Jurassic World

Alright everyone, the time has finally come. I got a chance to watch “Jurassic World” last night, so now I will let everyone know my thoughts on the film. This film came out on the 12^th of this month, and I was really looking forward to this film. Time to see how it is:

Back in 1993, when Steven Spielberg’s highest-grossing movie “Jurassic Park” came out, the world was at a different time. We had only saw dinosaurs in story books and lifeless labs until the movie came out. Then, they were there on screen in their CGI-meets-practical effects glory and our theater-going experience was not the same after that.

Jyoti Sharma Bawa of the Hindustan Times stated in her review, “Nothing, we repeat, nothing can outdo that first introduction to dinos, resplendent as it was in its Spielbergian wizardry.” However, it is to the credit of the larger and louder dinosaurs, the film’s director Colin Trevorror and the cast, which includes Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard and Irrfan Khan that while seeing this you compare it to the first “Jurassic Park,” and not its less-than-watchable sequels.

We meet the park’s tense manager Claire (the hot Bryce Dallas Howard) and billionaire owner Sam (Irrfan Khan) early on. Irrfan’s character is the perfect person for the torch to be passed on from John Hammond. He understands that his dinosaurs need to entertain the audience, knows that they need to push science to come up with the latest attractions. Does Sam care about the brought-back-from-dead species? He says he does, but somehow it is hard to believe him.

Claire is a money grubber. She knows people want bigger, better dinosaurs with more teeth and she is ready to give them to the visitors of the park. Bawa mentioned, “The result of DNA tinkering in the lab (we are never clearly told whose) is the albino dino Indominus Rex who has the built of a T Rex and intelligence of a highly skilled killer.”

The dinosaur is a female who tries escaping her cage and Claire is sent running to the park’s raptor trainer-resident baddie Owen, played by Chris Pratt. To make things more edge-of-the-seat, Claire’s nephews Gray and Zack (Ty Simpson and Nick Robinson) are visiting the park and Vic Hoskins (the awesome Vincent D’Onofrio) is described by Bawa as, “wants to weaponise the dinos and use them in situations such as Tora Bora.”

The rest is predictable to any fan of the series – killer dinosaur is on the loose, people being eaten and other people (the main cast) managing to avoid the dinosaur’s jaws by their natural bravery and intelligence.

Bawa says, “What really works is the film's meta commentary on how to manage the audience's demand.” Like the people we see in the film, we want so much more than just dinosaurs from the series. “Jurassic World” has turned into a little more than a petting zoo where people would rather pay more attention to their smartphones than watch a Mosasaurus eat its prey. “Nobody is excited to see a dinosaur anymore,” Claire says as an introduction to a focus group. When asked what shareholders of “Jurassic World” want, her answer is, “We want to be thrilled.”

The same can be said for the audience. The film is a sarcastic commentary on how corporate moneygrubbers are running the game and it is necessarily disrespectful in a scene where toddlers are seen riding baby dinosaurs or when the king of all the beasts, T-Rex, is reduced to a circus monkey. Bawa said that, “The underlying message of this self referencing film is: We are going to give you some CGI-filled mayhem which will be akin to Transformers-meets-Sharknado. Just don’t blame us when stuff hits the fan.”

Here’s the problem: The CGI falls ages short of “Jurassic Park’s” realistic feel. It looks unreal in parts and forced in others. How we miss those practical effects of Spielberg which made the first film shockingly real.

Bawa compliments, “Trevorrow makes a confident debut in the arena of blockbuster arena. He seems to be channeling Spielberg who is the executive producer of this one. The build up before the violence is unleashed, the device of using a pair of kids of an about-to-be-divorced couple (the hot Judy Greer and Andy Buckley) and even a visit to the vine-encrusted original park is all Spielbergian and yet has Trevorrow's stamp.” The director knows that the audience wants an action-filled ride, scarier and bigger than last time, and gives it to them.

The cast delivers. Our Middle-Eastern export, Irrfan, is as good as always and beautifully performs the philosopher-entertainer. Chris Pratt delivers again after “Guardians of the Galaxy” as the funny-great guy. Bawa mentions, “It is his lack of chemistry with Howard which is the only jarring point.” The kids are supposed to look cute and scared, and they do.

Now, the answer to the question: Is the film as good as “Jurassic Park?” No, it is not but it is the best sequel that might be almost as good.

Expect cameos from country singer Jimmy Buffett, “The Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon and director Brad Bird. BD Wong from the first movie is the only returning cast member from the first movie in here and his role is bigger. Omar Sy is also in this movie as Pratt’s friend and the hot Kate McGrath is in here as Claire’s assistant who takes care of the kids when she is busy.

I have a slight problem with a couple of the characters. Vincent D’Onofrio plays the typical bad guy who just wants to take over the park and make money, which is something I have seen done before many times. Also, the older brother is a complete jerk to his little brother, who is relatable since anyone who has an older brother can relate, but this is just “way too” cruel. However, with that being said, I think this movie should have been the second in the series. Forget “The Lost World” and “Jurassic Park III,” this is the true sequel to the first movie. The effects looked nice, the characters were good, you did feel scared at parts, and it was an overall good movie. Don’t worry everyone, you can go to the theaters and watch this movie, so go see it while you still can, it’s the best sequel in the franchise, although I think I’m sounding repetitive.

Thanks for joining in on “Jurassic Park Month.” I hope all of you enjoyed it as much as I did. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Jurassic Park 3

I want to apologize for posting this review up late. I have an upset stomach, so I basically had to rest before I had enough strength to post this. With that said, let’s start the review.

Wow! I cannot believe it. I’m already on my 300^th review. Isn’t that hard to imagine? In continuation of “Jurassic Park Month,” I think it would be right to give you my thoughts on “Jurassic Park 3.”

“Jurassic Park 3” is a step in the right direction for the dinosaur-based series and signifies the end of the original trilogy. Released in 2001, it’s the last installment to be released in theaters until 14 years later when “Jurassic World” came out. Although it’s not as good as it might have been under Steven Spielberg’s directing skills (who also was the executive producer), it’s a good success that gives a few memorable moments and glimpses of a new dinosaur.

The new dinosaur shown in this movie is the Spinosaurus, which is the first dinosaur in the series to fight and successfully defeat the Tyrannosaurus. Seeing how the first two “Jurassic Park” movies showed the T-Rex and the raptors as the main enemies, director Joe Johnston thankfully shows that he’s willing to try new things in his first installment in the series.

Johnston continues the story of the first two movies though by bringing back paleonotologist Alan Grant, reprised by Sam Neill, who was last seen in the original, as the protagonist. Early on, Grant is reunited with Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), his girlfriend and partner in paleonotology from the original, who has gone on to start her own family with a husband (Taylor Nichols) and a few children (one of them played by Blake Michael Bryan). Grant tells her that he’s still studying raptors and has recently discovered that raptors may have the ability to vocally communicate with one another. Obviously, he never wants to return to the island of Jurassic Park but is tricked into visiting site B (which was shown in the previous movie, “The Lost World”) when a young married couple named Paul (one of the greatest actors, William H. Macy) and Amanda (the hot Tea Leoni) Kirby convince him to serve as their tour guide on a private flight over that island (obviously, for a large fee).

The duo have hidden plans and are secretly searching for their mission son Eric, played by Trevor Morgan, who was last seen parasailing near site B with Mark Harelik. They plan to land the plane on the island to find him.

John Hanlon stated in his review, “Clocking in at 92 minutes, there’s an efficient thriller quality to this sequel.” After Grant and Kirby’s crew (including Alessandro Nivola and Michael Jeter) land on the island, Johnston keeps the action going at a strong and able pace. With fewer characters here than in “The Lost World,” he has the opportunity to build a few (although paper-thin) characters here. Macy and Leoni may not have much to do (other than run from dinosaurs) but their characters are finding their lost son. Hanlon goes on to say, “The goofy sarcasm and silliness of The Lost World has been replaced by a more serious tone (despite the fact that some of the special effects from this sequel don’t hold a candle to the effects from the previous two films).”

Neill makes up for the weaker characters by giving a sturdy lead performance. Hanlon stated, “More than any other character in this series, he is the dinosaur expert and his expertise helps guide the film with Neill providing the gravitas needed to keep the proceedings grounded (and the viewers informed about the dinosaur behavior we’re witnessing).”

It’s obvious that this film wasn’t made to compare to the original but what it does do, it does somewhat smoothly with only a few boundaries along the way. Instead of rehashing old material, the director makes a few small changes that make this story his own. Along with the main dinosaur changing, he also gives us a great Pterodactyl attack and another strong scene set on a river that runs through the island.

Hanlon ended his review by saying, “What Joe Johnston shows here is that this series still has a few stories left to tell and I, for one, can’t wait to see what happens next.”

My verdict is if you were not impressed with “The Lost World,” then definitely check this one out. I know that this one is nowhere near as good as the first movie, and I don’t think that one will ever be topped, but it’s definitely good and better than the last one, in my opinion. However, maybe Nostalgia Critic was right when he said that it’s up for debate which one is the worst when you look at the second and the third movie. If you think the third one is the worst, I understand, but I guess the movie does know that it’s bad so it ends on a fast note.

Well, there’s only one thing left to do. I have to watch “Jurassic World” before next Friday so that I can see if that one is better than the sequels or worse. I have been hearing that it is the best sequel out of the entire trilogy, but I have to see it for myself. Just sit tight until next Friday for the conclusion of “Jurassic Park Month.”

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Welcome back to “Jurassic Park Month,” where today we will look at a movie that many considered a disappointment, and I can see where they are coming from, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park,” released in 1997. I'll tell you the problem with the sequel that Spielberg made here. It didn't require any discipline to attain it. He read what others had done and he took the next step. He didn't earn the knowledge for himself, so he didn't take any responsibility for it. He stood on the shoulders of Michael Crichton (who also made a sequel to the book, which I don't own and never even heard of until a few years back. Possibly it was written because fans wanted him to) to accomplish something as fast as he could, and before he even knew what he had, he patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic DVD cover, and now (I slam my hand on my table) he’s selling it, he wants to sell it.

Where is the awe? Where is the sense that if dinosaurs really walked the earth, a film about them would be more than a monster movie? Where are all the surprising reactions? “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” demonstrates way more visibly than “Jurassic Park” that the fundamental material is so promising. It deserves a story not written on autopilot. Steven Spielberg, a talented director, should have once again imagined the material, should have seen it through the eyes of someone looking at dinosaurs, rather than through the eyes of someone looking at a box-office sequel.

The movie is well done from a technical viewpoint, of course. The dinosaurs look amazingly real, and we see them dive into the middle of 360-degree action. A man on a motorcycle even rides between the legs of a running dinosaur. It can be said that the creatures in this film goes beyond any visible signs of special effects and seem to walk this planet. However, the same realism isn’t brought to the human characters, who are leapt by plot conventions and action formulas, and scripted to do vacuous things so that they can be chased and sometimes eaten by the dinosaurs.

Maybe it was already too late. Perhaps the time to do the thinking on this project was before the first film, when all the possibilities are in front of Spielberg. He should have thrown away the original Michael Crichton novel, knowing it had given him only one thing of use: an explanation for why dinosaurs might walk before us. Everything else – the scientific babble, the theme park plan – was just the garbage of other movies. We already know the tired old plot lessons, about man’s greed and pride, and how it is punished, and why there is no consequence to get in the way of Mother Nature.

I think I agree with Roger Ebert when he asked, “Why not a pseudo-documentary in which the routine plot elements are simply ignored, and the characters venture into the unknown and are astonished and frightened by what they find?” There are moments in the first “Jurassic Park” that captures a legitimate sense of wonder, the first time we see the stylish, eye-popping prehistoric animals moving in majestically calm beyond the trees. However, soon they are scaring the human characters, as in any monster movie.

“The Lost World” is even more mechanical. The plot gives up a reason for Ian Malcolm, reprised by Jeff Goldblum, to return to an island where dinosaurs survive. His girlfriend, played by Julianne Moore, is already there. He takes along an equipment specialist (Richard Schiff) and a “video documentarian” (Vince Vaughn, who has got to be one of the nicest men out there, but his character comes equipped with a tiny tourist toy of a video camera and doesn’t seem sure how to use it). They land on the island, are soon taking photos of these prehistoric animals, and the screenplay is so careless that the newcomers to the plot are not even allowed to show their surprise the first time they see their victim.

A good majority of the film, especially the action scenes, is shot at night in the rain. Ebert mentioned, “I assume that's to provide better cover for the special effects; we see relatively few dinosaurs in bright light, and the conceit is taken so far that even the press conference announcing a new dinosaur park in San Diego is held in the middle of the night.” The night scenes also allow Spielberg to use his most familiar visual trademark, the visible beams from powerful flashlights, but apart from that cliché, Spielberg doesn’t really seem there in the movie: This feels like the type of sequel a skillful man hands over to their student, and you sense that although much effort was abundant on the special effects, Spielberg’s interest in the story was mechanical.

Here’s the fact to the movie’s weakness: Many complicated scenes exist only to be…complicated sequences. In a better movie, they would play a role in this story. Consider the drawn-out episode of the lifeless research trailer, for example, which hangs over a cliff while the characters hang over a terrifying drop and a hero tries to save the trailer from falling, while a dinosaur attacks. This is only what it appears to be, an action scene, nothing more. It doesn’t lead into or out of anything, and is superfluous, except to be filler in the runtime. It plays like an admission that the filmmakers couldn’t think of something more interesting involving the real story line.

Also, consider the character of Goldblum’s daughter, played by Vanessa Lee Chester. Why is she here? To be put in danger, to inspire contrived household disagreements, and to make demands so that the plot can get from A to B. At one point, inside the trailer, she gets scared and says immediately that she “wants to go someplace real high – right now! Right now!” Ebert mentioned, “So Goldblum and another character put her in a cage that lifts them above the forest, after which Goldblum must descend from the cage, after which I was asking why they had ascended in it in the first place. (Early in the film, it is established that the girl is a gymnast; later the film observes the ancient principle that every gymnast in a movie sooner or later encounters a bar.)” There are some moments that work. Pete Postlethwaite, as a big game hunter who flies onto the island with a second wave of dinosaur private armies, doesn’t step wrong. He plays a convincing if shallow character, even if he’s called upon to make long-winded speeches in speeding Jeeps, and to say creative lines about “movable feasts” and having “spent enough time in the company of death.” He alone among the major characters seems convinced that he is on an island with dinosaurs, and not merely in a special-effects movie about them.

The film’s structure is weird. Ebert mentioned, “I thought it was over, and then it began again, with a San Diego sequence in which Spielberg seemed to be trying to upstage the upcoming "Godzilla'' movie. The monster-stepping-on-cars sequences in the current Japanese import "Gamera: Guardian of the Universe'' are more entertaining.” Can we really believe that a ship could crash into a pier at full speed and remain seaworthy? The problem with the movie is that the dinosaurs aren’t allowed to be the stars. They’re fabulously imagined and executed, but no attempt is made to understand their awesomeness. Much of the plot centers on mother and father T-Rexes exhibiting parental feelings for their offspring. Must we see everything in human terms? At one point, one character tells another, “These creatures haven’t walked the earth for tens of millions of years, and now all you want do is shoot them?” Somebody could have asked Spielberg the same question.

I don’t really recommend this one because it’s nowhere near as awesome as the first one was. Besides the dinosaur effects looking great, but not as amazing as the first one, the story in this movie has you scratching your head thinking, “Why are they making another “King Kong” rip-off with a set up to that horrible “Godzilla” movie that came out the next year?” If you want to give this sequel a pass, you may.

How is the third one in this series? Is it worse or better than this one? Find out next week in “Jurassic Park Month” to know what I thought.

Jurassic Park

Now the time has come to review one of the greatest franchises directed by one of the greatest directors, Steven Spielberg. Since the fourth in the series will be released in a week, I think the time has finally come to share with everyone my thoughts and opinions on the series. Come and join me in “Jurassic Park Month.” There is no time to lose, so let’s get started with the classic “Jurassic Park,” released in 1993. This movie is based on the famous Michael Crichton novel of the same name, which I have on my shelf, but I have never read it, so I can't say how closely the movie follows the book.

When Spielberg was first offered the screenplay for “Jaws,” he said that he would be the director of the movie, but had one condition: He would not show the shark for the first hour. By slowly building the audience’s anxiety, he felt, the shark would be much more impressive when it finally arrived.

He was right. Roger Ebert said in his review, “I wish he had remembered that lesson when he was preparing "Jurassic Park," his new thriller set in a remote island theme park where real dinosaurs have been grown from long-dormant DNA molecules.” The movie delivers very well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a success of special effects creativity, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and astonishment, and strong human story values.

It’s clear, seeing this long-awaited project, that Spielberg devoted more of his effort to creating the dinosaurs. The human characters are a mixed bunch of half-realized, sketched-in personalities, who are there primarily to scream, tell grim warnings, and outsmart the monsters.

Richard Attenborough, the millionaire who builds the park, is given a few small dimensions – he loves his grandchildren (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), he’s basically a good soul, he realizes the mistake of messing with nature. However, there was an opportunity here to make his character grand and original, colorful and oversize, and instead he comes across as unfocused and gentle.

As the film opens, two dinosaurs expert (Sam Neill and Laura Dern, you got to admit, Spielberg couldn’t have picked any one better) arrive at the park, along with a mathematician played by Jeff Goldblum whose function in the story is to lie around saying vague philosophical maledictions. The team includes Attenborough’s grandchildren, and a lawyer, played by Martin Ferrero, who is the first to be eaten by the dinosaurs.

Attenborough wants the visitors to have a preview of his new park, where actual living prehistoric animals live in fields behind tall steel fences, helpfully labeled “10,000 volts.” The visitors go off on a tour in remote-controlled utility cars, which stall when a dishonest employee, played by Wayne Knight, shuts down the park’s computer program so he can steal some dinosaur embryos. Meanwhile, a tropical storm hits the island, the beasts knock over the fences, and Neill is left to guide the kids back to safety while they’re hunted by towering carnivores.

Ebert says that, “The plot to steal the embryos is handled on the level of a TV sitcom. The Knight character, an overwritten and overplayed blubbering fool, drives his Jeep madly through the storm and thrashes about in the forest. If this subplot had been handled cleverly - with skill and subtlety, as in a caper movie - it might have added to the film's effect. Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story.”

The following events – after the creatures get loose – follow an absolutely standard outline, similar in bits and pieces to all the earlier films in this genre, from “The Lost World” and “King Kong” right up to “Carnosaur,” which was going to be released later that year. True, because the director is Spielberg, there is a high technical level to the completing of the clichés. Two set-pieces are particularly successful: A scene where a beast attacks a car with screaming kids inside, and another where the kids play hide and seek with two creatures in the park’s kitchen.

Consider what could have been. There is a scene very early in the film where Neill and Dern, who have made a career studying dinosaurs, see living ones for the first time. The creatures they see are all tall, majestic leaf-eaters, browsing kindly in the treetops. There is a sense of magnificence to them. That is the sense lacking in the rest of the film, which quickly turns into a standard monster movie, with screaming victims running from roaring dinosaurs.

Ebert pointed out, “Think back to another ambitious special effects picture from Spielberg, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977). That was a movie about the "idea" of visitors from outer space. It inspired us to think what an awesome thing it would be, if earth were visited by living alien beings. You left that movie shaken and a little transformed. It was a movie that had faith in the intelligence and curiosity of its audience.”

In the 16 years since it was made, however, big-budget Hollywood seems to have lost its confidence that audiences can share big dreams. “Jurassic Park” throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and they indeed do) we’re supposed to be grateful. Ebert admits, “I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made "Close Encounters" today, we would have seen the aliens in the first 10 minutes, and by the halfway mark they'd be attacking Manhattan with death rays.”

Because the movie delivers the bottom line, Ebert gave this movie three stars, and I also give this movie a positive review. You want great dinosaurs, you got great dinosaurs.

Ebert mentioned, “Spielberg enlivens the action with lots of nice little touches; I especially liked a sequence where a smaller creature leaps suicidally on a larger one, and they battle to the death.” On the monster movie level, the movie works and is entertaining. However, with its extravagant resources, it could have been so much more.

Now I have to say that if you haven’t seen this movie, then you should not have read this review. I cannot do this movie justice with how great it is. You have to see the movie yourself to see how grand and groundbreaking this movie was for the time and it still holds up to this day. See it if you haven’t, this one is a must see and I highly encourage you to watch the movie.

How is the first sequel compared to this movie? Stay tuned next week to find out in my continuation of “Jurassic Park Month.”

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie

Special treat today everyone: I want to review one of my most anticipated movies ever, the independent “Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie,” released in 2014. I have mentioned James Rolfe many times on my reviews, and I want to review his movie that didn’t take him as long as independent movies normally take, especially since he made it with the help of donations from his fans who were really eager to see his movie. Ever since he mentioned in his Spielberg Game Reviews video that his most requested game, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” for the Atari 2600 (which I have to admit, I never owned and never played), was going to be reviewed in the movie. I didn’t get to see this movie in any theaters near me that played independent movies since his list of theaters he was going to play it in never played in my area. I didn’t even want to pay online to see this movie, but I did see it when it was released on DVD, and it was worth the rental. Since I am one of James Rolfe's biggest fans, I think it would be worth it if I did a review on this movie. Enough of that, let’s get on with the review.

First off, a little history: In 1982, Atari game designer, Howard Scott Warshaw, was chosen to program the “E.T.” game based on the movie, which was the highest grossing movie that year, since previous Spielberg games, like “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Normally, an Atari game took Warshaw 6-7 months, but was only given 5 weeks for “E.T.” in order to be ready for the Christmas season. End result: a game that left gamers frustrated with the layout and gameplay that left Atari with a $536 million loss. Not only did it make Atari bankrupt, but also was one of the causes of the video game crash in 1983. Atari was apparently left with 5 million copies that were returned and they ended up burying them in the New Mexico desert.

As I have already mentioned, James Rolfe really made a brand name with “The Angry Video Game Nerd,” one of the most famous video game review shows that looks at the worst in the gaming business. Brian Orndorf mentioned in his review, “It’s no polite rundown of faults, but a program constructed with sketches, game play, and cursing. So much cursing.” Rolfe’s swear-mouthed routine has made him into an Internet Star with gamers, creating a fan base interested in the worst games dissected with phenomenal goofiness. With the amount of profanity aside, Rolfe’s videos are very entertaining, but does a guy who built a business in his basement, screaming into his handheld camera, ready to be made on the big screen? “Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie” is determined to turn the glasses-wearing, pocket-protecting, beer-drinking, joystick-bending nerd into a cinematic great.

Making a reputation for his online video game reviews, The Angry Video Game Nerd (James Rolfe) lives a comfortable life in his chaotic basement, working at a video game store with best friend Cooper (Jeremy Suarez). Finding out that an evil corporation is about to come out with a sequel to what has been called “the worst video game of all time,” 1982’s “E.T.” (Spelled “Eee Tee” in this movie to avoid copyright infringement), Cooper and AVGN decide to drive to New Mexico to prove that the famous landfill story of the bury site of the game is fake, thus breaking its crazy air of mystery. Coming along as the third wheel of help is Mandi, played by Sarah Glendening, an employee for the game company incognito as a fan, working to convince AVGN into a review of “Eee Tee 2,” which would bring sales from the faithful. Also behind them is General Dark Onward (Stephen Mendel), a crazy military leader mistaking AVGN’s interest in alien adventures as a threat to national security, sending off Sergeant McButter (Helena Barrett) to hunt the group down and stop their mission.

Orndorf mentioned that, “Fan-backed to help scrounge up a limited budget, “Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie” isn’t an endeavor created with the average filmgoer in mind. It’s specialized stuff, a valentine to Rolfe’s creation and his loyal viewers (reaching around the globe), celebrating the creator’s idiosyncrasies and his merciless attitude when it comes to the worst in gaming culture.” The passion is laid on a little thick (the effort takes a victory lap before the story begins), but it’s not gratuitous, especially when the public has been helping Rolfe for about a decade, turning AVGN into a YouTube star taking on the thing he dreads the most: subpar games. Once pats on the back have been given, the movie cuts to the chase, giving us a wild scenario that finds AVGN on a search for Howard Scott Warshaw, the original “E.T.” programmer, leading to the group to the home of Dr. Zandor, played by Time Winters, a shadowy man with answers that’s turned the house into “Super Mario Bros”-style video game, making visitors to prove their worth.

Orndorf said, ““Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie” isn’t lacking in plot, covering the existence of alien life, the shocking reality that the screen design of “E.T.” is actually a map of Area 51, and the existence of a God-like evil entity that carries the power of the universe, creating a few existential moments for the film.” Rolfe and co-director Kevin Finn go the more-is-more path, always keeping the effort moving along with comedy and chase sequences, making an energetic desire to support the mission, while giving acting duties around to a game supporting cast. Rolfe’s still fun to watch as AVGN, never embarrassing himself, but turns him from Glendening, Suarez (who Orndorf says, “provides a Disney Channel-style earnestness”) and Mendel are quite amusing, while Winters and Barrett give personality as well. For added humor, cameos from Lloyd Kaufman (creator of “Toxic Avengers”) and Warshaw are included, as is Rolfe’s friends Kyle Justin, Mike Matei and even Doug Walker, and a brief turn to comedian Eddie Pepitone (as AVGN’s bitter, armed game store boss) brings out the movie’s biggest laughs. The tradition with these no-budget movies usually a lack of theatrical polish, yet the controllers do very well with their cast, who obediently flavor the crazy actions.

Orndorf admits, “At nearly two hours, “Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie” is much too long, with slapstick encounters transforming into white noise by the end, though a few of the ideas, including The Nerd calling on his review history to deal with immediate physical danger, fit wonderfully into the scheme of the effort.” Rolfe and Finn are bringing together a combination of Monty Python, Mel Brooks and Ed Wood here, and it’s very successful, even on a small scale, putting in their tributes (zombies are included in the nightmare scene) and satire (the frustrating pits from “E.T.” are referred to periodically), while making the inside jokes that fans will enjoy. It goes into overkill in the end, but “Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie” is a satisfying, low-tech enjoyment with the bad tempered character, who finds a comfortable cinematic home that could easily sustain additional adventures into video game comedy and mythology.

In the end, if you are an AVGN fan, then you should definitely rent this movie and check it out because you will not be disappointed. There are references to other films in this, like the death scene of the villain from “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3” and even “Godzilla.” You could probably point them out. There are parts where it looks very high-budget and parts where it looks low-budget that you can see, but look at them and laugh. I really had an enjoyable time watching this and would check it out if I ever get the chance to see this movie again anywhere.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned Friday to see what I will review this month, but it will be a great month, I promise you that.