2015 Movies - Worst to Best IMO...

There were legitimate moments of genuine scary tension--or at least, I think that's what they were trying to hit?--but the pacing, setup, direction, story, and climax, were all so typical of general found footage movies. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks this subgenre of horror movies has become beyond played out by now.

Don't waste your time with this one. It 'tried' to be different, and believe me, 30+ minutes in I was really rooting for it. But if you've seen "Cloverfield", if you've seen "Willow Creek", if you've seen "Paranormal Activity", if you've seen any found footage movie at all. You've already seen this one too.

Einar is an insufferable bore, Lili is a narcissistic flake. And I don't understand why this man's wife would put up with all this, or why she feels compelled (think 'Manchurian Candidate') to support Einar through this unnecessary decision. He/She even admits during the film it's a selfish choice and he/she cares nothing for his/her wife's feelings or objections. What manipulative trash!

Hehehe, stupid gullible nerds. Dance my puppets, dance!

[WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD] At least that's what the Men in the Ivory Towers are saying to themselves. Mark my word, years from now we'll all look back on this trilogy and scratch our heads. Huh? What was I thinking?

So much hype went into the Star Wars reboot that of course goddamn nerds are gonna praise pretty much anything Disney Co. owned Star Wars Universe chooses to throw at us. So little doubt was left by the end that the writers chose not to work during entire production. Ah, let's just rewrite A New Hope, nerds will never know the difference...

You got senior citizens Hans, Luke and Leia--whose cameo appearances the entire film was structured around--who the fuck wants to see them old? Then you got 1 dimensional carbon copy clones Finn (black Hans) who doesn't know shit and can't do shit, Poe (male Leia), and Rey (trans-Luke) who together with Disney's help completely rewrites the entire physics of how the Force works. A weaker, lamer, more Ewok-cutesy beachball droid. And a main villain (Kylo Ren) who becomes completely irrelevant by the end, because by removing his mask way too soon, is hardly the tiniest bit scary to the audience. He's even a bigger pussy in this franchise than Loki in the Thor movies.

Finn is the protagonist, he's black, so he wears all white. The empire are all villains, and all white, so they mainly wear all black. Get it? -Black good, white evil. And the white guys all come off as Nazi wannabes who come after Finn with upside down burning crosses. Meanwhile, on the run from his white massas', Finn bags himself a white boyfriend in Poe. And the chick, not getting any action, just decides "screw this, I'm just gonna 'Force' this shit!" And becomes an overnight Jedi Master with telepathic connection to Luke's light-saber (Excalibur symbol).

I'm just astounded how this movie didn't bomb. And how and why so many nerds swallowed this one with a straight face.

"Hey, it's been 22 years everyone, you know what that means? That means Jurassic Park is officially forgettable!!!"

¡Ay, caramba! Well, let's get this over with. Massive dinosaur theme park, check. Incompetent scientists in charge of park, check. Bad guys attempting to use dino-cloning for nefarious purposes, check. Things go awry and shit hits the fan, dinosaurs get out of their cages, check!! Stupid kids go off on their own and get into trouble due to incompetent relative supposed to be watching them, CHECK!!! Hey, wait a minute?... Adventure-junkie hunk who says he knows more about dinosaurs [a type of animal that's been extinct for millions of years] who everyone really ought to have listened to in the first place, comes to rescue when it's all way too late, CHECK!!! Oh, come on!...

You all see where this is going don't you? Do I really have to continue?...

When I first heard from Joe Johnson's mouth there would be another Jurassic Park trilogy...fast forward a couple years or more...Universal announces the new one will be called "Jurassic World", admit it. You were all thinking what I was thinking, what me and my mom and my brother thought would happen at the end of the second movie. Dinosaurs invade the Big Cities!!!

Common Hollywood writers, how stupid are you?! Ah, let's just re-package the first film, then just vacuum week's pay from every ticket payer's pocket right in the theater. Butthurt shits won't know how badly we screwed 'em, mwahahah!!!...

Woaw! Are you sure Roland Emmerich didn't direct this one? It's got his fingerprints all over it.

Action vehicle, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson plays the blandest disaster movie protagonist I've ever seen. Not to mention the most saintly. Even his bitchy ex-wife who, let's be honest, is way too hot to be convincing why these two would have got divorced from each other. Did she not realize she was married to the Rock???

Terrible acting, and as I said, so bland. Except for Paul Giamatti's always dependable over-the-top antics, but subdued enough to hit just the right notes of crazy cracker-ass geologist. It was all so bland that at one point I really did expect the quake to be relabeled The Rapture, and the end of the film to read This message brought to you by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Good luck staying awake through this one.

Retarded CGI, video game violence. Unconvincing fight sequences. Glorifying over-the-top death scenes, way too smarmy. Tries to hard to not be a James Bond movie.

And I for one, can't stand English etiquette properness. It just really got on my nerves as the film went along. But I really likes Sam Jackson's character/performance--fuckin' hilarious!

Other than that, just skip this one...

That is not what Ayahuasca does, stupid nimrods.

The ending to this one didn't make any sense. And I f'ing hate hipsters with every fiber of my being.

Woaw, WTF? This is a hard one to judge. But enough time has passed for me to officially say it was a miss.

Focused way too hard on atmosphere, should have invested a little more investment in plot structure. The story was hard to follow and in the ultimate end, went nowhere...

Convoluted as all hell. This film was a trainwreck for the Wachowskis. Not to mention there are some pretty cringe-worthy preposterous saves in the films many climax action scenes. Tatum's character impossible wedding crash, or the big save through the portal at the end.

Redmayne's performance is long winded and insufferable, and Kunis's character is pretty far from being a female role model. Still, I can't quite condemn it cause I have to admit, I liked where it was going. I just think the entire production could have used a complete overhaul.

NOT SCARY AT ALL! Saw the plot twists coming decades away. This movie spent too much of it's time trying to look great; the costumes, the sets, the score. If only more thought could have gone into the execution, the depth, and the character development.

Nice try. Not a bad movie. But hard to excuse it's snuff porn approach to childhood overactive imagination!

The more I look around the more I find most people's assessment on the Maze Runner films are similar to my own. Everything is good, we just expect better out them.

This is the second installment. Just as plain, yet almost intriguing by accident, that it just peaks the viewer's curiosity just enough to want a third one.

Everything in the Maze Runner films is so bland, and PG-13 oriented, it's almost painful to sit through. The story, is creepy and weird, and just fascinating enough that one can't quite bring yourself to look away. But the film is so freakin' boring you might need about 18 red bulls to make all the way to the end.

LOVES ME SOME MAE WHITMAN! One of the foxiest, coolest chicks in the business. She's so freaking hilarious here. Still, the script needed some work. Boring and absolutely predictable. But what saves it from being a complete catastrophe is it's got Mae F***ing Whitman in it, b****es!!!

Does a fairly decent job of bringing the past to life, however, majorly manipulative, and I'm not talking about it's white-washing of lgbt history which I personally think the public is overreacting to. Everyone has an agenda, and I personally feel that 9 times out of 10, people in the lgbt community believe only what they want to believe and conform history to whatever they want others to see.

But I mean, common. The Danny character is obviously a studio-creation. Did not actually exist. And because he's white and clean-cut, works as a perfect Jiminy Cricket spokesperson for the gay community. Ron Perlman's character even admits to it in the film, throwing it in the audience's face.

The reason it's here and not in the trash is cause there were indeed moments that I have to admit, I got swept up in the emotion. Scary parts were actually scary, sad parts were actually sad, and exciting parts were actually exciting. For young people who don't know shit about Stonewall, it might be a nice way to at least educate them on the basics.

Pretty to look at. Cute characters and performances.

But overall bland, and often boring.

Still, I can't quite decide whether I really thought it was a bad movie or not.

Pretty to look at. Pretty routine relationship drama though, as far as queer cinema goes.

Still, has poetic depth that makes it hard for me to condemn.

Well, the plot twist at the end completely undoes everything and kills the momentum, not to mention it doesn't make ANY sense. But other than that, Will Smith and Margot Robbie are very convincing, not to mention sexy as all hell in this movie!

Effective, methodical character study. A writer's investment in a pathological liar, shows what brought him to the table in the first place. I'm not sure what people had against it.

But ultimately, kind of gets lost in the sea of much more impressive films out there. I just can't get past the fact that this is a James Franco/Jonah Hill vehicle.

Can't really condemn it cause it is inspirational, though the delivery is somewhat underwhelming. But it's hard to like this one after having seen the first adaptation to Thomas Hardy's famous novel, John Schlesinger's 1967 version. This adaptation attempts to restore feminist values to what otherwise, I feel, is a story originally void of any flattering feminist sentiment of any kind.

First Tess (1979) and now this, I haven't really gotten around to reading the source for myself, contemporary literature, but from what I've seen of Thomas Hardy adaptations, this joker sure has an odd fascination for 'ruined women'. Anybody who's ever seen the 1967 film or Polanski's Tess, can see for themself how Hardy seems to write stories where women get punished, who aren't really guilty of anything. Sure, these were the times, women didn't have much say in anything, and Vinterberg surely must be commended for attempting to offer some kind of optimism to an otherwise hopeless situation. But why does Hardy feel compelled to remind women, over and over again of their place in the 19th Century. You wouldn't see Woolf or Austen do this?

Anyway, I place this movie here in this section cause it doesn't exactly hit every right note, but you can't really blame Vinterberg for trying to rewrite a (well know) story, to appeal to a modern generation of liberated women, while still attempting to stick rather closely to the original narrative. Hardy didn't leave Vinterberg much to work with...

Personally, I think this is probably one of those cases where most said to themselves "do we really need a sequel to this?" And thus explains the commercial failure.

I still have to see the first film all the way through, all I can tell you is I nearly pissed my pants this movie's so fucking funny. Especially the Liam Neeson scene.

Lots of Hollywood gloss. Still can't quite bring down what seems like an otherwise interesting subject. I liked Tom Holland's accent in the film.

Pretty cinematography. It's not really as bad as everyone says it is. All it really needed was a little more heart.

Pretty tame Bond installment. Craig looked bored stiff through most of it. Probably explains why he's backed out of the next movie.

I just liked it mainly cause we get to see more of Ben Whishaw, who I can't get enough of. And makes the perfect Q BTW.

OVERRATED! Still, interesting concept, even if it is a bit manipulative. I think the film's humor are like the jokes in an Emmerich film, gonna become tame and quite lame as the years roll by and upon repeated viewings. I'm expecting this film to be replayed on TBS like gangbusters once it hits network tv.

Did not deserve the Oscar nominations it got, especially Matt Damon's.

But again, as long as you watch it only once, and with surround sound, y'know, the theater experience. Preferably watching it actually IN the theater, it's not too bad.

Woaw! Lots of guts and gore. It's hard to tell the angle the film's makers were reaching for making this one. Little known Canadian gem. It's got '80s nostalgia, my readers should really go check it out.

Does the Peanuts franchise really need to be rebooted like this. The film was pretty good. I'm just not sure what else to do with it. There's nothing "life changing" here. It's all pretty routine recycled material.

Hehehe. It's funny, my mom sat down to watch this without me. I asked her what she thought afterward and she told me, "Charlie Brown's always a loser, it's been nearly forty years later and he's still a loser, any kid who watches this is gonna begin to think they're a loser."

Still, it's something to check out on Netflix one day, when you got nothing better to do...loser.

The twist at the end is so undeniably creepy, the whole thing plays out like something one would read on the Subreddit Forums. The rap scene at the end of the film was cute, but kind of unflattering, to an ending that should otherwise be grim or unnerving.

It's not bad, actually shows promise Shyamalan still has hope at redemption. Wait, did I just say that?

Self-indulgent to be sure. But I was entertained from beginning to end. Someone on here I read, compared the film's premise to an Agatha Christie novel. That's such a fitting comparison.

Much like anything Tarantino does, I found myself repeating most of the dialogue in my head for weeks.

It's a good one. But I just can't quite call it great.

COMPLETELY took me by surprise. Honestly, after all the nasty things I was hearing about it, I only sat down to watch this one mainly cause I felt I had to, I had it on loan from the library.

By the end, I was completely blown away. Based on the trailers I saw, I wasn't made aware that Chappie could talk? I guess that should have been a no brainer for a two plus hour movie about an A.I.

Anyway, Blomkamp had seriously blown my faith in him after the ridiculous "Elysium" that came out two years prior. This one had those important elements that the last one was missing. Self-indulgent extreme violence, almost unbearable to watch at times. And the human-element approach to a story centered around a non-human character. Chappie becomes so 3 dimensional by the end and some of the things he says during the film are so spontaneously funny I nearly wet myself. Others however are so moving as the film does a good job of a superior lifeforce trying to map out complicated issues using a child's level comprehension to his surroundings.

Familiar territory. Anyone who was paying attention to the early 2000s' priest/altar boy molestation scandal would already know what happens in this film. The performances are all decent but the deliver is a bit hammy. Especially Ruffalo's outburst scene toward the end. Reminds one too much of the much better "All the President's Men" (1976).

I'm still trying to figure why the public was so disappointed in this one? Sure, it follows familiar territory, the emotion is a little forced. But not nearly THAT bad.

I liked it, and found it a decent forced coming-of-age premise that had me invested from beginning to end.

It seems most people either like this one or they don't, there's no gray area for people like me, who seem luke warm to it.

TRUE, Green Room is a terrific thriller. It has nothing to offer in the way of substance, which in turn, I kind of agree with some of the hard criticism it's received saying that despite being about an indie punk rock band struggling to make the scene, the film's overall tone doesn't seem to complement punk rock music in any way.

So if you remove this crucial detail from the equation like everyone who likes it seems to suggest, what you get in more or less a 90 minute adrenaline rush. Cool.

What's good about it? Not overly gory, the violence is never overindulged and the contrast between fiction and narrative seems seamless. For the 90 minute runtime the audience feels as though they are stuck in that very room the protagonists are. Their decisions are our decisions. True, some of the critics may have a point that the script almost seemed to be too smart for it's own good. But on the other hand, the plot leaves deliberate unanswered questions throughout the film that makes the film interactive in a sense cause the audience is forced to fill in the blanks for themselves. Take the bat: it never came back up in the story. It was simply used as a plot device to establish Darcy's superiority.

Every character is flawed. Our heroes are cowards, our villains are buffoons. Yelchin's character has a prime opportunity to jump a guy toward the end but is reluctant cause as the characters constantly remind us--this shit would be a lot scarier in person, to have to live through, than any dumb horror movie you watch!

The film's a hell of a ride! Just don't expect it to solve world hunger or anything.

Some have commented their confusion as to why this is called "Deep Web" when it's about something unrelated. True, the film might be mistitled, but has an interesting subject that has a lot to say concerning government censorship, fascist control, and covert criminal empires.

It's recently been brought to my attention the documentary might be a bit bias towards it's target protagonist, which definitely loses it some points. But still, it's mainly what director Alex Winter (of former "Bill and Ted" fame) chooses to cover besides Ross Ulbricht that really stands out as something of interest.

I dunno. From the way everyone was talking about it, for some reason I felt a little underwhelmed by the end result. Well, that's hype for ya. Important not to get too wrapped up in it. That's why I always say, expectations should be as minimal as humanly possible going into any movie experience. There are no disappointments that way.

All in all however. Well done film. Realistic approach to a kind of story that seems so unbelievable yet could happen to anyone.

The epitome of Malick's streaming consciousness film directing style. It took a whole lot of deep contemplation afterward to grasp what I thought of the whole thing. I originally thought I had just wasted 2 hours of my life. But knowing Malick I started thinking, that can't be, can it?

I read what others had to say about it and now think it's just shy of genius. It is what you make of it. It's the anti-movie movie...

Really terrific foreign film that almost switches genres twice throughout the film's duration. Different take on coming of age, in a manner that is completely foreign to a privileged Western way of living.

Very smart, very moving.

The ultimate guilty pleasure of last year. Okay okay, the production could have used a bit of spit and polish. But by the end, I was completely in the film's hooks. It really got to me. Especially after the main character's deliberate red herring.

Says a lot about the disappointment of life's unfairness.