Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo


Add youngbloods as a friend

youngbloods will be notified and will have to accept this friendship request, to view updates from youngbloods and their ratings you must follow them.

Remove youngbloods as a friend

Follow youngbloods

Follow content (Lists, pictures, videos, reviews & votes)

Track ratings in these areas:
Movies Music
TV shows Books
DVDs Games

About me



5 votes
Books read in 2013 (11 items)
Book list by youngbloods
Published 6 years, 7 months ago
38 votes
Things I Detest In Cinema (11 items)
Movie list by youngbloods
Published 6 years, 6 months ago 17 comments
31 votes
What 10 Ghibli films would be like as games (10 items)
Movie list by youngbloods
Published 6 years, 8 months ago 5 comments
34 votes
10 movie tie-ins that nobody wanted (10 items)
Game list by youngbloods
Published 6 years, 8 months ago 6 comments
27 votes
Stunning Grand Theft Auto screenshots (50 items)
Game list by youngbloods
Published 6 years, 7 months ago 7 comments

Recent reviews

All reviews - Movies (60) - TV Shows (13) - Books (15) - Games (3)

Rockstar does it again!

Posted : 5 years, 8 months ago on 16 February 2014 02:29 (A review of Grand Theft Auto V)

Grand Theft Auto V's three antiheroes feel as though they were torn straight out of Sigmund Freud's structural model of the human psyche. The wild, feral Trevor represents the id: a psychopath led by instincts and urges without any consideration for others. Retired criminal Michael is the super-ego: the critical, realistic, moral force that strives to keep the id in check. That leaves young Franklin as the ego: an organized, realistic partner that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego--or, in this case, two psychopaths that always seem to be a hair away from strangling each other. Throughout GTA 5 you'll swap between the trio, seeing San Andreas through the eyes of three wildly different personalities, each of whom brings their own breed of psychosis to one of the most exciting games of this generation.

As is the case with the human psyche, these different parts work together to create something stronger than the individuals ever could be. Whereas previous Grand Theft Auto characters have struggled with maintaining an interesting personality as they were tasked with slaughtering innocents for gameplay's sake, breaking the campaign into three parts makes for three better characters. They're all exceptionally written, and play off of each other well. Instead of forcing one character to climb his way up his own slice of the criminal underworld, GTA 5 does a remarkable job of providing each with their own motivations, their own missions, and their own personas you'll come to love as you swap between them.

Switching characters is a major part of what makes GTA 5 unique, and it's as seamless as you could possibly hope. At almost any time you can jump between them, zooming the camera out for a moment before warping back, showing what the characters have been doing since you last played as them. You might find Franklin walking out of a bar, only to be called by a panicking friend who needs to be bailed out of a dumb situation; and swapping to Michael could have him sitting by the pool and smoking a cigar before heading off to do yoga with his cheating wife. Trevor is typically found passed out in an alley or picking fights with strangers, and his missions are usually the most ludicrous--you'll be blowing up trailer parks and hijacking cargo planes as you see the world from his warped, chaotic point of view. Some side characters even jump between stories, making the world feel incredible cohesive.

Along the way you'll find ample distractions to keep you exploring San Andreas, ranging from random activities to wholly optional side missions. At times the staggering amount of content can be overwhelming; there's so much to do that it's easy to be paralyzed with indecision. Whether you're exploring the upper-class suburbs of Rockford Hills as Michael, the beautiful and scenic Vespucci Beach as Franklin, or the hillbilly-filled Blaine County as Trevor, you'll struggle to drive three blocks without finding something interesting to do--be it preventing a robbery or helping a paparazzo take salacious pictures of a teen star. Some will lead to interesting side plots, while others simply exist to give more life to the colorful world. Though they don't all have satisfying conclusions--with some sort of whimpering to a close--they work to flesh out the characters and provide more context to the satirical paradise Rockstar created.

Though you'll be pulled in a few directions at once, it won't take much prodding to get back to the main campaign. The narrative is exciting and exceptionally-written, and story missions, which have always been fodder between cutscenes, are now explosive set-piece moments amplified by the ability to swap characters. In one mission, you need to fly a helicopter above an office building as Trevor, rappel down the side of it as Michael, and provide sniper support as Franklin. It's thrilling, and provides an experience totally unlike anything you've played before--and it's hardly the best usage of this mechanic.

It also helps that just about every mechanic is a marked improvement over previous iterations. The most noticeable improvement comes with the visual overhaul that makes GTA 5 one of the best-looking games currently available on consoles. But this improved fidelity comes at a cost. The game's massive, sprawling, detailed San Andreas is obviously pushing the hardware to its limits, so don't be surprised to see framerate drops or objects popping into existence as you speed down a highway. Other changes have only positive impacts to the game--gunplay is extremely strong thanks to improvements to the aiming, and while the driving controls are looser than they are in some other open-world games, they make for some thrilling chases.

These mechanics come to a head in the game's heists, which take advantage of every improvement Rockstar has made to its franchise. You're not just showing up to a question mark on the map and taking part in a bank robbery mission, you're an integral part of the planning process of awe-inspiring cinematic moments. Being able to choose between two wildly different plans, deciding on the getaway car, picking from a handful of different teammates--you're in full control in a way no other game has ever attempted. When the mission actually begins, you're able to see your hard work unfold, with different outcomes depending on your planning and actions.

Rockstar also made sure to create an economy that actually makes sense, instead of just dumping money into your in-game bank account without any real purpose, as was the case in past games. You're able to customize every weapon and vehicle in the game, and there's a robust real estate system with dozens of different properties around San Andreas that can be purchased. Some feed more money to you, while others actually open up new tasks and missions. There's even a dynamic stock market that actually reacts to in-game events, letting you make even more money by researching missions before you complete them. The number of moving parts in GTA 5 is astounding, and you'll be amazed by how well they all work together.

Five years ago, it looked as though it would've been difficult to make a bigger, more impressive game than Grand Theft Auto IV, but Rockstar didn't just settle for improvements to visuals. Instead, it polished and iterated upon every single element of the game--and the genre. The world is massive and detailed, the gameplay is damn near perfect, and though there are some lackluster side missions, the actual story is filled with memorable personalities that feel more fully-realised than even the best of GTA's previous characters. It's a remarkable example of open-world gaming at it's finest, and while it doesn't reinvent the genre or do anything all that new, it does so much so well that it's hard to find flaws in Rockstar's massive blockbuster.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Mean Streets (1973) review

Posted : 6 years, 6 months ago on 15 April 2013 03:28 (A review of Mean Streets (1973))

Easily, one of the worst gangster films I've ever seen.

First of all, I'm not really a fan of gangster movies, so I never particularly cared for any of them, mainly because they're all the same, and your like sitting there for over an hour watching blokes who think they're better and superior to everyone else, and who in their right mind would want to watch that? Gangster films are very boring to be honest. They're not 'manly' or 'tough', instead they're just silly, unoriginal and just all the same. And since at the current time I'm writing this review, I have yet to see The Godfather, but I'm pretty sure it's vastly overrated, but is doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad film. I'll just have to see...

But this specific film, well, what a waste of time. Apparently it was exciting, dramatic and just utterly brilliant, well I disagree totally. The acting was mediocre at best. There was no interesting plot and just the whole thing was an utter mess. This has got to be one of the worst 'gangster' films ever made.

More than half of it was about nothing, occasionally unnecessary and unexplained fights between these supposed "gangsters", when it was more like watching a bunch of school boys in a playground. What a load of rubbish. We then have parts focusing on this (I think, as I'd already lost focus because of it's tediousness) Mexican woman and her stone hard nipples, after that was out of the way, we then had Keitel and De Niro being typical 'Little Italy' rebels. Boring. Oh, and the end...boring and just stupid as hell. I'm sure Scorsese is a good director, but he should only get praise when he deserves it. And honestly, his films are not that great, so Scorsese fans, stop making him pretentious as well as boring, not a good mix. As far as I'm concerned, nothing barley happens in Scorsese's films. Nothing interesting and appealing, anyway. Not a good sign...

I'll say it once again: This is a bad gangster film, it's a waste of time, boring and just ridiculous. The whole film is just appalling really.

The only thing you may want to watch for is to see De Niro's naff 70's haircut. Otherwise, just avoid it basically.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Macbeth review

Posted : 6 years, 6 months ago on 3 April 2013 02:11 (A review of Macbeth)

Unlike everyone else, Citizen Kane wasn't the film I liked best from Orson Welles, I actually think it's a really overrated and boring film, therefore, at the time, I did not care much for Orson Welle's Directing...and acting. But I thought all of this before I came across to watching this film, Macbeth, directed by Orson Welles...and playing Macbeth himself...Oh yes, you guessed it! Orson Welles! So, I though I'd give this film and him a chance, after all, I have not seen much from him really.

My first thoughts on this film were really mixed, I have not read the book, nor am I really familiar with Shakespeare's work, whether it's a film, book or a play. But, I honesty thought I was going to be falling asleep through the whole film, well that was not the case. Orson Welles made this film a lot more entertaining and interesting than I thought. The acting was good, I believe so anyway, the directing was good and anything else that should have been good, it was. Though it does have to be said, I think Orson Welles was a bit fond of...well...Orson Welles. That's what it seemed like, anyway.

This film proved to me Orson Welles is indeed a good director and an actor too. This was not proved to me by Citizen Kane, no, this was proved to me by a film not so many people have seen. I much preferred this, and I think Welles should be proud of himself for what he achieved by doing this film.

I'm giving this film a 7/10, I'm not really sure why, but perhaps I should re-watch this film when I can, but then again, 7 is not a bad rating from me at all. But I do believe things could have been improved, but sadly, I'm not even sure what exactly they are. But, before I do start getting all critical about anything to do with Shakespeare, I should definitely become more knowledgeable on the subject. And to end this on a high note, there's quite a lot of people I know who would enjoy this film, whether thy're a Shakespeare fan, Orson Welles fan etc. I think this is highly enjoyable and interesting.

I also think Roman Polanski's attempt at this won't be anywhere near as good. I think this is the best Macbeth so far, perhaps the best Shakespeare film too...and definitely one of the best from Orson. Highly recommended, indeed. Hope you enjoy like I did.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The unoriginality continues...

Posted : 6 years, 6 months ago on 28 March 2013 04:18 (A review of Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981))

Defiantly one of the better Friday 13th films, though it's still pretty much the same crap: the cheesy acting, the stupid 80's horror music and the predictable story line. I'm really glad I wasn't alive back in the early 80's as all the new horror movie releases would just be the same endless crappy films. Barely a year ago, the first Friday 13th film came out, barley a year ago. Which means it's really obvious they were taking everyone for idiots. Come see the same film that you saw last year for an extortionate price. I have to ask, did people honestly go and watch this sequel while it was in the pictures, where people even more stupid back then?

I can't exactly say I was ever a fan of the Friday 13th franchise, but I'd rather watch these than The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, and I'm not even sure why, maybe because I had already seen most of these before I saw the first Nightmare on Elm Street film, but I honestly don't want to get into that franchise. After wasting my time watching the, what 16(?!?) of these crappy Friday 13th sequels, the last thing I want to do is waste it on another crappy, worthless and money-grabbing franchise. These film are so unoriginal, that you just accept it. You don't care about it. Because you just think that all horror films are unoriginal, well, that's not true. You do get the odd horror film that is really original. I can't think of any names at the moment, because, after all, it is only a matter of taste I guess. We all have that one guilty pleasure horror film, but this isn't mine.

The reason I said this is one of the 'better' Friday 13th sequels is, well, quite possibly because it had more deaths and has less stalling, and less crappy 80's horror movie music in the background. Though, I still think it's a crap film, just I think it's better than the first one, I hated that one. I just think if I'm going to sit there for over an hour, I at the very least want some entertaining deaths, because that's the very reason you put a horror film on, if you didn't want that, then why put a horror film on?... exactly.

I'm giving this film a 4/10, because I believe it's better than the first film. Though I still wouldn't recommend this to anyone, because it really is just plain crap and it will waste your time and laugh in your face afterwards, so I do highly suggest you avoid this crap and the many other sequels. That's the right thing to do. Also, 4/10 is a very generous rating for this film and any other Friday 13th film, seriously, it's the truth. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, have a guess what came out the very next year...oh yes, you guessed it: Another crappy, unoriginal and boring sequel, a 'film' that I gave a big fat 1/10, which I also did with the rest of this boring and tiresome franchise.

0 comments, Reply to this entry


Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 18 March 2013 02:31 (A review of Tekken 6)

This has got to be the worst Tekken game out of the whole series. Tekken 4 was quite awful, but at least it had story mode. And I honesty believe if a game, especially Tekken, hasn't got a Story Mode, then what's the point?!...I don't think there is any. Great graphics, as usual, Namco never disappoints me when it came to the visuals, never, but obviously that's not enough. New characters too are a big disappointment; Alisa the Russian robot, can't say I'm that impressed by her, just a female Jack really. Then you have Bob, a fat guy and it's suppose to be cool cause he's fat, yeah them sort of jokes stopped being funny years ago, come on Namco, where's the fresh ideas?!. Another new character is Swedish Lars Alexandersson, he's okay, but he isn't anything special, he's just a blonde Jin now that I think about it. Oh, and I have to say this, Namco even went so unoriginal to create a Justin Bieber based character named Leo, it's a big mystery whether he's a boy or a girl. So while we keep guessing and wanting to know the truth, Namco in the meantime will be raping our wallets. I, honesty, couldn't care less what the hell he/she is...since I think he/she's a shitty character and I never use him/her, I don't know about anybody else, but I think he/she should be rewarded for the worst new character. He/she defiantly needs the boot. We then have Miguel, who I personally think is yet another disappointing new character; he basically just stands there like he's drunk, you then press about a thousand buttons or do your moves that you practised etc. he doesn't do anything, only be him when you want to lose a match, and when should you ever want that?!. We then have Zafina, another 'weird' character. She's only for show really, you can tell it was just another crappy thought out character, some sort of gypsie woman it appears. Again, she doesn't do anything hardy, and is defiantly a character you'd have to put a lot more effort into if you were to become anything near 'professional' with her, that's why I just stuck to the characters I used in the first place - still better than ever.

So to put it in a easy sort of way, Tekken 6 is without a doubt the worst game in the series, though back some years ago the graphics were rather crappy, you can forgive that since that was the only fault and it was soon to improve over a short time, but this, well, I don't think there's an excuse for this. Terribly, unoriginal and not well though out characters which were launched in this game purely for the sake of people to buy it, in which I am indeed a victim of. No story mode, which means you wont find any new information and follow the story of your favourite character. When you go to Arena mode, it shows you art pictures for the reason as to why they're in the competition, yet the writing which comes up which you're suppose to read, but you can't because it's far to small to read. Though arena mode is still not the same as story mode. I think the only thing you're going to get out of this game is the online mode, still it isn't brilliant, and it will only entertain you for so long, and you'll soon get the desperation to put one of the older Tekken games on to remind you of what it was once like.

Overall, a terrible game, a flawed game. The faults are endless, I'm sure I've missed a few, but I wasn't faced with them as I didn't play the game for that long, I hardy got through a weekend. The new characters are cheesy and uninteresting, Namco was not trying to impress us, they were taking us for idiots, in which we live up to that title for buying this game in the first place. Just simply avoid it.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Mars Attacks! (1996) review

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 18 March 2013 12:33 (A review of Mars Attacks! (1996))

I've always liked Sci Fi films involving Aliens etc., and speaking of things I've always liked, I can easily say I'm a fan of Tim Burton, easily. I usually enjoy the works of Tim Burton, though of course there has been a few disappointments from him, including this, Alice in Wonderland, Dark Shadows and without a shadow of a doubt his worst so far (and hopefully his last) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I even, and I'm pretty sure I am in the minority here, I think that Burton did the best Batman films, honesty, Nolan was trying to make Batman much more than it actually was; trying to extend it, which then makes it quite pretentious in some ways. Though Burton said himself he "never reads comic books" yet made the best Batman films. It truly shows you can be quite ignorant in things yet produce what it's all about, like Tim Burton proved.

Now, what I first noticed about Mars Attacks was the huge amount of big names in the cast including Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Martin Short, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Rod Steiger, Tom Jones, Natalie Portman, Sylvia Sidney, Jack Black, Christina Applegate etc. and I mean, chuck in some Aliens and I guess you've got a film most people will see. I'm not going to say it was awful, dreadful or ghastly etc. because I have learnt not to misuse those words, and only use them when it is 100% the truth. But I can't say I was at all impressed by this film, and sadly another failure from Burton. Big names, but not so big on the entertainment side, especially on the originality; Aliens invade and destroy half of America... nothing we haven't seen before, right?!...Seriously though, will the aliens ever invade some place else for once?!! what about China, The United Kingdom or even Australia??!! why must it always be America. And dump in a idiotic American president along with it, totally lacking any new thoughts and originality. And I always thought that was one of Burton's positives, not in this case it seems though. Defiantly not showing the best of his abilities.

Overall, a highly disappointing film, that lacked originality, constructive thoughts and ideas. Big names, but not-so-big anything else. Also a very slow start to the film, in which that should hardly ever be the case when it comes to a Sci- Fi film, unless you're going to make up for it, which sadly Tim Burton didn't do. This wannabe Sci-Fi film is clear proof that John Carpenter will indeed remain for ever The King of Sci-Fi films. I think Burton should stick to his intriguing 'weird' films that had a extremely high chance of us all enjoying. I can let him off here as, after all, he did bring us Edward Scissor hands, Bettle Juice, Batman and much more. Though I do admit, it was great that Congress got blown-up, yes, I'll admit that. And SJP head on a dogs body, those small parts were great.

0 comments, Reply to this entry


Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 10 March 2013 11:30 (A review of Airplane! (1980))

I'm really sorry to say to myself that I didn't find this film all that funny. I really just couldn't believe it. After reading what the film is about, after finding out that the hilarious Leslie Nielsen himself was in this, I really could not imagine myself not enjoying this film, sadly I really didn't think it was all that funny. The jokes were incredibly unhumorous; the jokes were basically just turning jokey sayings into literal happenings, I did not think it was funny, not my type of 'humour' in this case. The same style of jokes kept being told, in fact, I think those were the only 'jokes' that were told. And the silly love story or whatever in the film, just made it even worse. The rest of the jokes were rather boring, I really didn't crack a smile, and to a certain extent I do have a good sense of humour, grumpy at times maybe, but I believe if this was truly funny, then that shouldn't matter. The only joke I did find funny, was the pestering charity people, and when they got punched and "kung fued", that I found funny. Nielsen just managed to crack me up in this, he hasn't really ever failed at doing that.

Truth be told, I didn't think this film was all that marvellous, it was really down to the fact that the jokes weren't that funny. Nielsen just saved it from getting a lower rating. But just for the record, I did really enjoy The Naked Gun trilogy and Police Squad, but I didn't enjoy this. The jokes are completely different, they have nothing in common, so don't think you'll like this just because you liked NG or PS, it's totally different stuff.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Not enough 'Life'

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 8 March 2013 01:14 (A review of Life: Katharine Hepburn 1907-2003)

This is a book dedicated to the legendary Katharine Hepburn. This (very thin) book was released shortly after her death in 2003. Although I did enjoy the majority of this book, I still couldn't help but notice that it was lacking a lot of stuff that could have made this book perfection. What it lacked was, I believe, not enough on her actual life, Ms Hepburn was not just an actress, she was a strong feminist, and not behind closed doors. I don't remember Katharine just for her films, I remember her for her strong, unique personality and dedication. It's a fact that Katharine is one of the best actors of all time. I know everyone raves over actresses today such as Meryl Streep, who is, without a shadow of a doubt highly overrated. Hepburn was no fan either. Other things that were not included in this book that should have been were the long lasting affair with actor Spencer Tracy which is known to have spanned during 1940-67, although I think it's rather rude to have some magazine writing about personal matters such as a well kept private relationship, I still think it would have been interesting to hear a few things about it that most people already knew, in some ways I know Hepburn would not approve of her personal life being published all over the place just about a month after her death, and truth be told, I'd feel sort of guilty after reading it. Hepburn was a very private person, I respect that.

I also would have liked to have read a bit about Hepburn's childhood, I know the basics, and it seemed something I would have liked to have had some rare information on, but unfortunately, it only mentioned the basics and stuff that you could easily come across on IMDb, Wikipedia, etc. Which was disappointing. The book also included some really nice photographs, which showed some of Hepburn's iconic film roles, some personal photos, such as a photo of her and her family, a couple with fellow actors such as Cary Grant etc. None with Tracy though, not even screenshots of Guess who's coming to dinner or Woman of the year, which was a real shame to me. It did however include some memorable, wise quotes from Ms Hepburn. Her filmography and the last few pages almost left me in tears, almost, but I can't really say that for certain, was a dedication section in which it showed life after Hollywood, Tracy and basically life in some way. I think we all know nothing would stop Katharine from doing anything she wanted except death itself, which indeed was the stop to Katharine Hepburn's life. On one of the last pages it shows a few images of Katharine Hepburn's home in Fenwick, Connecticut after she had died, and said all that was left remaining in the house of Hepburn's belongings. As for the very last page of the book, there was a picture of the great Katharine Hepburn, I could see in the photo that she was the type of person who would not back down to anything and anyone, which she proved while in this world.

Though I may have enjoyed quite a few of the aspects of this book, it still lacked things that really could have been mentioned or featured in the book, and the book was easily far too thin, I even think if you were truly to document fully on Hepburn's life, I think it would give the Bible a run for its money. And of course, like I said, I would have really much preferred a few mentions of Spencer Tracy and Hepburn's childhood. Those were defiantly some of the imperfections of this book.

Katharine Hepburn is someone I would have loved to have met in person, sadly it won't be here and not now, or soon. Maybe another time and of course another place.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Forgettable, Cheap and Lousy Supposed 'comedy'

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 7 March 2013 10:07 (A review of The Full Monty (1997))

I can't exactly say I was impressed by this film much, usually a film has its moments, but this film I do not think had any. So just quickly on the film, it is about a group of guys who meet in just very unrealistic ways, its the depression, people are losing their jobs etc. they need money and feel that they need to do something to get money fast. So, they form a male striptease group, which I can't really understand, I know that it's suppose to be comedy; which means it isn't to be taken seriously, but you need at least some stability in a film, no matter what it is. After that, more than half of the film is then about the men dancing trying to be 'sexy' and things like that I don't think are funny. Before I said 'unrealistic' ways of being acquainted, well I'll give you an example, pretty much somewhere at the start of the film, one of the men try to kill themselves, he's stopped from doing so, of course. Yet him nearly taking his own life never comes back into the film at all, everyone's just forgotten about it and would rather dance about nude. That's just silly and not in a good way.

Finally, I really did not find this film funny, I was bored in parts, I had no connection to anyone and anything. But if you find unattractive men dancing badly to typical 'sexy dance' music, then this film is very much for you.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995) review

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 4 March 2013 01:57 (A review of Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995))

First of all, I didn't really have high hopes for this film, as it's a 'coming of age' film, and I can not stand them types of films, they're usually boring, typical and really stupid. And so I thought this film had a good chance of being the same. In a way I was wrong. It was watchable. I can't say I was fond of the romance parts, but after that was out of the way...it was O.K, I was getting into it. Defiantly not a bad film whatsoever.

This film follows a really unattractive young girl, played by Heather Matarazzo who is rather unattractive in real life, it's not like that TV show, 'Ugly Betty' because once you get all that crap of America Ferrera's face, she's actually not at all ugly. But this was a different case, Matarazzo is rather ugly, and so the story and the film was very believable. The unattractive girl is named Dawn Wiener - Now I don't know if you noticed, but her name is quite unfortunate. She gets bullied a lot at school, and at home, as she has a sweet, pretty and innocent looking younger sister, and so it's already rather obvious what the situation is there. Well her sister gets much more attention, maybe too much for her own good, and so Dawn is ignored most of the time, and when she's not being ignored, she's being told off by her unfit parents for not worshipping her sister. But it doesn't end there, as she also has a brother, he's not a suck-up, but he seemed to get more attention than Dawn got from her parents. And all of that going on in the film, I could defiantly relate to how Dawn was feeling, whether it's with your siblings or just other various people. It's not fair.

As that story and situation continues through the whole film, in other parts Dawn -I think- starts to develop some sort of crush on this hideous biker man, obviously a high-school drop out. But as he was well I'd say at least in his mid-twenties, she was about...what twelve? anyway, he doesn't give her a second glimpse as 1. she's very unattractive and 2. she's way to young, but Dawn doesn't quite get that...well, that's not until she catches the biker dude and some other girl making-out in her kitchen. That's when I think she 'gets it'. And so that's another story that goes on during this film. That's actually my least favourite story in this film, as I don't find that sort of stuff the least bit interesting. I was much more interested in the family situations and troubles going on.

The last bits and bobs of the story are, Dawn gets bullied a lot at school, she gets threatened by all the students. Some really disturbingly harsh bullying tactics in the film.

Getting near to the end of the film, Dawn's little sister is kidnapped, and this part of the film I really wasn't sure about, it just seemed to fake. I didn't really believe it. I know it's quite capable of happening, but I just thought that it wasn't a very well thought out part in the film. I was quite happy watching a difficult family with lots of faults, that was interesting to me, but the whole kidnapping thing spoilt it I think.

Soon, Dawn's sister is soon found and returned safely back home. Though quite a bit before she was found Dawn ran off to, I think it was New York, yes, I think. To run away. Her parents obviously did not notice that their other daughter had gone missing, as they were to focused on their other preferred and favourite daughter, but that begs the question and thought, I bet her parents and family still wouldn't have noticed she had gone missing, even if there other much more loved daughter hadn't gone missing beforehand. But like I said earlier, Dawn's sister is found and returned back home, unharmed. And Dawn later returns home.

Although some may think I'm taking this film much too seriously, I think perhaps I am. But what's the point watching a film is you aren't going to take it seriously, although I didn't go as creepy as to hold a notebook while watching the film, writing endless trivial flaws of the film, which is what movie-buffs do, I took it fairly seriously and watched.

Overall, I think this film is highly watchable stuff, I'd certainly recommend it. The points I made on what I didn't like and the basic negatives, may not effect your viewing of this film. That could just be a me thing. I don't believe this is any ordinary coming-of-age film.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

« Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Top rated
My movies page

Rated 1555 movies


Top rated
My tv page

Rated 431 tv


Top rated
My games page

Rated 107 games


Top rated
My music page

Rated 27 music


Favorite - View all
My books page

Rated 96 books
Favorite Authors


Posted: 1 year, 7 months ago at Feb 25 21:11
Cynical? More like a jerk!