Tss807's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

Want-to-See TV

Rating History

Gamebox 1.0
Gamebox 1.0 (2007)
14 months ago via Flixster

Gamebox 1.0 is one of those movies I had to see, simply to find out what it was all about. The story seemed like such a unique concept that i was sure it would be something exciting. I was pretty dissapointed thou, being that it was direct to video and probably had a small budget, the special effects were pretty lame. The backround story was actually pretty good. However, it was buried under cheezy special effects and performed by Sabrina and Boy Meets World outcasts, that are all grown up, so it was hard to tell. After thinking about it a little, I could see where they were going. Overall, it was ok, pretty much just a direct to video version of a failed movie with a similar story line, Stay Alive. Pass on this one!

Betrayed at 17
14 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Carleigh Taylor (Katie Gill) is a High School senior who never garnered much attention from the popular kids. That's why it comes as such a shock when the Captain on the Football team, Greg Nickels (Andy Fischer-Price) asks her on a date. The date is part of an elaborate bet, leading to a sex tape, however something unexpected happens as Greg discovers real feelings for Carleigh. Feelings that will be placed under a microscope, when the tape becomes public and Carleigh ends up dead, leaving her family seeking justice. Betrayed at 17 really comes off like a Lifetime movie of the week. Granted it's a little edgier, but it has all the markings, an elaborate conspiracy, a mother seeking justice, and of course a cast of 90s actors, who people thought were out of the game long ago. The story here happens to be a very good one, but the way it is told, slowly, from every possible angle, and in extreme detail, leaves a lot to be desired. I loved how each character has a unique background and how it all intertwines in the end, but it takes an awfully long time just to get there. The cast wasn't great, but certainly not as bad as it could be in one of these films. It was fun seeing Alexandra Paul without the bathing suit, as well as little Jake Thomas from Lizzy McGuire as a total bad ass. Betrayed at 17 is the kind of film I really want to like, it has all the ingredients, but in the end the cake comes out burnt and uneven.

Kick-Ass 2
Kick-Ass 2 (2013)
14 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

Most people will agree that sequels are almost never as good as the original. This is because writers take the characters we know and throw them into different situations, ones that often time don't fit with anything we know of them. This however was not the case with Kick-Ass. Despite the fact that this film was released three years after the original, it is a straight up continuation of the story. Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is out for revenge and forms a whole army to go after Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). Kick-Ass knows he and Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) won't be enough to stop him and go to recruit new superheroes, but the heroes they find aren't so super. This is the ending to the story started in the first film, and we all know that the ending is usually the best part. This film also gets a major boost from Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Chloe Grace Moretz having three more years of experience under their belts. Taylor-Johnson isn't this scrawny awkward kid anymore, and his personality really comes out and shines in this film. To be honest, the first one reeked of inexperience and needed people like Nicholas Cage and Evan Peters to even things out, but Kick-Ass 2 is able to stand on it's own, with the stars it started to develop in the first film. The second installment of Kick-Ass has better action scenes, the comedy is a lot funnier, and the story is most certainly taken to the next level. This was the film I was hoping for when I saw the original, and despite the R rating it's still a film that the whole family will enjoy.

Pet Sematary
Pet Sematary (2019)
14 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes

For me, one of the hardest things to do is to write a review for a remake, when I've already seen the original film. How is it that you can review it or even watch it, without making immediate comparisons to the original? For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Dr. Louis Creed and his family move to a small town in the woods of Maine. They buy a huge property, which in the back has an old pet cemetery, but beyond that lies something far more sinister, an ancient Indian burial ground, where it is said, those buried there, can return. Pet Sematary was a great film and an even better book, but it's the kind of story where there isn't much you can leave out, and there isn't a whole lot you can change. That being said, the majority of the film is almost a shot for shot remake of the original, begging the question, what's the point? The ending is where they change things up a bit and does it make the story better? That's for you to decide. Personally, I always loved this film and had no problem with it being modernized a bit. The cast wasn't bad, but certainly not as good as the original. The only upgrade in that respect was John Lithgow playing the role of the next door neighbor, Jud, a definite improvement over Fred Gwynne. If you've never seen the original film, go see this one, it's more modern and like it's predecessor, it does an excellent job of bringing book to screen. If you have seen the original, you may or may not think of it as an upgrade. It all comes down to the ending, which I did enjoy, still I can't decide if it's better than what was originally written.