Argo won the oscar for best picture this year, it was good, but I don't think the best. I am way late on reviewing this movie, but, I have a little time now and will try and say a few words about it. It felt very 70s or I guess almost 1980 or 1980 like it was supposed to, so I guess that was good. I wonder if the fake movie that was pretending to be made if made, would be any good, and if that movie was made back then, would this movie still be named Argo? Maybe it would have been called return to Argo or the real Argo or something like that. Maybe that would have brought an extra push to this movie, but this movie probably wouldn't have been made if that one was. I don't know and I shouldn't care that much about it. If I was Iran durring the revolution, I would be like "why would you want to make a movie here now?" that doesn't sound logical to me. I will give Argo 3.99875 out of 4.999 fake bluish squares, because it was good but not as good as it was supposed to be. Maybe if it had no buzz or awards I would give it 4.23467 fake bluish squares.
Django Unchained was all about the "N" word and this movie was all about the "F" word. Some people just really like using words that are defined by their first letter. The "F" word is for fantastic I think or maybe fancy pants? Zero Dark Thirty wasn't 30 minutes like the title might suggest, so I was a little confused on that one after about 3 hours when I walked out of the movie theater. (I don't think this paragraph makes any sense if you are a reader, but I don't care) The movie was interesting and scary and some other things. I wonder if they still do torturing secretly, I guess they should still do it for some of these terrorists. It seems like they weren't randomly doing this to people without important information. This movie made me feel like our government isn't doing everything it can be doing to stop attacks on American interests. I don't know if I feel like saying more about the movie. I will give this movie 4.0197 out of 5 fake bluish squares, it was a good movie, but I don't think it is a best picture type of movie. It felt more like a documentary or an observers account of the situation and not so much a trip into characters. (I don't know what I'm talking about)
The Hobbit, was kind of an expected journey, but still a journey that I went on. I was more interested in seeing the movie's high frame rate than the actual story. It took me a little while to get used to the high frame rate and I think it distracted me too much in the beging, but by the time I got used to it I felt it was much better than the old frame rate stuff. It made the 3D experience more immersive. The movie its self was okay, it brought me back to the Middle Earth world from The lord of The Rings, but not as much as I would have wanted. I think I read the book in school, but I don't remember it that much. The only thing I remembered from it was that it was kind of boring, this movie mad it better for me. I would give this movie 3.2 out of 5 fake bluish squares for effort. I want to see the next two.
Yo, I saw dis movie "N-word," it was da shit fo' real dog or something. I saw this movie, because it was a Quentin Tarantino movie and thought twice about seeing it, because Jamie Foxx was Django in it. The movie was good, and it felt like a Quentin Tarantino movie. I don't think it was my favorite, but it was defiantly entertaining. Tarantino really knows how to make very horrible violence funny and light hearted while still being meaningful and deep. I will give Django Unchained 3.8 out of 5 fake bluish squares, just because of Jamie Foxx being the lead and that Christoph Waltz's character is too similar to his character in Inglourious Basterds, a movie that I like the many muches. That's what "they" said. I thought so.
I thought this movie was going to be more of a story about Abraham Lincoln's life, and I was interested to see how they would handle him in his earlier years, that wasn't what the movie was about. The movie was about Lincoln trying to get the 13th amendment passed. I wasn't annoyed that it wasn't what I was expecting, I didn't read any reviews or anything about it before I went, I just saw the trailer and knew that it was a Steven Spielberg movie. That's usually all I need to know before seeing something. Also I enjoy history very much and I think like most people Abraham Lincoln and the Civil war are very intriguing. The Movie Theater was filled with all grandmas and grandpas, I didn't realize I fit into this category, but I guess I do. The line was long to buy my tickets especially for a Sunday morning, but most of that line was young girls and their parents for the Twilight movie. Abraham Lincoln seemed like a cool guy in the movie, and from what I hear about presidents, they usually are cool guys that you would like to hang out with. I liked hanging out with this movie so I will give it 4 out 5 bluish squares in the fake rating system that I think should change to a 1 out of 100 scale instead. Also, I plan to start reviewing and rating other things with the blue squares soon. Work late and spend money on ladies who don't give you anything in return. Those ladies won't make you happy, but it might be fun to imagine them doing so. Lets go Team.
007, What? I don't know I think the James Bond movies are cool, but usually when they come out I'm not too excited about them. I haven't fully seen any of the new movies featuring Daniel Craig except this one. I finally gave it a shot, and I enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy the other movies too, but maybe because there are so many James Bond movies, I just don't really care about them.
Nothing seemed too crazy other than the opening scene, where James Bond gets shot twice in the chest then falls about 200 feet into a rocky river then falls off a waterfall into more rocks and then is pretty much just fine other than a little chest and arm pain. I guess there were few other parts that were over the top, but I guess when you start like that you become more willing to believe he could get through some of these other things.
The movie was good and exciting with an interesting story. I don't feel like doing reviews anymore so I'm going to stop this one and give it 3.5 out of 5 fake bluish squares.
I'm not really sure what to say about this movie, I guess it was pretty good. It made me think about myself in high school; I think I would consider myself a wallflower and comparing myself to this story, made me feel that my experience was much worse. The Charlie character was a freshman, and he was hanging out with a bunch of movie star seniors who seemed to have a good time all the time. He had romantic relationships with two of these senior girls, even if they were weirdos, that wouldn't be such a bad deal. I don't think I really had anything going on all through my 4 years of high school, but I guess I didn't have all the messed up personal things he had, so maybe I'm off a bit. Also, for a freshman in high school, he looked pretty old, when I was a freshman, I looked like I was about 12. Whatever, it isn't a competition and no one cares. I give this movie 3.8679 out of 5 fake bluish squares in the fake rating system, because it made me feel and think, but it came a little short of where I wanted it to go or something. When birds sing and don't fly people see and hear them, but then tend to stomp on them. Oranges and blueberries are colorful fruits.