Ursa Guy's Film Reviews

→ in
Tools    





I realized that it was probably for the best that I start one of these, so I can share my thoughts on all of the movies I watch. I am known to my friends as the guy that will watch pretty much anything, from blockbusters to chick flicks to cheap horror, and everything in between, whether the film at hand is making big box office money or you've never heard of it before. I watch every animated movie to be released, because I see it as a medium rather than a genre and refuse to classify all of them as kids movies. Hopefully there's a wide range of stuff here so everybody can enjoy something. I will generally only be talking about more recent movies. I started getting into cinema in 2013, and theres plenty left to see from that era.

~~~INDEX of FILM REVIEWS~~~
Dude Bro Party Massacre 3:

The Wolfpack:

Zombie Massacre 2: Reich of the Dead:

The Divergent Series: Insurgent:

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Spy:

Sharknado:

PAGE 2
Rise of the Planet of the Apes:

Do You Believe?:

The Lazarus Effect:

Unfriended:

Creep:

Unfinished Business:

The Fantastic Four:

The Gallows:

PAGE 3
Trainwreck:

We Are Still Here:

Love & Mercy:

Straight Outta Compton:

The Last Airbender:

Southpaw:

Poltergeist:

Cooties:
-
Minions:





Dude Bro Party Massacre III:


The first ever feature length production from 5 Second Films, who I guess do Youtube videos? I only knew of this because Greg Sestero, Mark from The Room, was in it. This film isn't just a lot of fun, there's also a lot of quality to it. First and foremost, it's a parody of the "dead teenager" movies of the 80s, presented as a VHS recording of a movie that was on TV in 1981. The movie is about the Dude Bros, a fraternity notable for their epic pranks. There is no actual movie of the first 2 Dude Bro Party Massacres, but the events of those 2 'films' exist in universe: after an epic prank floods the town and kills 2000 people, a slasher called Motherface vows to kill the Dude Bros but is killed by Brock (Alec Owen, delivering a great underacting performance). At the start of the movie, Brock is killed by Motherface's daughter, so his twin brother Brent (also played by Alec Owen) tries to solve his murder and avenge his death by going to a weekend lake getaway with the Dude Bro frat. Obviously the dial of absurdity is cranked up to 11, and there a lot of funny jokes. The characters constantly do things that they shouldn't do and come up with crazy theories about the origin of Motherface.

But this is more than a joke, and that makes it a genuinely good movie. There are many Dude Bros, and most of them get some kind of character to make them enjoyable (the 2 Dudes that have no personality or role whatsoever get funny jokes at their lack of importance to the story). Paul Prado is especially noteworthy as Turbeaux, the man in charge of training and trialing pledges, and Jimmy Wong as the vegetarian pledge. The kills are very gory, but most of them are really creative and unique. The cinematography is above average, and it's definitely refreshing to get an homage to the horror days of old, with everything being a practical effect and using music to build tension instead of having jump scares littered throughout. The mystery of who Motherface really is lasts a while, and I had no idea where it was headed. Everybody from Brent to T-O-Double D's girlfriend to Ronald Regan is a suspect, and I think it's fantastic that the movie outright tells you who the killer is early on in a way that you can't piece together until the end.

It's not without flaws though, and those are mainly from the police scenes. There are 2 police officers within the vicinity of the action-1 is assigned to hit the Dude Bros on the nose to turn them into oranges, and the other is assigned to kill the first as a virgin sacrifice. It's just as over the top as everything else, but so little of it actually matters (neither ever actually shares a screen with any of the Dude Bros, making it feel like it belonged in a different movie). It's about 20 minutes of dull nothing that builds up to an admittedly funny punchline, but the setup was too long to justify it (and that punchline creates a major plot hole, not that it matters). Still, this movie is a lot of fun. If you're a fan of disgusting micro-budget horror, this is the most fun I've had with one in a while and maybe the most fun I've had with any movie this year. You can look at the poster to decide if you have the stomach for it, but a fair warning is that none of the killings are cut away from-these deaths are elaborate sometimes and you see every second of them. If the idea doesn't sound appealing to you, the movie won't be appealing to you, and you're best off just skipping it.





The Wolfpack:


I'm surprised this won an audience award at Sundance. Documentaries aren't my thing, but I thought this was really boring. The movie is about a family of 7 kids that isn't let outside their house for the first decade and a half of their lives by their strict father. In that time, they watch and reenact movies like The Dark Knight and Pulp Fiction. This premise sounded interesting to me, but the father stuff took priority over the movie stuff. After the first 35 minutes, the fact that movies are involved at all is merely coincidental, and everything after the first 35 minutes is really dull and not deserving to exist as a film. It's with the pretense that it's their first time in the real world, sure, but at the end of the day the last 50 minutes of movie is teenagers walking around New York City having fun at the beach and the theater. As a teenager living in New Jersey, I can and do participate in those activities relatively often. I don't really care about oversized kids having experiences for the first time because I did those myself, and it was way more fun than watching someone else. Boyhood had a similar problem, but it worked well because it had 3 hours to develop this one character. The Wolfpack gets 1 hour and 20 minutes to show 7 characters, and big surprise, it fails in that regard. None of the teens have a personality distinct from the others that you can get across in 80 minutes.

There's also some conspiracies going around that this film isn't a real life documentary. I do not know if the film is true or not, but I can definitely see why some people call ********. The basic, indisputable facts are that neither of the parents work a real job (both get government money), and they are able to put food on the table for 9 people, plus buying a thousand DVDs. The finances don't add up at all. I'm not saying that makes it fake, but I think it's worthy of suspicion. Regardless of the film, what is definitely, undoubtedly, 110% total fake ******** is the director's story. She says that she was walking through Manhattan one day, saw the 7 kids running by her, and chased them down figuring that there must be a story. Just give me a ****ing break to laugh my ass off at that one. Once again, as your SNL-style NYC teen correspondent, groups of 7 teenagers walk together in Manhattan literally every second the Earth has turned in the 21st century. Most of them have absolutely no documentary worthy story. They're probably trying to catch a subway or going to a private place to smoke some weed or celebrating after the Knicks won today. Maybe the story is true and the kids wanted someone to make a movie out of it, but this director story is so obviously fake that it casts a shadow of doubt over the whole thing. You can pick a street corner in NYC and follow every group of teenagers you see asking them why they're running and where they're going, and go through hundreds a day without any kind of interesting story behind it. Just thinking about this hack makes me want to lower the score, but the first 35 minutes were interesting enough. If you regularly watch documentaries, and not just 2 or 3 a year that are getting Oscar buzz, you're more qualified to tackle this than I am, but any casual viewer who thinks the premise looks cool should skip this because the cool part of the premise is dropped less than halfway through.




Zombie Massacre 2: Reich of the Dead:


Maybe I'll get around to watching a movie with 1000 IMDB votes next week. I was the 72nd rating on it, which I do believe is my personal best. I'm not into Nazi exploitation much, but my horror movie friend is, and he offered to give me his Dos Equis, so it's all good. I wish I took more of it, because this movie was pointless. The main, and possibly only, positive is that it looked good. Camera was of a super professional quality, cinematography was quite good, locations and color palette were actually quite large and pretty looking. If it wasn't about a Nazi turning Jewish prisoners into zombies to murder the Allies, I might've been tricked into thinking this was a legit movie.



The problem is that this film is so much nothing. It's not funny and it's not scary. I don't mean the tone was inconsistent, I mean that they played this premise 100% straight and couldn't scare me once. Everything was so bright and green and the zombie designs, while kind of disgusting still in the striped uniforms, aren't exactly scary themselves. There wasn't a score. That hurt them the most, I think. I understand budget constraints, but a score is a very important thing for a horror film, and the only sounds in the entire film were dialogue and occasional bird chirps. There were 3 or 4 scenes where I'm thinking "That was lame, but I guess it could have been scary if the music built some tension." Being tongue in cheek about the stupidity of Nazis figuring out how to create an undead army out of Jewish prisoners could have also saved it, but the director had no interest in doing that. Apparently a Zombie Massacre 1 does exist, but I've never seen it. I'm guessing that nobody on this forum but me has seen this film yet, and it's in your best interests to keep it that way.



I have to return some videotapes.
The Wolfpack seems interesting but yeah 80 minutes sounds way too short. The director really said that's how she came up with it too? Lol cmon.

Make sure you click the checkbox that says "Suggest this post for inclusion in the Reviews area (how's this work?)" for each review you do. You will get it put up where all the others go when you click the Reviews button. I think you can edit your post to do it, but I always just click it before I post



When I write about a movie that actually played in a theater I'll do that.

Yeah Wolfpack was frustrating. Ebert always said that no bad movie is too short, but if it were half an hour longer and actually let the boys be interesting people that I knew about it wouldn;t be bad.





The Divergent Series: Insurgent:


Our return to the world of Divergent is here! I hated the first movie in this series a lot. If I had to review Divergent in 3 words, I would go with "dull and derivative". It wasn't just that the movie was bad (which it was) or lacked any fun (which it did), it's that there was absolutely nothing interesting about it. Why would I watch Divergent when I could go back and watch Hunger Games: Catching Fire, a very obvious influence to Divergent author Veronica Roth and the best YA book adaptation to hit screens in years? The problem with a lot of these YA book adaptations is that most of them are really similar at the end of the day. I think that's why Warm Bodies is among my favorites in the genre. It might not have been great, but it was unique and made for a thinking audience. I don't want to spend too long on the predecessor, but it's needed to contextualize this film. If Divergent was a less fun, less mature, and worse shot version of Catching Fire, Insurgent is a less fun, less mature, and worse shot version of what I would expect 1 cohesive Mockingjay movie to feel like.

The one thing that I love to criticize about most YA adaptations but can't pick apart in this series is the acting. The series does not have the impressive array of adult actors that The Hunger Games has, and they got stuck with a lesser Kravitz, but all of the younger actors are really good. The film stars Shailene Woodley as Tris Prior, a less strong version of Katniss Everdeen, and her traveling party: that boy that Shailene Woodley slept with in Divergent as Four, the generic handsome and tough boyfriend, that boy that Shailene Woodley slept with in The Fault in Our Stars as Caleb Prior, her brother that goes back and forth between being a nice person and a traitor, and that boy that Shailene Woodley slept with in The Spectacular Now as Peter, a horribly written chaotic neutral pseudo traitor that Miles Teller has fun hamming up. These characters are fine. Despite the good performance, they're all cliched characters lifted from other teenage girl action movies. That's not a horrible thing, but none of them are interesting, so I care about none of them. Kate Winslet plays the generic dystopian dictator that exists to be overthrown by the teenage girl's makeshift army, and again, even though the character is poorly written and unoriginal, Winslet brings her A game to the role.

My biggest problem with Divergent was the world building, or the mystifying lack thereof. As a sci-fi dystopian movie, you're allowed to make up ridiculous rules about how the society operates, but you have to explain them. Divergent never did, and Insurgent doesn't feel like changing that now. I still don't know why Divergents are bad, why Kate Winslet is hunting them down, or even how she became a dictator in the first place. I don't know how this faction system started, or why Divergents are only being hunted down now even though they've existed in this society for 200 years. I also don't know about Uriah, which might be the most laughable mishandling of a character I've ever seen on screen. According to my sister and Wikipedia, Uriah is a fan favorite and pretty important character throughout this book series. He did not appear in the first movie and has only 1 scene in the second. We see a random black guy sit on a rooftop with Tris, having a conversation about Four. Somebody shoots at them, and Tris says "Run Uriah! They're looking for you because you're a Divergent!" Talk about some clumsy exposition.

There are many action scenes, none of which are particularly impressive. Our small group of 4 (and in a later scene 3) heroes destroys waves of nameless enemies, but 50 trained hitmen are unable to take out a couple of teenagers because... it's not the third act yet? Most of the action scenes are shot at night, which annoyed me. Are they too cheap to light this really well so they have to cover up in darkness?

As a quick final note, I feel the need to talk about the ending. It ends. The story of Tris and Four has a conclusion. I have no idea what plot there is left to explore, and I have even less of a clue about how they are going to squeeze 2 more movies out of this. Alleigant: Parts 1 and 2 are due out in March of 2016 and 2017, but I can't figure out how to make 4 more hours of movie about these characters. We see what happens to the villain, we see what happens to the heroes, and we see that side characters like Naomi Watts and Miles Teller get their happy endings. Every subplot is wrapped up neatly and satisfactorily, and I'm afraid that the contrived circumstances required to start another conflict will make for an even worse film next time. At the end of the day, this film is also dull and derivative, and while it's not actively bad like Divergent, there's no reason why you should watch it.




Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2:


I need to start off with a disclaimer that Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is not a good movie. I have quite a few positive things to say, but this isn't quite a good movie. The most accurate description of the quality would be "not that bad". There was a lot of anti-hype about the 0% score from Rotten Tomatoes, and that this might be the worst movie ever. Among art heist comedies, it's not the worst I've seen recently (thanks, Mortdecai!). Maybe through the power of lowered expectations, combined with the fact that it's too inoffensive to be hard to sit through, I had some fun with this. Not a lot. But some.

The film starts out putting its worst foot forward. Blart's wife has divorced him after 6 days, and his mother has been killed by a milk truck. This is the worst part of the film because it is offensive enough to be truly awful. Along with neither of these jokes being funny, they are very mean spirited for what truly is a kids movie, and they completely undo the flimsy character arc that Blart (Kevin James) went through in the first movie. The plot quickly takes us to Las Vegas, where Blart is being honored at a security guard convention, until he isn't, until he is again. That segways (pun totally intended) into a genuinely fantastic 10 minute stretch. Blart's daughter, played by Raini Rodriguez (A Disney Channel star that can't act) has spent their vacation with romantic interest David Henrie (A Disney Channel star that honestly acted decently in the English dub of Studio Ghibli's Arriety and the sitcom How I Met Your Mother but cannot act here), but starts to feel bad about abandoning her father over time.

The best 10 minutes of this movie might be the best 10 minutes I have ever seen in a film from the Sandler camp. After the funniest scene in the film, in which Blart fights an exotic bird with a hotel employee playing a soft piano ballad in the background, Blart goes to make his speech, only to find his daughter is not in attendance. As Rodriguez feels bad about how she has handled the situation with her father, Blart gives a beautiful speech about being a mall cop. It actually made me feel an emotion: a sorrow at the lack of respect that mall cops get and an inspiration to help people because it's helping everybody in the world. This speech really is great. It's the main reason why I am saying that this movie is right in the middle leaning low instead of outright bad. The acting by Kevin James is the best I've seen from a Happy Madison film in over a decade. This might be low praise, but he actually felt like a low-wage public employee that wishes he got more respect for his work but has accepted that he has to keep going even if he never gets it. I would go out of my way to watch the speech again (not watching the film just for the speech, but the speech itself).

The last 40 minutes are a blur. Blart has to save the two kidnapped high school students while stopping art thieves, in a plot that's stupid and pointless but at least comprehensible (A place where most awful comedies show how awful they really are, which is this case is only mildly). Blart rides through well designed sets and poorly designed slapstick jokes, and this steaming pile of mediocrity ends. I'm not sure I can recommend this to anyone (If you can find the convention speech on Youtube, I would recommend that). If you like good movies, this isn't for you. If you like bad movies, I think you will be disappointed by the nearly average quality. A lot of people who hadn't actually see the film called it the worst movie of the year. If the year ended today I don't think this could crack a top 10 list. I suppose the most accurate superlative to give Blart would be some kind of most underrated award, because a 6 out of 100 it is not.





Spy:


I don't like Melissa McCarthy. I only needed to look at her for a few seconds to hear every joke in Tammy. Haha, she's fat! Fat people falling down are funny! Fat people screaming are funny! Fat people being sad and alone are funny because they're fat! Maybe she's a talented comedian, but all I've ever seen of her is low brow physical humor. The Rotten Tomatoes score for Spy is 95%, which I think was high, but what really caught my eye was the critic consensus: "Simultaneously broad and progressive." What was progressive about Spy? Unattractive people get degraded for being unattractive only to save the pretty people? This entire film is founded on stereotypes and does nothing to deconstruct them other than a happy ending.

The plot felt like a decent Austin Powers setup. The CIA has been leaked out, so they need to send an inconspicuous nobody to do the job: out of shape Melissa McCarthy. The mission is supposed to be a follow and report job to help gain intelligence, but McCarthy runs headfirst into danger, getting herself into trouble. The story was far more engaging than I thought it would be. This isn't paced like a comedy, for sure. Comedy gets put aside quite often for some really good action scenes and tension building. The villains are really threatening, and that allows for a dramatic payoff. The stakes exist arbitrarily as a nuclear bomb being sold to hit New York, but they are also present on a more personal level. The spys are getting themselves in and out of various jams.

Everything written here so far describes an average film, without me feeling an emotion either way. What pushes it positive is the hilarious supporting cast. Rose Byrne plays Rayna Boyanov, an Eastern European with the bomb currently in her possession looking to exchange it to a middle man. She's essentially a spoiled college girl that happens to be the leader of a mob, giving her the ability to murder everybody that looks at her wrong or gives her a mediocre bottle of wine. Her best moments are the constant verbal abuse of McCarthy for being fat, which I would hate, but Byrne is such a snob about the whole thing that it's still fun to watch. Peter Serafinowicz, who I guess is best know for being Darth Maul but hasn't been in a big movie in over a decade, is awesome as a British and/or Italian lover of McCarthy. His pursuit of McCarthy lasts the whole film, and the end reveal that his accent was faked really got me. But by far the man who steals the show is Jason Statham as rogue ex-CIA agent Rick Ford. The script is magically perfect when it becomes Ford's turn to speaks, and Statham has the conviction to pull it off. He has a lot of conversations with McCarthy, because they're both chasing Rayna, and most of them feature a ridiculous story about his former spy work. Apparently the 10 craziest CIA stories all belong to him. He impersonates Obama in blackface and participates in an underground poison ingesting ring and literally every single joke out of his mouth was a huge hit for me.

This film is 2 hours long. That's fine for an action movie, but pretty hard to sit through for a comedy, which is why it's a great thing to let the action shine in the last half hour. I was surprised at how good the action is. The fight choreography was pretty solid, the car chases were fun (-1 for hitting a fruit stand in Italy, though), and the violence was realistic-ish without being gory. If you're a fan of the McCarthy/Fieg brand of humor, you will probably think that this is nearly flawless. It's a very god film because even if you're not a fan, there are still a lot of funny jokes and it gets to have and eat its cake by being good at what its parodying (Austin Powers, the most obvious comparison to Spy, is a really good parody but not a good serious spy move). R rated comedies have had a rough year, but this is a step in the right direction.



I have to return some videotapes.
Really enjoyed that last review over the rest. I was on the fence about watching Spy but decided against it because McCarthy isn't that funny to me. I should probably stream it sometime soon.

EDIT: Rose Byrne is great too, I really like her.



Really enjoyed that last review over the rest. I was on the fence about watching Spy but decided against it because McCarthy isn't that funny to me. I should probably stream it sometime soon.

EDIT: Rose Byrne is great too, I really like her.
I didn't want to get repetitive, but if you're on the fringe about watching this, watch it for Statham. He is so great.





Sharknado:


In preparation of watching Sharknado 3, I will be talking about the surprise hit Sharknado. I'm still not totally sure why this is the Syfy film to catch on. Syfy and The Asylum collaborate on monster B movies with ridiculous titles all the time, but this was the ridiculously titled monster B movie to gain mainstream attention. I would think that the biggest help might be that they cast actual actors. Most of these films plug in people with virtually no experience, but Tara Reid and Ian Zeiring are both actors that were decently big names in their heyday. It's also under the public belief that these films are so bad they're good, and that the people making it are not in on the joke. I sort of agree with this, but I sort of don't. Obviously the concept is supposed to be ridiculous, and the effects are intentionally bad. They're not trying to make a good film, they're trying to make a film called Sharknado. And the reason for that positive rating above is that Sharknado does Sharknado well, much better than a lot of wannabe Oscar movies try to be Oscar movies.

The acting on display is of jarringly varying quality. Ian Zeiring, our lead actor named Fin (that's an intentional joke), is actually quite decent. He portrays emotions competently. I believe that he is an estranged father of 2 that has a lot of knowledge about the ocean that would help him survive a hurricane. I also really liked Cassie Scerbo playing Nova, Fin's employee and pseudo love interest. I like how the writers gave her a backstory which gives her a reason to be so emotionally involved. It's simple, sure, but it's there and it's executed fine. She has a character that I can relate to, and she's not the protagonist, and I can say that about virtually no other Syfy movie. John Heard was believable as a drunk old pervert. I'm not sure how much of it was actually acting, but it makes for a good show. I probably will never review Sharknado 2, but the short version is that dumping most of the original supporting cast, especially Nova, made me enjoy it a lot less.

When the acting dies, it dies hard. Tara Reid is awful, but in this context that adds to the entertainment factor. That's where the unintentional humor comes in. Nobody wanted to go viral by making Tara Reid use just one tone of voice in every context and never react with an emotion, she's just that untalented. Chuck Hittenger, playing the son of Tara Reid and Fin, clearly gets his acting talent from his mom's side. He always sounds like a 10 year old kid that got his favorite toy taken away, which makes it hard to sit through his action scenes near the end but makes for great comedy when using that bratty and exasperated voice to say things like "Now I really hate sharks!"

I might call this a great B movie, but the constant continuity errors and lazy cinematography really dragged it down, and that makes it only good. Keeping the time of day consistent isn't something that comes easier to those with a higher budget, like how I can give them a pass for not having realistic sharks. Scenes happening concurrently should have the same amount of light in the sky. It's a simple concept that is constantly botched. The film uses way too many establishing shots of settings, which accomplish nothing but fill time. Also, I don't need a gorefest, but a film about killer sharks should probably show some killer sharks. Sharks are eating at legs from underwater, or flying by to take out somebody's head, but we never really get to see a shark attack a person with a focused and steady camera.

The plot and science are stupid, but if that's your argument for why this is a bad movie, it's obviously not for you anyway. I was actually impressed by the writing for the most part. Context matters, and while the writing would be terrible for a Fincher film, way more effort was put into fleshing out motivations and histories and relationships than a lot of 'legit' disaster movies, like older Godzilla movies or 2012 or more recently San Andreas. The second film got too caught up in its own spectacle, and it removed a lot of dialogue scenes for more sharks eating people in bizarre ways, and while most of the audience for Syfy movies might appreciate that I think it took a lot away from the fun of it all. And for me, Sharknado is definitely a fun movie. That makes it good at doing its job, and that makes it a pretty positive review in my book.



You've put some thought into these reviews ... but...
for Mall Cop?
I'd rate it a solid
... which is 1-10% in my own % ratings. It's an awful movie.


Good review of Sharknado though but it is a movie I wouldn't even review tbh. It's not the sort of film, bad or good, that deserves the time and thought that someone like you obviously puts in.


I'd like to see a review from you on one of my Top 10 though
Be as brutal as you like etc, or big it up... either way, I'd like to read up on something from you that means something to me.



You've put some thought into these reviews ... but...
for Mall Cop?
I'd rate it a solid
... which is 1-10% in my own % ratings. It's an awful movie.


Good review of Sharknado though but it is a movie I wouldn't even review tbh. It's not the sort of film, bad or good, that deserves the time and thought that someone like you obviously puts in.


I'd like to see a review from you on one of my Top 10 though
Be as brutal as you like etc, or big it up... either way, I'd like to read up on something from you that means something to me.
1) For me, something has to be actively offensive to land a 1/10. Being unfunny and boring doesn't get there, no matter how much of those 2 things a film is, and especially when there are portions of it that I found funny and enjoyed.

2) I'm of the belief that every film deserves time and most deserve thought. I'm not trying to claim that Sharknado is some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, but being dumb does not mean being mindless. There is some cinematic merit to be found.

3) I've definitely got the impression that I could be doubling my reps if I picked a film that more than 5 people have seen, but I really enjoy watching a wide variety of genres and obscure films. Tomorrow I'm writing about Sharknado 3, and Friday I'll do something for Rise of Apes because I haven't seen that yet.



I have to return some videotapes.
1) For me, something has to be actively offensive to land a 1/10. Being unfunny and boring doesn't get there, no matter how much of those 2 things a film is, and especially when there are portions of it that I found funny and enjoyed.

2) I'm of the belief that every film deserves time and most deserve thought. I'm not trying to claim that Sharknado is some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, but being dumb does not mean being mindless. There is some cinematic merit to be found.

3) I've definitely got the impression that I could be doubling my reps if I picked a film that more than 5 people have seen, but I really enjoy watching a wide variety of genres and obscure films. Tomorrow I'm writing about Sharknado 3, and Friday I'll do something for Rise of Apes because I haven't seen that yet.
Really good movie but pretty much a build up film for the next one. I would understand if people wouldn't enjoy it but I personally liked the build up and it made me enjoy the 2nd one even more.





Sharknado 3:


****. **** you. **** you movie! What the **** are you doing? This offends me as a fan of B movies, as a fan of horror films, and as a fan of Sharknado. ****.

Let me get some positives out, because every movie has its merit, right? I like the beginning. Mark Cuban is fun. I like the end, because that was ******* insane. Seriously, what the **** was that? A shark is hurtling to Earth from space with Tara Reid inside. Tara Reid gives birth. A baby comes out of the shark. It surprised me, and good for you if you can surprise me. I never saw that coming. It got a huge laugh out of my entire family. I also like a 30 second bit, where a presumed shark prop hanging upside down is actually a real shark and eats a man posing for a picture with it. That was clever. If this was a straight horror film, that would be a great kill.

Literally everything else is embarrassing, pathetic, and a ridiculous case of jumping the shark, pun ****ing intended. I don't know where to start the description. The plot? ****. There is no plot. Fin kills some sharks, meets Nova from the first film, goes to Florida, kills some sharks with Tara ****ing Reid who has a ****ing chainsaw for a hand, finds his father, goes into outer space, and fires a space laser to destroy the tornadoes, only for the sharks to come into space, forcing Fin to use a space sword to kill the sharks. What the actual **** did I just type? It's a series of scenes thinly stitched together. I might think the second Sharknado is really, really bad, but at least its events formed a cohesive narrative. This story is just meandering, filler, padding, and then out of ****ing nowhere a ****ing space laser.

The characters? **** them right in the ******* too. Nova has disappeared for a year to form a militia of Sharknado killers. Ian stops acting to just **** some ****** sharks up. Tara Reid, the primary instigator of being so bad it's amazing, keeps getting her role relegated, to the point where she isn't even in the first half hour of this 80 minute "movie", as I guess I'm expected to call it. Fin's son once again isn't even in this movie. No characters introduced in this chapter live to the end, making the whole thing worthless.

But I'm sure this film is worth quite a bit. It must be worth a lot to Universal Studios Orlando. **** you and your mother****ing product placement. It's a ******* commercial. I'll be sure to visit Busch Gardens the next time I'm vacationing in Florida. This film is too busy advertising Universal rides to do literally anything. Every character that starts at Universal could have been excluded from the film and absolutely nothing would change. Tara Reid didn't need to be there, her daughter didn't need to be there. Every single death was predictable. The unnecessary and impractical sexualization of Nova was a joke. A funnier joke than anything else. There were no moments that were so bad they were funny, it was so bad it was boring. It wasn't "haha, that line read was awful", it was "ugh, this **** has no structure and Hasselhoff just drones on and on with no point and this ****ing science mumbo jumbo is meaningless."

There isn't a single memorable line, or scene, or kill, that was genuinely good or good in a goofy way. I feel insulted at the abuse of this cash cow. Sharknado currently exists as nothing more than a viral marketing tool for whatever brand or C list celebrity wants to jump in on it. This wasn't a film, it was a ****ing commercial. I feel betrayed. It's less good in the cinematic sense and it was less fun. This is a ****** ****ing movie, it's a ****** ****ing usage of my time, and it was even a ****** ******* mother****ing Sharknado. I said above that Sharknado was better at doing its job than something like Big Eyes or Into the Woods was at doing its job. Sharknado does ****ing Birdman's job better than Sharknado 3 does Sharknado's job. I'm going to grab multiple bottles of Dos Equis, watch The Room, and hope I don't kill myself tomorrow. F▄CK.