Normally, I use this space for reviews or other articles about movies. It’s my passion. But over the past couple of days there’s been a lot of talk about the film American Sniper starring Bradley Cooper. I’m not going to talk about the film, as I haven’t seen it yet. No, what I’m going to discuss is filmmaker Michael Moore’s spiel about snipers in general. This what he had to say on Twitter, courtesy of CNN: “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.” Now he did come out and clarify that it wasn’t directed towards American Sniper. What he did was lump all military snipers into a group that he classified as cowards. Now, he said that his father called them cowards, but it seems he’s parroting that opinion. His father is wrong and so is Mr. Moore. These people have no idea what the role of a sniper really is: Reconnaissance. These guys are highly trained and specialized soldiers that scout routes, observe enemy formations and use stealth tactics. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with pulling the trigger. If the mission calls for it, they can do more damage than your average solider, by taking out important officers and communications. Yes, they do it from a distance, but that helps confuse the target(s). That ends up weakening the enemy to the guys who do charge in. Even if there is no main objective, a sniper will seek out targets of opportunity. These guys have the ability to break the enemy’s will to fight more so than an overwhelming force. They are also used in support roles by covering soldiers infiltrating an enemy compound. They are also not ordered to shoot people, but also destroy important equipment such as radios, vehicles, fuel and water supplies.
Why did I bring this up? It just so happens that I had a grandfather who fought in World War II. More specifically, he was part of the Pacific Theater campaign. Guess what? He was a United States Marine sniper at Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest battles of the campaign. My grandfather survived, but a lot of his friends and battle buddies didn’t. He never discussed it, and having studied the history of that particular battle, I understand why. The only way to survive an assault like that is to stay down and still, and even then you would probably end up getting torn to shreds. Was I lucky to have my grandfather? Absolutely. He passed away back in 2006, but I think he would be absolutely livid to hear crap like what Mr. Moore has said. For Michael Moore to say what he did about snipers is not only insulting my grandfather, but also soldiers who fought and died for his right to spew such poison. Not just today’s warriors or the soldiers of my grandfather’s generation, but all the American soldiers who willingly gave their lives in service to this country since it was founded. Mr. Moore: If you are going to accuse soldiers of being cowards, why don’t you go after the deserters or the ones who deliberately kill innocent civilians? Leave the rest alone. Actually, I have a better idea: How about you lose some weight, put on a uniform, grab a rifle, and toe the line? “”My dad always said, ‘Snipers are cowards. They don’t believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you. Just isn’t right. It’s cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can’t shoot back.'” There is so much wrong with this statement, I don’t know where to begin. First things first, I guess: There’s no such thing as a fair fight. Never has been, never will be. Anyone caught in a serious situation is going to do whatever it takes to survive. It’s just clear to me, that Mr. Moore’s father had no clue about what snipers are used for. Lastly, you have a better chance of success of taking somebody out without them knowing about it. It’s not cowardly, it’s practical. A stand-up fight isn’t always the best solution. The whole thing about shooting people who can’t shoot back? If they’ve got a weapon, they are a threat. It’s as simple as that. So, Mr. Moore: Anytime you would like to remove that foot from your mouth, now would be a good time.
That’s my soapbox moment, I guess. When people generalize the military in a negative light, I tend to take issue with that. These people have more courage than anyone else to put on that uniform and walk into hell. That’s what my grandfather did, and what my ancestors did. We wouldn’t have the rights we do today if it wasn’t for them. I would appreciate it if Michael Moore would show more respect.
When a movie is very successful financially, it makes a certain kind of sense to capitalize on that success. By capitalize, I mean make a follow-up film that supposedly retains the best elements of the original while trying to do something new. The main issue with sequels is that more often than not, they just don’t live up to the legacy of the previous film. With movies like Superman III and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, it’s very difficult to take the idea of a sequel to a respected film seriously. Granted, the ones I just mentioned are third entries into a franchise, so they have an even harder time being successful or even being good. That’s not always the case, as there are a good number of sequels that stand out among their peers. This article is going to be about the best movie sequels that I have seen. Some of these movies are going to be fairly recent, like in the past few years, and some that are not so recent. This list is also not going to be in any particular order, so let’s get this show on the road, eh?
Wolf Creek 2
When the original Wolf Creek was released back in 2005, it garnered mixed reviews with most being fairly positive. It was praised for being an incredible intense movie with one of the most interesting villains ever seen: Mick Tayler played by John Jarratt. Others lambasted the film for being slow and needlessly mean-spirited. Personally, I loved it. It was like Texas Chainsaw Massacre set in the Australian Outback. While it was inspired by actual events, it still had its own identity as a solid thriller. 9 years later, we got a sequel. Instead of being a slow-burner that gets under your skin, Wolf Creek 2 kicks things into full gear. Right from the get-go we are introduced to Mick Taylor, and it’s not long before things go crazy. What we have is a high-octane slasher film that doesn’t take itself too seriously. This is why the film is so much fun. John Jarratt’s performance is nothing short of brilliant. At times he’s pretty funny and charming, but then he changes into a total lunatic. The film doesn’t pull any punches in terms of the red stuff, but it’s not as dead serious as the first film. This is one of the rare occasions that a sequel outdoes the original film. For horror movie buffs, I definitely recommend this one. Will there be a third film? It’s hard to say at this point. As it stands, though, Wolf Creek 2 is another great effort by Australian director Greg Mclean.
When Bryan Singer released the original X-Men film back in 2000, it was a surprise hit. It had a fantastic cast of characters with unique powers. Patrick Stewart played Professor Charles Xavier, while Ian McKellan played his friend/enemy Magneto. But the real big surprise of the movie was Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine. While I feel the film suffered from being an origin story of sorts, it was Hugh Jackman that helped make the movie what it was. It was so good, that Fox Studios wanted another. Bryan Singer was brought back as well as most of the original cast members. Now that the characters are established, Singer had room to explore the characters, particularly Wolverine. Wolverine’s always been my favorite of the X-Men, and Jackman’s performance is astounding. He really gets to dig into the role in this sequel which was one of the best action movies of the year back in 2002. As far as sequels go, X2 is pretty hard to top. It gets everything right.
When James Cameron released The Terminator back in 1984, it became a cultural phenomenon. It also catapulted Arnold Schwarzenegger into superstar status. It was a great sci-fi movie with great characters and a great story. James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger would re-team for a new Terminator film in 1991. The result is a sequel that more than does justice to its predecessor. The story in T2 takes on a different direction as the titular Terminator is there not to destroy but to protect young John Connor, played by newcomer Edward Furlong. While the film has been criticized for essentially turning the Terminator into a babysitter, I feel it’s a better option than having Sarah Connor being a direct target again. Terminator 2 revolutionized visual effects, thanks to a new Terminator: The unstoppable T-1000. Played by Robert Patrick, the T-1000 was every bit as intimidating as Arnold’s original character. Almost even more so, because the T-1000 was liquid metal and could disguise itself as anyone. While the original Terminator film is still the best of the bunch, Judgment Day is nearly as good. Great action, visuals, characters and a terrific story help make Terminator 2: Judgment Day one of the best science fiction movies of the last 25 years.
Now, here is a movie that tops the original in every way. Don’t get me wrong, the original Mad Max is a fantastic movie that gave the world Mel Gibson, but it was The Road Warrior that really gave the world Mad Max. The original film didn’t really give us a good glimpse of the post-apocalyptic world that Mad Max was a part of. Mad Max was an astound film which gave us awesome chase sequences and stunts, but it was the follow-up film that took things to a whole different level. Mad Max 2 is about as action-packed as you can get. The chases in this film are absolutely crazy. The last 30 minutes of the film is a sustained car chase sequence. It was one of the most memorable action sequences I’ve ever seen, and nobody has been able to top it. Mel Gibson is simply fantastic as Max. The Road Warrior is easily the best Mad Max film. We’ve got a new film coming out this year starring Tom Hardy: Mad Max: Fury Road. It looks great, but The Road Warrior is going to be hard to beat as far as sequels go.
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Okay, who didn’t see this one coming? Raise your hands. You knew I had to put a Star Wars movie on this list. The Empire Strikes Back is more than just a sequel to one of the most influential movies ever made, it’s also one of the best movies EVER. While some would argue that the original Star Wars is the better film, I think that The Empire Strikes Back tops it in every way. It takes a much darker tone with the Rebellion facing the full might of the Empire. This movie has it all: Action, betrayal, romance and a twist that most people had no idea was coming. The story is very compelling and emotional at its core. With the talents of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill and Billy Dee Williams, The Empire Strikes Back is what many consider to be the greatest sequel of all time. It’s kind of hard to argue with that assessment. It’s definitely the best film in the series, I think.
Superman II
In 1978, Superman: The Movie was released to audiences world-wide and is considered by many, including myself to be the quintessential comic-book movie. It was an extraordinary film that made us feel like we were flying like Superman. Nobody had ever attempted a Superman film of this scope before, and Richard Donner knocked it out of the park. It had amazing characters: Lex Luthor, Perry White, Lois Lane and the man himself: Superman. This is the movie that defined Christopher Reeve’s career. He was a newcomer, but ended up becoming a household name overnight. His performance as Kal-El a.k.a Superman is iconic and nobody else has done it the way he has. No one ever will, either. Superman: The Movie also gave us a glance at who would become the main villains of the second film. General Zod, Non and Ursa as well as Lex Luthor, would give Superman his greatest challenge yet. Of the three supervillains, Zod steals the show. Terrence Stamp is simply astounding as Krypton’s former military commander. Superman II was the movie that really gave Superman a chance to show what he was made of, and he didn’t disappoint.
Peter Jackson has a talent for creating epic movies. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite possibly one of the most successful movie trilogies ever made. The first entry, The Fellowship of the Ring was simply astounding with great action, characters and a story that took us on an incredible adventure to the fictional Middle-Earth. While there have been attempts at making The Lord of the Rings into movies, the only one who was truly successful was Peter Jackson. Nobody else took it seriously enough or had the talent. The Fellowship introduced us to Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf, and set the stage for what would become one of the most epic movies trilogies ever made. The Two Towers took things further and like Star Wars it was a much darker film. We get to see Frodo begin to struggle with the One Ring as it slowly corrupts him. The Lord of the Rings is an apocalyptic tale to be sure, but The Two Towers really gives it a more personal touch. The Battle of Helm’s Deep was nothing short of amazing, but it’s really the interactions between Frodo, Sam and Gollum that steal the show, I think. The Return of the King was the biggest of the bunch, but I feel The Two Towers was more about Frodo and Sam’s journey. The whole series is absolutely amazing.
Aliens
In 1979, the world was exposed to a new kind of terror: Alien. Directed by Ridley Scott, Alien was an extraordinarily frightening tale of survival against a creature that was as intelligent as it was lethal. While the themes of rape and sexual domination were fairly evident, it was the atmosphere that really gave the film its sense of dread. It was claustrophobic, dark and quiet. Alien was one of the greatest science-fiction films of the 70s and it gave us a new heroine in Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver. It was such a success that Fox Studios would revisit the franchise with James Cameron’s Aliens. Not wanting to try and one-up Ridley Scott’s film, Cameron took the franchise into the action film direction. Strangely enough, by doing that, Cameron almost one-upped the original film. While Aliens still retained a sense of claustrophobia, it was more of a combat film. Marines with amazing firepower were brought in to deal with the xenomorph menace, only to find themselves outnumbered. Ripley also evolved as a character as she basically adopts an orphaned girl named Newt. The Special Edition of the film revealed that Ripley was a mother herself, and after 57 years in hypersleep, she discovered that her daughter had passed away, so Newt basically filled that gap in her life and give Ripley a renewed sense of purpose. It certainly helps that Sigourney Weaver is backed up with some serious acting talent including Michael Beihn, Bill Paxton, and Lance Henrikson. The result was a movie that not only paid respect to the original, but also made its own mark. Sigourney Weaver was also nominated for the Oscar’s Best Actress award.
There we have it: The most memorable sequels that I have ever seen. Some of these might not necessarily be surprising. A lot of folks out there have similar lists, so it’s probably nothing new. There are a great many sequels out there that are absolutely fantastic. So, I’m going to make a list below of the ones that didn’t really make my top 9:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier Jackie Chan’s Police Story 2 Hellbound: Hellraiser II Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Back To The Future 2 Guyver 2: Dark Hero Once Upon A Time in China 2 Rambo: First Blood, Part 2 Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear Blade II
Cast:
Perdita Weeks: Scarlett
Ben Feldman: George
Edwin Hodge: Benji
Francois Civil: Papillon
For some, the found-footage genre is a boon, rich with movies that allow people to get immersed in what’s happening on screen. For others, it’s a headache-inducing genre. Some people complain that with these movies it’s hard to see what’s going on because the camera’s shaking so much. To be honest, most found-footage movies are crap. The Paranormal Activity movies are some prime examples of excess. You can only do a movie like that so many times before it becomes repetitive and predictable. That’s not to say that all movies using the whole found-footage motif are bad. Not at all. Movies like Cloverfield, Chronicle, and Into The Storm are just some examples of how to get it right without giving people a major headache. The genre that the found-footage technique is most associated with is horror. Starting with Cannibal Holocaust, the technique allows its audience to experience a film from a first-person perspective. The most famous movie using this technique is actually The Blair Witch Project.
As Above, So Below begins as Scarlett is in Iran looking for clues that will help her locate the fabled Philosopher’s Stone. After finding a particular clue before the site is destroyed, Scarlett makes her way to Paris, France to find someone who can translate her find. Her old flame, George reluctantly agrees to translate, and they discover that the Philosopher’s Stone may actually be hidden in the catacombs beneath Paris. After finding a local team that knows the catacombs, they begin their search. After discovering a hidden passage, they begin to see…things from their past. It seems they may have inadvertently stumbled upon a circle of hell that torments them. It’s kind of difficult to discern what kind of movie that As Above, So Below wants to be. For a while, it seems like a kind of Indiana Jones-style of adventure, but later it turns into a bit of a horror movie. This is a movie with a few interesting ideas that don’t really gel into anything substantial or coherent. What I will say is that is a brilliant idea setting the whole movie in the Paris catacombs. From what I hear, the necropolis is extremely creepy. It should be: 6 million dead bodies buried in 200 miles-worth of tunnels beneath Paris. That is absolutely perfect for a horror flick. So, what went wrong?
For one, the characters are annoying. The lead character, Scarlett is an irritating busy-body whose obsession with the Philosopher’s Stone ends up leading to disaster. Her ex-boyfriend constantly refuses to go with them but ends up following anyway. The lead catacombs guy, Papillon, is greedy and agrees only on the condition that he and his crew get half of the treasure that they were told is in the catacombs. These guys are all card-board cutouts. They’re irritating and mostly expendable, so it’s hard for people to really care when they get bumped off. There’s a couple of interesting deaths, but this isn’t exactly what I would call a super hard-R film. It’s not even all that gory, although you do get to see someone’s head get bashed in. The movie really takes a turn for the worse in the third act of the film. It’s pure chaos and because of the found-footage technique, it’s really hard to see what’s going on. You can’t get scared if you can’t see what’s happening. This is one of the main reasons why I generally don’t like found-footage movies. It gets really hard to see what’s going on, and by the time you DO figure out what’s happened, the movie’s over.
That’s not to say it’s all bad in As Above, So Below. It’s very atmospheric. As I said before, the decision to have the film take place in the Parisian catacombs is nothing short of brilliant. It’s claustrophobic and very, very creepy. The sound effects and the music are second-to-none. It really gives the film a palpable sense of dread. At least it would if the characters actually amounted to anything. There are also issues with the story, like why Scarlett is such a believer in alchemy and the Philosopher’s Stone. The fact that they end up in Hell is really bizarre. Apparently, Hell exists 741 feet below the surface of the earth. The film certainly has some interesting visuals and atmosphere, but there’s nothing here that we haven’t seen a million times before, and it’s hard to see anything when the camera’s swinging all over the place. This isn’t a terrible movie, but it just doesn’t really cut it, not with superior films out there. It’s an interesting concept with a very unique setting which helps elevate the film above the rest. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t come together as well as I hoped that it would. At the end of the day, As Above, So Below is simply…mediocre. 6/10. It’s worth a rental at least, but nothing more.
It’s been a while since my last post, I apologize. The video-game Dragon Age: Inquisition has been taking up a lot of my time lately. But I digress. 2014 was a phenomenal year for movies. You can check out Part 1 of my Year In Review article here for my list of films that I thought were the best the year had to offer. Now, my solemn duty is to inform you of the worst films of 2014. These are the movies that made it painful to be a movie enthusiast. While it is true that 2014 was great for movies, it also had its fair share of stinkers. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed some of these movies, and some of them aren’t necessarily BAD per se, but they were just not good enough. So, in addition to the worst of the worst, I’m also going to to list the crushing disappointments of the year. I’m not going to post the trailers for these films, because they aren’t good enough to warrant that. If you want to the trailers, you’ll have to check out my reviews. Lets get this show on the road, shall we? Oh, and these are in no particular order of stinkiness.
I, Frankenstein
Oh, boy. I haven’t reviewed this one, but I have seen it. This film was from the producers of the Underworld franchise. It’s a different take on the Frankenstein monster, but the filmmakers forgot to make it fun. I generally find Aaron Eckhardt to be a reliable and phenomenal actor, but his turn as Adam is not particularly good. I find it interesting that they would make the Frankenstein monster a hero in this film, and in the hands of better filmmakers it could have worked. The story is ridiculously stupid: Demons vs Gargoyles? The Gargoyles are the good guys. It’s unbelievably tepid. I can get behind a good CGI-fest, but I, Frankenstein uses it to a ludicrous degree. Honestly, it’s not really good CG, either. The whole package is just totally under-cooked. I don’t think it would have been as bad if it didn’t take itself so seriously. Seriously, there’s nary a joke or light-hearted moment in the film. It’s dreadfully serious for a kind of film that just screams for over-the-top humor. This just isn’t a particularly compelling movie in any aspect.
RoboCop
I’m of two minds about this one. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad movie at all. It really isn’t. It has a lot of interesting ideas and some really creative casting, including Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jackie Earle Haley. I might get flack for this, but I thought the new suit was surprisingly cool. It was slick and it allowed the actor to really move. They also brought in the ED-209’s. It’s a slickly produced remake, and therein lies my major problem with it. It’s too slick. The original Paul Verhoeven film was gritty, bloody and brutal. It deserved its R-rating. The new film was rated PG-13 and had none of the bite or personality that made the original RoboCop so unique. I grew up watching the original film, so I guess I was biased from the start. Peter Weller’s performance as RoboCop was iconic and extraordinarily memorable. Joel Kinnaman? Not so much. It’s not a horrible movie, but there’s nothing here that people will remember except for Sam Jackson’s hairdo. That was epic.
Transformers: Age of Extinction
I’ll be honest: I like Michael Bay’s Transformers films. I really do. His first one was extraordinarily awesome. Nobody had really seen special effects used to that extent. What’s more, Bay brought in Peter Cullen to play Optimus Prime. How could you go wrong? Revenge of the Fallen? That was not a good movie, and an even worse sequel. Dark of the Moon was a step in the right direction and had some of the most awesome destruction sequences I’ve ever seen. That’s what Michael Bay’s good at: Blowing stuff up. When it comes to actually telling a worthwhile story? He doesn’t quite get it. Age of Extinction is the latest entry into the franchise and it is both the best and worst of the bunch. It’s the best because it jettisons Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox and the terrible humor of the previous film. It also has some of the best visual effects I’ve ever seen. It’s also loaded with action. Also: Dinobots. Here’s why it’s the worst: There’s too much emphasis on the human characters. This is a problem that the other movies had. The Dinobots weren’t in it enough. They only really showed up towards the end of the film, which also leads to the biggest problem of the movie: It’s too long. I love action-packed movies, but Age of Extinction runs nearly three hours long and is filled to the brim with big explosions, gun-fire and general mayhem. It doesn’t give you enough time to breathe. It’s all flash and no substance.
Pompeii
I love gladiator movies. I love disaster movies. What happens when you combine the two? Pompeii is what you get. It’s essentially two movies in one, but it’s not particularly good at either. Paul W.S. Anderson clearly wanted to do a gladiator-style film, but it doesn’t have the grit or the originality of other films in the genre. So, he props it up with a volcanic eruption which is the main reason to watch the movie. When Mount Vesuvius erupts, it is spectacular. The effects in the film are pretty decent. The acting? Oh, dear. While most of the acting is serviceable, Keifer Sutherland is just….HORRIBLE. I don’t know how or why he got a part in this movie. As I’ve stated in the review, his filmography doesn’t give him the chops to play an evil Roman senator. I think Sutherland is a fantastic actor, but his performance in Pompeii is an epic failure. Everybody who has seen this movie has come to the same conclusion about Keifer Sutherland’s performance as I did. Come for the volcanic eruption, stay for Sutherland’s terrible performance. It’s hilarious.
The Legend of Hercules
And here we are: The worst movie I have seen in 2014. There were two movies about Hercules released in 2014: This one and Dwayne Johnson’s film. I can tell you which one is better. Johnson actually made a convincing Hercules, and that movie played with the idea that Hercules may or may not have been the son of a god. It makes for a far more interesting dynamic between the characters. The Legend of Hercules fails in every single category. Kellan Lutz was simply the wrong choice for Hercules, he really was. He doesn’t have the body or the acting chops for a role like this. Scott Adkins is horrifically over-the-top as the main villain. The visual effects are terrible and the story is just plain laughable. Of the two movies about Hercules, stay away from this one. It’s dreadful in every way.
Brick Mansions
This is a remake of the awesome French action-thriller District B13. B13 was awesome because it featured parkour founder David Belle doing what he does best without wires and without stunt doubles. It was a unique action flick that didn’t overstay its welcome. Brick Mansions is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the film with elements of Ultimatum thrown into the mix. David Belle plays the same character, while Paul Walker plays the cop. This was a completely unnecessary re-make. Everything about it is a re-hash of a better film. What’s worse is that Brick Mansions was Paul Walker’s last fully completed film before he died. I’m disappointed because they really could have done something with it, but they chose not to. Walker’s performance was the best thing about the film. Some of the action sequences were pretty decent, but nowhere near as awesome as District B13. Watch that one instead.
Yeah, 2014’s seen some pretty bad movies. I will fully admit, that I still enjoyed some of these, but the problems these movies had kept them from being memorable in the right way. These were not good movies in my opinion. But now, we come to my biggest disappointment of the year:
The Protector 2(Tom Yum Goong 2)
When Tony Jaa broke onto the seen almost a decade ago in a little martial arts flick called Ong-Bak, he was billed as the next Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. The action in that film was brutal and intense. It also featured some of the coolest stunt-work I’ve ever seen. Tony Jaa did stuff that I never saw Jackie Chan do. Tony Jaa followed up Ong-Bak with Tom Yum Goong a.k.a The Protector. The movie took the best elements of Ong-Bak and dialed up the action and stunts to a hundred. It was a non-stop action extravaganza. No wires, no visual effects. So, Jaa started work on prequels to Ong-Bak. While the second movie dialed back the stunts a bit, the fight scenes were second-to-none. But the film ended on a cliff-hanger. The next film was a disaster. Instead of Tony Jaa’s character going hog-wild on his enemies, he spent most of the film training. It was slow and boring. After the film’s dismal failure at the box office, Tony Jaa disappeared from the film scene for a while. When it was announced that Tony Jaa would be coming back with a sequel to The Protector, everybody was excited. Sadly, The Protector 2 was a mess. Some of the action scenes in this film were actually pretty good. However, the constant and obvious use of green-screens really took you out of the movie. It was designed with 3D in mind, and it failed. The film brought in fellow martial arts actor, JeeJa Yanin and newcomer Marrese Crump. Crump was spectacular. Unfortunately, we didn’t get to see Tony Jaa do his usual wireless stunt-work. During some of the action scenes, it is inescapably clear that wires were used. Combine that with some of the most horrendous CG I’ve ever seen in a movie and we end up with a movie that fails on nearly every level. For me, it’s a crushing disappointment, because this could have been the comeback movie that Tony Jaa needed. That being said, Jaa will be seen in the new Fast and Furious film as well as Skin Trade and SPL II. All three films are slated for release this year, and judging from Skin Trade’s trailer, this one could be Tony Jaa’s big break. I’m hoping.
So there you have it: The worst movies of 2014 and my biggest disappointment. Here’s hoping 2015 will feature less crap and more gold. I’m looking forward to the films that are coming out this year. Bring it on.
