gets its humor not from one-liners, but from lovingly crafted jokes built up to a refreshing climax.

Simon Pegg is great as the hardcore cop, standing out in contrast to all the other, softer characters. Simon's was the only performance that really stuck out, but all of the actors did a pretty good job.

Overall rating: 4 out of four stars.

Reference scale:

Rush Hour < Hot Fuzz < Nothing. I honestly can't think of any other action comedy movies I liked as much as this.

Movie Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

I feel very lucky to have been able to see this movie a day before it's release. I've been hyped for this movie for around a year now, and I'm happy to say that this is actually a rare case where a movie like this actually lives up to my expectations.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron is a really fun movie. Be warned, it's no art film. The direction is somewhat unoriginal. That's not to say it's bad, it's just not anything I haven't seen before. The plot follows our sextet from the last Avengers movie (and the movies before and since then), as they battle a rouge A.I. force built by Tony Stark/Iron Man that goes by the name of Ultron. I actually found Ultron to be a very interesting character; at points in the movie, the entire theater was laughing at his one-liners.

There are also three new heroes in the movie, two of which you may have seen if you stayed for the end credits of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It is a bit of a spoiler, so I won't elaborate further on that.

The movie has some great action set pieces, with epic battle scenes as well as small, more poingant moments. Joss Whedon's screenplay is witty as ever, and the movie's acute sense of humor added to the experience. However, some of the jokes may not be as funny if you haven't seen the previous movies and I feel like if you haven't watched at least the first Avengers movie you should make an attempt to see it before watching this one.

The performances are serviceable, there aren't any that really stood out to me but there also weren't any that felt particularly bland or forced. One of my favorite elements, however, was the costume design. The costumes look downright epic, and for a superhero movie having great costumes is an incredible important element.

There were two things main things that I didn't care for in the movie: product placement and cliches. The product placement wasn't too in-your-face, but it's definitely noticeable even if you're not looking too hard (like when a character wears a brand-new pair of Beats headphones). Secondly, there were one or two spots in the movie that came off as really cliche. I won't go into detail because it is a bit of a spoiler, but it did take away from the experience a little bit.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of four stars. It's a great time enhanced by a great screenplay, sleek costume design and wowing effects as long as you can get past a few cliches. It's at least on par, if not better, than the first Avengers movie.

Reference scale:

Captain America: The Winter Soldier < Avengers: Age of Ultron < The Dark Knight

Movie Review: The Drop

A shot of whiskey has never been so intimidating as in this movie.

In The Drop, Tom Hardy plays Bob Saganowski, a bartender at a Mob-run Brooklyn pub owned by his cousin Marv (James Gandolfini). Their bar is one of many that occasionally is picked as a "drop bar," where all the dirty money in the city goes for that night. One night, however, they're robbed by two men in masks, leading to all kinds of trouble and his newly adopted puppy.

I found this movie to be quite enjoyable - many scenes has intensity and suspense that most recent films lack. These moments were true, edge-of-your-seat thrills. The reason I mentioned a shot of whiskey at the beginning of this review was in reference to such a scene where the protagonist's fate is basically dependent on whether or not a mobster likes the whiskey served to him. The film is complex and delightfully dark, especially the twist end, giving it an element that feels almost like a noir.

Tom Hardy gives a great performance as the innocent guy in a bad place, and James Gandolfini's temperamental performance is also impressive. The movie's acting is definitely one of it's high points.

My biggest problem with the movie is that often the events seem unconnected. One scene does not lead to the next, they more just seem to happen in that order. The dialogue, however, is sharp and witty, and was one of the more enjoyable elements of the film.

Overall: 3.5 out of four stars. It's a good movie, definitely worth your time to see.

Reference scale:
A Walk Among Tombstones < The Drop < Zodiac

Movie Review: Watchmen

As a big fan of the comic book, I've been looking forward to watching this movie for a long time. I have to admit that I was the tiniest bit disappointed that it was not a shot for shot, word for word retelling of the the source material.

Jackie Haley play Rorschach, a vigilante in an alternate 1985 where superheroes exist. When a former colleague of his is murdered under mysterious circumstances, he uncovers a conspiracy that could change the course of world history.

Watchmen features a number of well thought out and interesting characters, however, some of the performances are noticeably lackluster. Malin Akerman's take on the heroine Silk Spectre II is stiff, even painfully dull at some points. However, Jackie Haley is stellar as Rorschach, giving a performance that is at times touching and at others downright terrifying. The other acts by Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode are not as good as Haley's but are still impressive in their own right.

One of my favorite parts about this movie is how it portrays it's characters. Their not just masks, their people behind the masks and the movie does a good job showing how each character struggles to live a normal life behind their costumes.

My biggest problem with this movie is the dirction by Zack Snyder (300). Let's be perfectly honest: he's a action director. I don't have any problem with this, but Watchmen is not supposed to be centered around action. It's the mystery, the intrigue, the subtlety that make it such a compelling story.

Overall rating: 3 out of four stars. It's a good movie despite a wooden performance and an inappropriate direction style.

Reference scale:

Captain America < Watchmen < The Dark Knight

Documentry Review: Art and Craft

I think I'm back into doing this blogging thing. I've got enough material to keep me going for a while and time on my hands - not all of which needs to be spent binge-watching Arrow.

Art and Craft follows the story of one of the most infamous art forgers in the U.S.: Mark Landis. But he doesn't do it for profit - he does it for kicks, convincing museums that he has originals, donating them and getting them to put his fake work on display. The documentary also follows the people who were working on stopping him, and how for one man Landis became a sort of obsession.

The documentary isn't purely about forgery, it also touches on the theme of metal illnesses. Mark Landis is schizophrenic among other things, and that's part of the reason he does what he does. The man who was chasing him developed OCD while chasing Landis. The documentary does a good job showing how it effects their lives and what they do.

The feature also does a good job showing what goes into making the forgeries. One of my favorite parts of the film was getting to see Mark "sell" a painting to a library. They believed him and he donated it to them, leaving it hanging on the library wall.

One of my main problems with the documentary is that the crew appears to be intruding on Landis' life. He seems like the kind of guy who just wants to be left alone, and is even reluctant to go to a gallery displaying his work.

My other issue is the editing. It's made clear Landis watches a lot of television, so the filmmakers decided to insert occasional shots of TV shows that were at times random and confusing. Sometimes they made sense but others just threw off the pace of the movie.

Overall rating: 2.5 out of four stars. It is dull at parts, but overall it's pretty good.

Reference scale:
Dogfights of the Future < Art and Craft < The Battered Bastards of Baseball.

Tomorrow:
TV Season Review: Arrow Season One

Movie Review: Lawrence of Arabia

I'm back, and I've got another oldie for you. A classic, in fact.

Lawrence of Arabia stars Peter O'Toole in what, incredibly, is his debut performance. He is stellar in the role of T.E.  Lawrence, a irreverent and somewhat cynical officer in the British Army during World War One. He's sent to Arabia on what seems like an impossible mission to rally the Arab tribes against the Turkish invaders. At more than three and a half hours long, it is a true epic in both scope and story.

Now, I've reviewed some pretty dark movies on this blog. But I think Lawrence of Arabia takes the crown. I like to describe Lawrence's character arc as "In the beginning, he was weird but everyone else thought he was crazy. In the end he was crazy but everyone thought he was weird." He goes from a somewhat lackadaisical soldier to a cold blooded killer with a God complex, and you get to watch his path into darkness.

The acting is fantastic. Peter O'Toole is fantastic as Lawrence, and although he is the star, he steals the show anyway. All around, the acting is great, from Alex Guinness as Prince Fiesal to Jack Hawkins as General Allenby.

The direction is also amazing, with extreme long shots and some incredible action and dramatic sequences. I think it would be cool to be able to see this movie on the big screen, so you could more appreciate the detail, the little dots on the horizon, and all those small details that come together to make a great movie.

The one problem I did have with this movie was that the editing was a bit sloppy in some places, especially the audio. But that was far overshadowed by all the great things this movie has to offer.

Overall rating: 4 out of four stars. One of my top ten favorites of all time.

Reference scale:
Ben-Hur < Lawrence of Arabia < Nothing (in my opinion, this is the greatest historical epic ever)

Tomorrow:
Documentry Review: Art and Craft

Complaining about Netflix

I haven't been posting a lot recently... sorry. I can't promise that I'll post more in the future, but I'll try.



The reason I decided to go back and post today was because I am really mad at Netflix right now. I am a big fan of the show Arrow, and I have been waiting for season 2 to come on Netflix forever. The said, promised, even, that it would come out on September 14th, two days before the DVD release.

So you can imagine my rage when on September 15th I excitedly check Netflix only to find... it's not there. At the last minute, Netflix decided to change the release date to October 8th. So I am decidedly pissed at the business for changing the date, and doing so without forewarning fans of the show.

I'm calling out Netflix right now to put Arrow season 2 up as soon as possible. I can't believe that they would lie to us this way. If you are a fan of Arrow, please share this, and write to Netflix to tell them to put Arrow up as soon as possible and to stick to their promises in the future.

Movie Review: The Bourne Identity

I haven't posted in a while, and for that I'm sorry. I've been doing a lot of screenwriting which has been taking up my time. I'm going to try to post more often in the future. So, here's a movie which would be better titled "Generic Action Film".

The Bourne Identity follows Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), who should be dead. Really, he should be dead. He's not a superhero, so please someone explain to me how he survived being shot dead and drowning in the Mediterranean sea. He's left with no memory of who he is and why he is not dead when he is picked up by a fishing boat that is passing by. He then sets out on a quest to find out who he is and why everybody seems to want him dead with the help of the gypsy Marie (Franka Potente).

The movie is shot in a sort of documentary style to try and make the viewer feel like it's more realistic. They do it in a fashion that was uncommon for the time when it was made, along with making use of a much more gritty style of cinematography which was popular in 2002.

Matt Damon is great as Jason Bourne, and this was a decent follow up to what is possibly his best role in Saving Private Ryan. That said, none of the other acting is really a standout. It's not bad, it's just not particularly good.

The movie doesn't really have a great plot, or any plot so to speak of. It attempts to make up for this with lots and lots of action. Fistfights, gun fights, car chases, you name it, this movie has it.

Overall: 2.5 out of four stars. If you love action movies, this one is for you. If you don't, you could probably find something better to watch.

Reference scale:
The Bourne Supremacy < The Bourne Identity < The Bourne Ultimatum

Movie Review: Snowpiercer

Wow. This movie is really depressing. If you're going to watching it, I would not recommend doing anything vaguely negative the rest of the day.

Snowpiercer is a post-apocalyptic story about a train carrying all of what remains of the human race after a failed global warming experiment freezes the planet. At the front of the train is a near-Utopian society, where passengers can get almost everything that they want. However, the further you go towards the back, the more impoverished it becomes and a class society forms. A citizen of the tail of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans), stages a revolt to equalize the power on the train.

The film's violence is really over-the-top and is probably my least favorite part of the film. They could of done a lot less of the blood and gore and still had a good movie.

Everything else, however, is well above average. It's a very provocative film politically, with a lot of moral questions front and center.

The acting is superb, from the lead in Chris Evans to the supporting cast of actors not only from the US but also Korean and European actors. Chris Evans gives in my opinion the best performance in a role that is at times hard and gritty but at others very touching.

It's a very serious and dark movie. The days have past when even the most serious movies would crack a joke or two, this movie is incredibly hard core and no-nonsense. I would consider this movie in the same category as Blade Runner in that it's very serious and violent.

Overall: 3.5 out of four stars. If you can stand the gory, on-screen violence, it's a provocative and interesting film.

Reference scale:
Blade Runner < Snowpiercer < Looper

Have you seen Snowpiercer? What did you think? Comment below!

Movie Review: Benchwarmers

Sometimes a movie's opening reflects the content of the rest of the movie. This movie opens with a fart joke.

The Benchwarmers follows the story of three older guys who decide to form a little league team in order to avenge their failures as kids. It's a decent concept, but my real beef with this movie is everything except for the concept.

The script is only so-so, I felt like it relied way too much on nerd/jock stereotypes than it ought to. Character development was minimal and although it made me chuckle in a few places, it had a lot of room to improve.

My biggest problem with this movie is the acting. It's terrible. Even for a kids movie, the acting either seems forced or underdone. They deliver their lines like they're kids in a WB Mason commercial.

The plot is relatively simple, which is understandable given its intended age demographic. The humor also uses the same excuse and it would be better if the screenwriter at least used a little tiny bit of subtlety. It's riddled with jokes about farts and other subjects on the same level of maturity. It's rated PG-13, so I think it kind of fell into that dead zone where its rating prevented its intended audience from seeing it but was too immature for those who were allowed to watch it.

Overall: 1 out of four stars. It's directed by the same guy who directed Grown Ups 2 so you can expect the same level of complexity.

Reference scale:
Grown Ups < The Benchwarmers < Happy Gilmore

Movie Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

Star Trek and Star Wars had a baby who grew up and smoked weed with The Avengers. That's what Guardians of the Galaxy is.

Guardians of the Galaxy follows the story of Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), who was taken from earth as a boy by space traders. In this movie he must protect an orb of infinite energy from the ruthless Ronan. If Peter and his group of misfits don't stop him, Ronan will kill billions of people.

It's a great superhero movie all around, I would say that I enjoyed it more than The Avengers. The acting is great, Bradley Cooper steals the show as Rocket Raccoon. All around, though, the acting is good, from Chris Pratt's definitive interpretation of Star-lord to Zoe Saldana as Gamora.

It's also one of the funniest movies I've seen this summer. The first half of the movie is almost a comedy. It's laugh-out-loud funny for the first forty five minutes to and hour, and then the tone turns more serious. They still crack jokes and one-liners, but the tone is more grim overall.

The characters and writing are great, and I got a little choked up at the end. It touches you, and is not just surface deep like most superhero movies. And come on, in what other movie do you have a raccoon whose best friend is a tree? I found myself worrying for the characters even when there was no present danger, because James Gunn makes you care so, so much about them that you really want them to be safe more than anything else.

Overall: 4 out of four stars. It's teh best movie I've seen to come out of 2014 (that said, I haven't seen Boyhood yet).

Reference scale:
Avengers < Guardians of the Galaxy < Is this the greatest comic book movie ever?

Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy? If not, go see it now. Now. Why are you still on this blog? If you have, what do you think? Is this the greatest comic book movie of all time?

Movie Review: Blade Runner

Hello from Ithaca, NY! I'm staying here with relatives for the week, and I'm bringing you this website's first review out of state.

Blade runner follows the story of Rick Decker, a "blade runner" tasked with finding and destroying replicants, or human-like robots with superhuman strength, speed and agility. When four replicants steal a ship and come to earth, Decker must track down all four of them and kill them.

The film goes has definite themes about the thin line between hyper-advanced robots and humans, and does so without forcing it. Ridley Scott (Alien), more or less cements his place in sci-fi film history with this movie.

Even though it has Harrison Ford, the acting is nothing special, this movie more gets its kicks from over-the-top blood and gore and cool special effects, both of which it presents to the audience by the truckload. It's everything I hate about modern cinema with its overt sexuality and flashy special effects, but it's still enjoyable.

The plot is fairly complex, I had to go back and think about some of the parts in order fully understand  it, and this part of it I liked. It definitely gets its roots from the American film noir period, which is something you don't see very often anymore.

Overall: 3 out of four stars. It represents what I hate about modern film, but it does it well.

Reference scale:
Man of Steel < Blade Runner < Star Wars

What's your favorite sci-fi movie? Comment below!

Movie Review: 12 Angry Men (1957)

I really liked Citizen Kane. But I would have to say that this movie competes for my favorite movie of all time.

12 Angry Men entails only one night, and it only uses five sets, with ninety percent of it's time spend in just one of them. It's on a small scale, but that doesn't make it an incredible film. The story follows twelve jurors, whose names are never given (except for two at the end of the film), who must decide the fate of an eighteen year old boy accused of murdering his father. With the death penalty as the consequence, the stakes are high. Although at the beginning the boy's fate seems clear, there is more to the case that as it first appears.

The acting is superb, it stars a cast that would go on to do work in movies like Pyscho, Patton, The Odd Couple, On the Waterfront, Breakfast at Tiffany's and more. The list goes on and on, but the acting in this movie from all twelve actors are still probably some of their best performances.

The movie never actually shows any of the court case, but as the movie goes on it reveals more and more about the case. If done wrong, this gimmick could be extremely annoying, but it's done correctly in this and keeps the audience interested throughout the film.

The plot never stops twisting, with surprising reveals and arguments. It even has a few good laughs, if you have the right sense of humor. It almost reminds me of Breakfast Club because of how few sets the use and the tone of the movie.

Overall: 4 out of four stars. Really enjoyable.

Reference scale:
Genre: Courtroom dramas
To Kill a Mockingbird < 12 Angry Men < Nothing

Genre: Favorite movies
Star Wars < 12 Angry Men < Citizen Kane

What's your favorite courtroom drama, in TV or in film? Comment below!

Documentry Review: The Battered Bastards of Baseball

It's impossible not to love this quirky story about an actor who starts an independent baseball team in a city abandoned by Major League baseball.

The documentary follows Bing Russel, a baseball player turned actor turned baseball team owner, who starts an independent baseball team in Portland, Oregon. The team is scrappy, but it has charm and charisma, and over the years as it grows the Major Leagues become jealous, and that's where it really gets interesting.

It's a really touching film, using mostly old footage of games and interviews to tell it's story. The editing and graphics are very well done. It has cool imagery and animation which it uses for transitions and as a way of giving information. The editing does a good job of working with limits of the footage, and avoids jump cuts quite cleverly by switching from wide angles to close ups.

It's funny in parts, sad in some parts, and inspiring in others. It's a really positive movie overall, I left it feeling good. It's great for a little pick-me-up, it's like Rocky in that it leaves you feeling good and like you can do anything. It talks about the American dream and what it means to fulfill it, and it puts a smile on your face. It's also comical at times, especially when they talk about the antics of the players.

With a movie like this, you can often times find it repetitive, but The Battered Bastards of Baseball doesn't do that. It keeps giving you new things to think about, sometimes moving so quick that you've barely finished processing what they were just talking about.

Overall: 3.5 out of 4 stars. It's fun, enjoyable and inspiring. If you have Netflix, you can stream it.

Reference scale:
The Sandlot < The Battered Bastards of Baseball < The Rookie

What's your favorite baseball movie? Let me know in the comments!

I'm Back

I'm back! I don't have a movie to review, but I'll post as soon as I can, hopefully later today.

Movie Review: Frozen

I feel like this movie, has so many people who are obsessed with it, that there are an equal number of people who feel obliged to hate it because to balance them out.

The movie follows the princess orphan and not-at-all cliche character of Anna, who must bring back summer after her magic sister Elsa freezes everything with her magic. Along the way she works with a large cast of character including another orphan (yes, there are three of them in this movie), a reindeer and a talking snowman.

I don't think that this film deserves all of the praise it gets. I also don't think it deserves all of the hate. It's a decent movie, it's just not that great.

The plot is filled with cliches, which gets a bit annoying when what you knew was about to happen happens a bunch of times during the course of the movie. It's so predictable that there's even one song per sequence.

The characters are cute and it did make me chuckle in a few places. It definitely tries to play off of nostalgia from movie like Lion King and... um... okay, just Lion King. In this, it does a good job. A lot of people are a fan of it's songs, not me personally but a lot of people like them. It's hard to hate it too much, it's just a kid's movie. It's not insultingly bad, like Smurfs 2 but it's just not too super as a movie if you ignore the intended age demographic.

A quick note before I give my overall and reference scale: This is my last post for a week. I'm going out of town and won't have internet access, so I'll post as soon as I can when I get back. I'll miss it, but I posted twice today and yesterday so I hope that will make it up to all you readers.

Overall: 2.5 out of 4 stars. It's cliched, but it's a kid's movie. That said, you could better spend that 102 minutes watching The Iron Giant.

Reference scale:

Tangled < Frozen < Wreck it Ralph

Movie Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Part of what's great about this movie is how shocking some of it it is. It's not just "Wow! That ape is riding a horse" or "Wow! That ape is firing a gun!". It's "Wow! That ape is firing a gun while riding a horse!"

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes takes place ten years after the first movie. It has a very memorable opening, with a montage showing the fall of organized civilization, then smash cutting to a ECU of Caesar. The plot is mainly about the relations between the humans and the apes as some try to co-exist in peace and others want war. The plot is very twisty, you can never tell where it's going to go next. For this reason, this is the most information I can give you about it without spoilers.

I would like to point out that this is my first review of a "new" movie. I went to the local theater with one of my buddies and we watched it, and had a good time.

Andy Serkis gives by far the best performance in this movie, as Caesar. Do they give Oscars for people playing apes? The acting overall is okay, but like I said, Andy Serkis is a standout. The direction by Matt Reeves (known more for his TV work) is decent, not great. It does get a bit annoying when the apes open their mouths and try to talk, and when their using sign language. It just gets a bit awkward.

There is no shortage of action of suspense in this movie, with explosions, guns and huge, nicely choreographed fight scenes. There are moments that are touching, but also moments that make you feel like it was directed by Micheal Bay.

Overall: 3 out of 4 stars. It's a good movie, I would recommend seeing it while it is still in theaters. It's one of those movies that is best seen on a huge screen where you can see every detail.

Reference scale:
Planet of the Apes (2001) < Dawn of the Planet of the Apes < Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Web Series Review: Red vs. Blue

Oh my god. This show had me laughing harder than I have in a very long time.

This web series, created by Roosterteeth, parodies first person shooter style video games with a hilarious series. It follows the exploits of two groups of soldiers, one red and one blue as they face off in a battle to take a canyon. As one character point out, there's no value to the canyon, both sides are just there because the other side is and even if one side could win "[Y]ou would just have two bases in a canyon. Whoop-de-do."

It's half satirical, half screwball style is just a barrel of laughs. I honestly don't think I've laughed this hard since the first time I watched Airplane. All the characters are completely immature, but the show does it in a way that it doesn't seem forced.

There are a couple problems with it, one being the graphics. I find this excusable as the creators used the engine from a video game to create it so they didn't have much control over it. The second problem I have is the audio quality. It does tend to cut out and sound like it was made several years previous to when the series was made, but it doesn't take away from the quality of the jokes too much. My last beef, and the biggest, is the editing. The editing could of been a lot better, with awkward fade-outs and sound cuts.

It's still extremely funny, and I would go so far as to say that it is the best web series out there. Now, I haven't seen a ton of web series but this is by far my favorite.

Overall: 3 out of 4 stars. It's a farce on the modern gamer's world and connects with all of us, even if you don't play games.

Reference scale:
Riley Rewind < Red vs. Blue < Nothing

Note: Yes, I posted twice today. This is partially because I will be gone next week, so I'll put out extra while I can.

Movie Review: Planes, Trains and Automobiles

I love Steve Martin. I think he's a great actor who's capable of great work. Capable of great work. Capable.

 Planes, Trains and Automobiles is a road comedy with Steve Martin and John Candy. Steve Martin plays a businessman trying to get home for Thanksgiving during a winter storm. After he is stranded in Kansas by the airline, he tries various other ways of getting home for the holidays. He is unwillingly accompanied by a loudmouth shower curtain ring salesman played by John Candy.

The movie did have a few good laughs, but overall most of the jokes seemed either unfunny or forced. John Candy's character is just annoying, even when you're supposed to be on his side. The script for this movie could of been better, most of the humor was dull and unoriginal.

This movie is often compared to another movie I reviewed, Midnight Run because of the proximity in release date and type of movie. I would have to say that I found Midnight Run much more enjoyable than Planes, Trains and Automobiles. The acting, idea, and humor is better in Midnight Run. I didn't love Midnight Run but I think it was definitely a better movie. The only reason I would watch Planes, Trains and Automobiles over Midnight Run would be because they have Planes, Trains and Automobiles available for instant streaming on Netflix and not Midnight Run.

I will say that this movie had decent execution, given the flawed concept and script. The acting was okay, and the direction by John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Ferris Buellers Day Off, Home Alone) was good.

Overall: 1.5 out of 4 stars. This movie couldn't of been a lot better, given the quality of the script among other things, but it's best isn't very good.

Reference scale:
(I don't know about any road movies worse than this) < Planes, Trains and Automobiles < Midnight Run