The 40-Year-Old Virgin

One of Apatow's signatures is to really dig deep into his characters; which, for a comedy, sometimes ends up turning things unexpectedly serious and/or surprisingly heartwarming. For FUNNY PEOPLE and KNOCKED UP, toying with drastic genre shifts was tolerable because there was at least payoff with good jokes and interesting characters. However, in his 2005 outing about sweet but overly awkward Carell, there is a major lack of satisfaction when attempting to explore the root-causes of why our main character just can't (or won't) "get any". The jokes are few-and-far-between, but when they are finally delivered, it is so juvenile that actual 40-year-old virgin aren't even this desperate for a laugh. Its attempts at being funny are the painful reactions of getting waxed (hairy people don't get laid?) or that our maiden-man thinks breasts are hard (you have to feel them to know they're soft?).

The Incredible Hulk

Wow. Who knew there would be so much eagerness to reboot the Hulk franchise only five years after Ang Lee's 2003 failure only to release an even bigger disaster. So now, after glossing over a new backstory in the lame opening credits, we have Edward Norton as Bruce Banner now, on the run while attempting to find a cure for himself before he is captured or before someone far less responsible than he obtains similar superpowers. While it should be embarrassing to reboot a story that was only done half a decade earlier, and that visual effects have not come all that far within that timeframe; what's worse than that and the lack of any other essential story elements is the simple fact that the plot does not MOVE. A mindless waste.

Sharknado

Is it the worst movie ever made? No. The cinematography is not half-bad, it's not afraid to kill off some key characters, and Jaason Simmons is somewhat worth rooting for. But is it awful? Absolutely. Many viewers who have assisted this garbage in attaining some sort of pathetic cult status insist the amateur CGI, bad acting and ridiculous premise is what makes this film so fun to watch. No… just… no. There are parts that really stink of effort, which completely ruins any chance of this movie having any sort of it's-so-bad-it's-good quality. There are many turkeys to choose from for Bad Movie Night, and SHAKRNADO isn't one of them. You'll make better use of your time staring at a blank wall.

Non-Stop (TV)

If you're one of those people who loves to have 90 minutes (120 minutes with commercials) of their life completely wasted, you HAVE to see NON-STOP; another terrible Lifetime thriller that passes as close to a watchable movie as ground beef does to sirloin. A heartbroken and annoyingly anxious woman (overacted by the unconvincing Chabert) has a mile-high temptation with a stranger, who… you guessed it… is a complete psycho—what else did you expect?, after all, this is a Lifetime movie. What's even worse than this moronic plot are the characters' inexplicable actions, leaving the viewing thinking (or even saying) "This would never happen!"—case in point, the 9-1-1 dispatcher would NEVER get off the line with the caller. If you decided to spend four straight hours staring at a concrete wall, you'd probably find your time more fulfilling than if you wasted less than half that time on this "movie".

The Matrix Revolutions

Third installment came out the same year as the second installment, demonstrating right for the get-go that both sequels are completely unnecessary and inferior. This one tries too hard with the SFX and thrills, and it's understandable because the story lacks any reason and sense. Hugo Weaving was spectacular in the original as Agent Smith, but in this one the Wachowski brothers literally multiply the character infinitely; a desperately cheap attempt to outdo what worked so great for the original. The Wachowski brothers filled a void that separate nerds from tough guys when the original came out in 1999; but in 2003, the canyon reopened. Terrible. Just terrible.

The Box

Weird and uneven film about a mysterious wooden box with a big red button that appears on a family's doorstep. If they press the button they become millionaires, but the catch is someone in the world will die. Unlikable characters and the eeriness mood doesn't come off as creepy, but rather just goofy. It appears director Richard Kelly tries to compete with the successful cult-status of "Donnie Darko", but the parallels don't work in any way for this hopeless film. Members of the wonderful Canadian band Arcade Fire compose an even stranger and offsetting score to accompany the film, but it doesn't fit. Nothing works for this film.  The inclusion of Derek & the Dominoes' "Bell Bottom Blues" and Grateful Dead's "Scarlet Begonias" can't even help lift this outing from the bottom of the barrel.  Perhaps the producers should have pressed the button on this film and took their millions elsewhere. Based on the 1970 short story "Button, Button" by Richard Matheson.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

In an era where fantasy books can be satisfyingly transferred into film, it was to be expected that the C.S. Lewis's classic "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" would be brought to life too. And it was. But without justice.

"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the "Harry Potter" heptalogy were as successful as possible. "Narnia", on the other hand, didn't seemed to put forth as much effort as the others. The technology used in the film didn't create the same magic as the other fantasy-stories did. As the film progressed, it became abundantly clear that "Narnia" was nothing more than a competition to "Lord" and "Harry" (with an obviously smaller budget).

Many people impressed with the film can argue that it was entertaining and enjoyable. This is all fine and dandy. However, it is mere fact that the film's creators didn't go about the project with the love and passion for the story like those of "Lord" and "Harry". The campy special effects, the underdeveloped characters, and the fact that the "Narnia" film-series is going to be abridged by four book leads to the conclusion that this is done for nothing more than profit.

For those who are bored and looking for something to do, you may enjoy this lazy excuse for a film. But for those who want to be impressed as they were with "Lord" and/or "Harry", wish to see a wonderful classic brought to life on screen, or just like seeing special-effects, you will be greatly disappointed.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Yep, this movie sucks… and I was very fond of the previous Halloween films—specifically, the first and second. Film has come a long way "Twenty Years Later" and in no way does H2O come even close to living up to its predecessors. Everything about this movie sucked! Unsympathetic characters in a stupid story. Don't even get me going with the casting… LL Cool J? What the hell were they thinking! They must have been desperate. This movie is seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen.