As mentioned earlier, one of my classes is studying remakes, so we watched the 1982 "Poltergeist" and the 2015 "Poltergeist". I ended up having to buy the 2015 version because I missed the second half, and wanted to watch it again. I watched the first half as the theatrical edition and the second half as the extended edition.

I felt that this film was much more effective than the original. I thought that it was much creepier, and the atmosphere was much more horror-like due to the lack of cheesiness from the 80's. The special effects were also improved over the decades, as the 1982 film's special effects look cartoonish, while these look good. The clown in this film is also much creepier than the clown in the 1982 version, creating one of the best scenes in the film.

The acting of this film is really good. Sam Rockwell is a great actor, and he brings both his cynical, sarcastic humor and his believable emotion to this role. Overall, Kennedi Clements was a much better actress than Heather O'Rourke, however she did not deliver the iconic "They're here!" line as well. Nicholas Braun is also absolutely hilarious in the film, with his reactions resulting in my favorite scene in the film.

Other elements of the film also impressed me. The writing of the remake fixed a lot of the errors in logic from the first film, making this one a bit more logical. The cinematography is also really good, as it was in the first film.

Overall, I think that "Poltergeist" is a really good horror film with the slew of garbage coming out in the genre. I highly recommend it if you like horror films.

​Poltergeist
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: DVD/Blu-Ray in a class and Digital that I own.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

I saw this movie when it came out in theaters and I really liked it, so I wanted to watch it again. I ended up buying it, since it was on sale on iTunes for $9.99, and I am glad, as I will likely be adding it to my annual Christmas film routine.

The film, in my opinion, was surprisingly well-written, especially for a horror movie, however there are still some flaws. There are formulaic elements, however there are also many original elements that redeem this issue. There are also some issues with pacing: the beginning is fine, but in the end, the movie becomes a bit crammed, and therefore rushed, however the film never fails to be interesting.

The film has a good blend of humor and the eerie atmosphere characteristic of a horror film. The film had me laughing out loud multiple times, however also often had me on the edge of my seat in suspense. Heartwarming moments in the film felt natural and necessary to the progression of the story. The film also has a great ambiguous ending, allowing for the viewer's interpretation with many possible ways to see it.

Adam Scott was one of the biggest draws that made me want to see this film in theaters, and he still impressed, even after watching it again. Despite his role as the reasonable character, he still added humor to the film naturally, which is a rare feat. David Koechner is as funny as always in his supporting role too. The real surprise was Emjay Anthony, who was a great child actor that has tremendous potential to break out in the industry.

The film was also particularly well-made for the genre. Special effects were for the most part good, especially those of the Jack-in-the-Box and the Gingerbread Men. Masks for Krampus and the Elves weren't great, however didn't really detract from the film. The film also had some really interesting cinematography.

Overall, "Krampus" is a very fun, rather well-made horror film. It is a must for fans of horror comedies, and is a great film to watch around the holidays.

Krampus
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: Digital that I own.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

I have wanted to see this movie since I first heard about it, and I was supposed to see it last weekend, but the theater cancelled it. Thankfully, they rescheduled it to this weekend, so I was finally able to see it.

The acting of this film is phenomenal, the best part of a great film. Don Cheadle is absolutely amazing as Miles Davis. His personality is great, and he is very believable in the role. He is visibly devoted to the role, as this seems to be a passion project. Ewan McGregor is also great, and offers some phenomenal comedic relief in his role, however he also serves as a voice of reason in such a situation. Michael Stuhlbarg is also extremely intimidating in his antagonistic role.

The writing of the film is also great. Even though it is a drama, it plays out very much like an action movie because of the film's pacing. The film also has an extremely interesting narrative technique, which I will not describe, as to avoid spoilers, however I absolutely loved the technique as both a film critic and a musician.

So overall, "Miles Ahead" is an interesting, well-acted, well-made biopic. I highly recommend it if you get the chance to watch it.

Miles Ahead
Big Tuna's Rating: A+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

I really liked this movie when I saw it in theaters. It was a funny, light, heartwarming movie that is just a good time to watch. I bought and re-watched it as soon as it was released on digital, and I decided to watch it again today.

Even though the movie is predictable and formulaic, it is gloriously fun, mostly do to the light-hearted writing and the undeniable charm of the actors. The film doesn't really bring anything new to the table, but it's fun to watch, which is why it was made. I have actually found myself to like it more and more each time that I watch it. There are parts that make me laugh extremely hard every time, such as the heist scene, and the movie always keeps a smile on my face.

Robert De Niro is great in his role, bringing his charm to the character. Anne Hathaway is also funny and human in her role. The combined skill and chemistry of the two characters allows the audience to like the characters, and therefore the film, as it is a character piece. Adam DeVine and Zack Pearlman are hilarious in supporting roles, and Nat Wolff also has a very funny cameo.

So overall, "The Intern" is definitely a good time. It's funny and lighthearted, and a good way to spend two hours if you're feeling down or just feeling like watching a movie.

The Intern
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: Digital that I own.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

I had no desire to see this film, however I had family members visiting that really like horror movies, so I went with them to see it. I thought that there was no way that this film could have disappointed me, as I had extremely low expectations, however it somehow managed to do so.

I appreciate a bad horror movie every once in a while. They can be enjoyable, but "The Darkness" is anything but. The first hour of the movie is quite possibly the slowest horror movie that I have ever seen. For most of that hour, the film's idea of scary was a TV turning on randomly or a door opening out of nowhere (and they didn't even use a loud noise). The last twenty minutes did speed up the pace, but for the most part, the film is boring. If the line illustrating the rising action and various peaks of suspense were a heart monitor's readings, the person it was connected to would be pronounced dead until the end.

The film is really cheesy. The cast is talented, and they try their hardest, however they are given a horrible script. The script is filled with plot holes, especially during the last twenty minutes, which was the only enjoyable part. The movie was also rather poorly made. Special effects were laughably bad. There is some good cinematography, however the last twenty minutes are filled with shaky cam that makes it hard to focus and see anything.

So overall, I wasn't particularly pleased with "The Darkness". The last twenty minutes are what keeps this from being an F. I will say, however, that even though I didn't like this movie, the family members I was with did, so some people might still enjoy this.

The Darkness
Big Tuna's Rating: D+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: No.

I love this movie and I used to watch it all the time. There was a time that I could quote entire scenes from this movie verbatim. I happened to catch the first half of this movie on TV yesterday, so I decided to finish watching it today.

This movie, while formulaic, has so many funny elements. Yes, as the title says, it's a underdog story, and it hits many of the beats of the genre. There is only one event in the film that I didn't really expect to happen. I did and always have, however, laughed constantly throughout the film. There are so many parts in this movie that are quoted and referenced often in our culture. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!" and "ESPN: The Ocho" are among the most famous jokes from the film, and rightfully so, as they are hilarious. I can't stress enough how funny this film is.

The actors in this film are really funny and look like they enjoyed themselves in this film. Of course Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller were hilarious, however there were some amazing supporting actors that were ridiculously funny as well. Gary Cole and Jason Bateman are among my favorite, delivering tons of laughs as the commentators from "ESPN: The Ocho". Stephen Root, Justin Long, Alan Tudyk, and Rip Torn are also all funny.

So "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" is among my favorite movie of all time because of its pure enjoyability. I heavily recommend it if you haven't seen it before and you like comedy movies.

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Big Tuna's Rating: A
How Did I Watch It?: On TV & DVD/Blu-Ray that I own.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

For the most part, I really like the "X-Men" series. The only installment that I am not a fan of was "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". That being said, I was really excited for this entry, but was disappointed when it began to receive bad reviews. Fortunately, despite the fact that the film was not as good as previous entries, it was not as bad as most of the reviews say.

​En Sabah Nur is one of my favorite X-Men villains, and Oscar Isaac is one of my favorite actors, so it seemed likely that I would love the movie. It did seem, however, that instead of giving Apocalypse his rightful power and mightiness, they instead turned him into a Thanos-like rip-off. That's not really a big deal, but it is a bit disappointing.

Some of the new additions to the film were really great, however some were underwhelming. Storm, Nightcrawler, and Cyclops were all great. I loved the humor presented by situations with Nightcrawler and Cyclops.  Psylocke, one of the reasons that I was very excited about this movie, was extremely disappointing. Her character was pushed to the back burner to give some of the other characters more screen time, however she is a really great character that could have been more of a challenge.

The writing of the film is okay. It's more formulaic than most of the other entries in the series, however that seems to be the fate of superhero films now. The film did retain the societal messages of past entries which make the series what it is. The Quicksilver scene in this film was amazing, even more funny than that in "Days of Future Past". There were also some parts of the writing, however, that felt very unnatural, that just seemed pushed in to set up for the next film.

The special effects of the film were for the most part pretty good. The special effects for the mutants' powers looked nice, especially those of Storm and Quicksilver. The special effects of the introduction that is set in Ancient Egypt, however, looked horrible. It looked as if those were the last completed special effects, and they had to rush to get the film done.

So overall, "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a really good time at the movies. It isn't as good as some other entries, however it is also better than most movies that are out now. Fans of the series should check this one out as soon as they can.

X-Men: Apocalypse
Big Tuna's Rating: B
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

The other day, I was looking for something to watch and decided to watch "Vacation", which I had seen in theaters when it first came out, but haven't seen since. I watched about the first hour of it then, and I decided to finish it up today.

I love the original "Vacation". It is still among the movies that have made me laugh hardest in my life. This reboot, however, has a much raunchier style of humor than the original. It provides for some really hilarious moments, however many of its laughs are based on shock value rather than genuine funniness.

The writing of the film is okay. It's pretty formulaic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this case, especially since it is supposed to be reminiscent of the original film, which it is. Very much like the original, a series of things go wrong, there is a family dilemma, they make up, and there is a happy ending.

The film does provide for some very funny moments, however. Ed Helms is almost always hilarious and he bring his charm and sarcasm to this film, and it fits very well. There are also funny cameos from Keegan Michael-Key, Charlie Day, Chris Hemsworth, and Ron Livingston. A lot of the funniest moments involve the personalities or reactions of these actors. Charlie Day's scene is probably the funniest in the film and makes me laugh every time that I think about it.

So overall, "Vacation" is a funny movie, but it is by no means great. It is a fun movie to watch if you don't really have anything better to do, but it's not something that you need to rush to see.

Vacation
Big Tuna's Rating: C+
How Did I Watch It?: HBO.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

In one of my classes, we are focusing on remakes, so the teacher decided to have us watch both the original "Poltergeist" and the 2015 remake. I had seen both before: the 1982 a long time ago, and the 2015 when it came out in theaters. While the original was much more well-received, re-watching it made me realize how much better the remake is (in most areas) in my opinion, however I will withhold from comparisons to the remake until the review of the 2015 film.

This film is definitely an example of classic horror filmmaking. It is good at building suspense and creating an eerie atmosphere without tremendous amount of blood and gore or frequent jump scares, which is being lost in modern horror cinema. That being said, the film is still extremely flawed.

The film's writing, while interesting and creative, is still very much that of a horror film. Characters make extremely stupid decisions that cause the events of the film, such as the family staying in the house for a ridiculously long amount of time. The writers were good, however, at creating scenes that are truly unsettling to the viewer, such as the tree scene and the clown scene. (The tree in "Poltergeist" is the second creepiest tree in film, next to "Evil Dead".)

The acting of the film is pretty good, especially the child actress Heather O'Rourke, who gives an amazingly creepy performance as Carol Anne. The film's technical elements, however, are not so flattering. I do realize that this is from the 80's, so technology wasn't what it is now, but most of the special effects are cheesy and laugh-worthy. The tree scene did actually had pretty good special effects, though.

So "Poltergeist" is an absolute must for horror fans if they have not seen it already. This can also serve as a good first horror film, as it is pretty clean and isn't ridiculously scary. It is interesting to compare it to the remake to see how much technology has developed since the original.

Poltergeist
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: DVD/Blu-Ray in a class.
Had I Seen It Before?: Yes.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

After I saw "Green Room", I immediately knew that I wanted to watch Saulnier's other films, so when I started Netflix DVD again, I added it towards the top of my queue. 

I didn't think that "Blue Ruin" was as suspenseful as "Green Room". While there was some suspense-building, it plateaued due to the predictability of the film. While it was extremely well-made, the film didn't really do anything to subvert the tropes of the revenge thriller genre. I knew what was going to happen in the end because I am familiar with the genre, which did hold my suspense back a bit. Despite the predictability, the film did do a very good job developing the protagonist into a likable character.

​The film was also very well-made. The cinematography is beautiful. Saulnier has an eye for camerawork, and he was the cinematographer for this film. I like when there is a writer/director/cinematographer, because that means that the filmmaker is able to realize their dream if they do it correctly, and I think that this is one of those cases.

Macon Blair is truly great in this film. He is amazingly believable in this role and allows the audience to be drawn into the world of the film. I think that his comfortability in the role has to do with his comfortability with Saulnier, who was his childhood friend. Other actors do fine, however they don't get as much of a chance to shine as Blair.

So "Blue Ruin" is a very good thriller. While a predictable script can hinder the suspense of the film, it does not hinder the enjoyability, nor cinematic quality of the film. 

Blue Ruin
Big Tuna's Rating: A
How Did I Watch It?: DVD from Netflix.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.