Change Your Image
calle_2565
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
David Brent: Life on the Road (2016)
I Crawled Out of My Own Skin...
You know. I fell off the Gervais-train couple a of years ago. But I decided to give this film a shot. To my surprise, I got a cringey mess of biblical proportions.
So, David Brent apparently never got off the hype of the office several years ago. Now he's trying to get his claim to fame once again when he's trying to get a record deal. Getting massively in debt doing so, as well as pissing off the people helping him. Ultimately failing to conquer his dream, and pulling out SOME laughs in the process. Otherwise, this is a movie that could've used a few tweaks in the script department (Make the setting a couple months after the success following the office, Brent's got it made. Being the eccentric man that he is he takes things too far, fame's got the better of him. High jinx ensues. During the movie he falls from fame, ultimately learning what he have become and repent from his bad behavior. That and place some great characters that Brent can play off on and vice versa, right now in its current stage, this movie is a one man show stomping on a character that is annoying, egocentric and really at a bad place mentally).
This is one of those films that should've been made closer to the end of the office. Super fans of Gervais and the office might enjoy it. Not a super fan of the show but last time I watched it I quite liked it, but I don't remember the office being THIS full of cringe. Gervais seemingly needs other people to shine even brighter, in this movie though he unfortunately is a cloudy mess that not only eats the scenery but the supporting actors too.
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Don't give Paul WS Anderson your money anymore.
So. Yeah. Paul WS Anderson took a huge dump on our faces again. Go figure...
So, desolate wasteland, tanks hoarding zombies (undead, always bothered me. Undead people should just be living. We're talking about living dead. Oh, right. Romeroooooooo), a cool fight on the tank. Reunion with Claire, taking shelter in a run down building (which the bad guys can easily just blow right the **** up), going back to the hive, Wesker now sucks balls apparently ('cuz reasons I don't rightly know anymore), a call back to the laser scene from the first movie as taken from the 4th game (jesus Christ...), the virus ends over a couple years ensuring people for a possible 7th(!) movie (can I go home now?).
Yeah, that about sums it up. It's a mess that, like the zombies, drags itself with a broken arm and both of its legs cut off to the end. When the sought after ending to this mess of bad acting, close ups and rushed story is finally here, you get the sappiest piece of **** ending/tie-in to possible future movies that I have ever seen. Woah Nelly! Alice is a clone, but wait a minute, she's a clone of the other founding member of umbrella's daughter that had progeria which the T-virus cured and just happen to cause a few deadly side effects. Anyway, that girl, is now an old decrepit Mila Jovovich in a wheelchair and she gives Alice her memories! Who cares...
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as an edgy douche-bag, but hey. I payed for this schlock, I get to write down my unfocused thoughts of it. But the fight on the tank is pretty good, I thought at least. Then again, there's the plot holes, the retardation from some characters, and totally unnecessarily long build up, misuse of Wesker, Nonsense AI.
In other words, don't bother.
Suicide Squad (2016)
Oh! It's cool I guess.
This movie had potential, it really did, but it just falls on itself and many quips that are SO overdone (for some characters I can understand it, but come on. Millions spent and we get some of the same schlock that Marvel has pumped out for years now). Longer intros than was needed (and some that didn't get one at all, guess what happens to them *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*) and parts that basically can be seen as over-hyped, short music videos. And Will Smith AS Will Smith?! Get outta town, give that man an Oscar.
Yeah, but there are a few good things in this movie. Margot Robbie, great casting right there (a bit on the nose with the comedy like I said before but that's the character). Leto, despite not being in that much leaves an impression; looking forward to see if they do something more with him as the joker. Also Joel Kinnaman plays surprisingly good as Rick Flag. The others are brushed aside by Smith, but hey, he has top billing which makes sense from a marketing perspective, but the majority of the screen time Smith is on it just falls flat. It's not Deadshot you're looking at, it's Will Smith, he makes up for it, somewhat, in the end.
A lot of parts are just a copy/paste from any marvel-movie, it tries to play it safe when it should've taken a different route. OH WELL... It's an okay movie, no more, some less. Take some risks DC, you've done it before why not now?
...oh right, money.
Jason Bourne (2016)
Who asked for this?
So... I haven't seen a Bourne-film since two. But I decided to see if I was missing out on something, after 30 minutes in I got several flashbacks to why I stopped following this series.
In this mishmash there is shaky-cam to simulate gritty action (however, it makes the movie look like a five year old with parkinsons was in charge of the cinematography). Close ups so close that I can count the blackheads on Tommy Lee Jones' face, 46. The direction is, nicely put, cluttered; another black-ops to uncover (is not uncovered?), Jason's father's murderer tries to kill Jason (killer is killed), and some hypocritical side thing about a social media mogul not wanting to play ball by selling the information about his users to the CIA, but that can't happen to the CIA, especially not for free!
But in all seriousness, if you like the Bourne series by all means this is probably the movie for you. I just don't see the action for all the close ups, makes the whole point of an action film to fail if you ask me, so does the shaky-cam. Also, the script seems to be lost within itself and leads it back to square one, progress...
Enjoy it, hardcore fans.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
Ignorance is bliss, thought is rewarding
An interesting story about an action-moviestar wanting to be something else. More important than explosions, bombastic scores and fast editing. To do this he re-writes Raymond Carvers "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" and plans to put it on Broadway. During the film he battles his past as-well as the stress of being a "neglecting" father wanting to make his daughter proud of him, trouble on set, bad reviews and growing tired of himself and his work.
The film has impressive editing that is flowing and seems to be filmed in one take, very impressive and something that should be used in other movies. Could be interesting in war- movies for one, following the protagonist "uncut".
The acting is really great, especially Keaton. Could be due to the parallel with Keaton and his character, Riggan's career. Both played a popular action-hero, both are getting "irrelevant" and due to this movie, both tries to do something with more thought and meaning behind it. The frustration in Riggan is amazingly portrayed. Very well one of Keaton's best performances' during his career. Aside from that you have Norton and Stone to elevate Keaton even more. Norton plays a cocky actor, well known on Broadway, just taking another job. And Stone portrays Keatons daughter, in a role she's not to unfamiliar with. A woman not giving two ****s about anything, but luckily her character changes throughout the movie.
But is this movie a masterpiece? I can't rightly tell, it's obviously full of metaphors connected to Riggans ego paralleled with his former character "Birdman". So obviously the film deserves credit for trying something different and trying to make people think about the things they consume, art, TV, movies, books. You name it. But there is so much stuff that is irrelevant in the movie, if the point is to convey a story about an actor trying to be relevant again then why do you need so much stuff in between? Sure, stuff happen all around us. But here you have the opportunity to show things that are important, relating to Riggan and the frustration he suffers. Like the relation with the actress that he had a pregnancy scare with, or the other actress which he shares like two moments with... It's not often I find Zach Galifianakis important to the story, but in this case he's downplayed when he should've been given more screen time as Riggans manager and friend.
Well as for the ending, I'm not gonna touch that one. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation and that is the point of this movie. Give it a watch!
Whiplash (2014)
Gutbuster
This is a movie about a driven young man, wanting to be the best jazz drummer in the world. Facing a abusive teacher, wanting to be responsible for the next great musician. Pushing his students to constantly pushing their limits. Expecting perfection constantly, and lashing out whenever he doesn't get it. The young drummer trains and trains, in order to show the teacher that he belongs in the special group of musicians.
The relationship between the drummer and the teacher remains the mostly abusive and tense during the whole movie, driving the drummer to the brink of insanity due to the constant pressure, with exception of the last seven minutes. I think it ties together what has been discussed up to that point, gaining understanding for the teachers, or at least an explanation, behavior. But I don't know, at the same time it feels so rushed to making the drummer and teacher friends after having both of them building up the pressure and tension between them during the whole movie. But the pressure is perfectly portrayed, the abusive relationship is interesting (seeing how goody-two-shoe most films like this can be, evidently this movie takes that path as well in the end but It's because of the analogy between the drummer and Charlie Parker. Failing at first, only to succeed in the end.
J.K. Simmons is incredible as the teacher, the music is great, the theme is great and is definitely a movie that needs to be watched if you like movies.
Dumb and Dumber To (2014)
The sequel that everyone wanted?
I don't know about you, but the first movie is great. Some things are a bit too corny, but hey! That's expected to an extent regarding these types of comedies. Who can forget the moment when Lloyd tells Harry he's been having two pairs of gloves, the hot pepper in the burger. Followed by the rat poison instead of medicine. I like it A lot. If you haven't seen it you should, it's a cult classic.
Going in to this movie my expectations were, granted, pretty low. And I don't think it holds up to the original. Even though a lot of the plot points are similar to the original. A bag/package belonging to a female gets forgotten/dropped, Lloyd and Harry tries to give back the bag/package, mix in that there has been a misunderstanding regarding Fraida Felcher, Lloyd and Harry. Annnnnd you have this movie. It still has loads of moments where I burst out laughing, especially the part where Lloyd and Harry are looking for a house for a long time, only to return to the starting point, "But it cures cancer...", the return of the blind kid Billy and the payback from Harry in the end.
It is definitely worth a watch, you'll get a couple of laughs but in all honesty. This wasn't a sequel that needed to be a thing. If you stay to after the credits you'll get to see the Farrelly brothers goof with the idea of making sequels, and the let down of keeping Seabass to a last minute appearance. Not quite the corny cult classic that the original is to me, but give it a shot if you're into the original and corny, idiotic, chock-based and intelligently timed comedy.
Interstellar (2014)
Wanted to like it...
*Sigh*
Here we go, about to give a 9+ rated movie my opinion.
First off, I'd like to mention that I like Nolan. Memento and The Prestige are really great movies, entertaining and mysterious. Lately however, I did not enjoy Inception and the last Batman movie (You don't build up Bane like that and just brush him aside in the last 20 minutes, that is just bull!). And to an extent, I did enjoy parts of this movie. The idea of humanity being doomed is interesting, the fact that Nolan hired scientists (Physicists) to provide with data to create a seemingly realistic wormhole and other visually amazing stuff, the turn of Matt Damons character and the overall dark tone throughout the movie. But I mean, come on. There is so much you could remove and still get the message across.
The ending, first of all. Why not, in true Nolan fashion, end it when Matthew McConaughey is done changing the past causing the exact same outcome, yet changing the future. Cut to overwhelming light, annnnnnnnnd credits, implying that the world would carry on. As well as the beginning could be cut down, and a whole part in the middle while exploring the other planets. I just think it was way to long, and some parts was just too wacky. Which is most evident in the part with Matthew McConaughey that I tried to described. And also a huge problem I have, the music at some points. It's not good, or needed in every scene. Sometimes you can't hear what the characters are saying. Less is more.
But, yeah. I'm not qualified to talk about physics and it's just my opinion, but no I think this movie tries to change the formula of movies like Armageddon, by making it more complex and nonsensical to myself. Because, if the ending is just as sappy and coincidental as other movies regarding saving the world, why complicate things?
Oh well, nice visuals, cool parts and ideas. But, not my cup of tea.
Fury (2014)
Seems like any other war movie...
I haven't seen EVERY war movie ever made, I've seen a lot of them. And just one mans opinion here, but I don't know what to think.
The scenery is great, classic world war II scenery (has been done a TON of times). And the story is your typical band of brothers squad, you have your messed up in the head character, your overly religious character, your emotionally scarred leader, a innocent young man and a Mexican (that's about it, his character is just for exposition, handle the gun and saying Spanish words and being "suave" with German women. And he is just as messed up about the war as anyone else in the group). This time it is a tank squad, which offer great and intense action scenes. I really like the camera work and the sound during the fights, sometimes they can be a bit overbearing. But hey, that just puts you in the action more. So I don't mind it since I see a purpose for it.
The portray of world war II is also basic, you have the weathered soldiers that's fed up with everything and the naive young man that thinks there is a peaceful way out. And I can't say what could've been done instead since this is what you'd expect a war situation to be like. But the problem that I have with it is that it's been done SO many times before. Not breaking any new ground in my humble opinion, but that doesn't make it an unentertaining movie.
And who can forget the ever present patriotism and the new wave of film to use musical sounds to make sure that you know what is going on. Seriously, who DOESN'T think that the Nazis are terrible people when you show the people they've hanged for refusing to fight for Germany (or every other thing they did during the war and before that, goes without saying though)? You don't need to use musical sounds to make sure the audience can feel the tension of a scene, war is intense. It doesn't need constant musical accompany, because the imagery is tense as it is. Subtlety would've been the more effective route. Now it just feels like another winners tale of the world war II movie.
Also, one last thing. At the end, where one of the squad members is hiding from the Nazis. They should've just shot him, when you build up the Nazis as these ultra bad guys you could at least try something different. That ONE soldier that suddenly gains a conscience, at the END of the movie. Give me a break. Yeah, yeah, the humanity and not everyone is bad thing. But the guy KILLED hundreds of your army friends, and you're just gonna let him go? Yeah right...
Watch it for the cool action, camera work and sounds. But it's not groundbreaking, and definitely not 8/10.
The Maze Runner (2014)
Another audience-kept-in-the-dark money-grabber
I went in to this movie without reading the books, and only watching the trailer. Long story short, I wasn't expecting anything good. But on the other hand, I came out quite satisfied. But only quite.
The story centers around a group of children and young adults, trapped in a maze. With seemingly no means of escape. Until one day when two other persons enter the mix. Suddenly things start going go wrong, and the newcomers are apparently to blame. So far so good, the mystic feel is interesting. The characters that is built up are great, it's easy to understand them even if they're not to your liking. The visuals are very impressive, given that the setting is a concrete maze with a forest center.
However, there are some things that I don't like with the film:
The fact that there is a huge concrete base, out in the open, conducting sick experiment on youngsters, with a forest (while there has been a scorching of the entire world), and the "good guys" ambushing the base in the end has taken (what I can deduct from the dialogue) three years to make a move at the base, the fact that the youngsters didn't wondered why the "good guys" didn't stayed in the base after breaking in to it and putting an "end" of the operation, this is especially directed to the main character, Thomas (that is a character constantly asking questions up until the end of the movie, eh... whatever). The biggest foreshadowing of a characters fate I've seen in a long time. Given, I can see that many of the problems that I have with the film is context based and will probably be explained in the next movies. But it doesn't change the fact that the real plot is rushed, much due to the fact that information has been kept from the characters. But, you have some scorching of the earth, a brain decease, somehow the brain decease is supposed to be connected to the maze-project (somehow is putting kids in a life threatening maze with giant cyborg spiders that gradually making you insane while they show you the truth, supposed to produce a cure).
Is it an entertaining movie, yes. Is there things that doesn't make sense, yes. But, given the situation I can buy it. We're kept in the dark just like the characters. But there better be more explaining in the next movie, at least to the viewer. It just feels forced to put all the important information five minutes from the end. Does it make people want to watch the, more than likely, sequel, yes. And like any other series going on at the moment they will probably make a ton of money and drag it out more than needed.
To me it's a film that you see once, maybe you see the sequel (which I plan to do, 'cuz I ain't got time fo' them books, son!) and get a tiny more bit information, three more times. Give or take a few films.
Give 'em your money...
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)
Gritty, Great But Could've Been More
Having seen the reviews of this title before watching the movie I can understand some of the criticism. In my humble opinion I think that it depends on the stories depicted in the movie. Being a fan of the graphic novels I'd say that "That Yellow Bastard", "The Big Fat Kill", "The Hard Goodbye" and the tie in with "The Customer Is Always Right" is hard to top, given that they are all ends to the story (In a sense). Which means that they pack a lot of action in. Making it more interesting, and I agree. I like the first movie a lot better, but I like this movie as well.
First off I really don't think that the casting for Ava could've been any better. Eva Green just seem like the typical temptress, and she pulls through without breaking a sweat. And I guess Josh Brolin is OK as Dwight, but come on, he's no Clive Owen. I felt that the hunger for revenge and stone cold intensity that Dwight has in the comic is better portrayed by Owen. Just one guy's opinion though. Other than that "A Dame To Kill For" is beautifully portrayed onto the screen.
And "Just Another Saturday Night" is roughly 3-5 minutes of the movie. It is a short story but I don't know, I always liked this story for the fact that you get to know Marv a bit more and his pending problems without him having to take down a branch of the Roarks. They could've focused a bit more on this story.
The new stories exclusive to the film are actually quite good, but with the subject in hand with one of the stories you could've branched it out even further and possibly made a whole movie around it. I'm talking about "Nancy's Last Dance" of course. Sure it has some bad writing, not up to par with other Sin City stories, but give it some time and thought and you have Nancy going after the man that drove the only man she loved to kill himself to save her. I mean that in itself is a cause to branch out the story. Though it is short and rushed with some of the writing it is a very interesting story in my eyes. And "The Long Bad Night" oh how close can you come to a "real" Sin City story? Well this one hits pretty f-ing close. Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a dismissed Roark gambler trying to make it big. Playing high stakes poker with his father, the one and only Senator Roark. Eventually after being beaten, having his lucky charm murdered and being operated by doc brown, or as he is called in this movie Kroenig (Christopher Lloyd) after winning against the Senator. And the pay-off in the end is just beautiful. Becoming a martyr over the second card game, going down in the history books as the man that beat the Senator twice. Superb.
Overall I understand that this isn't a film for anyone. Liking Sin City is a plus, as is liking Rodriguez as a film maker. But the stories depicted is great, some better than others but it is a movie worth seeing. If not for the stories the visuals are just as impressive as the first movie.
Enjoy!
Poolboy: Drowning Out the Fury (2011)
Parody of a documentary of a movie with acted hokey acting, wtf?! I LOVE IT!
A parody, of a documentary, on a movie that due to the themes in the movie was cancelled 20 years ago. Starring Kevin Sorbo. Right at the get go I'm sold.
Mix in a bunch of action, cheesy effects and acted acting, drugs, dark themes and a kick ass weapon (a scoop net with a blade at the net and a knife at the end of the shaft) to name a few things and you get an in-your-face B-movie comedy.
How do you review a movie that constantly walks the lines of absolute balls to the wall comedy, constantly breaks the fourth wall and makes really bad puns? Well, like any other movie I would guess. But to be honest, this is one of the funniest movies that I've seen in recent times. It's just stupid enough, and has more than enough intelligence to realize that it's stupid to make it enjoyable. The setup is amazing, and the ridiculousness of the setup to the movie makes it perfect as a B-movie. It shouldn't be considered a B-movie just because it has a low budget, the majority of the movie is actually funnier than a hundred new A-movies that has a lot of money attached to it. The writing really puts it over the top, kudos to Ross Pattersson.
To be even more honest a review doesn't even give this movie the praise that it deserves. Even though this movie has bad ratings it deserves a whole lot more credit than people are giving it, or rather denying it. Just watch it, broaden your perspective, bro.
Lucy (2014)
Okey acting, cool effects, zero focus
The concept of the movie is that Lucy (Johansson), a woman caught at the wrong place at the wrong time because her boyfriend for a week has associated with some shady characters, followed by some random shots of a mouse heading towards a mousetrap and a leopard stalking its pray (It's symbolic for her heading in to a trap, in case the audience were to stupid to realize it). But never mind that, because now Lucy needs to smuggle in some blue powder for the Chinese mafia or something, it's really never specified, in her stomach. While incarcerated with the package in her stomach, she stops one of the guards whom tries to force himself on Lucy. The guard, angry, kicks Lucy in the stomach causing the bag to break (you'd think that the people that's after the product would care for it, especially since the package causes people to "use more than 10 % of the cognitive capacity". Also use the force, change genetic DNA and a whole bunch of other neat stuff. Sign me up!).
A professor by the name of Norman (Freeman) is working on a "theory", Lucy finds him and uses her powers to confuse Norman by tampering with his TV, computer, radio and other household items. Norman, impressed with all of this, decide they should meet.
After trying to get a hold of the rest of the powder Lucy decides to take it all, gaining all knowledge in the universe, with the intended purpose to pass on the knowledge to humanity. In between all of this there is stunning effects, cool action scenes and plot holes.
I don't know where to begin, I don't think this is a good or clever film. The concepts are interesting but too many. The ideas presented therefor made me feel that the focus of the movie was lost, but given that the idea itself is quite preposterous it kinda, sort of makes sense. Either that or the movie was rushed, no focus though. All this while taking itself way too seriously.
But lets not forget the weird moments such as leaving the bad guy alone, two times (Leaving him for dead once with two knifes in his hands, and the other time while he's 30 feet away from you at the airport, seriously? You can feel everything but can't see or feel an angry person 30 feet away from you that wants you dead? Fine, whatever...), making it possible for him to hurt the people around you and possibly causing your "goal" to be stopped. Whatever it might be, besides doing the remaining drugs and downloading every bit of information. Which is presented like in the last 25 minutes, yeah... And other than that, how would every bit of information fit on a USB? And wouldn't the "modern" computers crash due to the sheer amount of information that it would hold? I don't know, and I also don't know why this film has such great reviews (To each his own) but I don't like it. I find it to be allover the place and too silly while the intent seem to be serious.
But hey, the effects are cool. And Scarlett Johansson is in it, but it doesn't save the movie for my part. So... Yeah, nothing else.
Bye...
The Expendables 3 (2014)
80s action heroes ensemble! Oh, and these guys no one cares about...
The latest installment of the Expendables, starts off seemingly like the previous movies. The crew going on another mission, but this time something goes terribly wrong. An easy operation suffers surprise and casualty to the group, as a former member named Stonebanks (Gibson as the, presumed to be dead, bad guy) shows up and causes Caesar (Crews) to make one dick joke, shooting a mini-gun and spending the rest of the movie at a hospital. Read: Shoots him.
Ross (Stallone) feeling guilty about Caesar fires the entire crew and hires new and young people to take revenge. And everything seem to go according to plan until Stonebanks breaks free, capturing the new crew and sending Ross home, ashamed.
But as you know, third time's the charm. Old crew comes back, bickers a bit and sets off to finish what they started so and so many years ago. Also they're joined by a imposing and excited Galgo (Banderas), no guitar cases though, too bad. Missed opportunity, Sly!
What follows is a great action filled climax, full to the brim with references from other action films. No more spoilers from here on, go watch it to find out.
Personally I've enjoyed the first two films and felt obligated to see the third one. And given the spirit of the previous films it is an entertaining film, no doubt there. But the whole thing about new members and not contributing to the cheesiness, I felt it took away some of the core. You had Chuck Norris make several "Chuck Norris-jokes" last time for crying out loud, it's been the cheesiness in these movies that's dragged me to the theaters before. Don't go full out and then retract. Other than that I think that Snipes was an entertaining part of the film, and even got to poke hole of his tax evasion. Also, Randy Couture, is an good fighter. But certainly no decent actor.
Closing statement: If you've seen the last two, you might as well see this too. Have a fun time at the theater and bring lots of nachos... because, you know... The cheese.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
If you haven't seen it, you really should...
Quite possible the best Marvel movie that has been made, so far.
The visuals are great and pleasing to the eye. Nothing too impressive though, but that is beside the point. The movie as a whole is put together so good. Everything blends together nicely, the jokes (poking fun at the hero clichés and working of the characters, which is really driven home by both Pratt and Cooper), story (a bunch of lonely misfits thrown together by fate, that pushes them to go against their normal way of handling situations) and characters (all portrayed by very good casted actors that seem to have a great time with the movie and the script circling around it.
I feel like I can go on and on about why this movie deserves to be watched, but that wouldn't do it justice. But it really is a great summer blockbuster that both lives up my hype and far exceeds it at the same time. So why are you still reading this? GO! Go out and see it, join the legion of satisfied people who have watched a great piece of action cinema come to life!!!
They Live (1988)
Clever, funny, awesome and overlooked
At first glance this title may seem like any other corny, goofy, action flick. But the idea of the controlled society, seeing the world for what it is and either giving in or going against the status quo is very intriguing. And if anything still relevant even today (still will be for a long time).
After seeing references, countless of references to this film in media I had to see it. And I was expecting a b-movie. And in some instances during the movie it is cheesy, and a lot of the things happening doesn't make sense, yet I sat fascinated throughout the whole film. And having not seeing this movie before I feel quite ashamed of myself. But I love it!
The build up is great, Roddy Piper is awesome as is Keith David, the action is sweet as all hell, the point of people being controlled is timeless, science fiction (just the genre it self is great), and holy hell that pay off at the end. F****** perfect!
Yes, I may just be bias at the moment. But, hot damn! If you haven't seen this movie you need to see it, it doesn't matter when you see it. It goes perfect to anything, anytime and anywhere! And if you have seen it, just watch it again.
Now, if you'll excuse me. I'm off to buy some bubblegum.
A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)
What happened, Seth?
I find it quite rare to not see the funny parts in a comedy. Going in to this film, only to have seen the trailer, I can't say that I'm impressed or surprised that I wasn't impressed.
The film itself has impressive visuals, good supporting actors and nice music (apart from one song that I didn't enjoy, but it's catchy). But the script regarding the jokes is all over the place, and I laughed maybe two times throughout the whole film.
I enjoyed TED for the fact that the jokes centered around the characters and their dynamic relationship. It felt as if more thought was put into TED. AMWTDITW feels awkward and doesn't connect to either of the characters, it is too random for my taste. Not to speak of the overflow of disgusting jokes to get a cheap laugh.
If you HAVE to see the film, you need to go in with an open mind and try to see past that Seth isn't a good live action actor. Also, prepare for the jokes to be repetitive and as I stated, cheap.
Otherwise, just save yourself the time and the pain that the film causes (In my case at least).
Seth is capable to write good material, but it feels like he needs to expand his thinking, maybe associate himself with different people. You know, get new ideas.
Also, that Back to the Future spoof with Christopher Lloyd. Just useless...