Reviews written by registered user
|14 reviews in total|
For the record, not being a gear head, I had little to no interest at
all in the first four or so Fast & Furious movies. No, I came to them
around movie five and up until now the seventh instalment had been
easily the best. Very, very dumb but oh so very enjoyable. I had
wondered, though, how they could possibly outdo the over-the-top
nonsense we were fed in part seven. How could they possibly walk the
line between dumb and just plain stupid? Could they go even more
bonkers and still just about - but only just about! - have us willingly
suspend our disbelief long enough to be able to enjoy the damn thing?
Was that even possible...?
Well, now we know. The answer is sadly no.
I really did want to engage with this movie in a meaningful way, IMAX 3D and all. But it was just too dumb. From a shower of driver-less cars to pushing torpedoes away with your bare hands to...oh, I don't know what else. No matter how dumb a movie is, there has to be something we can believe in, right? Well, not this time out. No spoilers here, see it for yourself - yes, really - but don't say you weren't warned...
Never - probably! - in the history of cinema has such a concerted
campaign been undertaken by so many people who have obviously not seen
the film to discredit a movie. Well, I may be wrong about that, there
may be a historical precedent that I am unaware of, but I'm sure you
get what I mean. Now, quite why so many would have you believe this
movie stinks, I really can't say. It doesn't matter anyway, because
this movie very definitely doesn't stink.
Is it as good as the 1984 original? No, and nothing could ever be that good again. Is it as good as 1989's follow up? Possibly. It may even be better, that was a largely soulless affair. What you can say about Ghostbusters 2016 is that it has heart. A lot of heart. And it's funny. Very funny. All of the principals are great, with Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy excellent and kudos in particular to Kate McKinnon who, being a Brit living in Tokyo, I had never seen on SNL. Chris Hemsworth was also entertaining, playing very much against type.
I am aware that the movie mafia is suspicious of any good reviews being posted for this movie. Well, screw them all. Use your own brains and not theirs. See this movie, you won't be sorry that you did.
Being as I was a part of the London metal community in the seventies
and eighties, a Hawkwind fan in my youth (saw them a few times in '72
and '73) and a Motorhead fan right from the beginning (I managed to
catch their first few live shows in 1975 or whenever), I was, I guess,
right at the front of this movie's core audience. Not even I, though,
could have hoped for a more complete and more satisfying experience as
the movie turned out to be!
Having had the privilege of spending time with the great man himself on a number of joyous occasions, I can happily report to any interested parties that 'Lemmy' is as honest a portrayal of the man as you could possibly hope for. He is exactly as this movie shows him to be, and that alone is enough reason for anybody - metal head or not! - to make the effort to see it. There is - and there will only ever be! - one Lemmy. Thank god (or maybe the other fella..?) that somebody had the balls to make this movie so that we may all cherish it in the years to come.
Sure, we've all seen this movie a dozen times over, from 'Wild,wild
west' to any number of similar plots, but Jonah Hex is fun, simple as
that. Josh Brolin is always good value, the supporting cast is
excellent and there really isn't anything on display here to warrant
such venom. I have seen far worse movies earn a better rep than this
one, quite what you were all expecting is a mystery to me. This movie
only requires that you go with it, it isn't high art but it also isn't
the turkey that they would have you believe.
If, like me, you were dumb enough to be put off seeing this movie by the reviews posted here...well, don't listen to them. Jonah Hex is OK by me and I think it will be by you, too.
The original remit for this show wasn't to entertain but rather to bridge the part of the day between learning and running around generally being a wee kid and bed time. This it does admirably. Besides, we shouldn't make the error of thinking that children's TV need always be educational. This desire to constantly bombard children (in this case pre-schoolers) with information is a bit tedious and its amusing to see the same tired arguments that were leveled at the Tellietubbies rolled out again. Kids aren't machines, they need a bit of nonsense from time to time the same way we adults do. Top marks for this one...especially
It's a typically cynical attitude to a perfectly good re-imagining of a
series that was pretty dreadful to start with. C'mon, let's face facts,
with the source material being so ropey in the first place, there was
no reason to expect very much at all from this. The truth of the matter
is that this is far more interesting than the awful 70's original and
deserves to be judged on its own merits, of which there are many.
Michelle Ryan is remarkable given her woeful origins in soap opera
Look, if you are open enough to take this on board without getting bogged down in all of the baggage that comes with it, then there is much to enjoy.
I am simply awestruck at the ineptitude of this film. Like everybody, I have seen my fair share of dreadful films...but this is a whole new level of truly appalling. I have all the time in the world for Jim Carrey and Virginia Madsen, but what sins have they committed in a previous life to deserve being stuck in this utter dog's dinner of a film? I won't even bother trying to précis the plot - such as there was - but what I will say is that everybody involved - especially Joel Schumaker - should be deeply, deeply ashamed. There is unlikely to be a worse film this year and this abomination alone will leave a black pall over 2007. An unmitigated disaster from beginning to end.
Sure, there's plenty to get a hankering for. Steak and kidney pudding, Cheddar cheese...but what I miss most being stuck here in Tokyo is quality TV. Nobody - and I do mean NOBODY - other than a British programme maker and probably only the BBC could have come up with anything remotely as original and challenging as Life On Mars. Having come to this show as late as I have, it's a real treat to see how well received it has been. Quite why an American network feels the need to re-make what is essentially already just about perfect is quite beyond me. I hope they get it right, but I fear they won't. That being said, the US version of 'The Office' works well, but that is because the approach is pretty radically different to the original - they chose to focus more on the peripheral characters than the UK version. In any case, Life On mars is to be cherished. Top drawer stuff.
I guess that Peter Jackson was always odds on for a hiding with this
film. I know many people who are just not at all interested in seeing
this film because it's either a remake of a film that they never
particularly liked in the first place or just a remake of a seventy
year old movie. Mighty Joe Young and the like have probably had all
their is to be had out of the big ape genre. Their opinion, not mine.
Boy, was I stoked at the idea of seeing this movie, I ran to the cinema and kinda made myself a bit of a fool over it. So, what did I get in return? OK, let's face facts here, IT'S TOO DAMN LONG!! At least 45 minutes could have been shaved from the film and nobody would have been any the wiser. The CGI is shabby at times, especially the Brontosauruses - they were really poor and the blue screen work in that part of the film was just awful - you felt that you could reach out and peel the human characters off the screen, that's how detached from the CGI action they seemed. I could also have done without all of the insect nonsense; they were not at all believable and didn't move the plot along at all.
Kong himself, however, was simply amazing. Thanks to Andy Serkis, he is perfectly believable and it's easy to lose yourself in him as a character. The acting is fine and the final pay off is great. At 2 hours 20 minutes and without some of the truly atrocious CGI work, you're looking at a great movie. As it is, it's worth seeing but that's about it.
I've worked it out. It took me a while, but I've finally figured it out. This film isn't damned by so many people because it's good, bad or indifferent. People have a problem with it because it's an Oliver Stone movie, simple as that. Now, in a world where a pile of old tosh like 'Million Dollar Baby' - easily the laziest piece of film making of recent years - gets the praise that it does and bags a truckload of Oscars to boot yet a brave attempt to film an almost untellable story like the life of Alexander gets so pilloried...well, what does it say about cinema goers? Most prominent are complaints that it's too long - not so - and that it's boring. I ask you, how could you tell a story like this and it be boring? You couldn't! Like somebody else said on this thread, see it yourself, don't be told what to like. If it doesn't work for you, then so be it. But see it anyway...
|Page 1 of 2:|| |