"The World's Fastest Indian"

This movie might be a quintessential example of your average movie. Not great, but not bad. Parts that are fantastic, parts that are cliche. A feel good movie that makes you feel good. Anthony Hopkins is a very likable character to those watching and those on screen. He is quite memorable whilst no other characters are. His lines and jokes were funny, but did get a little old. The motorcycle scenes were great, but too few.  A fantastic beginning with a lackluster ending. I think for every example of a good thing that was in this movie there was a downside to it. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it, I liked it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412080/

"Creature from the Black Lagoon"

This movie was fantastic! Now, obviously it being made in 1954, film has evolved quite a bit since then. Are the effects old? Yes, but that doesn't mean they still weren't great and display the superiority of practical effects over computer generated ones. Was the story slightly obsurd? Yes, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't fun and engaging. Was the dialogue over-simplified and cheesy? Yes, but that doesn't mean it didn't serve it's purpose and it wasn't certainly Michael Bay dialogue bad. Did the female lead have 27 different times where she was the first person to turn or see the Creature and scream loudly so as to draw the attention of the other characters to said Creature? Yes, but that doesn't mean this wasn't great cinema. This is a classic monster movie that sits up there with best of them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046876/

"Hobo with a Shotgun"

This was a ridiculous concept presented in a ridiculous manner with ridiculous performances. So, if I had to say anything outside of the fact that this was so unbelievably gory with blood splattering in almost every scene filled with gratuitous violence and language that just makes you feel dirty and gross with absolutely no positive feeling in it whatsoever, I would have to say that this movie was ridiculous.

*I am not a very squeamish person, I have a high tolerance for language, violence, blood, and gore in movies. This movie did not just push my limits, it went beyond them. I guess that's Grindhouse cinema for you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640459/

"Tucker and Dale vs Evil"

The strength of "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" is the strength of all horror-comedy movies; I just love them. This movie was no different. On a somewhat related note, I may be developing a deep connection and strong romantic feelings for one Alan Tudyk. If you're reading this Alan, call or text or Facebook or Tweet or email me. Or just come knock on my door and carry me away to a magical land where our love will grow ever green.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/

"Shutter Island"

I'm a bit torn on this movie. My initial impression is that I really liked this movie. It was tense, which is my favorite emotion to feel whilst watching a movie, and it was just a well crafted film. Martin Scorsese is obviously a very gifted director and he did a superb job in "Shutter Island." I loved the mood of the entire movie that was set through grim, eerie production design; dark, contrasting cinematography; and great acting performances. At times it felt as if you were watching an older thriller or horror movie with overdramatic music telling you the mood. Other times it was a genuine mood of tension incited by the situation and how it was presented. But the real genius in the use of these two types of mood setting is how perfectly balanced they were and appropriate they were to the given situation and point in the movie. I never felt like one took away from the other or was used poorly. Honestly, for the majority of the movie I would dare say I loved this movie. So why is it endings always have to ruin movies? This is one of those endings where it is the ultimate slap in the face, a kick in the junk, a pulling back of the curtain only to find that the great Wizard is nothing but an old man. I suspected such an ending fairly early on in the movie but thought that the great Mr. Scorsese would not, and could not, do such a thing. He did such a thing. Another frustrating thing about the ending, is for how much of a cop-out it was, it was just done so well. It's one of those things that it's just a bad idea, but the film dresses it up so nicely, presents it so well, that you almost forget that you just received a giant bolo punch to your ovaries. With that complaint set aside (and it is kind of a big one) that was all that was really holding me back from loving this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/

"Prometheus"

I'll be honest, I desperately wanted to love this movie. Are you ready for more honesty? I think I only liked it, and even that I'm not sure about. It's difficult for me to gauge this movie based on trying to reconcile my expectations versus how I actually enjoyed the movie. This is especially difficult when it was quite disappointing when set against those expectations. First off, this is Ridley Scott. Second, this is "Alien," or at least set in the same universe and touted as a loose prequel. Those alone made me way excited for this movie. Then take into account the intense emotions of the previews and I was sold. I realize having such expectations is dangerous; it inevitably sets one up for disappointment. I also realize that it is unfair to compare. But I'm sad that I couldn't help but compare and feel this way about "Prometheus." The biggest disappointment was it's relation to "Alien." I'm a huge fan of the first Alien movie and unfortunately this movie was more "Aliens" than "Alien." I missed the tension and suspense that was in the first. It is especially noticeably missing when it was advertised as such too. Sure there were intense parts, but nothing that made me tense up in fear. And whilst this was supposed to be in the same universe (which it was) and not really a strict prequel to "Alien," it felt as if they couldn't make up their mind what to do. So many references to "Alien," yet nothing really to do with it. It's as if they had an original story idea that was in a science fiction setting and decided to try and fit it in with the Alien universe in order to draw in a larger crowd. The silliness of that is that that crowd they are trying to bring it by promoting it's relation to the Alien movies is the crowd that is already going to see it. So this is where I think I like this movie. As a stand alone movie. It was fun. Ridley Scott is a great filmmaker. It was well put together. The cinematography was incredible. Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce, all great performances. The story was a fascinating premise. Repeating all these things that I liked about it lead me to believe that I like this movie. This is where I think I don't like this movie. It's supposed relation to "Alien" was sometimes fun but more contrived than anything. There were certain elements that were cliche. They too often leaned on spoken exposition rather than fear of the unknown or the assumption that the audience has common sense. The lack of tension and suspense, even missing from the action scenes (that one is kind of a big one). Overall, I think I just need to see this movie again. Now that I have a better understanding of what to expect, I feel that I would better be able to make a sound judgement on this movie and not an emotional response to disappointed expectations.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

"Watchmen" Director's Cut

The greatest problem with "Watchmen" is that I feel as if you need to have read the graphic novel in order to truly appreciate it and love it. This is perhaps illustrated best when I expressed my discontent with the movie to a coworker and he asked if I had read the graphic novel. I answered no and he proceeded to tell me that that is why I didn't like it. Now, the greatest problem with that problem is that that is the filmmakers' fault. As popular as a book, television show, graphic novel, comic book, or any other source material that a movie is based on is, you cannot count on that select group of people to give you an adequate, let alone a successful, return. The art of adaptation to screen requires artistic license. You have to ensure that this translates to the general population as well as the specific followers and that requires sacrifice. This was my second viewing of "Watchmen" because the first time, when it was first released in theaters, something was lost on me. Not that the themes were over my head (maybe they were) or the story was too complex (maybe it was), but that it just didn't do it for me, it was missing something. Upon this viewing I watched the director's cut in hopes that a second viewing and added material would fill that void. Unfortunately it didn't. This is a movie filled with great moments, but that don't add up to a great film. We see great individual performances, but are juxtaposed by hollow performances. We hear genuinely smart dialogue and concepts, followed up by poor one-liners, over simplified explanations, or gargantuan leaps in logic. This movie was very much hot and cold for me. I'd like to say that upon further thought afterwards I enjoy this movie, and for the most part I think I do, as long as I don't think about the ending too much. The end certainly begs the question, "who watches the watchmen?" Does the accomplishment of their goal justify the measures they took to get there? Are they the ones who decide what is right, what is permitted? If so, what makes them the moral and lawful authority? My problem isn't necessarily the ending itself, but the acceptance by the characters of such an ending when it seems contrary to all of their nature's throughout the film and they all seem to have an instant shift in their moral paradigm. Up until the ending it is a very character driven story, perhaps to a fault. You have these characters in the overall story, but you also take the time to tell each of their back stories and this often takes away from the main story, which wasn't very strong or original in the first place. The overall story of the movie could probably be told in 27 minutes, the other 153 minutes is filled with character driven scenes and backstory. Generally I think this is a good thing, just not for the format of a feature length film. Miniseries, television show, multiple movies (similar to the "Kill Bill" movies or perhaps the more recent Avengers treatment done by Marvel), something that expands your limitations of a 2 to 3 hour movie. Now, with all that said, I still do like this movie. Upon more viewings I think this is a movie I would appreciate and grow to like more, which is not a bad thing. I will certainly give it another try and even read the graphic novel to see how that enhances or diminishes my movie experience. For now, this is a movie that didn't quite do it for me, flashed brilliance at points, settled for mediocrity in others, and should have, and I think could have, been a lot more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/