Reviews written by registered user
|29 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
As all other reviews have stated the strength of this film lies with
the quality of acting, and with the number of A-list stars this is
exactly what we expect. I was also impressed by the tempo and
atmosphere. There are moments where the silence itself gives you cause
to expect the worst, and this is a prime example of a film where the
acting, camera-work and script all come together to generate the sense
of foreboding. It is the difference between a good horror film such as
Ringu and a slasher title such as Scream.
I can't help but feel that there was a change in script because the abrupt does not really deliver its intended impact. If you have watched the film then you will understand what I mean. I would not be surprised if there was an alternative ending in the DVD release.
I did not give it a perfect 10/10 purely because the ideas were not original. But in a year in which there have been a huge number of blockbusters that failed to impress, this film is truly a welcome relief that 2013 was not a disaster the movie industry and brings relief that artistry is not lost.
This is a feature film version of the Yang army story which is one of
the legendary stories passed down from generation to generation amongst
the Chinese population. The fact is, the film will not raise any kind
of excitement or appreciation for anyone else other than Chinese
people. For example, many reviewers do not even know that there are
multiple versions of this story portrayed in multiple TV series. "So
what?", they ask... well because you have something to compare to and
once again, I stress that its all down to appreciation of the history
of the story which most critics will have lacked.
It is true that there are similarities to 300 and Troy but this is executed with style. In fact, I would use the word "Style" to describe this remake. It has a stylish look and feel to it which saved what could have been disaster. The cast features a few big names who struggle to exert their screen presence due to the vast number of prominent characters. To my surprise none of the actors and actresses impressed me with their performances, which I found merely adequate. Instead, I was more impressed by the sets and choreography as well as the movie score. The cast features two big names, Ekin Cheng and Raymond Lam, who I had expected to shine. Instead they are allowed to fall back on their wooden acting (both are guilty of this acting style) which left the rest to veteran HK actor, Adam Cheng. Unfortunately Adam Cheng tends to excel in roles that are less serious, and I felt that someone with more physical presence was needed for the role of the General.
But still, I gave this film 10/10 purely in an effort to balance up the poor ratings given by the clueless. I was half expecting someone to confuse this film with "Saving Private Ryan". I never thought anyone would own up to it....
As most reviews have mentioned this is a refreshing and original
variation on the vampire theme which does not fall flat on its face. I
went in with the knowledge that Neil Jordan was also responsible for
"Interview with a vampire" all those years ago. Byzantium had a similar
feel to that.
Without giving away too much of the plot, we see two vampire who have opposing ideals. In this way, we see a stark similarity to the contrast between Lestat and Louis. We never truly find out how they became vampires but this mystery was actually best left untouched.
The only weakness for me was, I did not feel anything for any of the characters. There were romantic sub plots but these were so cold. In fact, the tone of the film was very cold and barren.
I watched this without being aware that it is based on a book. However,
I an a fan of Guy Pearce and he played this role with his usual
proficiency. The story and plot were solid and engaging, and the faint
touches of humour gave a well-rounded polish to a low budget title
which holds its own very well.
The usual elements of a good thriller plot are there. The pub scenes were probably the best and certainly produced the most chuckles.
If there was any complaint, it would probably be that Guy Pearce was too good looking for this role, and I felt that someone moodier and beefier might have done it more justice.
This low budget title is the third film of the D & D series. In terms
of budget, storyline and effects it matches what we got with the second
title. I would probably compare it with Armageddon 2 as the style is a
The acting is not great but not terrible either. The plot and formula is very loyal to the D & D world, and it was cute to see some stereotypical elements being thrown in :) The lead actor makes for a perfect Paladin, and the rest of the characters portrayed their D & D roles quite faultlessly.
The ending could have been better and could actually have been engineered for a sequel.
Considering the regurgitated titles that have been coming out, that are
coming out and that will come out, this movie gets 10/10 for me for
originality, storyline plot, acting and food for thought. And all this
achieved with a fraction of the budget needed for Man of Steel and the
rubbish that is called Iron Man 3.
For people who enjoy films that make them think deeply about various issues, this is that film. It needs concentration throughout and the controversy theme will cause rifts with many people.
This is also a film that relies not only on one or two lead characters, but all the roles have their place and importance.
To summarise, I am very impressed and this is a rare titles in this day and age.
The title was obviously chosen to attract audiences but apart from the
(very) loose connection to the Vikings, this has nothing to do with
Thor. Indeed, the tribe could have been any other and it would not have
The acting was sub-standard with the best performance being from the dying King who manages to survive the entire duration of the quest despite us being told that his stomach contents are leaking out...
The storyline had potential but unfortunately ended up being extremely strange and needless. Characters behaved strangely without explanation. They also casted the wrong actor for the lead role. His acting was not terrible (in that I mean I have seen much worse than him in Hollywood blockbusters....), but they should have chosen someone with more physical presence.
In a nutshell, this is probably not worth your time watching but I can't say that its abysmal either when you take the budget into consideration. Pound for pound, it is still better than Man of Steel and a hundred times better than the rubbish that is called Iron Man 3.
In contrast to the "most useful" reviews, I actually agree with the
critics. The budget clearly went into the action and for this, I score
the movie 10 out of 10. The fight scenes are an incredible match for
what you see in the cartoons, and I was very impressed. Unfortunately,
there were only two other positive aspects for me:
1. Russell Crowe, who gave a surprisingly good portrayal of Jor-El.
2. Although I disliked the rest of the movie, it is still better than the rubbish that is called "Iron Man 3".
Although you could argue that this was the Superman from an alternate age, I did not get any kind of feeling for the actor's portrayal. Disappointing since he obviously felt bad after losing the 2006 role to a relatively unknown actor who, in my opinion, did a better job of playing Superman than he did. We waited 7 years for him to do a better job and yet, we get a lifeless wooden performance instead. That said, Amy Adams was no better. Both the leads gave very wooden lifeless performances which was a big big letdown. For me, the lead actor and actress had no chemistry whatsoever.
I normally hate reboots but after watching this version of Superman, I can't wait for another reboot.... the decision to pull the plug on Brandon Routh was a stupid one.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Not a bad horror film but the ending was too soppy for my taste. It has its spine-tingling moments but, as someone already said, it also falls prey to standard horror clichés. I was a little disappointed by the lack of screen presence from Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau. I was also expecting a back story of the Father somehow helping to save the kids, but this was not developed. There is obviously the glaring hole in the plot which surrounds the cabin in the woods, and how the kids managed to survive for 5 years without being discovered by anyone, and how they survived hypothermia. But, as already mentioned, just take the whole thing with a pinch of salt and you have a half-decent horror flick :)
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
To this day I still do not understand why there are people (most
probably "Asianophilic" Caucasians) who try to give meaning to a a
Asian film which, for all intents and purposes, just does not have any
deep meaningful messages to impart. Because if this was an American or
English film, it would have been slated as boring and a waste of time.
But just because it is Japanese, there are people who are automatically
impressed and seek to find hidden and meaningful truth in something
which is actually as empty as the abyss....
One reviewer was asking how the fiancé found out the truth in a matter of hours. The answer is, it was not a matter of hours because we already knew that Akiko was meeting him for lunch. And that is presumably how she got her cut, and also how the fiancé knew the old man's address (i.e. he followed them). Funny how the reviewer did not ask why the old man did not call the police.... maybe a hidden meaning somewhere? In any case, I found nothing likable in any of the characters but the one I hated the most was the lead character. Someone who can willingly ignore her Grandmother for the entire day deserves no pity and the fact that she could have met her at the train station (but did not) made me detest her all the more.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |