old_skool_gamer

Surprise family hit. Even Sony was surprised that Jumanji is a smash at $822mil world-wide as I speak. I have to mention that even though I saw the screener several months before it came out, I was surprised that I actually liked better the second time around. Regardless of missing some effects, music, etc. it was still the same story and acting...although the ending was slightly different. Basically highschool teenagers that don't get along discover themselves and each other after getting **** into the experience of the Jumanji video game world. You can do this with any indifferent highschoolers-don't-get-along story and put them on a fantastic quest to discover themselves. It's cliche but it's mostly well done and enjoyable. I have to congratulate Sony because even though the screener was "incomplete" and initially felt like a below average "cliche" video game avatar **** final product was a milestone improvement in comparison. The beat, cuts, timing felt better, even the humor felt enhanced, the acting felt more believable even though it wasn't their best performance I've seen out of any of them. All the pieces were put together nicely although not perfect. But you don't need perfect with a Rock movie. You just need fun, action and enjoyable story and then go eat popcorn and get entertained. LOL The "cliche" being **** into video game world ended up being an afterthought. It was an enjoyable movie overall...especially if you go with your family. My 6 and 7 year old really enjoyed it and their favorite characters were Jack Black and Kevin Hart. When you have likeable and memorable characters then in my opinion half the battle is already done. I wasn't frustrated with any actor/actress, the story, the plot, etc. I love Transformers but Jumanji 2 was better than the The Last Knight movie. I love Jurassic Park but Jumanji was an overall better movie than Jurassic World. All CG and FX aside. It's not going to win an Oscar by any means but that's what Dunkirk and Pixar movies are for. This is a fun family movie and a good excuse to go out with the kids. Hope you enjoy it!

I watched this movie with an open mind with no bias towards Blizzard even though I do love most of their games. ;) Even though I already had a bad feeling about this game-to-movie conversion and was already getting poor reivews, I wanted to watch it because I enjoy these kinds of movies and enjoy Warcraft. But after watching it, I can say that the movie had potential to be good as it somewhat lured me in but it lacked certain elements in execution to make it a good movie. It doesn't matter if the movie-goer knew the characters and story already or **** movie was average at best. Excuses from fanboys that are forgiving it because the director had to rush the story in 2 hours is not acceptable. The director just did not execute it properly. There are better directors that could do a better job in 2 hours (Peter *cough* Jackson). Even a 3 hour movie would'nt have saved the Warcraft movie. The amazing CG and visual FX can't save it. I actually had no connection with any of the real characters except for the CG ones. Strange that the director did a better job of convincing character development with the CG orcs like Durotan than he did with the actual characters like Lothar. Garona's character had potential in the beginning but her story and character fell flat. Like I said, extending this movie another hour wouldn't have saved the poor script writing, bad acting, cheap looking costume design/material, etc. This could have easily been a SyFy channel or whatever TV channel cheesy movie or straight-to-DVD release if it were not for the over-the-top CG characters. The Warcraft movie had top-notch CG characters, good voices and voice-overs. It probably would've been better if it was all CG in my opinion. LOL The cast was decent but the director was horrible at bringing out more convincing roles out of the talent or lack thereof. Peter Jackson would've done a better job of doing this and probably make a better movie out of it anyways. I wasn't a big fan of the Priest, Anduin or even the Guardian, Medivh. Anduin seemed like he belonged in a cheesy SyFy channel movie (even though he wasn't a horrible actor) he just seemed out of place. Travis Fimmel, Lothar, just played his Viking self pretty well. Dominic Cooper, King Llane, didn't look like a king to me but Ruth Negga, Taria, played her role pretty well. It was weird seeing them together again as I have been watching them on the "awesome" Preacher TV series on AMC. Good actors and actresses but not convincing enough to save this movie. But all I can say is Garona was one hot orc-human chick. Although the love-interest attempt was just plain horrible. I felt no connection with any of the human characters. It felt like it was an intern directing his first movie. He had all the elements for successful story-telling. But script writing, story, humor, etc. was poorly executed. There are a lot of movies that have have below average production but I still find a way to enjoy it. Army of Darkness is still one of my favorites. But Warcraft is no Army of Darkness quality type of movie. It is a movie branded with the epic scope of Warcraft and Blizzard. It is unfortunate that the Blizzard name and Warcraft game could not save this movie from being great....like all of their products. The overall look of the film was good but not great. One problem I already noticed, even from the posters and the trailers, was that the humans (knights) didn't even look like they fit. The armor didn't look convincing...even the subtle movement of shield in the very first scene didn't look **** if it was made out of foam. Like I said the CG was great and it overpowered, in a sense, the human characters. The humans didn't look like they fit. The lighting, set design and some of the armor looked off on the real life elements. It looked like it didn't match breath-taking CG quality of the rest of the movie. The CG Orcs, cityscapes, environments, etc. overpowered the real characters and set designs. Pity. I guess all I can say is that with great CG comes great responsibility. I gave it a 4 because it made me feel liek playing the Warcraft 3 game. And also, the story had potential but was poorly executed. Otherwise I would've given it a 3. Watch it if you want to be entertained by an epic popcorn flick B movie with awesome visual FX.

Possibly Ridley Scott's worst movie. The story and performance of the Prince of Egypt animated movie was actually far superior to this. Ridley's rendition of the story wasn't bad but the overall feel and performances of the movie didn't convince me. It's forgiveable that Biblical movies are almost never going to be 100% accurate due to interpretation or style of director; they may want to focus on some other aspect of the story. There were some parts that weren't bad and the performances were very strong. But it didn't feel consistent. From the trailers, the casting already looked odd. But I thought maybe it shouldn't be that bad after I watch it. I was wrong. After finally watching it was horrible and the characters were unconvincing. The acting wasn't that bad but it didn't match the epicness of a movie like this. It was a good twist to use a child playing "a messenger of God". The kid is talented and has a lot of potential for a kid actor but didn't quite feel right in a movie like this. Christian Bale's performance was better than I expected. Although, I think it would be more powerful if he attached a bit more of Moses' character. Moses actually wasn't a great speaker (he stuttered) and I don't even think he was a general from what I recall. Also, one part that seemed to stand out was his accent didn't seem consistent throughout the movie (especially noticeable in the first dialogue with the "viceroy"). Overall, it didn't have quite an epic feel as I would have expected from Ridley. The effects were **** cinematography captured some of the essence of that era. But overall it wasn't a keeper. Maybe it's just me, but I'm a big Ridley Scott **** just being too harsh. Not his best work anyways.