Movie Review Repost - Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Hey, guys. So I was pretty busy this week and I didn't have time to write anything new. You know what that means: a repost of a previous review! This movie that's out now called Pride & Prejudice & Zombies reminds me a lot of one I saw a few years ago called Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I wonder why the former is performing so terribly at the box office right now while the latter did so well. It's been so long since I saw this film that I don't remember much from it. But, whatever. For your enjoyment here's a review I wrote for it back in July 2012.

   I can honestly say I wasn't expecting to see a movie like this. I also didn't expect it to be this good either. At least it wasn't just another zombie movie.

   One of the first things you'll notice about this film is that it's actually being serious with its subject matter. A lot of people don't seem to like this, but I think it was actually a good decision. Think about it: what would this movie be like if none of the characters took anything seriously and we kept having to see dumb joke after dumb joke? That would be worst movie of the year material.

   Instead Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter generally tries to avoid humour and goes for an action movie vibe. It follows Abraham Lincoln through his adult years and his presidency as he travels the country slaying vampires, most of whom are feeding off the blood of slaves. There's lots of good fight choreography and special effects. The acting, especially Benjamin Walker as Lincoln, is excellent. I also really liked the makeup that was used to make the characters age in the film's third act. While this movie does have an interesting setting, don't expect to gain any great historical insights. Nothing is discussed in much detail.

   This brings us to the movie's problems. First off, it takes a while to really get invested in the story. For the first half hour the pacing is way too fast; important events fly by at the blink of an eye. Also the editing on the fight scenes has too many brief-extreme-close-up-shaky-camera shots. Thankfully, for whatever reason, these problems disappear completely by the movie's halfway point; it's as if two different people each directed half of the movie! Additionally, there are a few lines of corny/silly dialogue. Lastly, the main villains – while they avoided being over-the-top – weren't very interesting.

   But overall, this movie turned out to be sufficiently cool and entertaining. Plus if you've ever wanted to see Abraham Lincoln kill vampires, then this is the only movie you'll find (at least until the Asylum studios gets a hold of it). If you're interesed, give it a try.

Final rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review - Deadpool

   A-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Guys, welcome to my review of Deadpool, or as it should be called “Reasons Why This Movie is So Freaking Good that it More Than Makes Up for that Pathetic Excuse for a Deadpool We Got in 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” That's right 20^th Century Fox: I forgive, but I don't forget.

   Our plot follows Wade Wilson – AKA Deadpool – a mercenary seeking revenge against Ajax – AKA Francis – the guy who gave him his powers but subjected him to some brutal torture. It's a story that includes some fun side characters, a great Stan Lee cameo, and some surprisingly touching moments. However it's also a very unoriginal story that you've seen many times before: “he had it all – including a lover – then they took it away, now he has to take it back” blah blah blah, that whole schtick. The villain isn't very interesting and there's also this romantic dilemma which ends up being a total non-conflict. But all this is OK because you're not watching Deadpool to see a great story, you're seeing it because you want to see Deadpool fight tons of badguys and make lots of jokes.

   And they friggin' nailed that! Ryan Reynolds breaks his curse of only being able to star in bad superhero movies (Blade Trinity, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Green Lantern) in spectacular fashion. With all the fourth-wall-breaking charisma he brings to the role, they couldn't have picked a better actor. Also, at one point Deadpool explicitly states that he's Canadian. I find that to be very cool.

   You know what else about this movie is cool? The fast-paced humour! This movie is extremely funny, from the opening non-credits to the very direct post-credits scene. There are fourth wall jokes and references about almost everything from the aforementioned 2009 Wolverine film, the other X-Men films, and even the character's original creators Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza. Much of the jokes consist of crude humour, but at least it isn't the dumb kind of post-late-90's National Lampoons-esque frat boy humour that makes you feel stupid for watching it. This is some quality crude humour, even if a handful of the jokes do seem a little unwarranted. In any case, the movie's meta humour and sense of self-parody at least help distinguish Deadpool from the deluge of other superhero movies coming out around now.

   I was also very impressed with the special effects, especially on the characters. The effects on Deadpool's mask (particularly his white eyes) give his masked face an impressive range of expressions. If only other movie superheroes used these types of effects to become as emotive – I'm looking at you, Spider-Man movies! (Stop having Peter take his mask off before every final fight scene!) Colossus also looks very realistic; I just wonder why they never show him in his normal, nonmetallic form.

   As you hopefully already know, Deadpool is a hard R. Thankfully this means that there's no stupid memes and/or spoilers all over the internet since kids can't see this thing! Haha. There's a little bit of nudity, a ton of swearing, and some awesome violence. There's a fair amount of blood and gore, but it doesn't wallow in it. It just sometimes exploits it for comedic effect. But yeah, if you're not a fan of gross-out humour and other extreme stuff then turn around now. You won't be pleased.

   For everyone else (who's 18 or over) Deadpool is a delightful adventure for comic book fans, fans of the recent Deadpool video game, people who like action-comedies, and people who just want to see a superhero movie try something different.

Grade: four out of five.

Top 10 Worst Movie Cliches

Movies are good. Did you know that? Movies are also abundant. With all of the (probably) millions of movies made throughout the past century or so, it only seems natural that some common tropes would emerge. Some of these shared elements are awesome, but some get pretty tiresome. Some make you sigh to yourself, “I wish they would stop doing this.” This here is my personal list of least favourite movie cliches. Just for the record, here were the runners up: a psychiatrist character becoming a patient's love interest, a bad guy who kills his own men, lazy comedy (i.e. fat/sex/drug/poop jokes), scary clowns, people wearing shoes inside their own homes (do people really do that?), and the 3^rd act break-up.

10 – Smashing Open a Piggybank

Why does everyone open a piggybank in movies and TV by smashing it to pieces with a hammer? Most of the time there's just a cork on the bottom you can unplug to get at the money inside. I've never thought of or even heard of anyone doing that in real life – and I was a pretty weird kid. Have you ever seen someone in a TV show or movie open a piggybank normally? Maybe it's just an illustration of kids doing the darnedest things. Or maybe it's symbolic of a kid breaking the bonds of the patience associated with saving up, or some bullcrap like that. Either way, it's a massive film cliche. In fact, it's such an omnipresent cliche that it's also become a cliche for an accompanying character to point out that smashing it isn't necessary. That's right: it's such a cliche that even complaining about it is now also a cliche!

9 – Unlikeable Characters

This is a big problem with horror movies nowadays: the characters are all selfish idiots who want to play immature pranks, get drunk, party, and screw. More often than not they're a bunch of liars who have each done horrible things to each other. Additionally, they're also very loud and annoying. Don't you miss the days where you'd actually care about the people in movies and what happens to them? With most horror movies nowadays, you're more likely to eagerly anticipate the characters' deaths so that you won't have to endure them any longer.

8 – Overdone Cinematography

What do I mean by this? I'm talking about movies that have shaky cam, tracking shots, slow-mo, and rotating shots for no reason, sometimes in a lazy attempt to be “artsy”. Movies like Slipstream (2005) that have way too much rotating shots are annoying. Movies like Smiley (2012) and Non-Stop (2014) that have way too much shaky cam are dizzying. Movies like Watchmen (2009) that have too much slow-mo become tiresome. And movies like the Transformers series (2007-14, and which also has too much slow-mo) that have too many sweeping/tracking shots are tedious and exhausting to the eyes. Sometimes having shaky cam (Saving Private Ryan, 1998) or moving camera shots (most Stanley Kubrick films) can enhance a film's narrative, mood, and presentation by creating depth or building up epicness. But it shouldn't be overused to the point where the audience is suffering from sensory overload. I say that unless there's a good reason for moving that shot, hold it still!

7 – Too Much CG Effects

You knew this was coming. Computer-generated effects are a very effective tool when used right, but in this century so far it's been done to death. And more often than not, it doesn't look all that convincing. Remember how awful those balloons looked in 2002's Spider-Man? The clone troopers in the Star Wars prequels (2002, 2005) more resembled cartoons than physical beings. Van Helsing (2004), Lost in Space (1998), Deep Blue Sea (1999), Catwoman (2004), Die Another Day (2002); the list goes on! I think the worst CG effects I've ever seen were those seen in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2007). Bad CG was everywhere and it all looked horrendous: on the animals, during the jungle chase scenes, at the waterfalls, and on the alien at the end. There's a reason why the motorcycle chase scene was the best part of that movie: it was really happening! What a grievous disappointment from a classic movie series previously known for its dazzling practical effects. It seems I'm not alone since there's now a growing consensus amongst filmgoers demanding movie effects' return to the practical realm. But personally, I think it's going to be a while before film producers are convinced of the visual power of props and puppets.

6 – The Kids are Idiots

This doesn't bug me so much anymore, but when I was younger I hated hated hated this trope. No kid likes being talked down to. The kid in Christmas With the Kranks (2004) was like 13 years old; how could he have fallen for the thief's obvious lies? (But then again, what do you expect when a crook is left alone in a parked cop car for several hours with the window down while it's freezing outside?) This cliche is often played out in the context of outdated technology, but even then it's still never done right. For example, Adam Sandler's kids in Grown Ups (2010) don't know what a CRT television set is. I'm guessing they lived a really sheltered life. But the one that pissed me off the most as a kid was in Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves (1997), when Rick Moranis's 12-ish year old son admits to not knowing what a phonograph is. When Moranis explains “It's an earlier record player,” the kid then 1-ups himself by immediately asking what a record player is. Are you freaking kidding me? You were born in the mid-80's, kid! How can you not know what vinyl records are? I was born in the early-90's and by the time this film came out I was already well aware of what a record player was. Do screenwriters think all kids are idiots? Because I think kids could write better crap than this!

5 – Incomprehensible Action Scenes

Starting just after the turn of the 21^st century, this new film-making trend emerged that emphasized very quick cutting/editing, extreme close-ups, and a violently shaking camera during action scenes. Now, having small amounts of each of these elements can emphasize a scene's intensity, but when used too liberally it is an atrocious sight to behold. I think this trend began with (or at least was popularized by) the original Bourne trilogy (2002-7), which are good movies even if the action is a bit tedious to watch. Incoherent, over-edited action scenes were what utterly ruined movies like Quantum of Solace (2008) and Batman Begins (2005) for me. And don't get me started on The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006); that movie gave me such a headache! While this trend is very slowly dying off, it seems that it'll probably linger around for a while still. In the meantime, I guess we'll just have to keep some Advil handy.

4 – Bright Night

Has anyone else ever noticed that in most movies, it's really bright at nighttime? I could sort of understand this if the scene takes place in a crowded city; it would make sense because cities have tons of lights shining like the freakin' sun. But when there's an evening scene taking place on a beach, in an empty field, in a desert, in a forest, or on a small boat your eyes can tell that the scene is lit up artificially somehow. It's still easy to see everything. You could probably read a newspaper in all that obviously bogus light. Now I'm the kind of guy who values realism in films (most of them, anyways). So bottom line: keep night dark. Otherwise it may as well be a day-for-night shot.

3 – Musical Pause During a Joke

I didn't even notice this one until a few years ago, but lately in a lot of movies the music pauses whenever the punchline to a joke is delivered. It seems that it's always in the lousiest movies and for the lousiest jokes. This is very common in movie trailers too. It's as if the screenwriters don't know how to write a legitimately funny joke, so over the years they've trained audiences to laugh to audio cues just like Pavlov's dog (well no, the dog didn't laugh, but... shut up!). Whenever I encounter this cliche, I can't help but feel as if my intelligence has been insulted, especially when it occurs multiple times within a single scene/trailer, as it too often does. What's more, I am a lover of music. So when the comedic pause ends up interrupting/butchering a song that I happen to like, it's just an extra little twist of the knife already inside my neck. Stop. Doing. This. Crap.

2 – Drawn-out, Unfunny Comedic Set Piece

Here's another thing that most bad comedies have: the unfunny set piece. Let me explain. You have several characters gathered together and they start talking about stuff. The conversation takes a sudden turn that displeases or embarrasses one character. The others continue talking about this one subject, continuing to say things that are uncomfortable for one or more characters present. The “jokes” progressively become more and more ridiculous/obnoxious/tedious. And it keeps on going! Just when you think the jokes could get any dumber, the very next line reaches that next level. Obviously this part was meant to be a non-stop comedic high point of the film, but nobody's laughing, least of all, me. I can't stand this trope. It brings the plot to a grinding halt and it makes the film that much less bearable. This can often take the form of a character introducing a significant other to one's family, or it can stem from someone delivering a spiteful, unwanted toast at some celebration like in The Dilemma (2011). It's never a good sign when I find myself deeply empathizing with the one character who says “Can we please just hurry this up?” just like in Dinner for Schmucks (2010) and Meet the Fockers (2004). Whenever that happens, I find myself screaming at the screen “YES! PLEASE! HE'S RIGHT! END THIS ALREADY!”

1 – Dumb Movie Titles

Some might call this trivial matter, but I think a movie's title is paramount to its reputation and overall presentation. This is why movie titles need to have some creativity behind them. Would people even care about great movies such as Blade Runner (1982), A Bridge Too Far (1977), Inglorious Basterds (2009), Requiem for a Dream (2000), and Saving Mr. Banks (2013) if they were given such dull names as Shooting Robots, We Lost, Killing Nazis, Drugs Are Bad, and Cheer Up, respectively. This seems to be a recent, growing problem. Too many titles now consist of a single no-brainer word: Spy (2015), Home (2015), Flight (2012), Tammy (2014), Ted (2012), Vacation (2015), Pixels (2015), Room (2015), 9 (2009), Wanted (2008), Brave (2012), Frozen (2013), Milk (2008), Cars (2006), and even Up (2009). They made a freakin' movie just called UP! How lazy can you guys get? Remember that movie last year where Tina Fey and Amy Poehler played a pair of sisters? It was called Sisters! I bet it took them all day to think of that one. Another thing that drives me nuts is when sequels drop their numbering suddenly, like how the fourth The Fast and the Furious movie was just called Fast and Furious (2009) or when the seventh Halloween movie was called Halloween H20 (1998) or when the sixth Rocky movie was just called Rocky Balboa (2006). Are these remakes? Reboots? What's going on? If you're not already a hardcore fan of the series in question, then it looks like you've got some research to do. Sometimes studios can't be bothered to count, so they instead opt to just toss in a random pointless word like “revenge”, “resurrection”, “return”, “retribution”, or “revelation” to make the title sound more interesting at the expense of convenience and logic. I think the most messed up series of movie titles is the Rambo series. First there was First Blood (1982), then Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), then Rambo III (1988), and then there was just Rambo (2008). The series completely changed titles and then reverted to a no-number format. Apparently being able to count higher than four is not a job requirement for Hollywood executives. Screw 'em all.

Movie Review - Hail, Caesar!

   Hail, Caesar! is a 1950's period piece comedy written, produced, and directed by the famous Coen brothers. The pair previously had a big comedic hits with such modern classics as The Big Lebowski and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?. Can their newest flick possibly measure up to their aforementioned heavyweights?

   Short answer: well, no. Long answer: but at least they tried. Before I get to why, let's just briefly recap the plot. In 1951, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is the head of production at Capitol Pictures. His job often involves cleaning up the public images of his eccentric actors, conjuring up ambitious movie ideas, and doing a bunch of other crazy stuff. Trouble starts a'brewing when Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), the star of the studio's major production picture, goes missing. Hijinks ensue, but with less themes and a noticeably lighter tone than most other Coen brothers movies.

   One thing this movie has going for it is its setting; the audience is treated not only to some fine period detail and authenticity, but also to an amusing spoof of the golden age of Hollywood and of old school acting. But by far the best thing about Hail, Caesar! is its acting. Every cast member, regardless of significance and screen time does an excellent job. The two standout performances belong to the two leads, Josh Brolin and George Clooney.

   Unfortunately though, the plot is a bit of an unfocused mess. There are plot lines that go nowhere. There are plot lines that begin and then abruptly end or are resolved too easily. This also extends to a lot of the characters who happen to be involved in those plot lines; indeed, most characters have only one or two scenes in the whole movie! SPOILER ALERT, but Ralph Feinnes, Channing Tatum, and Scarlett Johansson each only have two scenes. Jonah Hill has only one scene. Remember seeing him in the trailer? Well, guess what: you basically already saw his entire performance! Seriously, Coen brothers? Half of your headlining actors are little more than cameo appearances? That's false advertising!

   Now let's talk about possibly Hail, Caesar!'s most divisive aspect: the comedy. It's...OK. Hail, Caesar! isn't uproariously funny, but it isn't bad comedy either. The laugh out loud scenes are few, but the film does have its moments. The most notably funny parts are the scenes with Clooney and/or Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle, a well-meaning, slow-witted cowboy actor.

   And that's Hail, Caesar! Overall, it's perfectly casted, imperfectly written, capably directed, well produced, and half as funny as it could have been. The only reason you should want to see this is if you're big into golden age movies or if you're a huge George Clooney fan or Josh Brolin fan – they're both pretty good in this. Otherwise, just go back and rewatch The Big Lebowski.

Grade: three out of five.

Top 5 Ways God's Not Dead Could Have Been Improved

If you recall the review I wrote last week, you'll know that God's Not Dead is a movie I don't hold in very high esteem. But as promised, I'm here today to present a brief list of things – mainly plot-related – that I think could have made God's Not Dead a much better film, regardless of whether or not you agree with its subject matter. So here we go, in no particular order.

1. Here's a really obvious one: cut down on the number of subplots! Ayisha's story – which as I mentioned earlier, was left unresolved anyways – was totally pointless. Reverend Dave's crisis of faith over not having his car start was not all that necessary either. And Amy's story feels like it was just thrown in to give the filmmakers a means to insert a couple celebrity cameos (freakin' Newsboys!). The main plot of God's Not Dead was supposed to be the debate between Josh and Radisson. I didn't time it or anything, but I'd be willing bet that the debate has not much more than 17 minutes or so of screen time (out of a total run time of 113 minutes). Personally I didn't much care for the debate scenes, but if that's what you went to the movie to see then at least you wouldn't be so disappointed if they were lengthened. It would also make the movie less cluttered and more focused.
2. Another straightforward one: write real characters! I know I already commented on this in the review, but why are the non-christian characters in this movie so mean? Does this movie take place in New Jersey or something? (It can't take place in LA because that was totally not the Staples Center we saw!)
3. Remember how Josh's girlfriend Kara objected to his efforts to oppose Professor Radisson's overbearing atheism? Remember how sloppily that part concluded, with her dumping him and bringing their six-years-strong relationship to an unexpected end? Here's an idea: maybe stretch out that plot to make it the length of the film. That way, the movie could have just had two plot lines: Josh vs. Radisson and the debate vs. the relationship. Not only could Kara's disapproval carry more dramatic weight – and thus have more of an effect on Josh and his willpower – but it could also force Josh into doubting the value of his cause. In doing so, the movie could more effectively portray what it means to persevere in the face of adversity and show the audience how God's work is always worthwhile, no matter how lowly or risky.
4. As I mentioned in the review, the reason that Professor Radisson hates God so much is because he used to be a christian, but his mother still ended up dying while he was young boy despite his prayers for God to save her. It's too bad the movie didn't expand all that much on this plot point, because (unlike a lot of other stuff in God's Not Dead) this is the type of thing that happens in real life. If Radisson's experience was brought closer to the forefront of the movie – like if it was a bigger part of the debate or if it was revealed earlier – the movie could have shifted focus to something more applicable to daily life; rather than pose the question “does God exist?” the film could instead have been more about “how can a good God exist in a world where suffering occurs?”, a question that everyone asks themselves from time to time. A whole movie built around this concept would no doubt be populated by more sympathetic characters, and it would also be much better at reaching out to non-christian viewers. It would make you think, to say the least.
5. Martin's character arc is actually one of the few interesting subplots. You remember him; he's the foreign student from China who's never thought about God before and is impressed with Josh's determination to publicly defend his faith. It would have been interesting to see where this ends up taking him, like maybe with a scene of him talking with Reverend Dave or something. But then again since both characters – and the #Newsboys, thank goodness – are returning in the sequel, I guess they were saving that for later. So, I guess I don't know what I'm complaining about on this point... I'll shut up now.

Retrospective Movie Review – God's Not Dead (2014)

   So you want me to review this? Fine, here's your freakin' review! Numerous people have asked me to go over this gem of a film even though they mostly already know my thoughts on it and the only reason I haven't done it already is because I know a lot of people who will freak out over it. I am of course talking about the surprisingly profitable 2014 Christian drama film God's Not Dead. Before I begin, I think it would be helpful to point out that I am an Evangelical Christian. Therefore, I think I am qualified to fairly critique this film, especially since (as we'll see) God's Not Dead was made with people like me in mind. And as always, these are simply my own opinions so feel free to disagree. Also: spoilers ahead.

   We begin with Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) on his first day of college as he heads to his first-year philosophy class, which is taught by Professor Radisson. The professor is played by Kevin Sorbo, who honestly gives the only solid performance in the whole flick. Radisson is an overbearing, arrogant, yet slightly insecure teacher who wants to save time by avoiding pointless debates and so he tries to force all of his students to declare that “God is dead”. But Josh can't do it because it conflicts with his faith. Appalled, Radisson then arbitrarily challenges Josh to a series of debates judged by the students to prove God's existence, which will result in the wasted time Radisson was trying to avoid. If Josh loses, he fails the course.

   Yeah, I'm sure this is all kinds of legal. But instead of, you know, doing something sensible like speaking to the dean or contacting a human rights tribunal, Josh decides to commit all of his time and effort towards defending his faith and winning the debate. (Yeah, this is one of those college movies where the main character seems to work only at one course. I guess he's choosing to fail the others?) The problem with this debate is that it doesn't please Kara, Josh's girlfriend of six years, also a Christian, but evidently not a very good one. She wants him to throw the debate because she thinks that losing will hurt his chances of becoming a professional... something-or-other, it wasn't very specific. Upon learning of his intentions to see the debate through, Kara dumps Josh. Really? After being together through all of high school and (I'm assuming) most of middle school, this is what ends it? After this scene Kara simply vanishes from the rest of the movie, and what's more, Josh doesn't even seem all that bothered by this loss. So yeah, they must've had a lousy relationship.

   In the meantime, we have a multitude of undercooked subplots that we need catching up on; thank goodness that they're full of people speaking in plain expository dialogue for us. One of these people is Amy, a stereotypical, obnoxious, atheist, left-wing blogger who (I'm not kidding) confronts Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson about how hunting and praying on national television is bad. You sure you don't want to ask him about the gays instead? (Lol, couldn't resist!) Amy is dating a self-absorbed, douchebag, rich, businessman named Mark (also atheist). Or at least she was before she broke the news to him that she's found out that she has possibly terminal cancer. That's right; Mark (Dean Cain) instantly dumps Amy because she now has cancer and he blames her for ruining the fancy dinner they had planned that evening. This scene is so abjectly cruel that I laugh out loud every time I see it. They somewhat try to build a sympathetic case for Mark later on by having him visit his dementia-stricken mother, but by that point it's hopeless; the guy even treats his own mother like crap, too. There's another subplot about Mark's sister Mina. It turns out that Mina (a Christian) is dating Radisson, who talks down to her every chance he gets, even going so far as to humiliate her in front of his colleagues at a dinner party. What a jerk! Why does she like this guy? Subplot #7832 focuses on Reverend Dave, a local pastor whose rental cars keep stalling, preventing him and his friend Jude from going on a road trip to Knott's Berry Farm. Riveting... Nevertheless, this does afford him the chance to give guidance to a girl named Ayisha. Yes, in our last subplot we follow Ayisha, a student from a Muslim family who keeps her Christian faith a secret from her father. But her good-for-nothing little brother tattles on her, leading to Ayisha's dad beating the ever-loving crap out of her and throwing her out into the street!

   Are you starting to notice a pattern here? Pretty much every non-Christian character in God's Not Dead is a horrible, completely unlikable caricature of an atheist. I've often heard this movie being characterized as a straw man film and I can kind of see why. Rather than building convincing arguments and putting forth some thought-provoking ideas of its own, God's Not Dead seems more content to point out the flaws and issues surrounding its atheist characters. Granted, those issues are sometimes why people in the real world don't accept the gospel, but not to the extremes seen here. Real life isn't often this black-and-white. And wouldn't you believe, half of these secondary plots have nothing to do with learning whether or not God exists – which is, you know, the whole point of the movie!

   Anyways, at first the debate doesn't go very well for Josh. But this doesn't stop Professor Radisson from tracking him down, cornering him, and threatening him into stop “making a fool out of [him]” in his class in an unexpected, over-the-top manner. As the debates go on, and as Radisson's wife/girlfriend (finally) leaves him, Josh begins building momentum and winning over some classmates to his side. In the final debate, Josh gains the upper hand, forcing Radisson to admit that he hates God because He didn't save the young professor's mother despite the prayers. Pretty much everybody in the class then declares Josh to be the debate's winner, including Martin, a foreign student from China whose father has forbidden him to talk about God lest his whole family back at home become blacklisted.

   After this, the different plots all start to converge upon this Newsboys (a real-life Christian pop-rock band) concert at the thinly-veiled not-Staples Center. (By the way, this concert and band was amusingly over-promoted, ad absurdum throughout the whole film.) Here Amy tries another spiteful, backhanded interview, but instead breaks down and ends up praying along with the band members. It seems that everybody wants to go see the Newsboys; Ayisha is there, Mina is there, and so is Josh, who takes Martin with him. Willie Robertson is also there to tell the audience – both the concert's and the film's – to spam message everyone they know the words “God's not dead”, which they all do. Well, I hope you like the USA, Martin, because you probably won't be allowed to go back home now! Willie and the Newsboys congratulate Josh on his efforts; yes, apparently the debate has somehow become major news.

   Even Professor Radisson, now struggling with his beliefs, wants a piece of this action and starts heading for this rockin' concert. On his way there he gets mowed down by an SUV and left for dead. But that's OK, because Reverend Dave and Jude are there to guide him through a deathbed conversion in his final moments. “This is a cause for celebration, my friend,” says Jude, in spite of the corpse still lying right in front of them. Also, Dave took the dead man's mobile phone. What a nice guy. And so our movie draws to a close. (By the way, Ayisha's story remains unresolved, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and assume that she's now homeless.)

   And that's God's Not Dead, a very one-sided, unfocused, poorly acted (except for Kevin Sorbo) straw man film. Aside from those issues, the movie just looks cheap – like, straight-to-DVD quality. The editing and camera work is uninspired, although there are a few funny shots of Radisson looming over and watching Josh like some kind of Batman villain.

   But by far the biggest problem with God's Not Dead was just how wasteful it was; it is a film that challenges no one. It was made for people who don't want to learn anything new, people who already know what they want to hear and are only looking for their beliefs to be validated. This movie won't make Christians rethink their beliefs and it won't challenge their faith. Likewise, it probably won't win over many non-Christians because it isn't trying to present a fair conversation about whether or not God exists. This movie is simply preaching to the choir. A wasted opportunity. I'm guessing non-Christians will probably dislike this film. However, some friends and I have found that it's good for a laugh; to me at least, this movie falls firmly within the so-bad-it's-good category.

   Now if you liked God's Not Dead, then that's OK. More power to you. I'm not here to take that away from you. I'm just stating my opinion on it, and personally I guess I just wanted something more thought-provoking.

Rating: one out of five.

P.S. - If you are a fan of God's Not Dead, and you're thinking “What the heck, man. You just crapped all over my favourite movie,” don't worry. Next week I'll be a little more constructive; stay tuned for my list of things that could have been done to make God's Not Dead better. See you then.

Movie Review Repost - Project Almanac (2015)

At this time of year, you see a lot of "best/worst movies of 2015" lists. I've always wanted to do one of those, but the problem is that I haven't seen nearly enough movies in one year to do that type of thing. In fact, I didn't see all that many bad movies last year anyways. But for those who are interested, I've decided to repost here my review for the worst movie I saw in 2015: Project Almanac. It wasn't horrible, but looking back I think I was being way too generous with this one. Even if you had heard of it, you've probably already forgotten about it! In which case, enjoy this sad little reminder, and then go watch The Revenant again. Enjoy!

   Going in, I had no clue what this movie was about. All I knew about Project Almanac was that it was in found-footage style, and since I don't much care for those kinds of films my expectations were rather low. Was I right?

   Not really, somewhat, I guess. I will say that the film was slightly better than I expected. Project Almanac follows David and his friends as they stumble upon David's late dad's unfinished prototype of a time machine. Unlike most time travel movies, it focuses less on the possibilities of temporal displacement and more on the ethics involved in it and how it affects its participants' relationships. And so for this reason it makes sense that our characters are more than a little careless, self-centred, and irresponsible. Anyways, the film presents some interesting ideas concerning time travel, such as what happens when you go back and meet your past self, as well as how a time traveller's psyche is affected by having the power to go back to see and do anything. Unfortunately this story's adverse consequences (ripple effects) could have benefited from a clearer explanation. Also the ending was quite sloppy, with a bunch of unanswered questions.

   The actor portraying David – Jonny Weston – does a pretty good job, even if he does look way too old to be in high school. The rest of the cast is just OK, nothing special.

   Now let's talk about the whole found-footage schtick for a minute. For a film dealing with experimentation in time travel told from one point of view, it seemed like a good idea but it could've been handled better. Project Almanac suffers from consistency problems that are symptomatic of a lot of FF style films (i.e. it breaks the FF rules). Which camera are we supposed to believe filmed the whole movie? Was it the GoPro, the camera phone, or the old-school camcorder? Or was it a combination of all three? Either way, that camera has an impressive microphone range! And of course the film also has those super-serious scenes that no one in the right mind would ever be filming in real life. And lastly, the whole found-footage tone is kind of ruined when the movie includes cutaway shots to other locations, ominous zoom-ins, private moments where it's obviously just one person alone, and – worst of all – musical scoring!

   Despite this, Project Almanac is watchable enough. There's not much else to say really. If you want to watch it, watch it. If you don't, then don't.

Rating: two-and-a-half stars out of five.