Ken123456789
Joined Jul 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
Ken123456789's rating
Freedom Writers(2007)
Mrs. Gruwell(Swank) is a new teacher at Wilson High School in Long Beach, California. She is from a good neighborhood and is shocked when she sees the quality of the students at Long Beach. Mrs. Gruwell is dedicated to her job though, and will stop at nothing to turn the school around. This was based on a true story.
Freedom Writers has poor character development. Mrs. Gruwell just barely avoids being the perfect girl. Her problems are just that she is a little dorky and her marriage runs into few tiny problems while at Long Beach. Steve Gruwell(Glenn) is even less developed that Mrs. Gruwell, as he is just a role filler. The main problem of the characters is the students. They act as just one group, and not as individuals. The film never takes any times to show us in depth any of their problems. There's the guy that has problems with his dad, the guy that saw his friend get shot, and the girl that has problems with her dad, but that's as far as they go. Also, the students change way too quickly and put their problems behind them pretty easily.
It's interesting that Freedom Writers is based on a true story, but the execution on bringing the story to film was done poorly. Most of the time it's either predictable or melodramatic. The saddest part of it is that they try to make it dramatic when they read Anne Frank's Diary. It could almost be called copyright infringement. Going into the movie you know everything is going to turn out alright, but the film doesn't even try to put us in doubt. There are barely any obstacles put in the freedom writers dream of becoming fine, outstanding citizens. We have the vice principal that doesn't approve of what Ms.Gruwell is doing, but that's the biggest obstacle in their path. Also, the ending is watching the freedom writers type their story and a small argument on whether Mrs. Gruwell can teach the students in their Junior and Senior years. Fascinating.
The directing of Freedom Writers is bad because the director never creates an effective atmosphere. We never really feel the pain that the students are going through. The lighting is very bland and never helps create a mood. He never uses the right shots to maximize the setting's potential. The cinematography is also bad, as it appears they could've filmed this on a cheap camera and film. When you have 35mm film looking like 16mm film, you know something's wrong. The music is overdone and melodramatic, but with the quality of the writing it would be hard to avoid. On the upside, we do have some pretty good songs that fit the film perfectly. I will also say though it is obvious they tried to make a good movie.
The actual acting of Freedom Writers is OK, but the casting was terrible. The students of the film are supposed to be 14/15, but we have actors that are 20 to 27 years old playing them. I did a little research into this and the youngest of the actors was seventeen years old. This makes many lines come off as extremely camping. We one actor says,"Even though I have only lived a short fourteen years, I have seen many things." It makes you think the next line coming is " When I was twenty two years old, I changed my identity to a fourteen year old, because having been held back eight years was too embarrassing."
BAKED FRESH BOTTOM LINE 3/10
Pros: Songs Interesting that it's based off a true story They tried! :)
Cons: Character Development Poor execution of story Directing Music Casting
Rating Information PG-13 1. Violent Content a. fights break out 2. Language a. Some cursing
Cast
Hillary Swank - Mrs. Gruwell
Patrick Dempsey - Scott Casey
Scott Glenn - Steve Gruwell
April Hernandez - Eva Benitez
Directed by: Richard LaGravenese
Review Written by: Kenny Stice
Mrs. Gruwell(Swank) is a new teacher at Wilson High School in Long Beach, California. She is from a good neighborhood and is shocked when she sees the quality of the students at Long Beach. Mrs. Gruwell is dedicated to her job though, and will stop at nothing to turn the school around. This was based on a true story.
Freedom Writers has poor character development. Mrs. Gruwell just barely avoids being the perfect girl. Her problems are just that she is a little dorky and her marriage runs into few tiny problems while at Long Beach. Steve Gruwell(Glenn) is even less developed that Mrs. Gruwell, as he is just a role filler. The main problem of the characters is the students. They act as just one group, and not as individuals. The film never takes any times to show us in depth any of their problems. There's the guy that has problems with his dad, the guy that saw his friend get shot, and the girl that has problems with her dad, but that's as far as they go. Also, the students change way too quickly and put their problems behind them pretty easily.
It's interesting that Freedom Writers is based on a true story, but the execution on bringing the story to film was done poorly. Most of the time it's either predictable or melodramatic. The saddest part of it is that they try to make it dramatic when they read Anne Frank's Diary. It could almost be called copyright infringement. Going into the movie you know everything is going to turn out alright, but the film doesn't even try to put us in doubt. There are barely any obstacles put in the freedom writers dream of becoming fine, outstanding citizens. We have the vice principal that doesn't approve of what Ms.Gruwell is doing, but that's the biggest obstacle in their path. Also, the ending is watching the freedom writers type their story and a small argument on whether Mrs. Gruwell can teach the students in their Junior and Senior years. Fascinating.
The directing of Freedom Writers is bad because the director never creates an effective atmosphere. We never really feel the pain that the students are going through. The lighting is very bland and never helps create a mood. He never uses the right shots to maximize the setting's potential. The cinematography is also bad, as it appears they could've filmed this on a cheap camera and film. When you have 35mm film looking like 16mm film, you know something's wrong. The music is overdone and melodramatic, but with the quality of the writing it would be hard to avoid. On the upside, we do have some pretty good songs that fit the film perfectly. I will also say though it is obvious they tried to make a good movie.
The actual acting of Freedom Writers is OK, but the casting was terrible. The students of the film are supposed to be 14/15, but we have actors that are 20 to 27 years old playing them. I did a little research into this and the youngest of the actors was seventeen years old. This makes many lines come off as extremely camping. We one actor says,"Even though I have only lived a short fourteen years, I have seen many things." It makes you think the next line coming is " When I was twenty two years old, I changed my identity to a fourteen year old, because having been held back eight years was too embarrassing."
BAKED FRESH BOTTOM LINE 3/10
Pros: Songs Interesting that it's based off a true story They tried! :)
Cons: Character Development Poor execution of story Directing Music Casting
Rating Information PG-13 1. Violent Content a. fights break out 2. Language a. Some cursing
Cast
Hillary Swank - Mrs. Gruwell
Patrick Dempsey - Scott Casey
Scott Glenn - Steve Gruwell
April Hernandez - Eva Benitez
Directed by: Richard LaGravenese
Review Written by: Kenny Stice
Hancock
Will Smith is the king of the fourth of July weekend, which has led to him receiving the nickname Mr. July. Will Smith's first fourth of July weekend movie was Independence Day. After its success other movies like Men In Black 1 and 2 and Wild Wild West were also released on July 4th. So, is Hancock a worthy addition to Smith's Fourth of July movies, or is it another July 4th failure like Transformers?
Hancock(Smith) is one of only two superheroes left in the world. He is hated by the public because he leaves millions of dollars in damage after stopping a crime. After he saves the life of Ray Embrey(Bateman), they enter a partnership to help fix Hancock's image with the public. They send Hancock to prison so the public can miss him. After the crime rate soars, Hancock leaves prison a changed man. He cleans up the crime, but starts to enter a risky relationship with Mary Embrey(Theron). He will then learn about his past and his possibilities for the future.
Hancock's characters start off promising, but don't go anywhere after the first act. Hancock is a very unique led obviously, as the movie bears his name. After the first act though, he's done changing and becomes Mr.Perfect. Ray Embrey is a man trying to change the world, but is currently failing. I think a lot of us can sympathize with the guy. Mary Embrey is the one of the worst developed characters and she hurt the movie the most. Her character doesn't go anywhere and there is nothing special about her. The same goes for her child. Hancock has terrible, last second villains. They barely ever speak, and worst of all, they're just regular people with guns.
Hancock's plot had promise, but the execution was terrible. The structure is the worst that I've seen in a long time. The first act tries to do too much, while the second and third act is stretched to make the movie long enough. The movie also switches genres from a light hearted action/comedy to a serious drama. The first act, the action/comedy, was fun to watch and made it look as though this was going to be one of the best movies of the summer. The second act came though, and it switched to being a drama. There is a nice twist, but it isn't well made enough to be called good drama, and wasn't very entertaining. Hancock has a terrible ending. The climax is an easily won battle in a hospital, but that isn't the worst. The resonance at the end was stupid and one of the most illogical things ever seen on film. Hancock puts a heart on the moon for Ray and Mary. Did he use the blood of humans to paint it, since buying paint would cost at least two billion dollars? Did he enslave NASA workers to paint it, since if only he did it, it would take at least five years? Are Ray and Mary really that stupid they need someone to tell them there's a big heart on the moon?
Hancock has a very bland setting. The city apparently has a very high crime rate, but it seems as though everything is going just dandy. Batman has Gotham City. Spider-Man has New York City. Hancock has just another run of your mill city. The prison was a very boring place and it wasn't even a very scary one. The hospital was a terrible setting for the ending.
Hancock has bad directing, mainly because of the action scenes. They are filmed very poorly because the director moves the camera around very fast to try and create an atmosphere, but it does the exact opposite. He never creates an effective atmosphere, and never uses the right shots to maximize the setting's potential, if there's any. Hancock has OK cinematography. It doesn't take away from the film, but not as good as Iron Man or The Dark Knight(basing it off the trailer). Hancock has bad music. The action music barely adds anything to the movie, and the dramatic music is overdone and takes you out of the story.
Hancock actually has good acting. Will Smith is always a good lead, and he doesn't mess up. He has good chemistry with the other actors and always brings his own style to the role. Will Smith is also great with body language, which is he has shown in Pursuit of Happiness, I Am Legend, and Hancock. Jason Bateman does a good job with his role and was the perfect person to play the part. Charlize Theron is the weakest of the three actors, but she's still OK.
So, Hancock isn't as good as Men in Black or Independence Day, but it's better than Wild Wild West.
BAKED FRESH FILM BOTTOM LINE 4/10
Pros: Acting First Act Nice Twist
Cons: Character Development Structure Switches genres Action scenes filmed poorly/ rest of directing Music Setting
Rating Information PG-13 1. Sci-fi Action and Violence a. Hancock fighting crime 2. Language a. One F-Bomb and other cursing
Cast
Will Smith - John Hancock
Jason Bateman - Ray Embrey
Charlize Theron - Mary Embrey
Directed by: Peter Berg
Review Written by: Kenny Stice
Will Smith is the king of the fourth of July weekend, which has led to him receiving the nickname Mr. July. Will Smith's first fourth of July weekend movie was Independence Day. After its success other movies like Men In Black 1 and 2 and Wild Wild West were also released on July 4th. So, is Hancock a worthy addition to Smith's Fourth of July movies, or is it another July 4th failure like Transformers?
Hancock(Smith) is one of only two superheroes left in the world. He is hated by the public because he leaves millions of dollars in damage after stopping a crime. After he saves the life of Ray Embrey(Bateman), they enter a partnership to help fix Hancock's image with the public. They send Hancock to prison so the public can miss him. After the crime rate soars, Hancock leaves prison a changed man. He cleans up the crime, but starts to enter a risky relationship with Mary Embrey(Theron). He will then learn about his past and his possibilities for the future.
Hancock's characters start off promising, but don't go anywhere after the first act. Hancock is a very unique led obviously, as the movie bears his name. After the first act though, he's done changing and becomes Mr.Perfect. Ray Embrey is a man trying to change the world, but is currently failing. I think a lot of us can sympathize with the guy. Mary Embrey is the one of the worst developed characters and she hurt the movie the most. Her character doesn't go anywhere and there is nothing special about her. The same goes for her child. Hancock has terrible, last second villains. They barely ever speak, and worst of all, they're just regular people with guns.
Hancock's plot had promise, but the execution was terrible. The structure is the worst that I've seen in a long time. The first act tries to do too much, while the second and third act is stretched to make the movie long enough. The movie also switches genres from a light hearted action/comedy to a serious drama. The first act, the action/comedy, was fun to watch and made it look as though this was going to be one of the best movies of the summer. The second act came though, and it switched to being a drama. There is a nice twist, but it isn't well made enough to be called good drama, and wasn't very entertaining. Hancock has a terrible ending. The climax is an easily won battle in a hospital, but that isn't the worst. The resonance at the end was stupid and one of the most illogical things ever seen on film. Hancock puts a heart on the moon for Ray and Mary. Did he use the blood of humans to paint it, since buying paint would cost at least two billion dollars? Did he enslave NASA workers to paint it, since if only he did it, it would take at least five years? Are Ray and Mary really that stupid they need someone to tell them there's a big heart on the moon?
Hancock has a very bland setting. The city apparently has a very high crime rate, but it seems as though everything is going just dandy. Batman has Gotham City. Spider-Man has New York City. Hancock has just another run of your mill city. The prison was a very boring place and it wasn't even a very scary one. The hospital was a terrible setting for the ending.
Hancock has bad directing, mainly because of the action scenes. They are filmed very poorly because the director moves the camera around very fast to try and create an atmosphere, but it does the exact opposite. He never creates an effective atmosphere, and never uses the right shots to maximize the setting's potential, if there's any. Hancock has OK cinematography. It doesn't take away from the film, but not as good as Iron Man or The Dark Knight(basing it off the trailer). Hancock has bad music. The action music barely adds anything to the movie, and the dramatic music is overdone and takes you out of the story.
Hancock actually has good acting. Will Smith is always a good lead, and he doesn't mess up. He has good chemistry with the other actors and always brings his own style to the role. Will Smith is also great with body language, which is he has shown in Pursuit of Happiness, I Am Legend, and Hancock. Jason Bateman does a good job with his role and was the perfect person to play the part. Charlize Theron is the weakest of the three actors, but she's still OK.
So, Hancock isn't as good as Men in Black or Independence Day, but it's better than Wild Wild West.
BAKED FRESH FILM BOTTOM LINE 4/10
Pros: Acting First Act Nice Twist
Cons: Character Development Structure Switches genres Action scenes filmed poorly/ rest of directing Music Setting
Rating Information PG-13 1. Sci-fi Action and Violence a. Hancock fighting crime 2. Language a. One F-Bomb and other cursing
Cast
Will Smith - John Hancock
Jason Bateman - Ray Embrey
Charlize Theron - Mary Embrey
Directed by: Peter Berg
Review Written by: Kenny Stice
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army
Prince Nauda, an exiled elf, tries to take control of the human world by controlling the Golden Army. To do this, he will need all three sections of the crown that controls the Golden Army. He steals the first from an auction, kills his father to get the second, and must hunt down his sister to get the third. Hellboy and his team of outcasts have to clean up the monsters that Nauda leaves behind, while tracking down Nauda before he controls the indestructible Golden Army.
Hellboy 2 has a decently interesting story, but it could've been better. We're given a reason why a bad guy should fight a good guy, and then the action takes off. The inventive creatures do make it more original. One problem with it is that most of the fights are won too easily. Either the bad guys win without breaking a sweat, or Hellboy wins while cracking jokes and getting angry that he lost his cigar. The movie is clichéd at times, most notable when Hellboy saves the city, but everyone hates him just because he's different. The subplots with the relationships of Hellboy/Liz and Abe/The Princess are interesting because of the men's bad relationship skills. Hellboy 2 has a decent ending, but there's nothing that separates it from the rest of summer blockbusters.
Hellboy 2 has good character development. Hellboy is a like able bad ass, but he doesn't come across as a stereotype. Hellboy ranks on the same level with other heroes like Hancock and The Hulk, but isn't quite as interesting as Iron Man or Indiana Jones. Prince Nauda is one of the best developed villains we've had in a long time. He's a very classy villain, and has redeemable qualities. All of Hellboy's supporting heroes are well developed. They all act very distinctly in action and have their individual quirks.
Hellboy 2's dialogue is acceptable most of the time, but screws up sometimes when the character's try to make jokes. There is some subtext with it, and it rarely states the obvious. Some of the jokes are funny, but most of them fall flat on their face.
Hellboy 2 has very unique settings. The station for the Golden Army is very unique with its grand scale and its entrance way. The troll market is interesting as well, and it is cool how much resemble real world markets, but just with different creatures and much weirder merchandise. The headquarters for the U.S. paranormal defense is much more interesting than most government buildings, with its luxurious rooms and aqua tanks for Abe.
Guillermo Del Toro is a good director and doesn't fail. He uses the right shots to emphasize certain moments or to use the setting to their full potential. He evokes the right atmosphere all the time. He never screws up with the lighting. The cinematography is great. It takes away the feeling that we're watching a film.
The music helps enhance the film sometimes, but fails some of the time. It's usually over the top when it tries to be dramatic in one on one conversations. The sound editing is OK, but never fails like the music. The creature designs are the best part of the movie. All of the creatures are very original. The tooth fairies are creepy little things, and the Earth element monster is menacing in its own way. The creatures are never ridiculous or go over the top with trying to be different. The special effects are amazing and you never once doubt that they are fake.
The acting is acceptable. The cast doesn't give good performances, but they never go wrong. Ron Perlman does a good job of capturing the attitude of his character, but doesn't have too much chemistry with the rest of the cast. No one in the film gives a bad performance, and I think that's good enough for an action flick.
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is one of the better films of 2008 so far. You could skip it, but it is a better movie than Get Smart or Prince Caspian.
BAKED FRESH FILM BOTTOM LINE 7/10
Pros: Character Development Creature Designs Settings Special Effects Directing and Cinematography
Cons: Fights too easily won Clichéd some of the time Music Some of the jokes fall flat on their face
Rating Information PG-13 1. Sci-Fi action and violence A. Fighting 2. Some Language A. Cursing, but it never gets dirty.
Cast
Ron Perlman - Hellboy
Selma Blair - Liz
Luke Goss - Prince Nauda
Doug Jones- Abe Sapien
Directed by: Guillermo Del Toro
Review Written by: Kenneth Stice
Prince Nauda, an exiled elf, tries to take control of the human world by controlling the Golden Army. To do this, he will need all three sections of the crown that controls the Golden Army. He steals the first from an auction, kills his father to get the second, and must hunt down his sister to get the third. Hellboy and his team of outcasts have to clean up the monsters that Nauda leaves behind, while tracking down Nauda before he controls the indestructible Golden Army.
Hellboy 2 has a decently interesting story, but it could've been better. We're given a reason why a bad guy should fight a good guy, and then the action takes off. The inventive creatures do make it more original. One problem with it is that most of the fights are won too easily. Either the bad guys win without breaking a sweat, or Hellboy wins while cracking jokes and getting angry that he lost his cigar. The movie is clichéd at times, most notable when Hellboy saves the city, but everyone hates him just because he's different. The subplots with the relationships of Hellboy/Liz and Abe/The Princess are interesting because of the men's bad relationship skills. Hellboy 2 has a decent ending, but there's nothing that separates it from the rest of summer blockbusters.
Hellboy 2 has good character development. Hellboy is a like able bad ass, but he doesn't come across as a stereotype. Hellboy ranks on the same level with other heroes like Hancock and The Hulk, but isn't quite as interesting as Iron Man or Indiana Jones. Prince Nauda is one of the best developed villains we've had in a long time. He's a very classy villain, and has redeemable qualities. All of Hellboy's supporting heroes are well developed. They all act very distinctly in action and have their individual quirks.
Hellboy 2's dialogue is acceptable most of the time, but screws up sometimes when the character's try to make jokes. There is some subtext with it, and it rarely states the obvious. Some of the jokes are funny, but most of them fall flat on their face.
Hellboy 2 has very unique settings. The station for the Golden Army is very unique with its grand scale and its entrance way. The troll market is interesting as well, and it is cool how much resemble real world markets, but just with different creatures and much weirder merchandise. The headquarters for the U.S. paranormal defense is much more interesting than most government buildings, with its luxurious rooms and aqua tanks for Abe.
Guillermo Del Toro is a good director and doesn't fail. He uses the right shots to emphasize certain moments or to use the setting to their full potential. He evokes the right atmosphere all the time. He never screws up with the lighting. The cinematography is great. It takes away the feeling that we're watching a film.
The music helps enhance the film sometimes, but fails some of the time. It's usually over the top when it tries to be dramatic in one on one conversations. The sound editing is OK, but never fails like the music. The creature designs are the best part of the movie. All of the creatures are very original. The tooth fairies are creepy little things, and the Earth element monster is menacing in its own way. The creatures are never ridiculous or go over the top with trying to be different. The special effects are amazing and you never once doubt that they are fake.
The acting is acceptable. The cast doesn't give good performances, but they never go wrong. Ron Perlman does a good job of capturing the attitude of his character, but doesn't have too much chemistry with the rest of the cast. No one in the film gives a bad performance, and I think that's good enough for an action flick.
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is one of the better films of 2008 so far. You could skip it, but it is a better movie than Get Smart or Prince Caspian.
BAKED FRESH FILM BOTTOM LINE 7/10
Pros: Character Development Creature Designs Settings Special Effects Directing and Cinematography
Cons: Fights too easily won Clichéd some of the time Music Some of the jokes fall flat on their face
Rating Information PG-13 1. Sci-Fi action and violence A. Fighting 2. Some Language A. Cursing, but it never gets dirty.
Cast
Ron Perlman - Hellboy
Selma Blair - Liz
Luke Goss - Prince Nauda
Doug Jones- Abe Sapien
Directed by: Guillermo Del Toro
Review Written by: Kenneth Stice