Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

I Am Wrath (2016)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
So bad it's good, 23 July 2016

This is a truly terrible movie. Travolta and his wife are the victims of a mugging and he lives but his wife dies in the ordeal. As usual there is more to this than meets the eye when the police let the man Travolta identifies as the murderer. So he decides to go after them with street justice of his own.

Kill their families.... and kill their dogs!!!

That's the kind of cliché whopper of bad lines that exist in this movie. It's hilariously predictable as Death Wish takes on the corrupt cops, the kingpin and everyone else involved.

Someone chases my boy out of the tick tock!!

You've seen this 1,000 times. This is just by the numbers and poorly executed. Meloni plays his buddy, by the numbers, does what he can with the one dimensional script.

You wanna know how an Irish kid raised on welfare became governor? We contain situations, we don't blow them up.

There is a reason this crap never made it into the theaters. It's a straight to DVD vanity project that probably was presented to Travolta as an ego trip. His version of Liam Neeson, an awesome new hair piece (most impressive part of the movie.) Meloni looks more intimidating than Travolta but nobody really cares. All the orchestration of violence will leave our protagonist looking like he's only in his mid 50s.

This is just revenge porn and not very good. Have fun with this when there is nothing else on TV and you're truly in need for a low budget, mindless revenge flick.

Good acting, entertaining, poor clichéd script, 23 July 2016

I enjoyed this completely forgettable film. I'll give you the summary of what it seems most agree upon:

Acting: Cranston is fantastic. Leguizamo is equally good as the slick, likable but somewhat sloppy and looser partner. They make a great team and clearly hold the film up. Everyone else is forgettable.

Script: Like a tired cliché. We care most about family says one of our villains while cutting vegetables with a sharp knife. The closeness that Cranston develops with the mob is never actually visualized and it happens all too quickly. Cranston and Leguizmo sell a very disconnected script. There are also holes that are bizarre and unexplained such as Cranston being followed to his real home, yet this is never brought up in the film.

Cinematography: Just fine, nothing memorable nothing obtrusive.

Music: Ditto.

Summary: A by the numbers supposedly true story of the takedown of one of the greatest drug kingpins in history, Pablo Escobar. Cranston is charismatic, very capable and very likable. But the script seems to make it incredibly hard to get to Escobar one moment and then like a hot knife through butter during the next moment. It's an enjoyable performance by this duo but it won't stand up to repeat viewings. Well worth the entertainment price but that's about it. I'm not even a Cranston fan and have to admit that he's just a joy to watch.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Epic terrible. An excuse to have Batman fight Superman, 9 July 2016

Because anyone with a brain would see Superman as a villain. If he wasn't there, civilization probably wouldn't exist. Small matter. And then there is the matter of who he saves and how. All of this set up is an excuse to create fabricated animosity against Superman because they need it to set up the big fight. That's what this is all about. Create some childish ridiculous reason to have superheroes fight.

Right from the start this is one big confused mess. It's difficult to follow what is going on because it's all substance, no coherent story. Without ruining the movie for you, this is one where brain must be left at the door completely. And even then, whatever grey matter you have left must be turned off. It doesn't have to make sense. Big, weepy philosophical speeches are made to government as if these are earth shattering issues of monumental proportion. Taking itself seriously as if any of these statements are anything more than nonsense in the land of make believe is another downfall of this film.

It is as bad as it sounds. High budget production doesn't save this film from being the dumb watch that it is.

Green Room (2015)
25 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Pointless, stupid. Inaudible. Reviewers connected to film or marketers, 2 July 2016

The concept had a good idea. But the script was very poor and a complete waste of a cast with eye catching talent. My guess is that all the positive reviews came from either (a) marketers; (b) people consoling one of the late actors by giving the movie a good review; or (c) living off of a "cool line" or two; and (d) an easy target to hate. But neither group is particularly likable.

1. The sound recording and mix was so terrible I had to watch with subtitles. My hearing is fine. Voices were muffled and conversations (at least from one side) were completely inaudible. Sound levels were uneven and drastic increases and decreases. Read the bad reviews and they will say the same thing. Same goes for the darkness in this film making seeing what is going on impossible.

2. The first thing you'd do if you're in the middle of nowhere is to... infuriate dozens of scary looking people in conversation, in song. Do it because you want to provoke your own end or ruin a gig that will pay you money. Why they needed these losers I don't know.

3. What started out promising turned incredibly stupid and pointless. It doesn't take a four star general to snuff out a bunch of young people in a room - especially when you've got a big guy with a gun!!! And you've got dozens of men with guns. But no, guns are not a solution. Why? No explanation. But don't worry, they can be if you need the plot less story to move on. The solution devised to "remove the guns from the equation" was SO illogical and ridiculous it was hard to take the movie seriously from that point.

4. Speaking of taking the movie seriously, it's amazing how the common laws of medical science known to everyone just don't seem to apply when you'd most expect them to do so.

5. Bad C movie syndrome. You've got an army at you're disposal and it's always "send in just 1 or 2 of our dumbest people" and have them act so ineptly that it moves the story on to the next milestone.

This was nothing but a long, needlessly drawn out affair.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
An insult to the intelligence, 30 January 2016

Movies like James Bond or Jason Bourne ask you to suspend your disbelief to the limits. Movies like this just insult your intelligence insisting we're gullible enough to suspend disbelief to the clearly impossible. And worse, it pretends to preach that the illusions are really possible if you have the skills. This is Hollywood movie execs believing we're all too stupid to know better and that we'll be amazed, not disgusted. Apparently it worked for some of us.

In short, a couple of very unlikable, arrogant mentalists and magicians are summoned by an unknown person to carry out the most incredible magic tricks of all, with each show upping the ante. Who is behind this show? What is the ultimate gain as some huge dollar amounts are affected? Will our smarmy mentalists get caught? Unfortunately the tricks are incredible because they just aren't feasible. And the explanations provided and the reveals told as this movie goes on become incredibly insulting in the final third of the movie. And since virtually none of the characters are likable, it's difficult to know whom you hope comes out on top. And in the end, the real magic trick is that you were just separated from a lot of cash for what amounts to a fraud. And they are going to try this trick again in a sequel, so I hear. Fool me once, shame on you...

48 out of 98 people found the following review useful:
Studio and Quentin must pay to stuff the IMDb Ballot box, 14 January 2016

8.1? Looks like the movie studios have spent LOTS of money trying to have people see an 8.1 rating and get people to spend money to see this disaster. This is yet another Tarantino ego film, that's all you ought to know. And it lasts for an eternity. And it is BORING.

The first problem is Tarantino's ego and politics getting in the way. Yes Quentin, we know about how much you hate the police and your perceived need to apologize for being white. What a hero Quentin is. Jackson's character isn't likable and is a racist himself - unlike Django. QT seems to have forgotten that Jackson plays just another dirt bag in the film whom Quentin could suck off figuratively. Out of place and ridiculous. The film sucks, literally. You'll see and cringe.

In Django you understood the character because he's the oppressed taking revenge on the oppressor. But in this film, we are supposed to like a man who takes revenge on "white people" as a whole? You'll see what he does, as if it is supposed to be acceptable because it is the civil war. This mentality might work at a black panthers rally or if you're a white person at a KKK rally. But this certainly doesn't fly if you're the average, sensible human being. So QT decides to ram his point home, like it or not.

And then there is the extended boring talky dialogue. It works when you have a brilliant Nazi general and the exchange is amusing and in character. It doesn't work when you throw it in YET AGAIN in places where the characters wouldn't speak this way. Same old trick we have seen 1000 times from Quentin, such as a smart talking wagon driving "dentist" we saw in Django. Been there, done that better.

You can see where this is going. Tarantino put together his winning formula: 1. my talky brilliant witty dialogue 2. massive violence 3. outrageous actions 4. I'll have another black hero. But this time, I'm go way overboard to show my contempt for white people in authority and make another statement for the cause.

Nice job Quentin. You have created a total self serving dud that only you could sit through and admire yourself. For almost THREE HOURS.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Watchable, forgettable, Hollywood caramelized drama, 29 November 2015

With all the power names in this film it has all the potential to be one of the greatest. And sadly, this watchable and reasonably entertaining film falls incredibly flat on many accounts if you're someone who uses your brain. When a film relies upon a character study and doesn't have lots of action, there needs to be a proper foundation to justify why characters act the way they do - and that clearly wasn't the case here. And the film's attempt to be clever outsmarts itself.

In summary, Hanks plays an insurance defense lawyer. He's recruited to be the face of a defense for an alleged Russian spy. The full details of the spy are unfortunately just left for the viewers imagination. There is a complete lack of developing the character other than "a dispassionate old guy who likes to paint and look like a nice old man" that Tom Hanks finds his heart bleeding after a meeting. There seems no question that the man is guilty. But Tom Hanks decides to go all the way to defend this man and beyond, in spite of being demonized in public as the defender of a traitor. Things get complicated when a US pilot is captured in Russia and an innocent American student as well in Germany.

The performances are excellent. There is some witty dialogue and some character study, unquestionably the unrivaled abilities of the Coen brothers. I found the first 1/3 of the film to be the most engaging, by far.

But as much as I admire their work, this film has Spielberg shmaltz draped all over it. And this ultimately is what makes this film (a) totally predictable; and (b) overly dramatic to the point of groaning multiple times. I found myself drawn completely outside of the movie when it was clear that these actors were just caricatures and very shallow, cardboard cutouts. The film was cardboard, mostly telling a noble series of events without knowing very much at all about all of the players. There is precious little to understand the true motives of any of the characters. And then there will be repeated one-liners for laughs (I thought the characters would wink at the screen) and moments where you could practically hear the director call for the camera to pan out and admire the actor, transfixed in his expression which makes a bold, iconic statement. (Yeah, I'm guessing it all went down just like that, a dramatic artistic moment.)

It's an entertaining film but make no mistake before you decided to go -- this has Hollywood draped all over what you would not expect from a Coen Brothers script. If you can shut down your brain and cheer for American patriotism, you'll very much enjoy the film. But if you're a thinking person who picks up on subtle cues, you may find this a very contrived and predictable work.

The A-Team (2010)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Horrible, great cast, terribly miscast, 17 November 2015

I love every major actor in this film. But the miscasting is legendary. Liam Neeson is so badly miscast that you can see him trying to play the part of Hannibal right from the start and doing so in unconvincing fashion. He doesn't fit the part. And Face... sorry, great actor but he's not the ladies man. You know there is going to be a problem when the strongest member of the group is the non-actor - BA. And he's not great. Murdoch... just a total lamer.

The miscasting is evident without seeing the prior history this story has seen. As a remake that didn't need to be remade, it's a disgrace. The IMDb rating is badly overblown and most generously above 6. If you go to other sites you'll see a far lower rating and for good reason. This is unfortunately a poor B movie. Watch at your own risk.

The opening of the film wastes time on a mediocre back story. And then it's padded run time with the team envisioning success needlessly. All the famous lines are used to recreate the characters but so poorly that all you can think is "it's -insert name actor here- artificially uttering the lines made famous in trademark style." The team goes into Baghdad and let the ridiculous bravado begin. Don't say you weren't warned.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Beyond overrated, makes you wonder about the critics, 7 October 2015

Unfortunately this movie makes me seriously wonder how influenced the critics are by the players, producer or some other element that appeals to the "artsy." Someone else described a film school script and I'd have to agree. It's a formulaic romcom you've seen 1,000 times before, is predictable with a want to be witty script that doesn't feel natural at all with a lot of mediocre acting.

The problems are multiple. You know that the movie is going to be dud when you can see what the time travel ruse is virtually from the start. I groaned and thought... oh boy... seen this 1,000 times before. "Make characters change from the "bad" to being really "good" or what we want them to be." But none of it is credible and the script is truly laughable. It's a coming of age script with virtually no likable characters except for the innocent, sweet (stereotyped) Indian who Jeff (Jake Johnson) is trying to corrupt. His character is a scripted, wildman jerk that is drawn so far over the top so as to be ridiculous.

Aubrey Plaza tries her hardest to play a bratty but "hip" young woman who also comes of age, like the stereotyped Indian, shes's the the stereotypical "self-involved with a quirky oddity" girl. Girl meets a little crazy boy and then the magic starts to happen. But there is no magic. Mark Duplass isn't a convincing Kenneth, mutters his lines quickly as if from a memorized script, gets a very staged and plastic scene to show off his ability to play the zither and is never likable. He's also not convincing as all and the romance element is so awkward, forced and icy that it's not believable.

Oh... and then comes the twist which comes in a flash as if the script called for it as per the formula. Worst of all is that the after the reveal, the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The "problem" to be solved has already been solved. The "explanation" as to why it's still happening is like a 5 year old child babbling excuses after having his hand caught in the cookie jar. When each card begin to be overturned, the film gets more ridiculous with each stupid turn it takes. And when it hits the preposterous ending, you will completely regret seeing the movie and realize what an amateurish bit of nonsense this is that passes for a passable film. Wow... how absurd will this movie get?

And the shaky camera. Good heavens, did they not know what a tripod was before they filmed? If this bit of hipster nonsense is what passes as great independent film these days then I might want to jump into a time machine to get away from the dismal future.

Vengeance (2009)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Watchable but forgettable, 19 July 2015

I didn't know who Johnny Halliday was and someone here hilariously described him as an alien lizard, which apparently plastic surgery has helped with the transformation. I'll say that 5 is an average forgettable film. This one is a little better, but it's nothing new and ultimately fails to be a movie you'd look forward to after repeat showings.

The actors are actually quite good and the leads have character. The sets and cinematography is also good - as is the camera-work - and much better than your traditional Hong Kong chop-socky films. Unfortunately this film ultimately fails in too many ways and that is really a shame. Too clichéd, too much focus on style and too little on sense with a middling script that is a little questionable, to say the least.

1. Scene one there is a display of the master level of proficiency each of the "good" villains have with a gun. Forward a short while later and nobody can hit an elephant if it was standing still - since that would probably spoil the length of the chase scene.

2. The opening scene itself didn't make any sense, since the characters themselves admit what they "should have done" and which the Johnny himself could have made clear right from the start. This is not the only examples of characters doing things for a movie style and to further a plot rather than what is clearly natural.

3. There is almost a sense of characters doing things and "dying in honor" because of the plot, not because of the way people generally act. If you've got problems, you get out. You don't stick around believing you'll pull off the impossible. And then there are some pretty interesting scenes that are "cool to watch" but also seem like stunts that go beyond even suspending disbelief.

And then there are the clichés, clichés, clichés... I'd really like to give this film a better rating and will say that it's certainly watchable. It's just a failed opportunity.... especially the ending... which could not be more predictable and utterly clichéd in the way it is handled. More disbelief. Enjoy it for what it is.

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