Back to the Future: A Trilogy

A DeLorean, a flux capacitor, and 88 miles an hour make for one of the greatest trilogies of all time. Welcome to Read Tom Watch, and today I will be reviewing the Back To The Future trilogy.

 The story follows Michael J. Fox's Martie McFly when his friend Dr. Emmet Brown (Christopher Lloyd) makes a time machine that will travel through time once it reaches 88 miles an hour. In the first movie Martie travels back in time and accidentally prevents his future parents from meeting, and has to find a way to get his parents to fall in love with each other while finding a way to get back to the future with the help of Doc Brown's past self.

The second film shows Martie going into the distant future With Doc Brown to stop Martie's future son from getting arrested, but accidentally brings something from the future into the present and causes an alternate 1985.

The third film is where Martie goes to 1885 (the old west) to retrieve Doc Brown who was sent there by a bolt of lightning when he was in the DeLorean. When arriving in the old west, Martie accidentally tears a hole in the fuel gauge, and has to find a way of getting the car up to 88 miles an hour.

In the field of story, the writer did a good job of keeping the story interesting, and making sure that there were no plot holes in any of the conflicts in the story, like how in the third film Martie and Doc couldn't use Mr. Fusion to power the DeLorian, or in the second film why they couldn't go back into the future to remove the alternate 1985.

In the area of acting, this is no doubt Michael J. Fox's greatest performance, as he plays a somewhat smug teen who wants to prove to the world that he's not chicken.  Christopher Loyd's performance as the mad (but knows what he's doing) scientist is also ridiculously entertaining.

With an awesome story and great performances, I give the Back To The Future trilogy 14 flux capacitors out of 15.    

The Re-telling of World War II: "Inglorious Bastards"

Guns, blood and Nazis, looks like we're back in World War II. Welcome to Read Tom Watch, and today I will be reviewing the film Inglorious Bastards.

Inglorious Bastards, directed by Quintin Tarintino, and starring Brad Pitt, follows a group of American-Jewish soldiers known as the ''bastards'' who have been sent into a Nazi-occupied France to... well, kill and scalp Nazis. When the bastards receive word about a German film called ''Nation's Pride'' that will be seen by all the major Nazi generals and even Hitler himself, the bastards make a plan to kill everyone in the theatre. Meanwhile, the French-Jewish woman who owns the theatre that the Film will be shown in also makes a plan to kill the Nazis by burning the theatre to the ground.

Now that the story (and historical inaccuracies) are done with, it's time to review.

When I watched the film, I expected to see a lot of battles between the bastards and the Nazis, but was a tiny bit disappointed when I saw that the movie was mostly dialog and only a few gun fights and one majorly brutal baseball bat scene delivered by the ever-so-deadly Bear Jew. The movie makes up for this with the awesome scene near the end of the film. But honestly, wouldn't you expect there to be battles in a movie about WWII?

Though there's a lot of it, the dialog isn't boring because of how it sets up what is to happen in the movie's near end. Plus, Quinton Tarintino does an excellent job of telling two stories in one movie without having it become confusing.

As far as performances go, the performance that I liked the most in the movie was Col. Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz), the Nazi detective. Though all the actor did a good job in they're roles, it was Christoph Waltz performance as the happy faced Nazi detective who stole the show with every scene he was in. Why did he have to play the bad guy?

Overall, I liked the movie with its fun (though inaccurate) plot, its awesome dialog and one hell of an ending. I give this movie 11 Nazi scalps out of 15.      

Double Post: "Equilibrium" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

Hello, my name is Tom, I am a Canadian, and I love to watch movies. For this being my first countdown, I will be reviewing two movies that are very popular (well, maybe not to some people) by looking at the plot, the acting, and giving the movies I review an overall score out of fifteen. Caution: these reviews contain some spoilers. You have been warned.

For my first act, I will be reviewing Equilibrium, starring Christian Bale as the main protagonist, directed by Kurt Wimmer. The movie takes place in the near future after the earth barely survived a third world war. To stop a fourth war from taking place, a sort of drug was created so that people will stop feeling emotions. This of course makes people mad and form a resistance to protect everything that makes humans feel certain ways, such as music, art, etc. For this problem, a new form of police was created that specialize in kung-fu, known as Clerics. Enter our hero John Preston (Bale) who one day misses a dose of the drug that stops him from feeling, and starts seeing that everything that he has been doing is wrong. The movie was great showing some very well-choreographed fight scenes, but for an action-thriller, the fight scenes weren't that long, and there were only about three to four fights to speak of.

Now lets talk about acting. I enjoyed Christian Bale's performance as an emotionless super-cop who then learned to feel again, and everyone else, hell, even the kids in the movie did a good job in their roles. There was one actor in the film who i had a little problem with. Brandt (Taye Diggs), who was one of the main antagonists always seemed to smile and laugh whenever Preston was faced with a sort of challenge. What, did the actor forget to read what the main plot was even about? The plot is another thing. Though the idea of enforcing the human race for feeling emotions sounds like a good idea, it's quite weird when actually put into action. Other than that, I really liked the movie with its incredible action scenes and the awesome guns that Christian bale uses. I give it a good 11 future pistols out of 15.

Now for my second act, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, directed by Robert Zemeckis, starring Charles Fleischer and Bob Hoskins. This was an awesome movie that brought together two great animation companies, Disney and Warner Bros., that gave all the childish fun that we all known and love while adding some violent and sexual themes. What, you want more? The story follows a cartoon rabbit named Roger who can't focus on his work because he thinks that his wife is cheating on him. When the man who Roger's wife is supposedly cheating on is murdered, Roger is the prime suspect. Roger then enlists the help of a detective named Eddie Valiant, who hates toons after his brother was killed by one. Eddie then decides to help Roger, and must hurry before Roger is found by Judge Doom (played by Christopher Loyd, who, I will add, makes a kickass villain) and put into a bucket of "dip", a liquid that kills toons, LITERALLY. Enough about the plot, let's look into the special effects. They are amazing. This was the first movie where cartoons were put into reality. The movie was made in 1988, and the effects were far ahead of they're time. It still puzzles me how they got toons to hold real life objects. Let's look at the casting. Bob Hoskins did a great job at portraying a man who's always serious even though the toon he's protecting isn't serious at all. That's another thing. Roger is hilarious because  he never takes anything seriously, and even in the darkest of times, he always finds a way to make people laugh. Christopher Loyd did an incredible job at being an all out evil villain who hates toons even though (spoiler) he's a toon himself. what else can I say about this movie? The plot was awesome, the effects were outstanding, the casting was perfect, and it was just an all around great movie. I give it 13 Roger Rabbits out of fifteen.


Those were my two first reviews for this blog. I hope you enjoyed.