Reviews written by registered user
|23 reviews in total|
It is not a mad max film, it should be called Furiosa Road. Thomas Hardy doesn't even do a good take on Max. There's only one and his name is Mel Gibson. The film is only for the new generation, this was meant to be a 80's throw back and it is nothing like a good old fashioned film at all. MasterPieceOfShit is all i can say. Terminator 5 may have flaws but at least it was entertaining and had its great star back Mr Arnold Schwarzenegger. That film was smashed for been bad and Mad Max gets the reviews like its epic, its not at all it's simply nothing like the masterpiece they lead you to believe. If you are a younger generation and into Hardy, the way of films now you will mostly love it but if you are a avid fan of the first 3 films you will hate it, if your a true fan anyway.
Bigger, Better then ever. Regardless of what you have heard this is a great follow on and at times a masterpiece. Arnold is back and why not, doing what he does best and I bet he feels at home. Not the film that will do well in America has they have gotten used to the cringe worthy Liam Neeson and forget the Charisma of the great Arnold Schwarzenegger. If it wasn't for him there would be no T2 OR T3. Cameron only got 100 million for T2 because of Arnold's Huge popularity and ties with Carolco, if not for him you wouldn't even be such a terminator fan so those saying a Terminator is not a terminator without Cameron are simply Cameron boys. Well TG is a 10 out of 10 and deserves more then the bad cred it is receiving. If you want a full on action thrill ride then this film is for you. Seeing Arnold shine back in this role doing all those things you miss him doing makes you feel like what you did when you saw him as a child. Go watch it, its worth your time and Terminate the competition with extreme prejudice.
Die Hard has been around over 20 years and sham eon the people involved
in the making of this.....Especially Bruce Willis.
It didn't have the Die Hard feel like the first 3 did, the 4th was slightly off but you knew it was a DH. But this just feels like another Bruce Willis action-ER thriller, a good one but not enough to make it god enough to be part of the series. First of all why choose a director that's not handled anything to this scale before, if you was gonna do it right then you'd get guys from the 80's and 90's that are known for the magic they created in their action films, guys that should heart and soul for the formula. And Bruce Willis should of checked out John Moore's previous crap and said NO WAY... But then I guess he doesn't care for John Mclane anymore and just taking a big easy paycheck, If that is the case Brucey don't do a 6th one unless your bringing back a worthy director . If you love Die Hare you will/Might enjoy it or you wont full stop. If you don't Give a sh** then you will enjoy it buts its not what it should be.
OK look i don't get the problem everyone has here. Arnold is playing
his age to a point unlike Neeson trying to still do what Arnold can
still do best but why would everyone wanna watch that guy over the
might Arnold. Its a film that not done any different made in 1994
instead of Junior then it would of surely gotten more then True Lies
because this is the seriousness Arnold needed to do back then to be
taken serious of an actor. He carries a film still, up staging any one
in his path so ignore the uses making out hes too old. He inst at all,
he still looks like the Guy most of us grew up with. The film had good
amounts of twists and turns with some good staged action scenes but
apparently its a let down. Well its only a let down because its not
full on CGI or doesn't have Neeson in it who in my opinions inst a
action star or legend and will not gain the power or stardom Arnold has
achieved. Whether Arnold films flop or not he made more money in the
90's and early 2000's that Neeson will never beat. Anyway about
SABOTAGE, Look if you like Training Day and them types of gritty
thrillers even if you ain't an Arnold fan you will still like this. I
love these films but I also love a star to carry a film so the film
itself gets 7/10 from me, but with Arnold and he's great ability of
acting I give the film a full 10 marks. Keep them coming Arnold because
in ten years these movies will undoubtedly age better then then stupid
Neeson or Avenger movies.
Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood Esque thriller which is why you should see it
I've always had a special place for this movie in my heart, as a kid. And now at 28, it still is if not better with age. Come on its has Bronson, Steiger and a great musical score. Oh and don't forget great locations. Movies that come and go, that stay in the lime light that are rubbish get better praise then this. And to be honest there isn't anything wrong with this film, it a classic late 70's movie. If you love Bronson it is for you, if you don't but love the 70's then you still may enjoy. It has its bad points and troubles from the start of production but nothing to make a big deal out of. It didn't do out in US but in the foreign markets it was still a huge success which is why Charlie stayed a huge bankable movie legend. The film is attacked like it was a major problem or something, the same with Bronson's Borderline which has also aged well, because it is a thriller drama about real things which audiences didn't want then. Anyway Love and Bullets is still a great movie and doesn't deserve any of the bad reviews it's had over the years, so don't listen to em, watch it for yourself. Its better then most rubbish released today thats for dam sure.
Absolutely awful. All it is, is a another Statham movie. If they really
wanted a good remake of the Classic, they should of tried a ageing more
intense actor like Mickey Rourke with a director like Walter Hill. They
you go, the film sucks. If you love the original, and you like Statham,
don't billed yourself up. Try to see this as just a normal movie and
not a remake of the Bronson Classic. But for me this is still rubbish,
Its no Sly or Arnold, and i'd prefer Van Damme doing this, Statham just
doesn't have good qualities. If you like Statham then you'll probably
Peace out 0/10
First of all when i first saw this some 6 years ago, i thought it was
s**t. I bought a Charlie DVD with 3 films on, this with Cold Sweat and
Lola. But last year it was released on DVD over here in the UK. And man
it's a great picture, like new. And that made it all better and
interesting. The story line is great, unique. You cant beat it, I love
it. But then again there isn't a Charlie film i don't. If it was
released back in 73 the way it was on the us DVD, no wonder it didn't
make money, OH brother what was wrong with them. I Defo recommend this
to anyone, but only if you buy the UK DVD.
A story i will treasure...
Now Bronson here does a fantastic struggling writer who happens to get
involved in a big crisis.
St Ives is the name and he used to be a cop and every where he goes a
goes down. So he gets taken away by the cops. So Bronson knows he keeps
getting set up or it's just he's bad luck. Even seeing Freddy Krueger
to take on Bronson, Why did he do that. Only made him mad.
Brilliant ending worth 10 stars.
Hope they bring the DVD out really soon, with some features.
Before True Lies came out and turned me into the Arnie fanatic I am today, I
considered the Bond movie A View To A Kill to be the most spectacular action
movie of all. And even though I still consider AVTAK the best Bond movie and
Roger Moore the best 007, it pales in comparison with TL which is what a
Bond movie should have been in the 90's. Now I consider TL not only to be
the best action film but also THE BEST film of all-time.
PS Can't wait for the sequel.
This fourth Batman is rubbish and no mistake. The first two movies were brilliant and now the franchise has desended into your run-of-the-mill medicore film series. The main problems are: 1. Changing the characters. Batman was much more menacing in first film like the original comic strips. But this movie (like the 60's versions) has Batman attending public conventions. And what makes it even more unbelievable is the Robin character. He wasn't even in any of the original comic strips and makes Batman looked flawed. I think it was original director Tim Burton's idea to steer away from the 60's versions and go back to the very beginning when the Caped Crusader was a much more mysterious and frightening character. 2. The cast. First of all George Clooney lacks charisma and dosen't come close to Michael Keaton or Val Kilmer. And then there's Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy. Just look at the way Batman and his Boy Wonder fight over her. This would have been a lot more believable had a more desirable actress like Sharon Stone been cast. Chris O' Donnell is so boring he's not worth the ink it would take to write about him. But the one good thing I can say about this movie is the sheer presence of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze. He saves the film from falling completely flat on it's face with quite an exceptionally good performance. If not for Mr. Schwarzenegger's participation I would not have claimed to have watched this movie at least a dozen times. (5/10) Moderate
|Page 1 of 3:||  |