Weapons (2025).

Review #2412: Weapons.

Cast: 

Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Austin Abrams (James), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Amy Madigan (Gladys), Toby Huss (Ed Locke), Sara Paxton (Erica), Justin Long (Gary), June Diane Raphael (Donna Morgan), Whitmer Thomas (Mr. Lilly), and Callie Schuttera (Mrs. Lilly) Directed by Zach Cregger (#1894 - Barbarian)

Review:

"It seems like horror is one of the few outlets for real creativity right now on a big scale. I can’t really think of another one. Without horror, you go to the theater and you get people in tights for $200 million and there’s not a lot of room for risk in those movies. And no shade, I’m all for entertainment, entertaining. But, it’s a shame that there’s not a lot of room for anything else. I love horror, my creative tuning fork resonates strong with horror, so I’m lucky in that regard."

Above all, the best thing to give credit for with this movie is that the bidding war was won by folks who aimed to put this in theaters, because it could've easily gone to Netflix. The success of Barbarian (2022) obviously lent itself the idea that whatever Zach Cregger would do next, it would generate some interest. When in the last stages of making that movie, his best friend died in an accident and the emotional pain that came from that led to writing that went from "a place of catharsis" to, well, something that became a script. The labor disputes of the past few years resulted in delays (namely because of casting, as Pedro Pascal was originally cast as the lead opposite Renate Reisve), but here we are. The movie has partial inspiration in its structure from Magnolia (1999) and the Jennifer Egan novel A Visit from the Goon Squad that also saw him take inspiration from his personal life (read further into the idea of the inversion of a family dynamic from a foreign element that isn't merely just alcohol, maybe). The result is a movie (made for roughly over $30 million) that is already thought of as a considerable success with audiences; the possibility of a follow-up might spring up somewhere down the line. Truly, there are some interesting directors to consider for horror (some with hype like Jordan Peele, others with curiosity from us like Damien Leone, insert one here).

The game of surprise is on display a bit with this movie, which I was hoping would be just fine with the hype that it had received around its release date because sometimes you really can get burned by hype (see: Hereditary). But this is a fine movie, even if it probably a bit more darkly amusing than particularly spooky. It probably helped that I didn't know that much about it, right down to it basically being comprised of "little movies" inside its 128-minute structure that lend a few layers in understanding what happens when people really are just themselves rather than part of a deeper community. Because, well, for this movie at least, a tragedy isn't a way for people to find some common ground with others but is instead a way for self-isolation to grow further and further (we are not that far apart from people who lived in the time where they got spooked by a child having AIDS, if you want to go that far). With a mystery (real or imagined) in particular, people get irritated with the longer it all goes because clearly conspiracies exist everywhere, where the technology of now (ring cameras, anybody? of course, it also helps to have maps) hasn't made us any less prone to paranoia. Basically, the movie isn't about the mystery of where those 17 children are but instead is about the type of people that are basically left over from that (i.e. a reaction to grief, as one probably infers from how the movie came to be in the first place*). Whether that means springing to the blame wagon or hitting the bottle or trying to do their job, it all crashes together by the time the curtain has been pulled down. It helps that the ensemble is pretty damn good in carrying it all together. Brolin and Garner each share the spotlight in their varying reaction to such sorrow around them (one sleeps in their son's bed, the other sleeps with the bottle*). There is a straight-shooting sensibility to both that let you see the quirks and flaws that arise in each of them that is worth emphasizing with and following through to all of the odd moments (one moment in particular stands out in having a strange sequence get summarized in one pithy question that is pretty funny in context). The other folks are just as interesting in seeing the weary nature of trying to keep up appearances in a world that doesn't really seem to care about communities as it believes itself to be (or so one hears from PTA meetings), which probably works best with the humor expressed in the contrast between how Ehrenrich is seen vs Abrams in similar sequences (at least that is how you would put a sequence of someone meeting up at a bar seen twice) that sees inner chuckles delivered from each. Christopher probably does the best of the bunch in what is required from the last proverbial leg of the (spooky) chair in the reactions that come from a life invaded that works out pretty well when paired with Madigan, who is quite spooky in the veneer of a human creature that commands one's attention when she arrives to the proceedings. Basically, you get a movie about people that do not have their house nearly in order as they believe themselves to be that is darkly amusing because of the maneuvering that has to take place just to get to certain points (consider, for example, that the chase sequence starts at a distance, has a middle with a store where the storekeep stands idly by and ends with a splat), right down to its ending*. Most of it works out to engaging heights when you consider who the real boogeyman can be. Sure, some people probably will think it is a bit of a rug pull when you see what it really is all about and others will roll right with the road taken. I just wish it had a little more sizzle in terms of spooks, but there are a handful of effects (Wong and his fate come to mind) that do carry attention to satisfy my curiosity. Basically, the enemy is someone who can play the guy who believes in chemtrails as a sucker in order to do things in plain sight. As a whole, Weapons clearly works best when you don't see it as a mystery or waiting for jump scares and just let it flow through you with curiosity that may or may not be the kind of film worth looking into further on another watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, some people might find the movie to be about school shootings or something. Hell, maybe the curtains really are just blue too.

*I myself don't get alcohol, but if I had to deal with a few nuts every waking day, sure, why not drink a bit?

*Look, I love movies that decide that the villain has to be ripped to shreds like it was Christmas wrapping, that's pretty funny. The narration that starts and ends the film is pretty convenient but about on point without spoonfeeding you. I do wonder what the reaction of Justine was in terms of "You parents owe me big time" when the children were found - maybe they elect her mayor or give her $1000 in booze?

Barbarian (2022).

Review #1894: Barbarian.

Cast: 

Georgina Campbell (Tess Marshall), Bill Skarsgård (Keith Toshko), Justin Long (AJ Gilbride), Matthew Patrick Davis (The Mother), Richard Brake (Frank), and Kurt Braunohler (Doug) Written and Directed by Zach Cregger.

Review: 

"As long as I have no long plan, then no one could know what’s coming.”

Well, there is always time to do horror movies, modern era or not. This is the second feature film for Cregger, who directed exactly one other mainstream feature film in Miss March (2009); he was one of the founding members of the comedy troupe The Whitest Kids U' Know. Truly I suppose this is the time for people known for comedies trying to play their hand in horror in the same way you would see comedians attempt to play serious roles. Cregger had his inspiration when he read the book The Gift of Fear, as written by Gavin de Becker. Specifically, he was inspired by the chapter giving advice to women to pay attention to the little red flags men can give off in day-to-day situations (such as doing a favor when you didn't ask for it). It spiraled from writing a scene with all of these little red flags that somehow spiraled into a film, complete with a rule that if he was surprising himself, then he would have to surprise the audience. So yes, that is how one gets a movie where a double-booked Airbnb (in Detroit, the gate place for some scary thoughts) leads to a variety of events, all that come from a director who went from turning a scene into a horror movie that has gotten some appreciation from audiences.

Maybe the movie is an elaborate joke on critics who think it is really, really good for being "unpredictable" and something about the nature of gender politics in ways that reminded me of the overrated The Invisible Man (2020) or debatably average films such as Hereditary (2018). Oh sure, I thought it was decent as a mild take on the "person goes to the dark basement and finds something down there", but to call it some sort of new kind of twisted classic is just begging for mockery (Pearl, a movie made for a 1/4th of Barbarian's $4 million budget, is better in every single way). The thought that was going down in my head when watching it was the idea that this seemed more apt for a television movie rather than a whole feature. One can only keep the surprise for so long in a 107-minute movie, particularly when one of its lead characters doesn't appear until forty minutes have passed and you could basically separate the film into three parts: the Airbnb parts where something is totally not right about things (because hey, awkward dialogue is fun to hear for 20 minutes), the parts that see Long step into the fray and finds the thing best not spoiled here....and the endgame result that comes from a horror film. Go figure that the best part of the movie for me is the last of these segments. I'm here to watch a weird and grisly time that may or may not have interesting characters in it. Campbell is at the very least interesting enough to hold the film together in patience and composure, rolling with what the (potential) dangers that come with seeing fresh faces and handling it well. Skarsgård is meant to play a nice guy for what is meant to be drained out of a "hey, look at how weird it can be with little red flags", which, okay, sure (you can play story-time for your first half, just don't make one want to twiddle their thumbs). Your time will be spent better with Long, who manages to make a suitable semi-heel caricature (his character may or may not be a pervert, get it?) when he finally shows up when compared to all of the other things of the film, so take that for what it is worth when contributing mild humor to a movie that rides the dark humor trail for fair results. Brake comes in by the hour and is there to do exactly one or two quiet scenes. The handling of the creature is far more interesting in the grotesque, and this is done without much lighting to show much of it (hey, a horror trope worth going for) until the climax that actually does have a few chuckles to it in execution. The final shot does sell itself pretty well, for what it is worth, fitting in trying to throw the audience for one more loop without treating them like complete idiots. As a whole, when it is actually on the game of horror with grimy patience rather than sneering belief that it is ahead of things, it makes for a fine movie. The simplest things are sometimes the best, and that means that while it is at least a semi-useful way to spend one's time for the horror season...however many horror films one ends up seeing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

SURPRISE! A double-header to start off a new October of Horror enjoyment. Enjoy the show, folks.

Accepted.

Review #1264: Accepted.

Cast: 
Justin Long (Bartleby Gaines), Jonah Hill (Sherman Schrader III), Adam Herschman (Glen), Columbus Short (Darryl "Hands" Holloway), Maria Thayer (Rory Thayer), Lewis Black (Ben Lewis), Blake Lively (Monica Moreland), Mark Derwin (Jack Gaines), Ann Cusack (Diane Gaines), Hannah Marks (Lizzie Gaines), Robin Lord Taylor (Abernathy Darwin Dunlap), and Anthony Heald (Dean Richard Van Horne) Directed by Steve Pink.

Review: 
Do you remember your path to college? The acceptance letters, the campus visits, et cetera, et cetera. Of course some of us didn't actually do these things, much like how not everyone simply just went to the college they wanted (or went at all). But I don't think I ever thought to make my own university to make up for previous failures, really. Whether one is big on their college lives or not, I'm sure we can all agree that this is a rather lame comedy that wastes its premise with inconsistent humor. Inevitably, one would probably make a comparison to Animal House (1978) because one really can just use that as the measuring stick for college comedies involving ridiculous stunts, preppy adversaries and people who look at least a decade too old to be in college (minus Lively, though). Actually, why stop there, why not just make a comparison to American Pie (1999) with its crude nature with a young cast? At least one thing can be said about that film - it wasn't completely predictable and it actually did something with its rating (R-rated, as opposed to being PG-13 like this is, which even bleeps out a curse word at the end). What is there to be expected from a fake university named the South Harmon Institute of Technology (S.H.I.T, get it, hardy har har so clever) that came out of an old mental hospital? These characters are more generic than soda simply named Tasty Soda, right down to the bad guys with the truly compelling goal of wanting to raze the aptly named fake university to make a...gateway to make their college more prestigious. Gee, and the only way to stop the plan is to try and fight their case for education accreditation in front of the state board. Really, this should be like one of those choose your own adventure things, where you don't know the obvious decision (or joke) from the get-go. 

But enough about the shaky foundation, how are the actors when it comes to actually trying to make laughs. Is a guy in a hot dog costume imploring people to ask him about his frankfurter (obvious word change from me because I felt like it) really amusing? No? Too bad, it doesn't get that much better from there. Black seems able with a grouchy curmudgeon role, at least, since he actually seems to be trying to say something interesting in his cynicism about the system. Maybe he actually would've been a better lead than Long (no guesses allowed over who thought Bartleby was a clever character name), who doesn't seem as persuasive with generating laughs as opposed to just making smirks. I never really seem to ever care about his scheme, which honestly could've just been some cheesy drama more than anything. Hill is fine, making more of a presence than Herschman, Short, and Thayer combined. How? Ask yourself this: can you remember any interesting "funny" moment with that particular trio as opposed to Hill? Welp, there's your answer. Lively is here and there, having as much chemistry with Long as a bag of hammers. Some people are just destined to be stars, it just so happens some get to be in a lame one to accompany their earlier work. This whole review can really summed up by me just sighing and looking at the run-time every ten minutes, wondering if I should check on my phone or make a doodle. On the whole, this is just a mediocre comedy movie, bland enough to have three writers attached to it (Adam Cooper, Bill Collage and Mark Perez) but not smart enough to really make an involving winner that matters more than just its 92 minute run-time. Not every comedy needs to be a smart one, but I'll be darned if one has to suffer through a lame one when there is always a better choice somewhere else that doesn't waste my time as much as the next viewer.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Serious Moonlight.

Review #1259: Serious Moonlight.

Cast: 
Meg Ryan (Louise), Timothy Hutton (Ian), Kristen Bell (Sara), Justin Long (Todd), Nathan Dean (Detective), Andy Ostroy (Police Officer), Kimberlee Peterson (Trashy Girl), Derek Carter (Man #1), and Bill Parks (Man #2) Directed by Cheryl Hines.

Review: 
Some movies are just meant to stay in the movie bin. This isn't even a case of just being dreadful - this is a movie is too lame for even ironic watching like someone could do for Troll 2. The film can be summed up through three questions: Where is the comedy? Who thought this would be a good idea? Why is the film predictably pathetic? The best answer I have for any of these questions is this: Someone really thought this was going to work. This was written by the late Adrienne Shelly, who had written/directed/co-starred with Hines in Waitress (2007), with her widow being one of the producers of this film. This was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in early 2009 before being acquired by Magnolia Pictures, who released it through their Ultra Video on Demand program one month before theatrical release. I am curious to wonder how many people decided to check this out on the streaming platform (barf) out of curiosity and how long they lasted before shutting it off. It amazes me that one can make an 84 minute movie seem interminable to go through. This is evidently a black comedy, and I say evidently in the loosest sense because it is roughly at the enjoyment level of lemon juice squeezed right onto your face in terms of humor. It is a film that is filled with contrivances in order to drive a romance angle that never really takes off - maybe there could be something funny about taping up your husband until he is persuaded that he still loves you and not his mistress, too bad this isn't the one to do it with. I shouldn't have been surprised that this scheme actually works, but maybe I really thought someone facing consequences for something so stupid could actually lead to a laugh. Obviously I should know better from a film with a title not to be confused with a David Bowie concert tour.

Who does one blame for such a blandly derivative film? You really can't blame the quartet of actors saddled with this material, who either got a memo to scream in every other scene or just really thought this was the way to go. Ryan (years removed from mediocre rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle) is stuck in such a thankless position, where the dubious honor of trying to serenade her husband with a guitar is compounded by him being taped to a toilet after being knocked out (again). She is meant to have some sort of high-strung energy, but it never really comes out in a useful way to make me care. Hutton (spending most of his time acting from a toilet, a sentence for which I have to compose myself before I collapse from laughing) is similarly stuck with either having to shout or trying to be snide, which could be funny if the film wanted to do so. After all, it is just these two for over half the film. To say nothing of Bell, energetic yet not in the film enough to make more laughs. Long playing a robber sounds like a punchline already, but he mostly spends his time either hitting Hutton or lazily robbing them with his friends, which isn't as fun as it sounds. It gets stuck between the gear of sentimentality and cynicism and never gets out, where the direction and the script harmonize into ridiculousness that disappoints and irritates the audience at once. Nothing ever feels like it matters, with no real sense of consequences in any sense to be found. Why should I care about this loveless marriage and the attempts to revive it? Why should I care about them being tied up in their own house? Why make an implication with the ending about the couple seeing the robbers in the street after reconciling if you won't actually go anywhere with it? Is this really a film that needed to end before it even reached 90 minutes? As the questions ride over my head like a never-ending drumbeat, I can only say that this is the weakest kind of terrible movie - a whimpering and pathetic piece that can be mocked to oblivion and still have the insolence to linger there in its defeated state until the magnifying glass is taken off. The best thing to say for this film isn't to yammer about how awful it is for an essay longer than needed - if you see it sitting somewhere on a shelf or as an option on a streaming service (again, barf), just ignore it. By not watching it, you've saved those minutes for something better. Whether spent alone surfing the Internet, or spending time at work, or spending time with friends (whichever seems realistic), Serious Moonlight makes the case for appreciating doing those things more often as opposed to seeing the film more than zero times.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

The Break-Up.

Review #789: The Break-Up.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Gary Grobowski), Jennifer Aniston (Brooke Meyers), Joey Lauren Adams (Addie Jones), Cole Hauser (Lupus Grobowski), Jon Favreau (Johnny Ostrofski), Jason Bateman (Mark Riggleman), Judy Davis (Marilyn Dean), Justin Long (Christopher Hirons), John Michael Higgins (Richard Meyers), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Dennis Grobowski) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man)

Review
A movie I had to watch for a Speech class? That's one good opening sign. To be clear, I had to do an assignment that dealt with stuff that happened in the movie that relates (for the most part) to what we are currently learning, such as the escalation (and de-escalation) stages of a relationship, and to the movie's credit it does at least fits the bill for an assignment and is reasonably something that could used a tool for at least some sort of learning.

It's a shame the movie isn't enjoyable as well. Yes, the movie does have a break-up, in fact it happens quite early on in the movie, a little over 20 minutes into it. Which means the rest of the time is dedicated to their attempts at trying to make the other move out of the condo they live in. This is such a miserable movie to watch mainly because not only do you know they won't get back together, you really just want the movie to end. The movie might've been better (if not at least slightly more tolerable) if it had waited longer for the two to break-up. All we really see of them before the breakup is them meeting at Wrigley Field (in probably one of the more weirder meet-cutes in recent record) and...a bunch of photos of them together over the opening credits, before the set up to their breakup. The vagueness of their happy relationship means that we never really get to care about the fact they break up. Seeing them bicker (And trying to get back at each other) is more tedious than mean-spirited, and while Vaughn and Aniston are at least passable leads, they can't save a movie that makes them feel so under developed, with only the latter seeming remotely close to being likable, and the latter barely edging towards likability near the end. The supporting cast isn't much better, barely ranging an emotional response from me that wasn't just a dejected sigh, save for D'Onofrio, who manages to be one of the only really interesting (if not weird) characters in an otherwise boring flick. Ulimately, everything seems so forced, and consequently I couldn't find myself to care about anything that goes on during the movie. The ending in which the two meet up a few months (or whenever) later and exchange pleasantries and regrets (compounded with a smile) just feels forced and (mercifully) is the final scene in an otherwise dreary movie that is neither memorable nor interesting. It is sometimes funny, but not enough to carry a movie.

But hey, at least it isn't Four Christmases.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Review #411: Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Cast
Lindsay Lohan (Maggie Peyton), Justin Long (Kevin), Matt Dillon (Trip Murphy), Michael Keaton (Ray Peyton, Sr), Breckin Meyer (Ray Peyton, Jr), Cheryl Hines (Sally), Jimmi Simpson (Crash), and Jill Ritchie (Charisma) Directed by Angela Robinson.

Review
I had put this film on the back burner for a while, trying to find some sort of reason to watch it, or an excuse not to watch it. And then I couldn't find a excuse not to watch it, so to get it out of my head and to also pass the time (or waste, which ever word you per fer), I decided to watch and review it. And...it's exactly what I thought it would be despite my childhood memories of it. I watched this occasionally years before I reviewed films, and the film had a quirky quality to it, but as I realize years later, this is a film that will probably connect with younger audiences, but it won't really connect with older (and sometimes but not always wiser) audiences. Lohan (who I last reviewed in #204 - Freaky Friday) isn't bad, though I do wonder how Justin Long keeps popping up here (Planet 51, Galaxy Quest, DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Live Free or Die Hard), Dillon seems to ham it up playing the "villain", while Michael Keaton reminds me that even former Batmans need work. But in some ways, this film isn't helped or hurt by acting, it manages to be hurt by the level of absurdity, which I assume pleases the younger crowd. But my main questions throughout all of the film were this: Is Herbie...possessed? (And in that case would we need a car exorcist?) Is he alive? Does he eat? And why does it seem that he is a sentient being? Does he really need a driver at all? Why did he fall so far from fame? We do see a montage in the beginning, but it doesn't exactly explain why, it just shows us the earlier films were probably better than this. This is a mediocre film that tries hard to please some, and it that sense it works, but it'll baffle others.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Live Free or Die Hard.

Review #320: Live Free or Die Hard.

Cast
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Justin Long (Matthew Farrell), Timothy Olyphant (Thomas Gabriel), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy Gennero-McClane), Maggie Q (Mai Linh), Kevin Smith (Frederick "Warlock" Kaludis), Cliff Curtis (Miguel Bowman), and Jonathan Sadowski (Trey) Directed by Len Wiseman.

Review
302 Reviews (#014, #016, #018) after the last Die Hard (With the two films having a twelve year gap) film, I wondered if this would be just as good as the last three. I was right. It's essentially a standalone installment, not carrying much from the other three (Save for McClane and his daughter), but the film still has a feel from the others, which is a good thing. And the best part? Willis does a great job once again, commanding over the film and delivering lines that actually made me laugh. His character goes trough a lot, with blood and wounds all through out him, much like the last three. It's a split decision over if Long's character is either annoying or slightly beneficial. I pick the middle. He's a bit grating, but he's not the Chris Tucker of partners. The two do have some good lines together (*After McClane jumps out a car that later hits a helicopter, which actually is one of the moments of awesome moments (for me anyway)* You just killed a helicopter with a car!" "I was out of bullets", *McClane is standing next to a Boba Fett cut out* "What, like, you a big fan of the Fett?" "No. I was always more of a Star Wars guy"), and while the partner thing has been done before in Die Hard with a Vengeance with Samuel L. Jackson, this doesn't feel very off. The action is good, keeping the entertainment value at good levels, and keeping itself in check. Olyphant is an alright villain, definitely not the best, but still a useful threat. (Strange fact: It was originally called Die Hard 4.0) Overall, it's a good film (for what it's worth), that satisfies anyone wanting more Die Hard (Fun fact: There's actually a fifth film coming out soon called A Good Day to Die Hard. Heh.), or some good fun. I will only say this once, and for the sake of the film it works, so here you go (for anyone wanting some more quotes): Yippee-Ki-Yay, Motherfucker.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Review #308: Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Cast
Jason Lee (Dave Seville), David Cross (Ian Hawke), Justin Long (Alvin), Matthew Gray Gubler (Simon), Jesse McCartney (Theodore), Cameron Richardson (Claire Wilson), and Jane Lynch (Gail) Directed by Tim Hill.

Review
For anyone who might not know (Which might be either from having decent memories of them or from trying to block them from your memory long ago), Alvin and the Chipmunks is an American animated music group created by Ross Bagdasarian, Sr, originally created for a novelty record in 1958, and they've been an ongoing group ever since. As such, because I apparently thought this might be an okay Christmas film for December (I hope all this Christmas stiff doesn't annoy the stuff out of me...or you.), I'm deciding to review this film (Not the first based on the Chipmunks, which was the Chipmunk Adventure in 1987), eventual regret or not. So how is it? For my sake, it's...not good, I'll say that. I am aware this is probably intended for little children, I'll concede that. But I take that condeding back with this. Little kids? How little? Littler then than an intended audience for a Pixar, Disney, or Dreamworks film. (Yes I said Disney. Happy? I'm not.) I'm getting way off track, but that is what happens with this film. You think about other, more entertaining films or even more interesting music. Catchy as it may be, the songs might actually make Dr. Seuss look deep. (No offense to Dr. Seuss. He was awesome.) The Chipmunks don't exactly have personality (Probably how they were 50 years ago) beyond arrogant, smart, and..sweet-hearted (Each describing each of the three), and yet the only one who I actually care about is Jason Lee. He actually gives the look of "Why am I taking care of three chipmunks instead of just sending off to a far less suffering place", which...makes sense. Cross is...strangely here. It's like he only did it-Oh. Okay than. It does indeed provide entertainment for younger people, but for others (and for the younger kids who aged rapidly since 2007) it isn't a good film.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Galaxy Quest.

Review #237: Galaxy Quest.

Cast
Tim Allen (Jason Nesmith), Sigourney Weaver (Gwen DeMarco), Alan Rickman (Alexander Dane), Tony Shalhoub (Fred Kwan), Daryl Mitchell (Tommy Webber), Sam Rockwell (Guy Fleegman), Enrico Colantoni (Mathesar), Robin Sachs (Roth'h'ar), and Justin Long (Brandon) Directed by Dean Parisot.

Review
When you think about it, this one of those parody ideas that could work or fail, depending on the right hands selected for the job. And...The right hands were selected perfectly. Allen and-no scratch that, the whole dang cast fit well into their respective modes, with some good wit (It is always nice to see Rickman in a role not involving being a villain) And I have reviewed a few of these films (3 in fact, #009 - Star Trek (2009), #225 - Star Trek V, #226 - Star Trek VI) Good wit, good characters (I imagine now that this would be William Shatner's greatest dream, to be in space and all those aliens...), and good charm. Truly this film works for anyone who wants a good laugh.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story.

Review #182: DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Peter "Pete" LaFleur), Ben Stiller (White Goodman), Christine Taylor (Katherine "Kate" Veatch), Rip Torn (Patches O'Houlihan), Hank Azaria (Young Patches), Justin Long (Justin Redman), Stephen Root (Gordon Pibb), and Alan Tudyk (Steve "the Pirate" Cowan) Directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber.

Review
The film has good moments from most of the cast, with silly but decent at the same time fun. Vaughn and Taylor do well together as does Stiller in his crazed insane performance that is almost as crazy as his performance in Tropic Thunder. Funny at points with a decent cast, the film is a hit and far from a miss. One thing I will mention: This is the 100th review for Season 2 (December 20, 2011 - December 20, 2012).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Planet 51.

Review #130: Planet 51.

Cast
Dwayne Johnson (Captain Charles "Chuck" T. Baker), Justin Long (Lem), Jessica Biel (Neera), Gary Oldman (General Grawl), Seann William Scott (Skiff), and John Cleese (Professor Kipple) Directed by Jorge Blanco.

Review
This film has an alright cast, with Johnson not having to do some gimmick to attract the viewers (Such as being a Tooth Fairy, a Quarterback with daughter issues) The plot is meh to say the least. The animation is decent, with reasonable voice acting. This film is not exactly a good film, being simple, but it does manage to make you chuckle or giggle at least a few times, being enough to entertain you for at least 91 minutes. Relatively harmless, but decent enough.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.