Fast and Furious 6

                “The Fast and the Furious” hasn’t really been the kind of film series that I’m into. The first film was just a street race film that didn’t have that much going for it. Then it got some sequels. I kept asking the same question with each film, “What’s the point?” However, it wasn’t until 2011 that the fifth film, “Fast Five,” took the franchise in a WHOLE new direction. Instead of being another street race film, it became a mix between “Mission Impossible,” “Ocean’s Eleven,” and “The Expendables,” with a ton of fast cars involved. Not only was it the best installment of the series, but it was an ACTUAL movie and the best action film since “The Expendables.” That is until “Expendables 2” came out.

With the direction it was going in, I was really looking forward to this new installment. Not only was better than the last film, but I loved this movie as much as I hated “A Good Day to Die Hard.”

In this new film, crimes are being committed involving fast cars, and now Luke Hobbs asks Dominic Toretto and his crew to help him catch the culprits, in exchange for their names to be cleared. Dom agrees, but only after he finds out that Letty Oritz, his old girlfriend who was thought to be dead, is still alive and is working with the enemy. Now in order to get her back, Dom and his crew have to put their best skills to the test and get the leading criminal, Shaw. With what they do in this film, they use it to their full advantage. They took everything that made the previous film work and cranked it all the way to eleven. This was one of those films that I was having as much as I was with the audience, and they were really digging it.

The casting in the film from Vin Diesel to Dwayne Johnson, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and everyone else was a joy to watch. While at the beginning of the series, their characters were alright but nothing high art, but now I’ve really come to appreciate them and their little quirks too. My favorite funny bits come from Parker and Pearce, played by Ludicrous and Tyrese Gibson. I kept getting excited for what they’d do next when they pop up on screen. Even if it’s a bit low brow at times, they deliver it so well that it’s hilarious.

The action scenes, damn where do I begin? I loved every single one of them. They go up against EVERYTHING in this movie, even a tank and a cargo jet! Every fight scene, every chase, every race, everything was spectacular to watch! It’s quick, it’s fun, it’s at times very well thought, and has so much more to top it all off.

Overall, “Fast and Furious 6” is one of my favorite films of the year, and I’m looking forward to the new film when it comes out, ESPECIALLY with who it showed at the end credits. If you’re looking for some good fun, check out the new film of a franchise that has turned itself around faster than any other street racer.

Rating: 10/10

The Hangover Part 3

                In 2009, “Old School” director, Todd Phillips, had given the public “The Hangover.” It starred Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis, telling about a group of friends who go to Vegas and get hungover, and now have to find their fourth friend, Justin Bartha, and retrace their steps before the guy’s wedding. It was a big hit with people and was at the time of its release, the highest grossing R-rated comedy, since “Beverly Hills Cop.” And…I didn’t like it. I felt that some of the humor didn’t really kick in when I wanted it to. Granted, there were some parts I enjoyed, like Ken Jeong being his crazy self, but other than that, there wasn’t really anything else.

                It spawned a sequel in 2011, and…it was the same thing, only this time it’s in Bangkok. I had talked about this film, but I never really talked that much about it, mostly because it was the same thing. Paul Giamatti’s small role was funny, but that’s about it. There have been sequels that have repeated the formula of their first film, but this was supposed to be a cutting-edge R-Rated comedy, doing new things, - all it did was bore me.

I was afraid this film was going to spawn a third film, and I figured it’d be the same thing. Good news and bad news here: The good news is, it isn’t the same thing. The bad news …folks, let me say that I have never been so bored and worn out by a comedy in years.

In this new film, the “wolf pack” (wasted an awesome group name on these guys, thanks Hollywood) have an intervention with Galifianikis. He has become more insubordinate to his friends and family (he’s said to have been off his meds for six months now, and they’re worried). However, on the way to deliver him to rehab, they are attacked by drug lord John Goodman, which connects back to the first film. He tells them that Leslie Chow has escaped from prison, and Goodman wants the wolf pack to find him or he’ll kill Justin Bartha, who has done jack squat the entire trilogy. Why does he want Chow? Because Chow stole $21 million in gold from him, and Goodman wants it back. So now, they’re on a wild goose chase to get Chow, tell them where the gold is, as well as finally be done with this film series, because I have completely stopped caring all together.

Now I know what you’re all going to say: “Oh, but if this isn’t your kind of comedy, then why even bother with it? You’re just wasting time and money!” First of all, yes, I understand this isn’t my kind of movie to enjoy, but I’m a film critic, so I give things a chance. Second, “Transformers 3” isn’t my kind of movie; same goes for “Snow White & the Huntsman” and “Magic Mike.” None of them were films I thought I would like, but when I saw them, they were big surprises and I really liked them. Just because I go into a film with low expectations, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t turn out to be a big surprise.

No one looked like they wanted to be there, EVEN Ken Jeong, who was the best part of the first film! His crazy attitude in this film was so stale, that it wasn’t entertaining, but rather ANTI-taining (still a better joke than anything in this franchise!) Thank goodness he at least has “Community” going. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms looked like they wanted to just go “screw it,” and drive out of this film as far away as possible. John Goodman got some smirks out of me, and I know he’s trying his best, but it wasn’t enough. However, the worst part about this film was Zach Galifianakis, as his character has really downgraded from being a gullible fella with a bro-crush on Bradley Cooper, to borderline retarded and completely man-crazy. I’m not saying this as a joke, I am dead serious.

I actually enjoyed Melissa McCarthy as Galifianakis’s shoehorned-in love interest. I was ready to walk out on this film, but then her part came, so I stayed like the idiot I am. Even if she’s a female-copy of Galifianakis’s character, she at least seemed invested in what she was doing, but she’s only in the film for seven minutes max.

Overall, “The Hangover Part III” is by-far, the worst sequel to a comedy I have ever seen. It’s not funny, it’s not enjoyable, it hardly has any energy, and it is as stale as watching an episode of “Tim & Eric” on Adult Swim. I am now actually looking forward to “Grown Ups 2” this July, that’s how far this film has driven me. And with this film at a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m predicting it will bomb and end the series, especially since it’s up against “Fast and the Furious 6.”

Rating: 1/10

The Great Gatsby

 F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” is considered by many as one of the most iconic books of all time, with its views on what the American Dream is, and the theory of repeating the past. While I can understand how most people would find that book to be a classic, I’m not one of them. I felt Fitzgerald’s execution of his ideas weren’t fully established and that they could have worked, if it wasn’t about how a man is so obsessed with a woman who’s now married to a racist womanizer, while her cousin just watches. That’s pretty much the synopsis of the book in my eyes.

There have been movie adaptations of the book before, but the one that I’m addressing is the latest one, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire. Much like “G.I. Joe Retaliation,” the new “Gatsby” film was pushed back, so it wouldn’t be in competition with the other DiCaprio film, “Django Unchained.” However, the question is was this worth the wait…absolutely not.

For the most part, the film does follow the book, as it tells of Nick Carraway, a Yale-graduate who moves to West Egg to study and become a writer, next door to Jay Gatsby. Across the bay is East Egg, where his cousin Daisy and her husband, Tom Buchanan, are living. After a visit to them, Nick meets Jordan Baker, and hears word about Gatsby, which Daisy seems familiar with the name. As time goes on, Nick meets Gatsby at one of his parties and the two become more acquainted with each other, as the mystery that surrounds Gatsby unravels the more Nick is around him. While I do think the concept that Fitzgerald had is interesting, the execution given in both the book and this movie fall flat, but the movie falls harder.

The first problem I have with the film is its pacing. For the first thirty minutes, they managed to cram in about the first fifty pages and it feels so rushed. It skims through conversations in certain scenes that it leaves you wondering what they’re even talking about. Instead, we get pointless montage moments that only pad out the movie to its almost two and half hour mark. Not only that, but the editing is simply atrocious, as there’s hardly a shot that lasts five seconds. For a big budget production, they don’t give the audience that much time to look at the hard work they put into the set designs and styles. It’s like they think the audience has ADD, and that’s just insulting.

The soundtrack is another thing that I find unappealing. It mostly full of rap and hip hop music, and doesn’t even fit the tone of where it’s put in the scenes it’s playing in. Don’t get me wrong, the idea isn’t bad, it’s just that it needs to be done in a way that works. Take for example “Django Unchained,” where it had music from Rick Ross and Tupac, and while their music isn’t the right time frame, Tarantino actually found a way to make it work. With “Gatsby,” it just feels like it was put there, just for the sake of having popular music there. At times, it had fitting jazz or orchestral music, so why couldn’t we just have that kept in there?

The cast in the film was nothing but a waste. Carey Mulligan was boring as Daisy, and it got to the point where her performance could actually cure insomnia; she was that bland. Joel Edgerton as Tom was just as unlikable as the character is in the book, but this time he’s more of a perverted punk than ever. Jason Clarke and Isla Fisher were SO forgettable as George and Myrtle Wilson, that it’s frustrating, especially since they’re both great talents. However, the worst actor throughout the entire film was Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby. He was AWEFUL in this movie! His smug attitude and presence deteriorates every second he’s on screen, that it officially marks this as his worst performance.

Surprisingly, the best part about this movie was Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway. Despite having unnecessary narrations, Maguire really gives it his best, being a person who is the in-between of people like Gatsby and Tom. If everything else wasn’t as bad as it was in this film, I’d say this would be worth seeing just for his performance as Nick. However, due to all the other problems the film has, that isn’t the case.

The film was directed by Baz Luhrman, the same man behind “Moulin Rouge,” “Australia,” the DiCaprio version of “Romeo+Juliet,” all three films have marked him as one of the most pretentious directors working today. While “Gatsby” isn’t Luhrman’s worst film, that would be “Australia,” still doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t know how to be a proper filmmaker.

Overall, Baz Luhrman’s “The Great Gatsby” by far one of the worst films of the year, and I’m guaranteeing that people will forget this film by the end of June, or at least the end of the year. Maguire was the only good part, DiCaprio was awful, the editing is garbage, the rest of the cast is useless, and the direction and cinematography is simply hard to deal with.

Rating: 2/10

Pain & Gain

WARNING: The following review is not directed towards those who had experience the events the film is based on, or those who had read up on it. If you are unpleasant about the words said in this review, despite it all being an opinion of a movie, then I suggest you skip this review and find something else to read up on.

If you do write in the comments that I should be ashamed of writing this on a film of tragic events or Michael Bay in general, don't say you weren't warned. It will be brought against you.


Michael Bay...what can be said about him that HASN'T been? He's gotten the reputation as one of Hollywood's biggest shames in the past fifteen years, with films like “Armageddon,” “Pearl Harbor,” and “Transformers 2.” What else could I add to that? Well...I don't think Bay is AS bad as people say he is. Don't get me wrong, I'm annoyed with his films, but not all of them are crap. “Bad Boys,” “The Rock,” “The Island,” and even “Transformers 3” I actually think are legitimately good films. Not great, but good. Besides, I think Bay's a better director than he is a producer...HINT...HINT. But now, we'll be looking at his newest film starring Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson, “Pain & Gain.”

Now, when I first heard about this movie, I thought it was the weirdest idea for a film to expect from Bay, but on the other hand I thought it would be his return to his “Bad Boys” days. However, when I read up more, finding out this was based on a true story about the Sun Gym Gang and that the main characters were the culprits...yeah, I felt a bit uneasy about this film. It tells of Daniel Lugo, a Sun Gym employee who is tired of living life just at a fitness club and being low in the dumps. So when he goes to a Johnny Wu conference, he inspires his friend and newest member to go and kidnap a rich man and have him sign away all of his money, then kill him afterwards.

Now let me just say this...the main characters that we follow are some of the most unlikable people you'll see. They're dumb bastards who feel they aren't that up there and enjoying life, so they decide to take a rich guy's money. It's despicable...but then again, they were despicable in real life to begin with. Sure they killed on purpose and not accidental as the film showed, but either way they still killed people. They were maniac criminals, and the film...SURPRISINGLY made it work. Michael Bay always had most of his film protagonists be so unlikeable and stupid, but here it actually works.

The casting does a good job as well. Mark Wahlberg really sells it as being the “mastermind” behind the crimes, and let me say he's really selling it as a fitness criminal. You can just tell it in his eyes that while he does have weakness, he could still beat the everloving crap out of you. Anthony Mackie as Adrian, Lugo's friend, also does good as being a steroid obsessed guy, who can't seem to quit but still wants to have that thrill, even if he has to pull heists. Dwayne Johnson was great as well. Sure, the person in real life wasn't really accurate, it still pulls off as it would. Not to mention, he had the best line in the entire film, and that had me laughing so much.

Tony Shaloub as Victor Kershaw was also a very funny character. I heard that the real life person had said that they made the film look like the villain when he wasn't, but here's the thing...he was portrayed more sympathetic than Wahlberg or any of the others. But either way, Shaloub did a great job in this role. We also have Ed Harris as the detective, Rebel Wilson as Mackie's girlfriend, Rob Coddry as the Sun Gym manager, and even Ken Jeong as Johnny Wu. They all did pretty good.

Does this film have problems? Yes. For one, I felt like there were some moments that could have been cut out of the film, or at least shortened out a bit. Not to mention, for a black comedy...it's not too funny. Don't get me wrong, there are some funny moments, but I didn't feel there was enough of it. That, and I think this might be the biggest thing for me...if the film said it was INSPIRED by a true story, instead of being BASED, then it probably would have worked better. Besides, the families of the victims had complained about this movie being made, and I can understand how one would think killers would be sympathetic...but they weren't sympathetic, so it can be reasonable...I think.

The film was written by Christoper Markus and Stephen McFeely, the same duo behind the screenplays for “The Chronicles of Narnia Trilogy,” and “Captain America: The First Avenger.” They are good writers, and I'm glad to know that a story like this was put into the hands of a director who'd actually make this work with his style. Yes, Bay's style of direction was the right choice.

Overall, “Pain & Gain,” while has problems, is still a good movie. And I know there are going to be some people complaining that I'm giving support to Bay, but here's the thing...I said in the beginning that he's a better director than he is a producer. And while he did produce this, he actually knew what he was doing when he made this. It's just one of those film that you need to decide on what you think would work.

Rating: 8/10

Evil Dead (2013)

 Back in 1981, an independent horror film was released to the public, under the name “The Evil Dead.” It was about a bunch of people who spend time at a cabin in the woods, when they find the Necronomicon, “The Book of the Dead,” and unleash supernatural evils. This was Sam Raimi's first feature film, and it was also the film that put him on the map, but not to full publicity. That, and it introduced the world to Bruce Campbell as Ashley 'Ash' Williams. To this day, it has remained as one of the best horror films of all time, and was the start of one of the greatest film trilogies of all time.

1987 saw the release of “Evil Dead 2,” which was pretty much a remake of the first film, only intentionally funny and awesome. They did make changes that were different from the first film, and the most iconic moment they brought about to the “Evil Dead” series, was Ash's chainsaw arm. To this day, it's considered by many as not only one of the best horror films, but one of the best sequels ever made.

During production on “Evil Dead 3,” or “The Med-Evil Dead,” they changed up a lot of things, which lead to the film being called “Army of Darkness.” While this does get a lot of rep for being the weakest in the series, it doesn't take away any enjoyment for it. Ash brings his smart-alack remarks to the middle ages, after being sent back in time with the Necronomicon, and has to help the fellow people if be protected, if he ever wants to get back home as an S Mart employee again. Sure, it's a bad movie, but that it has it's charm to it, that most films don't really have nowadays.

For the longest time, there's always been word of an “Evil Dead 4” and an “Evil Dead” remake coming out, and that it was getting to a point where some people actually petitioned for another sequel. But when the remake was said to have Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell's stamps of approval, that got fans like myself invested in it.

So was the remake actually good?...Not only is it good and rank up with the other three films, but I consider this film to be the best horror remake I have EVER seen!

Much like the original, the film tells of a group of friends who go to spend time at a cabin in the woods. What they don't know is that the cabin has a secret bunker, and they find the Necronomicon, only to have accidentally released an evil like no other, and one by one are killed. This film really took advantage of being as respectable to the original film, because it had people who CARED and KNEW the source material. I think that might have to do with Sam and Bruce being producers, but who knows.

The casting is filled with unknowns, much like the original was. Thankfully, none of the characters were called 'Ash,' because that would be something that people would be complaining about in the film. That decision was made by Bruce Campbell, and that was a really smart move on his part. Shiloh Fernandez as David, the main guy, really made a difference in his acting from “Red Riding Hood.” Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric was a guy who had SO much endurance. This guy gets all kinds of Hell beaten down upon him. However, none of them or others that I haven't mentioned were as good as Jane Levy as Mia. She plays the girl that gets possessed by the dead and really delivers on the presence and atmosphere that Ellen Sandweiss.

That brings me to the number one thing that this film did EXTREMELY well with. Atmosphere. This does what most horror films fail to do, and that's bring atmosphere. The last horror film that actually managed to do well with atmosphere was “The Woman in Black,” but here I thought this did a better job. Tons of gore doesn't make a good horror film, but if the film is good and the gore works as an additional treat for people. And the best part about it, was that almost all the effects were practical, instead of pointless CGI. I give praise to the director, who was a first timer on films, that went with the practical effects path here. It looked real, it felt real, and it felt right!

Also if you're curious, there are some little easter eggs that fans of the original can find as they watch, especially at the ending credits. Trust me, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Overall, “Evil Dead (2013) is not only the best horror remake I've seen, but my favorite movie of the year so far. It's dark, twisted, insane, gory, funny, and scary. This had everything that made an “Evil Dead” film an “Evil Dead” film.

Rating: 10/10

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Let me be clear on this...I'm not a GI Joe fan. Unlike Transformers, where I've had slight interest in one of the cartoons and toys, I didn't have interest in GI Joe at all. I did know a little of the theme song, and I MIGHT have had some experience with the toys, but it wasn't enough for me to remember that much. So due to the success of “Transformers,” Hasbro made a “G.I. Joe” movie to balance it out, from director Stephen Sommers.

“G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra” had the Joes go up against Cobra, in their attempt to conquer the world again, only this time they have nanotechnology that gives Cobra the upper-hand. However, that doesn't stop them, as they get assistance under the wing of General Hawk. Now this film was given a lot of hate upon its release, but I'm actually among the few that actually enjoyed it. Sure, there are problems with it, but I at least found it a much more enjoyable film than the first two “Transformer” films. It actually has a plot that works, shows what to expect in the film (the RISE of Cobra), as well as give some good performances. Channing Tatum, pre-Soderbergh, was a surprise and become the first film that I enjoyed him in. Dennis Quaid did a great job as Hawk, Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a great villain, and even Marlon Wayans was TOLERABLE! Overall, “Rise of Cobra” was one film that took me by surprise, and I still find it an enjoyable movie, no matter WHAT anybody says.

While its success wasn't as big as “Transformers,” the film still got a sequel, this time from Jon Chu: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”...which was overdue a year ago. This was yet ANOTHER film that was pushed back from a 2012 release for technical reasons. It was scheduled to come out last June, which was going up against another Channing Tatum movie, “Magic Mike,” which people are regarding it Tatum's best. However, due to Tatum's popularity with “The Vow,” “Haywire,” and “21 Jump Street,” the film was pushed back to add a couple more scenes of Tatum and Dwayne Johnson, as well as make it 3D, despite earlier trailers already released.

Now the definitive question remains: Was this film worth the long wait and 3D? Well...kind of. Let me explain.

In this new film, the Joes are sent on a mission to take back nuclear weapons from Pakistan, when they are fired at and taken down. All that remain, are Roadblock, Flint, Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, Jinx, and the original G.I. Joe: Joseph Colton; their job now is to take down Cobra from their global take over, with the use of a doppelganger president and their possession of the ultimate weapon, Project Zeus.

Now let me say this, I liked this movie. Not love, but like. It did have some problems, but for the most part, it was a good movie. The film really shows much desperation of the remaining Joes, as their outnumbered, outgunned, and rely on most of their wits and strategy. “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is a very thrilling movie, that, while not as much as what was good about the first movie, does have a few little bonuses to go with it.

Let me say that casting does a great job here. Dwayne Johnson really shines as the go-to-guy of the survivors. He proves that even in these types of situations, there's always a way through it. D.J. Cotrona and Adrianne Palicki do a great job as Flint and Lady Jaye; I don't know if their characters were done right, but they did good as characters for this film. Even Channing Tatum, despite him not having that much screen time, really does his best like he did with the previous film. Ray Stevenson was a great addition as Firefly, and that fight he had with The Rock was just enjoyable all the way through. Luke Bracey and Robert Baker were...okay as Cobra Commander. They weren't bad, but I kind of wish Joseph Gordon-Levitt was still playing the character, since he was one of the best parts of the film. I was at least happy that they kept Lee Byung-hun and Ray Park as Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. It was actually surprising later on in the film to see the two work together in the end for the battle. And let's not forget Bruce Willis as General Joe, which he brings so much flare to the film, and I was really glad they added him into the mix, because he's the kind of actor that would be the original Joe. However, that doesn't quite make up for “Die Hard 5.” He'll need a miracle to get me to forgive him for that.

What didn't exactly work, you ask? Well, some of the action scenes suffer from what other action films suffer from today: Fast-cut-syndrome. The editing really does make some action scenes hard to see what the hell is going on, and rarely will some movies do it right. Granted, it wasn't as bad as the editing in “Bullet to the Head,” but it still doesn't make it good, does it? Also, there were moments where the depiction of things, like how the president's an impostor was a bit too sudden on subtle movements. Hell, even Bruce Willis points that out in the film.

Now what about the added scenes of Tatum and the 3D? Well, the scenes added didn't really take away from the film that much, and I'll even admit I had a few good laughs with them. It did show some of the good chemistry that the two had for what it was. And as for the 3D...it was okay. There are moments that really make the 3D shine well, but for the parts that don't, yeah it makes it useless. But, the 3D glasses it had for when I bought my ticket were pretty cool.

Overall, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is a fun and enjoyable action film that isn't quite as good as the last film, but still fun. While there are some actors that I wished came back for the sequel, I'm not too disappointed that they didn't. If you got some time to spare, definitely check the film out.

Rating: 7/10

Olympus Has Fallen

 This year, we're going to have two films about the take over of the White House. One that will be coming out at the end of June, from the director of “Independence Day,” and another that just came out recently, starring Gerard Butler. And that film is “Olympus Has Fallen.”

The film tells of Mike Banning, who is a former U.S. Army Ranger now Secret Service Agent, after failing to save the president's wife. A year and a half later, the White House is taken over by North Korean terrorists, and Banning has to go in, save the hostages, and bring down the terrorist leader, Kang.

Now does this plot sound a little familiar to some of you? Well it should, because the film is actually a rip-off of “Die Hard.” Now if it's a rip-off it, should that make the film bad? Well, that's what I first thought about...but after thinking about it for a couple of days, I had a change of thought. When you get down to it, there are rip-offs of films on other things, but not all of them are bad. Unoriginal, but not bad. Look at “The Hunger Games,” for example: it's a rip-off of “Battle Royal,” but I for one actually found it enjoyable. Same with “Independence Day,” too: rip-off of “War of the Worlds,” but people had fun with it, and enjoyed it. “Olympus Has Fallen” may be a ripoff of “Die Hard,” but it also has a few elements of suspense that director Antoine Fuqua is most familiar with. In highlight, this film is actually very fun.

Gerard Butler delivers a great performance as Mike Banning, being the modern day John McClane; he makes one-liners, he talks back to the terrorist, he badass but human. He even has a touch of Keifer Sutherland from “24” in there. Those types of protagonists in action films make the film have a great sense of reality to them, unlike most other action films where the hero's an unstoppable juggernaut. Granted I still love those, but you get my point. Aaron Eckhart, who played Two-Face in “The Dark Knight,” did a great job playing the President, showing he can be strong and fight back at times. He still deals with the trauma of losing his wife, more so than Banning felt about being unable to save her. The relationship he has with his son is done in a realistic manner, as shown that people need to move on, but it won't be easy. Rick Yune's performance as Kang was a great villain, and one you'd definitely see out of the 80's. While I was a bit uneasy about the North Koreans invading the White House, this is done in a much more believable way, than it did in the remake of “Red Dawn.” Morgan Freeman as the Speaker of Department does a great job, because...he's Morgan Freeman, what more do you need?

The action scenes were surprisingly well done, aside from a few strobe effects, but even then it does show the turmoil that is at stake here. The White House taken over by terrorists. Something like that, is really stressful, especially when the survival of the country is at stake at a very close rate. The suspense draws you into the film, making it a very tense to the point where you're biting your nails off. It's not the best at doing it, but it still does a good job of it.

Overall, “Olympus Has Fallen” is a film I was too quick to judge. This is a film that I was too harsh about, and it deserves none of what was originally going to say. They say this film is the first Summer Blockbuster, and I agree with that. A fun 80's-esque movie is definitely worth seeing.

Rating: 8/10