Superman Returns

Maybe it will be a surprise, maybe it won't, but Superman is by far, my favorite superhero. I look past the ridiculous amount of powers, the campy outfit, and the flying around the earth to turn back time in the first Superman movie to say that Superman is just down right awesome all the way around.

So back in 2006, Superman Returns came out. To me, it represented the first time that my generation would get a Superman movie. It represented the first time the hero would appear in the modern superhero film which was incredibly exciting. It had a new cast, a new premise, everything just seemed new to this.

However, as you can see in this film, different does not always mean better. But you can also tell from this movie that old doesn't always mean better as well. You'll understand why by the end of this review.

Speaking of old, let's talk about the Richard Donner classic, Superman: The movie.

Its really gone down in history as a classic movie mainly because of the legacy it began. It was legitimately one of the first superhero films, way before superheroes had any type of legitimacy in film. It also had the incredible effects for the time. Watching Christopher Reeves fly was an incredible milestone in film. The tagline of the film was, "You will believe a man can fly" and that's really what the movie did.

On top of that it was a pretty good story. I won't say its the best because years later, a lot of it doesn't exactly hold up. However, it is still a classic and worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

So prior to 2006, there's a choice that needs to be made. Do you make a movie with a totally different tone and cast your bets on whether or not people will like that new tone, or do you work with what has worked in the past and make a movie with a similar tone to the original franchise? Also, do you continue the story started in the Richard Donner movies or do you totally reboot the franchise?

Oddly enough, Superman Returns decided to do a little bit of everything. Superman Returns is not a reboot, but its also not really a true sequel. Its a little bit of both.

Superman Returns takes place 5 years after the second movie in the Donner franchise. It totally ignores Superman 3 and The Quest for Peace. And that's a very good thing because if you watch those two movies, they really are some of the most hilariously bad pieces of work you will ever see.

So if you're going to make a sequel to those original movies, setting it after Superman 2 is probably the best choice you could have made for a franchise like this. The problem however is that not everyone knew where exactly in the timeline Superman Returns was.

What made it even more confusing was the new cast of the movie. Like I said, this movie is suppose to be a sequel and Brandon Routh is suppose to be the same superman portrayed by Christopher Reeve. I mean obviously you can't have Christopher Reeves play the role and if you're going to have a new Superman, you might as well have a whole new cast.

The problem is that the timeline just doesn't really match up. The Richard Donner movies were made and pretty much set in the 70s. Lois and Superman were established characters who looked like they were in their thirties.

Suddenly you get Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth playing these characters as if they look they're about a decade younger. And yet Lois has a kid she looks like she had when she was 12.

Its confusing to say the least.

The movie makes you ask yourself several times, is it trying to be a homage reboot, or is it trying to be a sequel?

The quick answer is... Yes.

Anyways, Superman Returns begins as Kal-El returns to Earth after an unsuccessful 5 year search for alleged "remains of Krypton".  Now the whole idea of Superman really believing that Krypton could still exist after everyone seems to know that it was blown up is a little bit weird, but hey, they needed to get Superman to leave so I guess we'll just let that one slide for now.

Obviously since Superman has been gone, people have moved on with their lives, especially Lois Lane (played by Kate Bosworth), who has since got engaged (to James Marsden), had a kid, and has even won an award for a news story called, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman".

Now this of course does raise the issue of how Lois Lane has a five year old kid when she looks 25, on top of the fact that she looks ten years younger than Margot Kidder did in the first movie. I guess Lois drinks virgin blood or something like that.

But it also raises the question of why Kate Bosworth was cast in light of the fact the reason Brandon Routh was cast was due to the fact that he is the spitting image of Christopher Reeves and almost impersonates him exactly. Why have Routh play Superman like an impersonation, and have Bosworth play Lois Lane as a totally different character?

All while this is happening, Lex Luthor has infiltrated the fortress of Solitude, stolen alien crystals and plans to utilize them in a world dominating real estate ploy.

Now, before I tear into the unfortunate missteps that they did with the plot of Lex Luthor, I must give this movie credit where its due.

Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor has to be one of the best casting choices in a superhero film I've seen in a long time.

Its confusing because in a way, Spacey was cast to emulate and almost impersonate the performance of Gene Hackman from the original film. And while he kind of does that, he also gives a very dark and more sinister look at Lex Luthor that I don't think we ever got to see from Hackman.

I love this interpretation of Lex Luthor. This was one of the biggest downfalls of not continuing this movie into a larger franchise because it let Spacey go from the role he did a fantastic job playing.

Unfortunately, the role, in my opinion was a little bit limiting for Spacey. Like I said, the role was cast to emulate Gene Hackman, and therefore I don't know if this was one hundred percent his own interpretation. There's still inklings of Hackman in there to make it not exactly Spacey's performance.

All of these characters have their own issues they go through and all of it revolves around the fact that Superman has returned after his 5 year disappearance.

You may notice that a lot of this review has focused on the set up of the plot, or the characters and their reactions to plot and not so much the plot itself. What is the plot of Superman Returns?

Well like I said, Superman returns and establishes himself back in the world, saving people like he used to. Eventually he'll have to stop the plot brewing by Lex Luthor but that really doesn't come into play until the last act of the film.

I've heard other reviews that criticize this movie on the lack of public reaction to Superman's absence as opposed to Lois's particular outrage, but I think that's the point.

This movie is not so much a story about Superman establishing himself back in a world that doesn't accept him, its more a love story establishing him back into the life of Lois Lane.

And this has brought me to the single conclusion on this film. Its not a good superhero film, but that doesn't make it a bad film.

If you go into this movie thinking you're going to go see an action packed superhero film, you're going to be disappointed and you're going to be bored.

But the movie does have a lot of pros to it, and one of those pros is the acting. Its not a badly acted movie. The relationship between Superman and Lois Lane is interesting and it does have a mix of emotions. The visual effects of the film are actually pretty good.

The story is a lot more personal and close to home for superman. The focus is not so much on the saving the world as opposed to getting his own world in order.

Now... all of that considered, is it a good film? Well... Yes and No. A lot of the pros I mention about the movie being smaller and more personal are kind of negated by the fact that I'm not sure that was the purpose.

Bryan Singer didn't go into this film to make a small indie film about Superman's personal life, he came into this movie trying to make the next Blockbuster superhero film. Even if he did go into it with that mindset, it doesn't negate the fact that the timeline is confusing, the casting is confusing, and the movie itself is just kind of a long boring movie with little no action.

Now that being said, I think one of the things that this movie had that Man of Steel actually missed out on was the John Williams Superman theme. Along with that, the actual visuals of Superman actually saving people is something that Man of Steel was lacking. The music and the actions do create a combination that sometimes sends off a tingling down your spine as you see a classic superhero doing what they're meant to do.

Overall, Superman Returns is not a bad movie, it just has a little bit of an identity crisis. Its not sure exactly what it wants to be. Does it want to be a personal tale or a superhero epic? Does it want to be a reboot or a sequel? Does it want to be modern or classic looking? Just a lot of questions were raised during this movie.

And whatever Bryan Singer was trying to do, it just wasn't what we wanted from a Superman movie. I think the movie going audience wanted something that gave us the full extent of Superman's powers. Regardless of what you think of Man of Steel, you can't deny that it didn't give the action that we've been wanting from a Superman movie for years.

Superman Returns might not be a perfect movie but I did enjoy it. I enjoyed it when I watched it today and I enjoyed it when I saw it back in 2006. I won't say don't see it, but just be warned, you're not going to get a typical superhero film and for the time this movie came out, that doesn't exactly mean what you think it does.

Those are my thoughts on Superman Returns. What do you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me requests for future reviews I should do. Follow me to get updates on movie news and reviews in the future.

I'll leave you with this. Regardless of whether or not you think this movie is bad, at least its not Superman the Quest for Peace. Enjoy!

Wet Hot American Summer

So Hot Fuzz is an example of a comedy that I think I could probably say, while not everyone is going to love it, I think a lot of people can put a lot of great stuff from it and enjoy at least a little bit of it. Wet Hot American Summer is definitely a movie that you will either love, or you will hate. You're either going to laugh your ass off or you're going to be really bored and not really believe that you're watching a movie like this. And while I say that you will either be on one end of the spectrum or the other, I actually find myself somewhere in the middle. I know what the movie was trying to accomplish, I appreciate it for what it is, I even laughed at a good number of parts. However, I feel like its not really a great comedy and is a little bit of an example of what happens when a cult following pushes for something to be brought back just out of nostalgia, and I will talk about the future of this property near the end of the review.

Its kind of hard to explain Wet Hot America Summer. The short explanation is that it follows the staff of a summer camp in the 80s. This is kind of comedic, especially since the movie was made in 2001.

Bradley Coopers, David Hyde Pierce, Elizabeth Banks, Paul Rudd Amy Poehler, Molly Shannon, a lot of really great actors and actresses were involved with this project and surprisingly enough, a lot of them got their start in movies from this movie. Its been fun looking at the filmography of a lot of these actors and actresses and seeing this movie at the very front of the films that they did.

Like I said, the premise is a little bit hard to explain but in essence, it is the last day of camp at Camp Firewood. The counselors are horny as hell and all of them want to continue screwing around with one another or they want to finally lose their virginity. Furthermore there's still things that need to get done with the kids and their time at camp, activities need to happen, and everyone is trying to find that special somebody to share a special moment with at the end of camp.

So why is it so hard to explain what is going on in this movie? Well its a style of comedy that can only be described as absurdist humor. Its ultimately the idea that the characters have little to no inherent purpose and represent that little of purpose with meaningless acts.

For example, one of the main characters Coop (played by Michael Showalter) wants to be the boyfriend of one of the counselors at the camp. He recruits the help of the crazy, slightly unbalanced cook making all the food and they go into a montage. Pretty standard for a comedy, but then they just start dancing for no reason. Or when a kid comes up to introduce himself at the talent show, he just puts up his arms and suddenly there's an inexplicable gust of wind. There's no explanation to it, its barely mentioned outside of the scene, and yet it happens, and people do acknowledge that it happened, but don't really question it.

I'm probably not explaining it the best that I can because its really something that's better to be seen. There's a lot of parts in this movie that really make no sense but they're just kind of there for the laugh. And once you get accustomed to the humor and how exactly jokes and humor is executed in this movie, you really have to ask yourself, do you like having this random out of no where humor?

And I get it, its a satire. Its not exactly suppose to make a lot of sense because its making fun of certain behaviors. Although I'm not always totally sure of what they're making fun of, it still has its moments and its times where it made me laugh.

This movie is a little bit different than spoofs and other satires because the majority of those you see, like Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles, and other films, are pointing at one particular thing to satirize. Spaceballs as satirizing Star Wars, Blazing Saddles was satirizing racism and old west movies.

I guess this could be satirizing summer camps, and sex comedies. Here's the thing, I definitely grew up in the wrong generation because I never really got the best of the best when it comes to satires and spoofs. The generation I grew up in unfortunately was one of Scary Movie, or Epic Movie, or those dumbass movies with the word movie in it. Instead of pointing out all the things wrong with a particular movie and being smart about it, those movies decided to just put as many cultural references in it as they could, spoof as many current movies as they can, and spin it all with fart jokes and dick jokes.

I'm not saying Wet Hot American Summer is incredibly high brow humor, it definitely isn't. But at least they attempted this project without the help of overly apparent pop culture references, and instead with its own humor.

Does it always land? Oh god no. Again, it really comes down to taking a good portion of the movie and understanding the humor before you really start to get the jokes.

So that's why I say, if you're into that absurdism and things not always being explained but that's part of the humor, you might actually like Wet Hot American Summer.

Another perk that I have to give the movie is that sometimes I forgot that this movie was made in 2001.

It actually felt sometimes that I was watching a movie made and set in the 1980s. This may have been due to the obviously low budget of the film, but there's a certain charm to it that I kind of liked. It took me a couple times to stop and think and remember that Amy Poehler was 10 years old during the time that she's playing a 16 year old in this movie. And for that I have to give the movie props.

So its a weird movie. Because of the style, you're not going to get really high quality acting, but that's not really the objective. Also because of the style, you're going to have a very bare bones story and its going to feel more like a compilation of situations from SNL sketches or something like that instead of a cohesive story.

It doesn't mean the movie is bad, it just means that its probably an acquired taste and if its not your style, its not your style.

Now, that's pretty relevant to the next thing that I'll be talking about, and that's the 8 episode prequel that Netflix just released.

Now I'm only a few episodes in so I can't give an incredibly in depth review or thoughts on the series quite yet.

I do have to give the show props once again as it seems like they've gotten the whole cast back for this reboot. And it does fit into the style of comedy for them to blatantly say, you're all 16 year olds and they definitely don't look 16.

Now this television show is kind of a symptom of what's been going on on Netflix for quite a while. Something got cancelled or panned a while back and because Netflix is a growing market, they have the capabilities and the low risk to do something like this, bring back something, even a movie with a cult following and see what they can do with it.

Now, traditionally, when its something that I've enjoyed and wanted to see come back, (I.E. Arrested Development season 4), I've really enjoyed Netflix's resolve to make the best that they can do. Is it always the best outcome, not always (I.E. Arrested Development season 4), but there is something about it that is clever and is definitely something I enjoy.

But unfortunately, I see this as a little bit of a waste. I mean if they can do this much, and put this much time into properties that had a cult following, I'm just wondering what they can do with something with a lot of popularity behind it. I know they're good with original content, I'd just like to see them take on something really well known and really well liked.

Perhaps part of it is the fact that the well known properties are more expensive and can get picked up by established channels, but I'd like to see Netflix's efforts go towards something a little bit better than Wet Hot American Summer. I think they can do better.

Again, I'm only about 3 episodes into the show and I kind of feel the same way about it as I did the movie. I'm kind of in the middle. I enjoy some parts, but I'm not jumping for joy for it.

But I would love to hear your thoughts on the movie and especially what you've thought of the TV show. Comment and Discuss below! You can also follow me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 to send me your thoughts via tweet and you can also send me requests for future reviews. Stay tuned for future movie news and reviews that come out of the blog.

I'll leave you with this. One of the actors Michael Ian Black went on Seth Meyers and gave him his thoughts on the return of the show, its a little funny. Enjoy!

Hot Fuzz

Despite the fact that up until I finally got around to watching Hot Fuzz, I was worried that this movie was just a regular run of the mill buddy cop movie. Which don't get me wrong, there have been a numerous amount of run of the mill buddy cop movies that I have enjoyed. However, I wasn't quite in the mood for some thing run of the mill, I wanted something different.

 I've also never been a huge fan of Edgar Wright's work but that's also because I never have got around to watching a whole lot of his work. So while I know he has his own distinct style, I was never really sure what that meant.

And in fact, the beginning of this movie did have a little bit of a start that I wasn't wild about and didn't have a lot of interest in.

The beginning of the movie introduces Sgt. Nicholas Angel (played by Simon Pegg). He's your standard straight laced cop. He's very good at his job, he always follows the rules, and he's from the cities. However, he is transferred to the country where he is a Sergeant in a small village that is notorious for getting best village of the year, its just very pleasant.

Like any standard buddy cop movie, he's paired up with his exact opposite. That opposite comes in the form of Nick Frost as Danny Butterman. He of course is a drunk, he's unorganized, and he's just not that great of a cop. Hilarity ensues as these two try and find a way to work together and actually end up getting along despite their differences.

Now, if this movie wasn't directed by Edgar Wright and was just a standard buddy cop comedy, there would still be a murderer, people would still die and these two would have to buck the system, put aside their differences, and learn to work together... if this was a standard buddy cop movie.

The village of course is populated by a band of colorful characters from the other police officers in the force, to the main citizens of this village. I think the movie probably has a larger appeal in the UK as they probably are a little bit more familiar with this kind of village, but regardless, its funny.

While its a solid cast with good names like Jim Broadbent, the obvious standout is James Bond himself, Timothy Dalton.

Dalton really isn't that popular outside of Bond and that's a damn shame because the guy is hilariously awesome and really a lot of fun to watch.

His character is definitely a sort of satire but its done really well, and again, the ending makes this movie anything but a standard buddy cop movie. But again, if you watch this movie for any reason, it might just be the entertainment value of Timothy Dalton. He's not the funniest character, he's just fun to watch.

The main appeal is the relationship between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. These two have worked together in some of Wright's work so if you're familiar with his work, you're not going to be surprised at the chemistry between these two. And the funny part is, Pegg has never been pegged in my mind as the straight laced squared away type, but he does such a good job and is juxtaposed so well by Frost that its a lot of fun.

I don't want to say A LOT about the ending of this movie as it is a really good twist and it is just down right hilarious. But what I will say is that you should hold on till the end because it does tie a lot together and I'm sure if I watch this movie again, I'm going to enjoy it a lot more now that I know the twist. And replay value is something that wins points in my book.

Now did this movie make me a huge Edgar Wright fan? I don't think so. I think the guy is talented, I think this is a really fun movie, but it does have its flaws. If you're not into British humor or are not a huge fan of satire, you'll probably see this movie as only okay. Its not the most ridiculous movie I've watched this week, (that is coming soon) but it does have a couple moments that are ridiculous and a lot of fun.

I would mainly suggest this movie to anybody who likes comedies and wants one that is a lot of fun but at the same time is going to make you think just a little bit. I'm not saying its an Inception like movie but the British humor is very wordy and you have to be paying attention. The first time I tried to watch this movie, I was put to sleep because I wasn't in a position to listen to all the dialogue and really embrace it the way it should be.

Again, the ending is really what wraps this movie up, it puts an exciting, incredibly hilarious bow on something that is pretty good already and takes it from standard to just down right hilarious in a matter of minutes.

I wish I could say more about this film but the truth is, I had a really, REALLY fun time with this movie. While it won't go down as one of my favorite movies of all time, it still is pretty funny and I would definitely recommend it. Check it out on Netflix next time you're looking for a comedy.

But those are my thoughts, what do you think about Hot Fuzz? Comment and Discuss below! You can also follow me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and send me your thoughts on there along with requests for future reviews. I will also be able to give you updates on future movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. This video goes into a little bit of detail on the exact style of Edgar Wright. Now the person who made this video is definitely privy to this style and enjoys it more than other movie styles. I'm not saying its better or worse, its just different and I'm not sure he's saying that either. All he's doing is pointing out the value his his style. Enjoy!

Fantastic Four

Or as I like to call it, Fant 4 Stic.

I did a review for the 2005 release of The Fantastic Four a long time ago. The writing is probably pretty crude and it probably doesn't give a great representation of the film so I'll try and give my abbreviated thoughts here. In short, I don't think its the worst superhero movie and it definitely was in the formation years of comic book movies. This is about the same time as the Sam Raimi Spider-man films where comic book movies were just starting to figure out what works and what doesn't and figuring out the formula for good films we have today.

Unfortunately, for some reason, The Fantastic Four just can't seem to figure out a way to get that formula to work for them...

The Fantastic Four starts by introducing Reed Richards (played by Miles Teller). While Reed is in high school in the 2000s, its almost like Reed's teachers are from the 70s or 80s. Reed has a plan to be the first scientist to crack teleportation. His teachers, his classmates, all oddly acting as if they are from a different time, quickly laugh off his hopes and dreams, cause you know, teaching the future.

Fortunately he does have people who believe in him, like his buddy Ben Grimm (played by Jaime Bell) and then later, a scientist by the name of Dr. Franklin Storm (played by Reg E. Cathey) who invites Reed to take part in an interdimensional science experiment in the Baxter Institute with his adopted daughter Sue Storm (played by Kate Mara) and his son Johnny Storm (played by Michael B Jordan) utilizing Reed's teleportation device as the final piece needed to complete the research.

The project is also facilitated by the poorly named Vicktor Von Doom (played by Tobey Kebbell). Why Vicktor is brought into the project after Dr. Storm obviously knows that he is a dangerous individual and its been clearly proven that Reed Richards is smarter than him, is beyond me.

The group work to create this machine for a large portion of the movie and when it is finally complete, they test it and figure out that it totally works.

The obvious next step is to send actual humans through the machine and into the other dimension. Unfortunately, through a horrible accident, the team is left with incredible abilities, abilities that make them The Fantastic Four.

Reed is granted the ability to stretch himself beyond what is actually possible. Johnny is granted the ability to set himself on fire, fly, and throw fire. Sue is granted the ability to turn herself invisible and utilize force fields. And Ben is turned into a giant rock monster.

Now here's the thing about the Fantastic Four that make them incredibly difficult to adapt to film. While its pretty cool seeing Michael B Jordan fly around on fire, while its kind of cool seeing Kate Mara... do Sue Storm things, and while its kind of cool seeing the creative things Reed Richards can do with his stretchiness, the Fantastic Four are, as a whole, a really, really, REALLY, boring super team.

There's nothing really overly special about them. They're just another super team that doesn't really compare to what we've seen since. Thing about it. The Avengers have Iron man, Robert Downey Jr. in a mechanized suit. Captain America, a man from World War 2 with super strength. Thor, a Norse God. And Bruce Banner, a scientist who turns into a giant green rage monster when he gets angry.

And that's just a piece of the people who are on the Avengers. If you're going to make another super team, they have to be interesting, and unfortunately, The Fantastic Four are just not that interesting.

 I wrote in my review of the 2005 films that I don't know that much about the source material of the Fantastic Four. I don't know what makes them interesting in the source material, therefore I don't know what you can do to make it so they are interesting in the movies.

The one thing that I do know about the Fantastic Four that makes them a little bit different is the fact that a lot of their super powering goes on in other dimensions.

Part of the appeal of the Fantastic Four is the fact that they travel between dimensions and they see different world. Because on earth, they're really kind of run of the mill. And a while back, I didn't think that was something that they should be doing, I thought that they should be trying to incorporate The Fantastic Four in with what Fox has already established, but there was a glimmer of what this movie could have been when they start traveling through different dimensions and I see glimmers of what could have been a really good movie.

What would have happened if the Fantastic Four tried to distinguish themselves by facing off against evil in other dimensions? Maybe it'd be different but the way I understand it, the team has always been different. They're not your run of the mill super heroes and I don't think that's how they should have been done like they were in this film.

Which brings me to my next point and that is the main antagonist of this film, Vicktor Von Doom.

Now a lot of people saw this picture from the trailer and they were not wild about the way Doom looks in this film. I saw it and I was underwhelmed. Again, I don't know much about the source material, all I know is the crappy version from the 2005 version. How could this be any worse than that?

Well it is. I saw a review that said this version makes me miss that version with Julian McMahon, and I have to agree.

Mainly because there was no development of Doom as the antagonist and suddenly he's just there as the antagonist. There's no build up, there's no development, one minute he's Vicktor Von Doom, the kind of creepy but not hurting anybody yet guy who ends up being a casualty of the accident, to this weird tin man who doesn't move his mouth. There's no build up, there's no evolution, he's just Dr. Doom. Its probably the worst creation of a villain I have ever seen on film.

And while Doom had barely any set up at all and was by far the worst of any of the characters in the film, I didn't feel like any of the characters really had a whole lot of set up to a point where I feel like I was invested in any of their stories. Instead of these people being characters, they were just bodies on screen doing cool things with visual effects. While I saw glimmers of character development, the movie itself felt so rushed and so crammed that I never felt anything for any of them.

Starting right off the bat, you have Miles Teller as Reed Richards. Now I'm not the biggest Miles Teller fan to begin with but I do have to admit that I feel like he is a good choice for a Reed Richards. I feel like he does pull of the gawkiness of the character and is able to portray the most intelligent man in the Marvel universe.

That is kind of a theme throughout all the characters. I feel like all the main characters are good actors. I love Kate Mara, I think she's phenomenal. I know Michael B Jordan is a really good actor. I've seen bits and pieces of Turn and I know Jaime Bell can act.

But again, I really don't feel like any of the characters were ever really developed and I didn't feel like they were that good.

Ben Grimm is the best example. Sure he's set up as Reed's friend, but he's barely in the movie leading up to the transformation that I don't really feel bad for him the way I should. I mean he's a guy who is forever a rock monster. Say what you will about the 2005 version, at least they touched on that and made it an important part of the story.

And that's the horrible thing. As much as the 2005 version had its issues, I at least knew the dilemma each one of these characters faced. Each of them had a personality, each one of them had their own distinct personalities.

The Fantastic Four falls under a device used in story telling called the 4 humors. Its mainly known in the formation of the teenage mutant ninja turtles. I used to post this video on this blog all the time and I still love it to this day.

The cast from the 2005 film, as flawed as they were, fell into those character designs. You may say that's lazy, but at least it gave them character.

In this version I felt like a lot of the characters overlapped. Reed is the quiet smart one, but so is Sue. Johnny's the guy who's the brash one who doesn't play by anybody's rules... but I guess so is Ben in a way.

In a weird way, I go back to the 2005 version and... as much as I don't want to believe it, its actually better than this version.

Now, don't take that in a way that says the 2005 version is by any means good. Its not. Its campy, its kind of boring, and it was dead on arrival the minute anyone sees it.

However, its an example of Fox's attitude towards The Fantastic Four. They do not care.

I don't know if it was Fox, I don't know if it was Josh Trank, hell it was probably a combination of both, but the point is, somebody screened this movie, they saw how incomplete it is (did I mention this is a 90 minute movie) they saw how shallow the characters were. They saw how the first half of the movie is drawn out introductions while the last third is just an incoherent mess, and they said, Fuck it, we'll do it live. Meaning, meh, we'll let this slide, we don't have any corrections at all on this. People are stupid.

Well, we're not. Based on the critical reception of this movie, it is very apparent that this is not a complete movie, and what is complete in it, is not good.

And the unfortunate part is, this is not the first time, the second time, or the third time this has happened to the Fantastic Four. This is the fourth time Fox has tried their hand at a Fantastic Four movie and just down right failed.

And the even more unfortunate thing is, I feel like they had something here.

The truth is, they had the cast, they had the budget, they had the effects. Hell, they had the universe. They had so much potential to utilize established characters from the X-men universe, if they really weren't confident with the final product, as long as it was conducive to the story as opposed to just having a shameless plug to a larger universe, this movie had something here.

But instead there was just a lack of effort. I don't really care about rumors but if the rumors are true that Josh Trank showed up drunk to production, and he acted unprofessional, there's a lack of effort there. Its obvious that the studio didn't care about the final product or they wouldn't have let this pile of garbage go to screen.

If they really wanted to release a good Fantastic Four movie, they could have given themselves more time to develop actual characters, give themselves a distinct feel, and actually do something worth wild.

Instead, this movie was exactly what everyone was afraid it was going to be, a revamping of the franchise so Fox could hold onto the rights of the characters so they don't go back to Marvel. And that, to me, is just down right unacceptable.

If you don't feel like you can make a good movie with these characters, fine. I'm not totally interested in the characters, nobody else seems to be, just let them drift away, especially if there's no money in it. But don't waste my time trying to sell this movie as anything different than it is, and that's wasted money and wasted time.

I wasn't expecting to have this angry of a reaction to this film but this movie made me angry about 10 minutes after I was done and I had started digesting it. Its just a down right horribly put together film, and not in the fun way.

But that's what I thought of Fantastic Four. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! I really want to hear somebody defend this movie. You can also send me your thoughts on this movie by following me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me requests for future films to review, I will put them as a priority. You can also follow me to get updates on future movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this, its a lay up as i already put a lot of work into this post already. But here's the honest trailer for the 2005 version of this film. Enjoy!

Noah

So... yeah, the guy who directed Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream decided he's going to take his crack at the Old Testament story of Noah.

I remember when I saw the trailers for this movie and I thought to myself, like I think a lot of people did, how can you make a feature length film on the story of Noah. The guy builds an Ark, it rains, the world floods, they float around for a little bit, they start civilization again, how is that a full length movie? It also is only about 3 chapters in the book of Genesis so again, how do you make a 2 hour movie based on that?

Surprisingly enough, they do do that, whether its good or not... well...

It is set up very quickly that Noah (played by Russell Crowe) and his family, his wife (played by Jennifer Connelly) his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (later played by Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman and Leo McHugh) and his adopted daughter Ila (played later by Emma Watson) live in a very different world than the one we know. Its actually really interesting in how its set up. When you hear the bible story, I think a lot of people imagine Noah living in what we always imagine Old Testament times were, but instead this story is imagined in almost a prehistoric world. Noah and his family are basically nomads and the earth is almost barren. This is probably pointing towards a Pangea like earth where trees and such have not developed, or it has a slight environmental overtone by saying that humanity has overworked the earth making it barren.

Anyway, Noah is given a vision by God (or the Creator) and is given the warning that humanity has grown too evil and sinful and needs to be purged from the Earth. He tasks Noah to build an ark, bring in all the animals of the earth so they may be spared the purge, and wait for the destruction of humanity.

That is, in essence the overarching plot.

However, there is A LOT more that happens in this movie.

The first thing that I will mention that is actually really interesting in this movie is the physical threat that Noah and his family face.

Ray Winstone plays the leader of the people deemed sinful and too evil to be saved. He believes himself to be the king of the people and he has a take on humanity and their role on Earth that surprisingly isn't that different from people today. He believes that creation is the dominion of man and man can do whatever he wants with it to fulfill his own needs.

I may repeat myself multiple times in this review but the fact of the matter is, there is a decent overtone of the environmental movement in this movie and its actually done with a lot of care and tact. Its not like Fern Gully or Avatar saying that man is the destruction of nature, its actually opening a dialogue of humanity's role on earth and how we should foster it.

While Ray Winstone's character is really kind of the worst kind of person along with the rest of the evil people on the earth, you do have to step back and listen to his point of view, because it is interesting and does create for a two sided argument in this film.

But anyways, Winstone represents the physical conflict that threatens Noah, his family, and his mission.

The second threat to Noah is that of a personal struggle he has as he goes along this journey.

Some people like Russell Crowe, some people don't, I actually kind of like him. He does have a little bit of a one note performance at times and he does do this thing where his voice doesn't really go higher than one note, BUT I do enjoy the performance out of him.

The cool thing about this character is the struggle he has with interpreting the message he receives from the Creator. Throughout the movie, there is the question of whether or not Noah and his family are exempt from the impending punishment that is coming to humanity.

Noah knows that the animals he is harboring on the ark are innocent, but he is conflicted on whether or not he and his family are good enough to reach the new world. And regardless of his thoughts, I really liked how they weren't totally united with the rest of his family on whether or not they were.

The struggle of Noah actually does bring into question the resolve of environmental thoughts and how they can be taken to the extreme if care is not taken.

Because on the other end of things, you have his family. You have these people who see Noah as the father figure, the wise figure, but at the same end, they don't see the visions, they're just as human, and they want human things. So what happens with a man says he is driven by heavenly purpose and how long can his family follow that heavenly purpose. I won't give too much away, but there is a great evolution of a lot of the characters, but Noah especially.

I think something that I maybe would have liked to see out of this story is maybe a questioning on whether or not Noah was actually getting these visions or perhaps he was just crazy. I don't know, I don't know if that would have taken away from the story, I don't know if it would have enraged a lot of people, but I think it would have been interesting to take this over zealous Noah to the next level. I like it as it is, I more thought that's where they were going, and perhaps would have wanted to see that, however, the way it is, I actually really like.

Some of the other standouts is Emma Watson. She plays Noah's adopted daughter and wife of his eldest son Shem. She's got her issues she's got to deal with and she does it in a way that makes it very obvious why she was the one who came out of Harry Potter with the most talent and the most promise in her career.

Seriously, I really look forward to Emma Watson in the future, she has a lot of exciting projects coming up (including playing Belle in Beauty and the Beast). I was already excited about her but this movie actually makes me even more excited about her career.

Douglas Booth as Shem was really kind of a worthless character, but the focus wasn't really on him. I suppose that's more of a critique on writing and the only reason I bring it up is because I feel like there was a lot of stuff that affected him and we didn't really get to see a lot of acting or reaction to what was happening. It mainly focused on Emma Watson, which is good, but at the same time a little bit confusing.

Jennifer Connelly gives a good performance which I guess is to be expected with someone of her resume.

Someone I wasn't expecting to be in this film but was pleasantly surprised when I realized he was was Logan Lerman as Noah's second son Hamm.

The unfortunate thing about this character is that a lot of what he does is governed by source material. If you've read the book of genesis, you know what happens to the majority of these characters and you kind of know what happens in the end.

That being said, the film elements of the characters usually make for fleshing out of those characters and really make them interesting. However, I feel like the character of Hamm was really limited, based on what actually happens to him in the story.

Because of that, a lot of what Lerman does is just kind of stare and stand around. And unfortunately, being a second son, this guy gets shit on, A LOT. And again, I feel like this disposition of being the second child and not having everything he wants could have led to a really interesting character. Unfortunately, again, by disposition of being a character in a set up story being adapted, Hamm kind of has to end up in a certain way. And because of that, it kind of lessens the character and makes me feel like there could have been more with him. That being said, that's a lot of critique with writing and not so much Lerman's performance. While I won't say it was the best in the movie, I will say that I am interested in seeing more from Lerman.

Really, I only know him from Perks of Being a Wallflower. And while he did a good job in that movie, I want to see him do more than just be the dorky kid from that movie and actually be a good actor. I don't know, a lot of people like this guy and I'm kind of lukewarm on him. I want to see more.

The last thing I want to mention about this movie is the environment it is set in. Like I said before, its a world that is not really like our own. Its also set in a world at the beginning of creation. Whether you're Christian, Jewish, or religious at all, the movie does exist in a world where there is something somewhat supernatural going on. And again this is a movie that is based off a limited number of chapters in the book of Genesis, the director had to take some liberties with the environment to make it interesting.

That being said, the movie does have an atmosphere to it that makes it a little bit different than your standard movie. If you've watched anything from Aronofsky, you'll know that he does have a distinct style and he doesn't exactly tell stories in the traditional ways. Noah is a lot more traditional of story telling than say Requiem for a Dream, but at the same time, it does have these interesting cut aways that focus a lot more on the visuals than the story.

While this is a creative way of doing film, it does make the movie feel a little bit long and a little bit top heavy. When the movie hits a point where you think its going to be a climax, I clicked on the running time and I realized that I had another hour left of the film. While I won't say the long run time is a total downfall of the movie, I will say it does drag at certain points.

The last thing worth talking about when it comes to the environment of the film is the mythology of it.

There were two things about the trailer to this movie that made me question it. the first one was the idea of making a 2 hour long movie about a few chapters in Genesis, and the other one was the mythological elements of the film.

And this might be something that might make a certain community not really like the movie, it kind of depends, but there is a sort of fantasy element to this movie.

There are rock monsters in this movie. I'll let you watch the movie to figure out what they actually are, but there is a sort of fantasy element to it that some people might find offensive to the story. I don't know, I haven't read enough on the critical response of the film to really tell if people were bothered by the fantasy twist on this story, but I personally liked it.

The movie had a really interesting twist of staying true to the source material, having a little bit of a religious twinge to the entire thing, but at the same time making a message on the environment, the nature of man, and having a little bit of fantasy in there to carry the plot and really make the movie an epic rather than just a simple bible story.

I think it would have been fun to see this movie in theaters or even in IMAX. But as it is, the movie is actually really entertaining. Overall, its a retelling that's going to appeal to a wider audience and I think it does its job really well. The music is good, the acting is good, the visual effects are really good. I would say the pacing is a little bit off, and some of the characters were perhaps a little bit too tied to the source material. However, I really enjoyed Noah. I don't know if its a movie that I will want to watch again purposefully, but if its on TV or something like that, I definitely will stop and enjoy the visuals and the pretty good performances.

But what did you think of Noah? Did you like it? Is it sacrilegious? If so why? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts by following me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me requests for future reviews. There you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Here's the trailer from Noah, but perhaps seen in a little bit of a different light. Enjoy!

13 Going on 30

Listen, don't ask me why I started watching this when it came on television. Yeah, I watched the entirety of the romantic comedy 13 Going on 30.

I actually saw this movie probably more times that I've ever wanted to see when I was younger. My sisters really liked this movie, and my mom is always reminded of my sisters from this movie, so this movie was on... a lot when I was younger. You might say that it was a little bit of nostalgia that made me keep this movie on and watch the entire thing. But does it hold up. I mean this movie came out in 2004, it is older than a decade by this point.

13 Going on 30 begins in the year 1987. Jenna Rink is having her 13th birthday. She of course has the best friend Matt who is obviously in love with her, but Jenna has her heart set on being a part of the cool crowd and is pretty oblivious to the fact that he is crazy about her and accepts her for who she is.

I'll just come out and say it, this set up is a little bit on the nose. Jenna in 1987 is not so much a character as she is an archetype. She's the girl who just wants to be popular. There's not really anything relatable for great about her, we just know she's really focused on being popular and she really likes stuff in the 80s... that's kind of a running joke actually.

Well after an embarrassing episode with the popular crowd, she wishes, unknowingly with the help of some... wishing dust? to be 30 instead of 13.

And next thing you know, Jenna is waking up and she is suddenly Jennifer Garner.

The thing about this movie is that Jennifer Garner actually does a pretty good job in portraying a 13 year old girl in the body of a 30 year woman. It is a little bit of a hyperbole as to create comedy. But at the same time, Garner is actually kind of entertaining.

The majority of the film is Jenna trying to piece together what has happened to her since she was 13. She runs into old friends (played by Judy Greer) and of course she runs into Matt (played by Mark Ruffalo).

As they piece together what happened in Jenna's past, she figures out the things that she has done while working at a magazine that is having some problems, led by her eccentric boss Andy Serkis and has some fun all around.

The movie itself is really just a comedy about growing up and how if you're a kid, you shouldn't want to grow up too quickly.

As I've stated before, its a romantic comedy so a lot of it is trying to figure out what Jenna wants, who she wants, and the person that she wants to become.

Like I said, its a fun performance by Garner and you can tell that Garner is having fun while she's doing it.

Bruce Banner is in this movie. Believe it or not, this was the first exposure I had of Mark Ruffalo and he does a pretty good job. I won't say that he blows my mind in this performance but he's kind of fun but he does a good job at playing the romantic interest who's not exactly your stunningly handsome male lead in a romantic comedy like this.

This is also the first exposure I had to Judy Greer. It was actually kind of fun knowing her from something before she got "big" in things like Arrested Development, Archer, and other stuff. To me she'll always kind of be the quirky friend or "antagonist" of a lot of romantic comedies as opposed to actually being in a lot of raunchy comedy TV shows. Don't get me wrong, I like her in those roles, I actually think she's pretty funny, but this she's just the friend.

This is probably going to be a shorter review as romantic comedies are not exactly my area of expertise. I think in comparison with a lot of other romantic comedies 13 Going on 30 is a good time with a good cast and a good premise.

I think romantic comedies can be kind of fun and can be creative. They can also be pretty generic and can be pretty stale.

Is 13 Going on 30 a great movie? No, not at all. Its cheesy, its more likely going to appeal to people like my mom or my sisters and that's okay, its not exactly marketed to a guy like me. However, I can say that it was a little bit of a good time.

Garner is not only gorgeous but she seems to be having a good time. While Mark Ruffalo kind of seems like he's not exactly 100% in it, but he's serviceable. Judy Greer and Andy Serkis are fun enough in this film and the premise itself is kind of fun.

And that's really what this movie is, serviceable. Its not phenomenal, its not ground breaking, but its not bad. Maybe its just that I enjoyed a girly romantic comedy more than I enjoyed Transformers 4, but if you have a date night and need a cheesy romantic comedy, 13 Going on 30 might be a good choice for you.

But those are my brief thoughts on 13 Going on 30. What do you think about it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and let me know what you think of 13 Going on 30. You can also send me your requests for future reviews. You can also follow me to get updates on movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. There's not exactly a lot of hilarious things about Jennifer Garner, especially in recent news, but here's a funny video of her on Jimmy Fallon where she gets pied. Enjoy!

Transformers: Age of Extinction AKA Dinotronic Jamboree

I had a really good record of not watching the Transformers movies. I saw the first one a while back and surprisingly enough, I actually liked it. It was over the top, it had giant robots, it was worth a few yucks.

And then I saw that they were coming out with a sequel to that movie and I never got around to seeing it. And then I heard horrible things about those sequels and I actively stayed away from them. The two sequels to the first Transformers movie are thought to be down right awful and I had no interest in seeing them.

And then I saw the trailer for Dinotronic Jamboree. And I actually got a little bit interested.

I mean yeah, it still looked stupid, it didn't really look like it had any redeeming qualities about it, but at the same time, it just looked like a giant dumb robot movie. It had Mark Wahlberg, Shia LaBeouf was not longer in the movies.

It had Optimus Prime riding a dinosaur transformer!

It had all the explosions and action that could make for just a fun dumb action movie that sometimes you just like to see. And I don't think I was in the minority for this.

The trailer came out and while everyone in the back of their minds knew this movie was going to be just as shitty as the last movies, we all bought into it the same way. We all went to go see this movie and it ended up making over 200 million dollars at the box office.

I mean yeah, the movie was critically panned as one of the worst movies of 2014 but you know that won't stop good ol' Michael Bay.

If you're wondering what that magical trailer was like, I'll leave it here. Again, its nothing incredible, you can probably guess that the movie is going to suck, but at the same time it does incite a little bit of curiosity, at least it did for me.

So in the aftermath of a battle in Chicago... I guess it might have been something that happened in the last movie or something, the Transformers are outcasts actually being secretly hunted by the United States government. Which in itself, is actually a decent idea.

I know not everyone is a huge fan of Kelsey Grammer but I actually really enjoy him. He just happens to chose a the sequel in most franchises that seem to be the worst. Expendables, X-men, and now Transformers, even though there weren't that high of standards to begin with.

But anyway, its a decent idea that the US government is trying to hunt down the Transformers. I'm not totally sure how it connects to the rest of the franchise but I really like the idea.

Anyway, the US government is hunting down the Decepticon but have been secretly hunting down ALL transformers, including Optimus Prime and all the autobots from the rest of the franchise.

And I think it would have been enough to have the humans just hunting down and waging war on the Transformers in this movie... but alas, this movie decided that just wasn't enough and decided to add a lot of bullshit to make a TWO AND A HALF HOUR LONG MOVIE!!!

Anyway...

Enter Mark Wahlberg. Yeah he has a character name but to be honest, I really have no idea what it was. On top of that, he's playing Mark Wahlberg. He's suppose to be an "inventor" from Texas and he just sounds like a guy from Boston. I'm not saying that's all Mark Wahlberg is but if I can't believe that he's from Texas and I can't believe that he's an inventor, I'm just gonna call him what he is, and that's Mark Wahlberg.

But hey, that's not that bad. Who wouldn't want to see what happens when the transformers work with Mark Wahlberg?

Anyway, Mark Wahlberg is an "inventor" and he is having trouble making ends meet. His 17 year old daughter, (played by that shitty actress from The Last Airbender, Nicola Peltz) is about to graduate and she is worried about leaving him and she's worried about paying for college.

Now... I'm just gonna say it. These two are just the worst.

I'm realizing something very quickly and that is the fact that these two, and a lot of the characters in the rest of the movie just remind me of the characters from Sharknado.

Wahlberg is obviously one of the best of all the actors, but he's pulling out happening style acting in this and its just down right awful. And his daughter is just the worst.

I'll talk more about the daughter and one of the worst parts of the movie, but I'll talk about it more later.

Anyway, as Marky Mark is doing his "inventor" thing, he comes across an old wrecked semi truck and decides to bring it back to his "lab". He soon realizes that the semi is not just any old truck, it is in fact the leader of the autobots, Optimus Prime.

The government comes after him and they want to take Optimus Prime in. They of course get away and... well then I'm not totally sure what happens after that.

The story was actually kind of coherent up until the point where they escape with Optimus Prime. Yeah it wasn't exactly the greatest acting or performances from... anybody, but it did have a story and it was a good starting act in what probably should have been an hour and half long movie. Instead after that point the movie still had 2 HOURS left!!

Unfortunately, the US government is utilizing the services of a group of transformer mercenaries. These transformers come from the transformer homeworld and... I guess they killed off the dinosaurs?

On top of that, you've got Stanley Tucci who plays the head of a company that is working with the US government, taking the remains of the autobots they kill and recreating their genetic material to create their own transformers...?? I guess. And then on top of that the transformers that they created have the souls of Megatron and the evil Decepticon... I guess...

And then the Transformer mercenaries have their own motivations and the government have their own plots with Stanley Tucci and his company and eventually it just gets really confusing why they're doing anything that they're doing.

Oddly enough, the thing that they explain the most in the movie is this really kind of creepy explanation for why Mark Wahlberg's daughter who is a minor is able to date a 20 year old.

Now this has been a complaint of almost everyone I've seen review this movie and for good reason.

In essence, the movie takes a tactical pause to introduce her race car driving boyfriend who "just got picked up by Red Bull" and explains that their romance isn't creepy because they fall under a Texas statute called "The Romeo and Juliet Law", a law that says that if a relationship begins while two people are underage and one of them becomes a legal adult, its totally cool for them to have a sexual relationship.

Now you may be saying, Connor, this is a pretty small criticism of the movie, yeah its a little bit creepy (no, no, its REALLY creepy) but it can't be THAT huge of an issue for the movie.

But it really is.

The daughter and the boyfriend are two of the top characters and we're suppose to like them. And that's a little bit hard when this incredibly creepy relationship is just kind of sidestepped and by the end of the movie, Mark Wahlberg is just kind of cool with it.

And I mentioned before that the characters are pretty much the cast of Sharknado. And this is really brought on by the performance of the dumbass boyfriend (played by Jack Reynor).

I really think that this guy was an Irish actor who just couldn't get his American accent down so they took another five minutes out of the movie to explain why he has an Irish accent instead of actually forwarding the plot.

And you're probably wondering, why am I focusing so much on the human characters, isn't this a movie about Transformers?

And you know what, I actually thought the same thing while I was watching this movie. For some reason these movies think that while its easier to have the relatable characters be the humans, the action should be focused on them, and not the Transformers.

I get it, make the main character human, you have a relatable tie to the audience and how their reaction would be to working with a small building sized robot. But first off, the acting isn't good enough for that, so why? And second, you know you have a problem when the fighting of the Transformers is done in the back ground. A lot of the shots of the Transformers fighting is done with Mark Wahlberg or Airbender girl just looking dumb into the camera.

Think about it this way. The plot of Pacific Rim was focused on the humans but at the same time the action was focused on the robots destroying aliens. The majority of the shots of the action sequences were on the robots fighting the aliens and not the humans in the cockpit controlling the robots.

And while I wasn't in love with Pacific Rim, at least the cinematography in that movie made it seem like they actually gave a shit. There would be times in this movie where some transformers would go run towards each other like they're going to fight, then it would switch to one of the human characters and suddenly the transformers would be in the middle of a fight.

The weird thing is that for a franchise that Michael Bay won't let die, he really doesn't seem to give a shit on whether or not it looks good or not. He doesn't really seem to give a shit on if the characters are likable, if they can act, or if they even do things that make any sense.

As long as there are explosions in every. other. scene. Michael Bay seems to have just said, "looks good to me" and sent it to the final movie.

And the weird part is the fact that this movie is 2 AND A HALF HOURS!!! Have I mentioned that?

I don't think I've ever seen a movie go for that long and have that little effort put into it. Its really kind of amazing.

The ending is basically the same ending from the first Transformers and I'm not even sure who the main villain is, whether its Megatron (or Galvatron or whatever the hell that was) or the bounty hunter transformer or Kelsey Grammer. And the movie decides that, instead of getting done as quickly as possible, they want to drag out these fight scenes, as long as they can possibly go.

And the ending explains why this movie wasn't actually called Dinotronic Jamboree like I thin it should have.

Listen, I'm not a Transformers fan. I know people who grew up with this franchise and they know all the names of all the characters and all the Transformers that ever existed. And that's cool. Apparently, when the trailer came out, everyone freaked out because there was a dinosaur transformer in the movie. I personally didn't care who this dinosaur transformer was, I just know that I thought it was really damn cool to see Optimus Prime riding a fucking dinosaur transformer.

I'm going to tell you, the trailer of this movie lied to us all. There are no dinosaurs in this movie.

I mean... there are... for about 5 minutes...

And are they cool?

I mean... I guess. But by the time the dinosaurs show up, I just don't really care. I'm basically just begging for this piece of garbage to just end.

And that's the bottom line of this film. Its a 2 and a half hour long example of what happens when a director just does not put in any effort at all.

What's insane about this movie is that as hard as it is to believe, this movie had some things right. Things that would have made a pretty good Transformers movie. I think a war between Transformers and humans is a really interesting idea. I think humans creating their own transformers to fight the real ones is a really interesting idea. I think dinosaur transformers are a really kickass idea. I think Optimus Prime riding a transformer dinosaur is a really good idea. Hell, I even think having Mark Wahlberg in a Transformers movie is a good idea. But the way that this movie was executed was just horrible and made this movie really unbearable and make me almost feel like I was watching Sharknado or a really bad sci fi channel movie. And the weird part is, there's a lot of parts of this movie that makes it feel like a satire rather than an actual movie. Which hell, if you wanna make a satire of action movies, or hell even the Transformers franchise in general, go ahead. But choose whether or not its going to be a serious movie or a satire.

There really aren't enough words to really give this movie the shit it deserves. Its really that bad. While there are things that this movie could have done to be better, this movie gets absolutely nothing right and is just a down right horrible movie at the end of the day. It doesn't deserve a time of the 200 million dollars it actually got.

But of course, that's just my opinion. What did you think of Transformers: Dinotronic Jamboree? Did you like it? Do you think that Dinotronic Jamboree is a better title for the movie than Age of Extinction? I think so. Comment and Discuss below! You can also follow me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 in order to give me your own shit on this movie and any other thoughts you have. You can also send me requests for future reviews and get updates on future movie news and reviews on this blog.

I'll leave you with this. This is a video giving a slight explanation on why Michael Bay might actually be a genius. Perhaps they have a point. Enjoy!