Reviews written by registered user
chimera-4

Page 3 of 6: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
51 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Two parts boring, One part good., 1 June 2007
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The title says it all really. I felt the first two hours of Worlds End were actually pretty dull but then things pick up for the last hour and thats when I thought things started to get better. The movie itself has some neat ideas but it's also clear that the writers didn't really know how to wrap up some of the ideas introduced in Dead Man's Chest which is a real shame. For example when we first see Captain Jack he's in Davy Jones Locker (presumably he's delivered there by the Kraken) which is supposed to be some kind of hell but basically just looks like a big desert which conveniently has a big ship in the middle of it. This part felt really awkward and a bit contrived as do many parts in the movie. The directorial style feels different from the first two and I wonder if Gore Verbinskey didn't just let 2nd unit directors have a shot this time round.

There are only a few action set pieces, mainly the beginning and the end. The one at the start again felt contrived and was unnecessary and boring and only served to introduce us to Chow Yun Fats character who is basically just window dressing to the story and is mostly completely pointless. Characters don't feel right here either, they just don't feel like they did in the first 2 movies and in an effort to make the story a bit more exciting and unpredictable the characters are constantly shifting their allegiances for no good reason and sometimes with no good motivation either and that really got boring eventually.

The second major action piece is the naval battle at the end centred around a huge whirpool (you might have seen it in the trailers). This was pretty spectacular and exciting and was really well done.

Keith Richards is OK as Jacks Father with really cool costume and make-up, he makes for a really neat looking grizzled pirate although he took his role far too seriously and would have been better lightening up a bit.

FX in this movie are pretty much phenomenal across the board, you can really see where the money went with huge naval battles and inventive duels galore.

And then of course there's Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow who is as good as ever despite his material not being that great in some places.

The movie in general is a lot darker than the first two and that seemed to have sucked some of the fun out of it for me although there are still some funny moments in the movie.

Overall Worlds End really isn't as good as 1 and 2 but despite its misgivings it is fairly fun in quite a few places and does wrap up well. It even leaves room for a Pirates 4 so you never know.

P.S. Since when could Davy Jones walk through walls? Another unessecary plot mechanic that insults the previously established mythology and serves no purpose whatsoever in terms of plot mechanics.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing actually, 3 May 2007
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't get it. Same actors, same director, the writers I don't know about but I really felt this was a huge disappointment. It feels rushed, spread too thin with too many villains and the emotional content of the first two that gave them their impact is gone.

The movie feels really uneven and they totally screwed up Venom which was the guy I waited nearly 2 hours to see. Venoms origin was handled OK but I HATED the way the actors face would pop through the CGI to taunt Spider-Man and basically deliver crap one liners. The first two Spider-Man movies were better than that. In the end I couldn't care less about Venom which I felt was a total missed opportunity though the look of the symbiote was spot on. Likewise Sandman, an OK origin scene, some totally lame subplot about his sick daughter thats supposed to make us give the guy some sympathy and then a totally unnecessary huge monster sandman of the week creature at the end. These guys should have admitted they'd run out of ideas and farmed the job out to someone that gave a sh*t.

The actors all seem like they've really had enough in this movie and likewise the direction felt lazy and rushed. To be honest Venom should probably have been left for another day, or one of the bad guys anyway. I did like how the Peter/Harry/MJ story came to an end but again it felt rushed and kind of convenient for the rest of the plot. The action scenes though were well done and give the movie it's more memorable moments but without a good solid narrative you can get behind to gel them together they're just little more than empty spectacle.

Why can't we have a live action spider-man series instead so we can flesh these stories and characters out a bit more.

Anyway I hope they pull their finger out with Spider-Man 4.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good Clean Fun, 20 April 2007
7/10

While this movie isn't going to win any awards it's pretty enjoyable at the level you expect from it. You know what you're getting when you go into it, lots of silly faces and sight gags, no brain required.

Me and my 2 youngest kids when to see this one Saturday, one's 12 and the other one was 4. All I really wanted out of this movie was enough to keep their attention for the 90 odd minutes it was on for and it did that admirably. I even enjoyed it myself since I quite like Mr Bean. It does have to be said though that Mr Bean does what he just always does in anything else he's in really but Rowan Atkinson's obviously got it down to a fine art now and I'm not tired yet of his shenanigans. Most of the comedy comes from Bean making a complete knob of himself and generally being a major idiot. Anyone else trying to do it would likely crash and burn but Atkinson pulls it off as usual. It's a shame that Rowan Atkinson seems to have been unable to break out of the Bean mold but at least he knows he's got a home when he needs to eat.

Needless to say not everyone is going to like this movie as it's quite a shallow vacuous experience really but it does do what it says on the tin. I'm also glad that there's a movie out there that tries to make you laugh without resorting to smut gags and cheap toilet humour (although it has to be said that Atkinsons other meal ticket, Black Adder is pretty much just that). Bring back the Tommy Cooper school of comedy I say.

I don't know if I would have appreciated this movie as much if I'd gone to it with a bunch of my mates but looking at it from a kiddy movie point of view I was satisfied with it and the kids thought it was hilarious. I'd probably even watch it again....

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Absolutely just plain terrible., 20 April 2007
1/10

I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Mesmerising and Profound., 20 April 2007
8/10

I don't know how to describe this film really. You can tell within the first 10 minutes that this is going to be something different and indeed it is. This is not a movie for the 2-second-attention-span/Big dumb explosion brigade. It doesn't hold your hand with bland exposition and it doesn't give you all the pieces of the puzzle so you can neatly fit them altogether and go away with answers to all your questions.

What it does give you though is a deep and thought provoking experience surrounding the issues of mortality and how we deal with it. There were a lot of things in this movie that I didn't really understand but it managed to touch me at a level I can't quite define. Like 2001:A Space Odyssey I think there were parts of this film that were deliberately left ambiguous in order to give the story some mystery and wonder.

The cinematography was absolutely beautiful as well and I can't believe the movie was made for $35m dollars, it looks far more expensive.

It has to be said that the acting across the board was exceptional too with Hugh Jackman being of particular note although I really can't take Ethan Suplee seriously in the kind of role he had after seeing him in My Name is Earl but thankfully his part isn't too distracting.

I don't think Brad Pitt would have done half the job Hugh Jackman did in this movie. I heard he left because of creative differences and I can imagine Aronofsky saying "Look Brad this is my movie, I'm gonna do it my way, if you don't like it then f**k off." and Brad being the ego his is couldn't let someone else have control so left, the big wuss. Well our gain since I think "The Fountain - The Brad Pitt cut" would have been crap quite frankly.

"Heroes" (2006/II)
5 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Marvel Ultimate Alliance - The Series, 19 April 2007
8/10

OK I know this show is being compared to the X-Men but after recently playing the Marvel Ultimate Alliance game on the X-Box (which does include the X-Men)I realised how much Heroes has in common with it (well OK I guess the only thing is a bunch of people with different super powers but still thought I'd make the comparison). There are obvious hero stereotypes in Heroes that surely must just scrape by the not getting sued clause as far as Marvel and friends are concerned. You've got Flying Man (Superman), Invisible Man (Uh, the invisible man), Sap powers from others man (Rogue anyone), Instantly heal up girl (Wolverine), Telepathic man, Radioactive Man, Stop time and teleport man and a whole bunch of others to name just a few. It's blatantly clear that the shows creators mispent a large part of their youth reading comics and such and I think thats a good thing since each character has their own backstory and mythology in the making here..

All these super powered guys and girls would be a potential nightmare as far as weaving them all into a coherent story goes but the shows serial format allows each ample screen time and does it with ease creating some compelling viewing and some interesting characters.

In fact where some shows take time to build up the premise, with Heroes you'll be hooked right from the first episode and think it insanely cruel that the producers put a whole week between each show.

I can't wait to see where these characters go, whether they'll set up some kind of superteam ala X-Men or The Avengers or whatever alongside a League of Villains or something like that, all with cool costumes etc although I doubt thats what the shows creators had in mind as a big part of the show seems to be that you don't need costumes or powers to be a hero, it's all about the choices you make and your actions whether you have any powers or not.

Since everyone in the show seemed to have gotten their powers at the same time, we get to see the whole hero mythology setup pretty much from the beginning, there's very little setup it seems that happened prior to the show starting.

Anyone who grew up with superhero icons like Batman and Superman etc and spent even a little of their childhood buried in comics and loving the sheer escapism of it all would sure be silly not to give Heroes a go...

It's really rather good!

"Lost" (2004)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
One of my favourite shows on TV at the moment, 13 April 2007
8/10

Lost has a great premise, which always seems to be on the edge of evolving although you never know into what. It's this great dynamic that keeps it fresh and keeps you watching.

There's no doubt it's frustrating at times in it's reluctance to give us answers and it's seemingly endless joy at throwing up more and more obscure questions into the mix can also be annoying but it's just got that X factor that makes you want to hang on for the ride. Having said that the show does suffer from a sense of "unreality" that prevents characters asking painfully obvious questions when they should leaving us frustrated and hanging for weeks on solutions to the shows many quandaries and red herrings. On the plus side though it's this very thing that fuels endless debates across the internet on whats going on in Lost and some of them are even more addictive than watching the show.

With enigmatic websites such as those for The Hanso Foundation and the interactive online game The Lost Experience there's literally endless carrots and conundrums to keep our brains going on all the various theories that exist for the Lost universe. I wonder if anyone has hit it on the nail yet. Not that JJ Abrams would tell us if they had and if I were him, if someone had hit it on the head then I would change it if I could.

The flashbacks also keep things interesting although you do wonder sometimes what any of them have to do with the main story of the character involved. Actually just when I thought the flashbacks might start to get stale we go and get thrown a curveball with the Desmond episode (fans know what I mean).

They better keep this one going to the end else people will be getting their pitchforks out and going on a lynching, me included. And you. Maybe.....

I can't wait to see how this one turns out and then it'll probably be like Christmas once you've opened all the presents. But it would have been a wild ride though hopefully...

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Unnecessary remake, 13 April 2007
2/10

Man, Hollywood is a fickle beast lately. I guess they figure they've earnt some kudos with movies like 300 and The Departed and so think we'll let them off wasting our time and money with complete crap like The Wicker Man. Unlike the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes which were total re-imaginings that stood well on their own, here we have an unimaginitive retread of the original, the only bit of note that I remember being the ending (which they kept here).

I was really unimpressed with Cage in Ghost Rider and here he does nothing to redeem that travesty. Although he isn't quite as terrible he phones in another "couldn't give a rats arse" performance. Guess he needs to eat, same as everyone else. There isn't a single scare in the whole movie and AGAIN it's cliché cliché cliché, some of which were a push when used in the original over 35 years ago for heavens sake.

Even people who haven't seen the original version will see the ending coming a mile off. The photography is pants, the acting is pants and the direction is lacklustre and by the numbers and this movie is just an exercise in banality all round really.

I think I'm just going to get a rubber stamp made up for my IMDb reviews (a cyber one obviously)as I seem to be saying the same stuff over and over again for most of the movies I'm seeing lately. Are we really reaching the bottom of the barrel? It seems we might be. Well as long as we're mug enough to keep supporting this crap, someone, somewhere will keep churning it out....

"Jericho" (2006)
17 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
Sloppy, 9 April 2007
5/10

I'll admit this show has an interesting premise, the logistics of survival in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but it has to be said the writing in this show is really sloppy.

The dialogue sucks and often makes the characters seem really dumb, the believability of situations that arise in this show are ramped up for the sake of drama and are sometimes just laughable. I don't care for one single character in the entire show perhaps apart from Hawkins and it's the story behind the attack that will keep me watching, not the "human" aspects of the show which are just unrealistic to be honest.

The writing painfully leaves obvious questions and situations unexplored, seemingly just so's not to draw attention to major flaws in logic. OK a lot of shows do this but a lot of shows are also far more entertaining and assume their audience is a lot smarter.

Dead Rising (2006) (VG)
1 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
It's a love/hate relationship., 7 April 2007
5/10

This game should have been so much better. Well, no, thats not really fair because actually the game has it's moments it's just a shame that it's ruined by a few niggly things that could have easily been fixed.

As mentioned by many other reviews the save system is stupid. You only get one save slot and there are no checkpoints in the game. If you spend hours on a specific mission and then screw it up then it's back to your previously saved game. Likewise if you save when there isn't enough time left to complete a case then you've buggered it again. It's ridiculously punishing and unnecessary. The game would have been fine without this stupid flaw and indeed it feels like the designers have made it this way on purpose just to p*ss gamers off.

Shooting is also not as user friendly as it should have been. You can't even strafe for crying out loud. The game gets stupidly hard later on and just becomes too frustrating to be any fun. I for one am not in the habit of shelling out cash to be frequently p*ssed off and frustrated so I am seriously thinking about trading this game in for something a little more balanced and rewarding.

You do get the odd period where you spend a little bit of enjoyable time wasting Zombies by the bucketload and you can do this without playing any of the story missions until your 72 hours are up if you want but without and end goal (other than lasting through the time limit) you'll get bored pretty quick.

Seriously, who'd have thought you could screw up a game that has zombies by the thousands, THE THOUSANDS, and a variety of weapons to match for you to take them out with.

Well done to Capcom, they did it with relish....


Page 3 of 6: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]