TedStixon

"Saw VI" is arguably one of the best sequels in the franchise, which comes as something of a shock following the disappointing "Saw IV" and the somewhat mediocre "Saw V." Utilizing timely themes and benefiting from slick visual direction, "Saw VI" is just plain fun, and hearkens back to the earlier - and indeed better - installments. Fans will likely love it, and it might even be able to win over more casual audiences. 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

"Saw V" is certainly a step-up from the rather disappointing fourth installment. It wisely takes its time and attempts to develop its characters in a much more deliberate manner. Unfortunately, the film does fall a little flat during some key scenes, and the finale is a tad-bit too predictable, which drags it down a few points. But as a fan... I still had a pretty good time with it. 3 out of 5.

TedStixon

"Saw IV" unfortunately starts a noticeable downward trend in the series, as the crew shifted and new writers took over. While it still retains many of the series trademarks, including gooey, gory traps and unpredictable twists, "Saw IV" crumbles under its own weight. It's a little too over-produced and a hair to convoluted for its own good. Hardcore series fans will likely find some enjoyment in it, but casual audiences need not apply. 2 out of 5.

TedStixon

While "Saw III" divided fans on release, this fiendish third entry in the saga has perhaps the most devastating and emotional storyline of the thus-far eight films. Delving more into the backstory of the villainous "Jigsaw" and his accomplice Amanda Young, the movie is an important and critical chapter in the series, and it comes highly recommended from this fan. Special props go to the performances of Tobin Bell and Shawnee Smith, who give their best work in this installment. 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

While somewhat lacking in the sheer creeps that defined the original, "Saw II" is arguably the most overtly entertaining chapter in the ever-growing "Saw" film series. It's a roller-coaster of a film that will keep you glued to your seat from the harrowing opening trap to the shocking conclusion. 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

While its reputation has been somewhat tarnished by seven sequels of varying quality, 2004's "Saw" holds up quite well. This micro-budget hit benefits from a tremendous atmosphere, a wonderfully original villain and a heart-stopping finale. It may not be for everyone, but if you're a fan of thrillers, "Saw" is one to check out! 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 5 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

"Game Night" is among my favorite comedies to come out over the past few years. This high concept laugh-riot benefits from a creative script, fantastic visual direction and a wonderful cast.

Max and Annie are a competitive couple who bonded over their love of gaming and trivia, and host a weekly "game night" with their friends. However, things take an interesting turn when Max's wealthy and successful brother Brooks is really kidnapped during a murder-mystery-style role-playing game. Convinced his disappearance is all "part of the game," the group sets out to solve the mystery... only to get pulled into a real-life conflict and a life-or-death adventure.

The writing is top-notch for such a silly film. The story is fun and fluid, with a great sense of pace and some clever and subversive twists to keep you on your toes. It's also just really darned funny - there are tons of laughs to be had with the film. Writer Mark Perez does a wonderful job with the material. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next!

I also absolutely adore the direction courtesy John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein. There are so many fun and engaging sequences, and some really creative choices being made. They also load the film with references to gaming at large - for example, fantastic establishing shots utilizing the "tilt-shift" photographic technique that makes them look like miniatures on a game board. Or a chase scene utilizing mounted camera angles similar to a racing video-game. It's very well-done.

And the cast is just wonderful. I've always been a fan of lead star Jason Bateman, and he's as charming and likable as ever. I also gotta give special commendation to Rachel McAdams, who is adorable - and hilarious - as Annie. I was very pleasantly surprised by her comedic chops. But I gotta give the biggest shout-out to Jesse Plemons in a small but memorable supporting role as Max and Annie's creepy neighbor Gary. He supplies some of the film's biggest belly-laughs.

If you're looking for a clever comedy, I absolutely have to give "Game Night" my highest recommendation. It's hilarious. It's very well made. And it's just plain fun. I can't help but give it a 5. It's quickly become a new favorite, and a movie-night go to for me.

TedStixon

"Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is perhaps my biggest guilty pleasure. From any objective standpoint, it's a complete and utter failure. The story is nonsensical. The characters are flat. The direction is bland. And the special effects are utterly laughable. And yet... it's one of the most entertaining movies of the 90's, provided you go in with the right mindset. If you're a fan of B-movie schlock or enjoy the occasional so-bad-it's-good film... then this is the movie for you! It's so incompetent, it's hilarious.

Picking up moments after the ending of the first film, the dreaded Outworld Emperor Shao Kahn manages to open a series of portals in order to invade the Earth. And it's up to our heroes Liu Kang, Kitana, Sonya Blade, Jax and Lord Raiden to save the day! And of course they must save the day through the power of... dozens of barely connected sub-plots that go absolutely nowhere and an onslaught of constant fight sequences!

If I were to say anything to film's actual credit, I will say some that some of the cast members do a pretty good job. Robin Shou and Talisa Soto return in the roles of Liu Kang and Kitana, and they're just as likable as they were the first time around. I also kind of liked James Remar as the new Raiden. While he's not quite as good as Christopher Lambert was in the first movie, he's still serviceable. But that's where the positives end and the negatives begin.

The film is a complete mess. The script makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Dialogue is comprised almost exclusively of ham-fisted exposition, or shaky mentions of "legends" and "prophecies," which often make no sense or contradict one-another. And the movie is loaded with sub-plots that come and go on a whim and never pay off. There's also a staggering lack of character development. More specifically, the characters all seemingly "un-learn" the lessons they learned in the first film... only to re-learn them in this film.

Visually, the film is ridiculous. Director John R. Leonetti seems in over his head, with sequences that feel flat and uninspired at best... and laughable at worst. He may be a talented cinematographer, but he doesn't understand pace or composition at all. Heck, even the fight sequences feel really bland. The movie is also loaded with blatant mistakes that are virtually impossible not to notice. And the effects? Whoo, boy! They are some of the worst that the 90's coughed up. From atrocious green-screen with hazy edges to idiotic digital monsters that looks like something out of a cartoon... you almost gotta see these effects to believe them!

So why do I enjoy this movie? Well, to me... the movie hits that delightful stride where there's so much wrong, it's endearing. Much like "The Room" or "Troll 2," the level of incompetence in the script and execution is so staggering, you can't help but laugh at it and have a good time picking it apart. It's the perfect movie to watch with a group of friends (and maybe a couple beers) and riff jokes. While the first "Mortal Kombat" was fun for all the right reason, "Annihilation" is fun for all the wrong ones.

I have to give it a 1 out of 5 just to be fair and objective. Because it is a terrible movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it's so much fun to watch! If you like a good-bad flick, check it out.

TedStixon

"Scorpion's Revenge" is a feature-length animated feature set in the "Mortal Kombat" universe. And it is quite a bit of good, bloody fun, even if its short runtime causes some major issues.

The film follows the basic plot of the original game, with a great emphasis on Scorpion's storyline. After his clan is massacred and he is killed by the treacherous ninja Sub-Zero, Hanzo Hasashi - now calling himself "Scorpion" - is brought back to life to seek revenge during an upcoming tournament known as "Mortal Kombat." At the same time, a group of Earth's mightiest warriors - Liu Kang, Sony Blade and Johnny Case - gather to defend the world in the tournament. For if they should lose, the dreaded Shang Tsung and his leader Shao Kahn of Outworld will invade the Earth!

For the most part, "Scorpion's Revenge" is very well done. The animation is just fantastic all around. It's brutal and visceral and kinetic... it's exactly what you'd want to see in an animated "Mortal Kombat" feature. I also really enjoyed the bulk of the cast. Especially the always reliable Patrick Seitz as the titular Scorpion, and a perfectly cast Joel McHale as Johnny Cage. Everyone really fits their parts well. And the movie is just plain fun, especially if you grew up playing the original games as I did.

Unfortunately where the movie does falter is the runtime. At a brisk 80 minutes, a lot of the story feels quite rushed, and characters aren't developed as much as you might like. Several major sequences also feel really abbreviated. And it really does the film a disservice if I'm to be honest. This is a movie that easily could use an extra 15... maybe even 30 minutes to tell its story. But as it is... it's a major issue.

But still, that one fairly big complaint aside... "Scorpion's Revenge" is so much fun, I can (mostly) forgive it. Because when it works, it really works. It's fun, ferocious and highly entertaining. And I'm giving it a very solid 3.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to 4 for MovieMistakes).

TedStixon

"Mortal Kombat" is a piece of delicious 90's cheese that I still love to this very day.

A group of chosen warriors are brought together to decide the fate of the world in an ancient tournament known as "Mortal Kombat." Among them are Liu Kang, a martial-artist out to avenge the death of his brother at the hands of the treacherous sorcerer Shang Tsung; Sonya Blade, a special forces agent trying to track down the man that killed her partner; and Jonny Cage, a washed-up action-movie star who wants to prove to the world he's not a fake or a fraud.

With likable actors, some solid fight sequences and a very fun tone, it's still by an large one of the better video-game-to-film adaptations. The cast excels in their parts. Especially a delightfully hammy Cary-Hiroyki Tagawa as the villainous Shang Tsung and a very fun Linden Ashby as Johnny Cage. The fight choreography is typically very well executed and thrilling, with some standout scenes that still hold up well now in a post-"Matrix" world. And the movie wisely never takes itself too seriously. It has plenty of jokes, gags and fun character beats peppered throughout. I also do have to give some major props to director Paul WS Anderson for successfully translating the arcade game to the big screen. Say what you will about his later films, but he does a very good job behind the camera here.

Is it a particularly great movie? No, not at all. It's formulaic, and silly and at times nonsensical. But is it fun? Most certainly! "Mortal Kombat" is a highly-enjoyable cheese fest. And I adore it. It also doesn't hurt that it has maybe the single coolest theme-song of all time. It still gets me pumped up whenever I hear it.

I'm giving it a 4 out of 5. It's definitely worth revisiting.

TedStixon

Ah... the movie that started it all.

Buffy is just your ordinary 90's valley-girl... vain, vapid and completely self-absorbed. However, her world is turned upside-down when she discovers she is the "Slayer" - a chosen one born once every generation, destined to do battle with demons, vampires and the forces of darkness.

I'll admit 1992's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" does supply some kitschy laughs and has a likable cast. There are some fleeting flashes of genius in the writing and a number of jokes do land well. And Paul Reubens is especially memorable in a supporting role as one of the vampire adversaries.

However, there's a reason this movie has been more-or-less forgotten while the television show that followed remains a beloved cult-hit. And it mainly comes down to the execution. The movie has a lot of great ideas, and you get a sense of what creator Joss Whedon was going for - but the direction, the editing, the tone, the humor... it's all over the place and feels very unfocused. Director Fran Rubel Kuzui, along with many of the others involved, just don't seem to understand the appeal of the material. There have been plenty of horror stories about how the film was being re-written on-set, and how much it deviated from Whedon's intentions... and you can definitely tell watching it. It's a very messy movie.

Thanks to its cast and a few effective moments, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" does have some minor value, even though it is a bad film from an objective standpoint. I could definitely see it being a guilty pleasure for certain audiences. Especially those who grew up in the 90's. Just go in knowing it's not very good.

I'm giving it a sub-par (but still watchable) 2 out of 5.

TedStixon

Released to mixed reviews and disappointing box office returns, "Return to Oz" never quite caught on with mainstream audiences. But since its release over thirty years ago, it has maintained a dedicated cult following. And I would argue it's one of the 1980's greatest hidden gems. A darker, edgier film than the 1939 classic, "Return to Oz" is rampantly creative and incredibly imaginative.

The film follows Dorothy Gale as she returns to Oz only to find it in ruin, now being ruled over by an evil head-stealing witch and a nefarious rock-monster known as the Nome King. Together with a new group of friends, Dorothy must figure out a way to restore Oz to its former glory.

"Return to Oz" is very well-executed, with top-notch direction and a deliciously bleak design philosophy. This was the only film directed by Oscar-winning editor Walter Murch, and it's a shame he never helmed another major movie. His guidance and sense of composition lends a great deal to the proceedings. I absolutely love Fairuza Balk in her first major role as our new Dorothy. She's just wonderful in the part, capturing the innocence and drive of the character. The effects are also quite magnificent - the film is populated with all sorts of fantastically realised creatures, monsters and characters. And David Shire's musical score is absolutely beautiful. It's poignant, exciting and captures of the mood of the picture perfectly.

While I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for very young children due to the darker content (including a subplot involving electroshock therapy, and a great deal of implied off-screen violence), I think older kids and even adults will be able to appreciate what it's going for.

It's not a perfect film by any stretch, but if you love grim 80's fantasy or are a junkie for the "Oz" franchise, it's well worth seeing. For me, it's right up there with other classics like "The Dark Crystal" and "The Neverending Story." I'm giving it a very good 4.5 out of 5. (Rounding up to a 5 for the rating system).

TedStixon

"Pokemon: Detective Pikachu" is a charming, nostalgic success that should appeal to franchise fans thanks to its good humor and excellent world-building. If you grew up on "Pokemon" as I did, watching this movie feels like you're stepping right into the world of the games and anime. Ryan Reynolds knocks it out of the park as the voice of our titular crime-solver, and is easily the biggest highlight of the cast. He really nails the part. And the direction is top-notch. It's a very well-made film. If you're not overly familiar with the media franchise, the movie probably won't do much for you... but even then, it has enough jokes and fun action set-pieces that you'll likely be mildly entertained. But this is a movie made for the fans, and as someone who was a fan when I was younger, it pressed all the right buttons for me. I'm giving it a good, but not quite perfect 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

A unique alternative origin for the iconic villain, "Joker" is by and large a success. With a delightfully dreary palette and an Oscar-worthy performance from Joaquin Phoenix, it is a fine film and well worth seeing. Though it does occasionally suffer from a predictable narrative and underwritten secondary roles, when it works... it works darned well. And it easily earns a very good 4 out of 5.

TedStixon

The peculiar thing about “Dark Phoenix” is how it’s grown on me increasingly with each viewing. When I first watched the film, I felt cold. Hollow. I just didn’t much like it, and I found myself in agreement with a majority of the bad reviews. And yet, there was something about it that made me want to give it a second chance. And on a second viewing, I actually began to find little things about it that I liked. Nothing massive… just little moments and ideas here and there that appealed to me in their own ways. And on a third watch-through… I found even more about it that I liked. More character beats I enjoyed and more bits and pieces that caught me off guard. And this trend has only continued with my most recent visit to the film.

I don’t think there will ever be an “ah-ha!” moment where I suddenly view “Dark Phoneix” as a particularly good film… but after having sat through it four times, I honestly have to say, I think it’s perfectly watchable. And in a way, even enjoyable despite its faults. Though it suffers a dull pace for much of its first half and feels a bit clunky in its execution, I genuinely think the third act is pretty darned fantastic, and there are enough flashes of brilliance to make it worth at least a one-time watch for longtime fans of the 20th Century Fox “X-Men” series. Just go in knowing it’s a bit of a bumpy ride.

After she is exposed to a mysterious storm in outer space, Jean Grey’s latent powers begin to manifest in new and terrifying ways, threatening to destroy both the X-Men and the delicate balance of power between the humans and the mutants. At the same time, members of an alien race arrive on earth, seeking out Jean for their own dark purposes.

Written and directed by series veteran Simon Kinberg in his feature directorial debut, the film is certainly an odd beast all things considered. The story goes that this particular retelling of the Dark Phoenix saga was meant to be an epic two part film, only for the studio to cave in and force Kinberg to combine the scripts into one single movie. And I think you can kind of tell watching it- at times the movie feels like an abridged version of a much larger story, with some plotlines and character beats feeling rushed. A big casualty of this is Jessica Chastain’s character, who sometimes feels like an afterthought despite being a major player. And yet, the movie also sort-of meanders, which is its greatest flaw. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that this is Kinberg’s first film as a director… he doesn’t quite understand how to properly pace scenes visually and sometimes he gets a little lost in the proceedings. This is especially evident in the first half of the film, which can drag quite a bit. And I think that’s honestly where the movie loses people- the fact that the story is severely cut down and the pacing being a bit wonky early on. That was certainly my experience the first time I watched the film- it lost me in the first act. And it really does drag the whole film down a few pegs.

But as I said, something just compelled me to give the film another chance… and once I did, I began to discover quite a few things I liked about the film. As is always the case with the “X-Men” franchise, the performances are generally top notch. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender light up the screen once again as Charles Xavier and Megneto, and put in excellent work. I felt McAvoy especially shined, as the movie took some big risks with his character that I enjoyed- this is a different Xavier than we’ve seen before. And despite splitting audiences, I genuinely liked Sophie Turner as Jean… I felt she did an admirable job showing the character’s transformation. Jessica Chastain, Nicholas Hoult and Tye Sheridan also put in some very good work as our supporting players despite sometimes being lost in the shuffle of the story. And heck, say what you will about Jennifer Lawrence and how she phones in her performance in a few scenes… with her somewhat reduced role and the film’s greater focus on the ensemble, I actually didn’t mind her too much.

I also felt that there were quite a few genuinely great scenes peppered throughout the film that kept my interest on re-watches. In particular, I have to commend the film for a thrilling climax that may be one of the series best- a prolonged sequence set on a moving train in which our heroes all get a moment to shine, and their powers are used in clever ways. It may feel smaller in scope than other scenes in the franchise, but I actually kind of appreciated that. This is a more intimate story, so a more intimate final battle felt appropriate. I also really enjoyed an early scene where the X-Men have to save a group of astronauts… it was fun seeing the X-Men going on an actual “adventure,” and the scene felt very “comic-booky” in a way the movies generally have not. And I genuinely liked how the movie handled some of the characters. Particularly Xavier, who is a bit more ambiguous and dubious, having grown a little too prideful and arrogant after so many great successes. It was a fun way to take a character and give him a new arc to contend with.

In the end, I just can’t say that I hate the film anymore. I don’t want to appear contrarian just for the sake of it-- that’s just the way I feel. It does enough interesting things that it holds my interest. And I’ve found I enjoy it a little more every time I watch it.

I’m giving “Dark Phoenix” a middle-of-the-road but totally watchable 2.5 out of 5. (Bumping it up to a 3 for MovieMistakes.) I’d honestly suggest leaving any preconceived notions you may have about the film at the door and giving the film a fair shot. And if you’ve already seen it? Well I’d say give it another chance like I did.

TedStixon

A complete misunderstanding of what made the original work?
Check!

Paper-thin characters?
Check!

Sloppy direction?
Check!

Constant cringey jump-scares?
That's a definite check!

2010's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is among the most unlikable and most condescending cash-grabs to emerge from the recent trend of horror remakes and reboots. It completely lacks in the charm and creativity that defined Wes Craven's iconic original, and instead settles for lazy scares and a hackneyed execution with all the subtlety of a brick to the face.

And if you don't take it from me, take it from the audience I saw the film with. To this day, "A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)" remains one of only two films I've ever seen where members of the audience actually booed as the credits began to roll. And others just sat there laughing. The atmosphere was practically venomous.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)" easily earns a miserable 1 out of 5 from me.

TedStixon

Though it's almost become a cliche to say, it's the truth... Joss Whedon's "Firefly" is by and large one of the best television series to emerge over the past twenty years, and the fact it was cancelled after only one season is a genuine tragedy. The series' blend of science fiction and western sensibilities is refreshing and unique, making each one of its fourteen episodes a complete blast from start to finish. Add to that one of the best ensemble casts ever put to screen, and witty writing that expertly combines both humor and drama, and you have a recipe for success that unfortunately just never got the chance to flourish. If you haven't seen the show and are worried the hype may have ruined it for you, do yourself a favor and give a chance. It doesn't just meet expectations... it shatters them. "Firefly" easily earns a perfect 5 out of 5.

TedStixon

Oh look, another 2010's-era 3D sequel to a series that doesn't support the format. And it also purports to be the "final chapter" in the series! That's two lame gimmicks rolled into one lame film! "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension" is not only without doubt the worst film in the franchise... but it's also one of the worst "final chapters" to a series I've ever seen. Not only are the characters simply unlikable... not only are the scares bland and boring... not only does the film lack adequate pay-off... but the movie even seems to go out of its way to ignore and contradict what came before. It's like they tried their hardest to make it as unsatisfying as possible. It's to the point, I don't even count this film as canonical. For me, the series ends with "The Marked Ones, " and "The Ghost Dimension" is just bad fan-faction. 1 out of 5.

TedStixon

A definite improvement over the underwhelming "Paranormal Activity 4, " "The Marked Ones" is a mildly enjoyable one-off side-story in the series that manages to entertain and enthrall, even if it doesn't have that much impact on the main narrative. The characters are charming, the scares are eerie enough, and I enjoyed some of the unexpected twists and turns. (Well, at least outside of the head-scratching conclusion that I won't spoil.) It's a decent effort, and I'd give it a mild recommendation for series fans. 3 out of 5.

TedStixon

The start of a noticeable downward trend in the series, "Paranormal Activity 4" just lacks in all departments in comparison to the slick and solid first three outings. While the characters are likable, they are underdeveloped. While the scares come fast and furious, they lack impact. And while the mythology is once again expanded, the new revelations feel contrived and even sloppy. And it only manages to muster up an underwhelming 2 out of 5 for me.

TedStixon