How My Out-of-Five System Works

You've probably noticed that I like to use an “out of five” star system for grading the movies that I review. It seems that nowadays, on the internet, you're only allowed to absolutely love or absolutely hate whatever piece of media it is that you're talking about. But that's not how I roll. I like to give an overall judgement to my media, weigh its positives and negatives. But some people still don't get it. They'll say to me, “Tony, you gave that movie three-and-a-half stars! Why didn't you like it?” So for this reason, I'd like to take a minute here to break down the out-of-five system into grades and explain just how it really works.

5/5 – Simply put, a five star movie is a must-see. It's a movie that draws you in so well, that it's easy to forget that it isn't real. You'll very much care about what's happening. A five star movie is one that all others of its respective genre will be compared to in the near future. Not all 5/5 movies are perfect, but they render their stories, characters, and themes so convincingly that any problems those films might have are inconsequential to the viewing experience. Very few will be disappointed in viewing this flick. Examples of 5/5 films I've reviewed are Looper, Gravity, and Mad Max: Fury Road.

4.5/5 – Four-and-a-half movies are excellent, very well done. They're not quite must-see material, but anyone who was looking forward to this particular film will be very satisfied. These are also the types of films one might very well consider buying once they're released. It may have a couple issues, but the viewer will most likely be willing to ignore/forgive them for the sheer awesomeness that is packed into this viewing experience. Films that I've awarded 4.5 to include Saving Mr. Banks, The Lego Movie, Interstellar, and Skyfall.

4/5 – A four star film is a solid film, sufficiently accomplishing almost everything it sets out to do. The vast majority of its viewers will be satisfied and adequately entertained. These types of movies are memorable and are well worth rewatching in the near future. One or two things about it might bug you, but it was still a good movie so who cares, right? Just a few tweaks here and there could have made it a true classic, but it was still worth it. Movies that I'd place into the 4/5 category include Captain America: First Avenger, 22 Jump Street, and Monsters University.

3.5/5 – This is where the “pretty good” movies go. These types of films are better than most, but they still could have been done considerably better. While there will probably be lots of viewers who like it, even they will have to acknowledge that the flick had some flaws. This is also where I'll place a lot of movies that were disappointing (as opposed to outright bad). Nothing great, but you'll probably be satisfied, nonetheless. Time well spent. Movies that I classify as 3.5/5 include Fury, Jurassic World, Men in Black 3, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

3/5 – Popcorn territory. It may not be your thinking man's movie, but it's good for some mindless, casual entertainment. Three star films are not for everyone and they're far from being works of art, but if you're in the right mindset to watch it then you won't regret it. Just keep in mind that it demands that you view it on its own terms. When I give a three to a film, you can take that as a cautious recommendation. I've given 3/5 to such movies as Furious 7, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and Lone Survivor.

2.5/5 – Distinctly middle of the road, two-and-a-half movies are average at best. It may be hard to take seriously, it may include several glaring/distracting issues, or it was just was boring to sit through. Unless you were really looking forward to this film, you'll likely walk away feeling indifferent towards it. It may also just be a niche film for a specific group of fans or it may have been the best that could've possibly been done with a flawed original concept. There's a lot of good parts to it, but whether or not you'll want to put up with the bad stuff is up in the air. Still, more needed to be done to make this presentable. These films are destined to be forgotten. They include Bourne Legacy, Olympus Has Fallen, The Three Stooges, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

2/5 – Movies that are graded at two out of five are below average. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who lists a 2/5 movie as their all-time favourite. These types of films can really only be recommended for hardcore fans of whatever it is that's being portrayed. There's still some cool bits, but it's hard to get into them because of all the other failures going on. If you value your time and/or money, then you'd be better off spending them elsewhere. Examples of 2/5 movies I've reviewed are Watchmen, Lucy, and Apollo 18.

1.5/5 – A movie that can only earn one-and-a-half stars is a dumb movie. It's the kind of flick that you'd probably regret sitting through. There may have been just a couple of good ideas, but they're almost totally drowned out either by utter stupidity or overwhelming boredom – or both. An overall poor effort at worthwhile entertainment. Few viewers will feel that they got their money's worth with this one. Examples of 1.5/5 movies would be Lone Ranger, After Earth, and 30 Minutes or Less.

1/5 – Now this is what you call a really dumb movie; the kind of movie that is so inept in everything it attempts (story, acting, effects, mood/tone) that it is impossible to take seriously. This is also the category where you will find so-bad-it's-good movies that are funny because of their ineptitude. But other than that, movies that score one out of five are barely watchable. For the morbidly curious only. This includes Meet the Fockers and Transformers: Age of Extinction.

0.5/5 – After really dumb, you've got movies that fall under the freakin' stupid category. No effort was put into making this unwatchable... thing. Half-star movies earn their grade either by being insulting, infuriating, or dumbfoundingly boring. The whole thing is littered with fundamental filmmaking flaws like incompetently executed dialogue, plot, and even editing. Stay away. I have yet to write a review for a movie that's this bad, but I would consider movies like Mac and Me, North, and Son of the Mask to fall in here.

0/5 – It's rare for a movie to achieve a zero-out-of-five rating. That's because zero star movies are completely worthless, directionless, and absolutely inept. Scarcely a thing was done right, hardly anything pulled off convincingly. A total waste of time. If the film was part of a series, then it must have completely crapped all over the previous entries to have earned this rating. This is also the class where offensively bad films reside; the film either straight-up insults or talks down to its own audience or it puts forth an idea that is just evil or insane. Again, I haven't reviewed any 0/5 films, but I'd imagine films like Highlander: The Source, Nukie, and Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver would feel right at home in this dark abyss. Avoid them at all costs; they're hazardous to your health and well-being.

Movie Review Repost - Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

So far you've seen a few of my movie reviews, but those were all for good movies. I think it's time you guys saw what one of my bad-movie reviews looks like. It's a shame that reviews of bad movies are way more fun to write and yet I rarely go see bad movies (mainly because no one ever wants to go with me to see it). Oh well. Here's the worst movie I've ever written a current review for: Transformers: Age of Extinction. And just so you know, I 100% stand by everything I said here. I believe that you'll find the Extinction in the subtitle refers only to what'll happen to your brain cells while watching this... thing.

Why did I do this?! To be honest, I didn't think Transformers 4 was going to be any good but I hoped that at least Michael Bay would have learned a lesson or two from the negative reception of the previous films. But no, this one is cut from the same cloth.

If you've seen any of the previous Transformers films, then everything about Age of Extinction will be extremely familiar to you: evil government guys are bad at their job of protecting people, evil big businessmen are greedy and really unfunny, product placements are plentiful, and there's not one, but two annoying comic relief characters who aren't funny. Again we have a handful of somewhat predictable character-building scenes that don't go on for very long because we need to make room for a bagillion action scenes. Transformers 4 also suffers from the series' two main problems (besides an overly complicated plot): (1) the Transformers aren't the main characters. Instead we're saddled with a bunch of snarky, immature American humans who aren't terribly interesting. And (2), this film is BORING! I was already bored out of my mind even before the hyperactive, 45ish minute-long climax. Why do these movies have to be so insufferably long?

But enough about recurring problems, because Age of Extinction has enough problems of its own. Our main character is a tech nerd played by Mark Wahlberg. 'Nuff said. Our female lead is a useless dummy. And Optimus Prime often shouts crazed threats like a shell-shocked lunatic. As for the rest of the Autobots, there's a reason why they're not the main characters: they each have no personality and only one defining characteristic. They're also really trigger happy and undisciplined. They spend about as much time fighting bad guys as they do each other.

Michael Bay's direction has changed little over this series. He still treats his audience to obnoxious US flags, excessive shaky cam, randomly placed slow-mo and quiet moments, and explosion after explosion after explosion after explosion. And of course every woman in this world is a single-minded hot chick who wears revealing clothing. Lastly, Bay's frequent use of sweeping camera shots and shaky cam do not lend themselves well to 3D. Avoid 3D viewing if you can.

Is there anything good about this film at all? Well it isn't nearly as racist as the others were (instead there's a robot who talks exactly like Mr. T). Shia LaBeouf is gone, which should make some people happy. There's also an Autobot voiced by John Goodman who's actually kind of fun, though he does get a little grating by the film's end. Likewise, the special effects are very good, but after two and a half hours mostly of exhausting action they don't make much of a difference.

Man, was this a chore to sit through. The only truly fun moments came from a couple of the earlier action scenes. I'll give it credit, it isn't as bad as Transformers 2 (there isn't nearly as much blatant sex appeal and nutty humour; also I haven't seen the third one). Hardcore fans of the series will like it I'm sure, but for everyone else Transformers: Age of Extinction is just a huge waste of time and money.

Rating: one star out of five.

Movie Review – Spectre

Well here it is, folks! The movie that we've been waiting three years for to follow up on the spectacular Skyfall. Is this the end of Daniel Craig's tenure as agent 007? Does Spectre measure up to the high standards that Sam Mendes has us hoping for? Can I properly review this thing without spoiling it? Let's find out.

Following the orders of the previous M's (Judi Dench) cryptic beyond-the-grave message, James Bond follows the trail to uncovering a secret organization known as Spectre which has evidently (in one form or another) been behind all the really bad stuff that happened in the previous three films which Spectre refers to constantly (though not so much Quantum of Solace. Haha!). For the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever we get to see the classic showdown of Bond vs. Blofeld and it is... pretty good. Yeah, it's not as intense as it was in the classic Bond films, but it's still a sight to behold. One thing that's atypical about Spectre's plot is that it has quite a bit of action involving the supporting characters. Collectively, M, Q, and Moneypenny have almost as much screen time as Bond. At times the plot seems pretty derivative; there are locations, plot points, and even whole scenes that are lifted directly from earlier 007 movies, whether intentional or not. And it all ends on a bittersweet ending, (most likely) closing up the Daniel Craig saga.

That's right, the ending makes it almost certain that this is Daniel Craig's last 007 film; I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. And his last performance is a fine one, as ruthless and intense as ever. The main Bond girl this time around is Madeline Swann, played by Lea Seydoux. She's OK, I guess. She's just not all that interesting and she doesn't end up doing a whole lot. Also the romance between her and Bond didn't seem all that convincing, not for this era of Bond films anyways. Nevertheless, Christoph Waltz is perfect as Ernst Blofeld. Quietly menacing and uncomfortably calm, he was the perfect choice to bring this classic villain back to life. Although his character is given a riveting introduction, I've got to say it seems that Bond defeats Blofeld too easily. And lastly we have WWE superstar Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, the first notable 007 henchman since 1999's The World is Not Enough. He hardly speaks – probably because he's not that great an actor – but he does an alright job here, even if his death is less than satisfactory. (Shut up! That's not a spoiler. Henchmen always die!)

Sam Mendes' direction is dazzling once again, with some great cinematography to boot. The action scenes are coherent enough while maintaining a high level of intensity. Also, Spectre's opening scene starts off with a really long continuous shot that follows characters around from all sorts of different angles for probably around three minutes. Amazing.

And since I'm a huge 007 fan, I'm just going to take some time here to gush/nitpick. It was great to finally see a Bond film that starts out with the classic gunbarrel sequence (haven't seen that since 2002's Die Another Day). I mean that part always gets me really pumped up so it makes sense that it should be at the beginning. It's just a shame that Craig isn't even trying to hide the gun that's clearly in his right hand as he walks to the left. (Note to self: you know you're really nitpicking when you're commenting on how someone holds a gun in a ten second nonsequitur shot.) Anyways, the theme song and opening credits were average. I didn't hate them, but they weren't all that impressive either. Is anyone else wondering why the previous M waited until after she'd died to give Bond these new orders? Why not just make it a regular mission for him while she was still alive and before MI6 was slated to be downsized and taken over? Also, what was up with the enemy mole who was so obviously a bad guy? It's like the film wasn't even trying to hide the fact that he was a bad guy. Lastly, is the Spectre organization still around at the end? If so, then there's still quite a lot of work for MI6 to do!

Regardless, Spectre is a pretty good Bond flick. It may not be as good as some of the other Craig-era movies, but it is a worthy addition to the series and a decent wrap-up to the whatever-they're-going-to-end-up-calling-it saga. My vote's for The Quantum Saga. Who's with me?

Rating: three and a half out of five.

Movie Review Repost - Skyfall (2012)

So Spectre is finally here! And I'm psyched! I'm planning on seeing it this Tuesday, so I'll probably end up posting my review on Wednesday. In case you're curious of what I thought of the previous 007 film, Skyfall, I've decided to post the original review I wrote for it. Looking back, my opinion of Skyfall pretty much remains the same and I stand by what I've written. The only difference is that since then I've now seen all the 007 films and I now appreciate Skyfall for the subtle references that it makes to the other films in the series. Anyways, here's the review I wrote back in 2012.

Has it really been fifty years since the first 007 film? Well in case you haven't noticed, Skyfall – the 23^rd James Bond movie – is a celebration of those fifty years. With the return of a few classic characters, the original Aston Martin car, some neat gadgets (thankfully not as silly as they used to be), and just those quirky spy movie cliches that we all recognize, Skyfall clearly knows what it is and where it came from.

In his third 007 outing, Daniel Craig does the same excellent job we've come to expect. In her seventh and last appearance as M, Judi Dench gives what is probably her finest performance yet in this series and serves as the second main character. Plus it was cool to finally see her kick some ass during the final battle. Skyfall's villain, a cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva, is played by Javier Bardem. In short, he's definitely a Bond villain: kind of funny, kind of flamboyant. While he may not be one of the most menacing Bond villains, he is certainly one the most tortured and unpredictable.

Similar to Quantum of Solace (and unlike Casino Royale) the plot is easy to follow and you don't have to watch the movie four times to finally understand what's going on. Like I said before, some classic characters whom the recent movies have been lacking are now back: Miss Moneypenny and Q. The stunts and fights are (as always) top-notch. The last battle scene is like an extreme version of Home Alone.

However this movie does has a few slips. For example, some of the CG effects don't look all that great – especially on a couple scenes that feature CG animals. Also, don't expect a whole lot of that “resurrection” stuff you may have seen in the trailers. In the film it's not that big a deal.

Try not to let that distract you from how exciting this movie really is. Skyfall is a combination of everything that makes a good 007 film and is a must-see for fans of the series as well as any action/spy movie fans.

Final rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review - Straight Outta Compton

So here I'm reposting my most recent film review (originally from Facebook), which just so happens to be the 50th film review I've ever written. Yeah, I know Straight Outta Compton came out two months ago (at least that's when it arrived at my town). Please excuse the lateness, as I've been pretty swamped with school work and thus haven't had a whole lot of time for movies since. Enjoy!

That's right fellas, I'm pleased to announce that this is my 50^th movie review! I'd like to thank all of you guys for helping make it this far in four years. Thanks for reading, supporting, and not blocking me out from your newsfeed! So let's celebrate with a review of Straight Outta Compton.

Straight Outta Compton is a musical biopic about the late-80's-to-early-90's pioneering gagsta rap group N.W.A. It follows the group from their inception all the way to Eazy-E's death (spoiler alert!). While it does cover a lot of ground and contains a multitude of subplots (hence the two and a half hour length), the main focus is that of the members' relationships, mainly between Eazy-E, Ice Cube, and Dr. Dre. And despite (or possibly because of) having the latter two rappers as producers, this film is a surprisingly raw and honest telling of history, displaying all the nastiest little details. Right away the movie grabs your attention and establishes a dreary mood with a scene depicting one of the main characters getting involved in a drug bust. At times the plot seems a bit formulaic, but it's never uninteresting. It just slows down a bit halfway through once the group splits up; that's when all the subplots begin splintering out.

By far the best part of this movie is its acting. Our three leads – O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Ice Cube (i.e. his dad), Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E, and Corey Hawkins as Dr. Dre – all do an amazing job in addition to being great lookalikes. I was especially impressed by their ability to convincingly rap all the classic N.W.A. songs. During their performance scenes it is easy to forget that these guys aren't the real thing. Paul Giamatti also does a good portrayal of the group's manager Jerry Heller.

Overall, Straight Outta Compton is more or less what you'd expect. Imagine a daytime soap opera that had lots of violence, profanity, and nudity, but wasn't lame or corny and had brilliant acting, and you've got an entertaining biopic that even non-hip hop fans will be able to appreciate. And is it any surprise that the soundtrack kicks ass?

Rating: three and a half out of five.