Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 316:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
3151 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Dredd (2012)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Simple but great quality entertainment., 29 September 2012

Of course this is not being a perfect movie with an airtight story in it but it absolutely does a great job at providing some great quality entertainment, making "Dredd 3D" a perfectly enjoyable genre flick!

It was actually quite surprising to find out how simple and straightforward this movie was being. It pretty much jumps right into the action and doesn't ever really take the time to setup its world and characters. It's really a movie without any distractions and moves right toward its goal, without making things ever deep or complicated. It might sound as a complain but it really isn't. After all, as the movie progresses we do learn about its characters and get to understand the futuristic world it is taking place in. So it really doesn't ever feel like the movie is wasting time with anything and every time you think the movie is starting to get deeper, more serious or complicated, it goes right back to its action.

And since this movie is taking place in a futuristic world, it has plenty of original elements in it. This also really goes for its action. It allows itself to become really creative with its weaponry and action, which means that the movie often manages to surprise you with stuff and the movie never starts to repeat itself, even though its mostly taking place at one location, with also just an handful of different characters involved.

It's foremost the action that makes this movie a worthwhile experience and its handled and shot very well by both its cast and crew. The movie has a good look to it and doesn't ever try to blow you away with one particular special effect shot or action sequences but rather tries to impress you with its whole end product.

It of course is also being its main character that lets the movie work out. He's a tough and mysterious person, who walks the fine line of what's considered to be good and bad. Sure, Karl Urban does a good job playing the character but in all honestly, it really didn't mattered who would had played him. After all, you most certainly won't be able to recognize Urban in this movie, mostly due to the reason that he never takes of his helmet, which is actually being a good and effective thing for the movie and its main character in general.

Of course when you start nitpicking you could find plenty of flaws to this movie and story but some movies are just made to simply enjoy, without letting you think too much or too long about anything that's happening in it. It might be try that this at the same time makes "Dredd 3D" a somewhat forgettable movie but when you watch you'll simply have a great time, regardless of that!


1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A reverse love-story., 28 September 2012

Of course this is not a movie for just about everybody but those who are able to appreciate a more subtle, quiet and artistic made movie, with great visuals and a slowly told story, this is a great watch!

You could basically enjoy this movie for two different things; either its storytelling or its visual directing approach by Kar Wai Wong. Really, if you just don't care very much about its story, this movie might still be a very worthwhile experience, due to its great looking visuals and vice versa. Or you of course could enjoy the movie simply for both of these two reasons, which isn't unlikely you will!

It's an odd thing, people describing this movie as a romance. Not that they are wrong about it, after all the movie is shot and told as such a movie but the story in fact is actually being far from romantic. I would even call this movie a reverse love-story, in which the main characters are loosing love instead of finding it and fall out of love instead of in love. It doesn't make this movie any less powerful, involving and even uplifting to watch though. It's not a depressing movie by any means, despite of its themes and more slower type of storytelling.

So it's a slower, more subtle and often visual orientated movie. Normally this style of film-making would often come across as pretentious, also because it's all obviously done in a deliberate and perhaps somewhat forced way. I mean, it's nothing that the movie truly needed to have in it but still it manages to add so much to the movie. It really helps to let the story move along and to establishes the mood for its characters and all of the particular situations. Even when not much is being said, you still exactly know what is going on in the character's minds at the moment.

It's a 'different' movie but that doesn't mean it's being a hard, or odd one to watch. It's a perfectly accessible movie, mostly also due to its clear and straightforward storytelling, that might dwell but never strays off. It's truly a movie you need to experience for yourself and chances are you'll absolutely be grabbed by its storytelling and visual approach!


Barricade (2012)
18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Effective low budget genre movie., 28 September 2012

Nothing too great about this movie but it uses its low budget creatively and besides is a well made and good looking movie.

It's absolutely, most definitely, a far more professional looking movie than the average low budget genre attempt. The directing, the editing, the cinematography, it's simply all good, making this a perfectly watchable genre flick.

The movie does a good job at handling its mystery and tension. It's being a real effective movie in that regard and the movie constantly keeps throwing you off. Is it being a horror flick, is it all taking place inside the head of main character? The movie implies lots of different things throughout, making you feel unsure what is exactly going on with the story. It really keeps things interesting and helps to keep things going, even when there really isn't an awful lot happening.

This movie often just implies things, without ever truly showing you anything. This is what being creative with a low budget is all about, as opposed for instance other genre movies with a low budget, that show far too much or try to do too much with its restrained budget, with as a result things just look plain bad and work out more often ridicules or laughable. I really do believe that is the main reason why the movie in fact works out.

You could complain that the movie is too dark looking, which is true but again, I also see this in this case as using its low budget creatively. It besides does help to establish a certain type of atmosphere for the movie, which is the right type of atmosphere required for an horror.

It's also certainly true that the movie does sort of fall apart toward it's end but really, it's not any worse than often is being the case with any other random genre attempt. Let me just say that it didn't ruined the experience for me, which perhaps was also because I could see the end coming from miles away, as should any other horror lover. So it's not surprising but still the movie does a good job at handling things and simply does what it does well enough.

Nothing too brilliant obviously but the movie as it is remains a perfectly watchable one.


Smoke (1995)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A great and subtle done movie about the little things in life., 26 September 2012

If you like a real character movie, in which the movie is foremost all about its acting and characters, this movie is a great one to watch!

It's a movie that follows multiple different story lines and characters, with each their own thing going on. They are not necessarily connected, other than through the Harvey Keitel character. And remember, this is a 1995 movie, so please don't expect an Alejandro González Iñárritu type of movie, with a frame narrative in it. It's from before that era, so it's not as slick and 'clever' with all of its different story lines and the way they are connect. It's a more slow and subtle done movie, that has a simple concept and takes a simple approach to it.

And nothing wrong with that, since it does indeed work out well for the movie. It's great to see the different story lines and characters slowly progress throughout the movie and to see where it's all leading up to.

It's about the little things in life really and doesn't attempt to make things bigger or more heavy than they needed to be. It does in a way let this movie feel as a feel good movie, though it's definitely still foremost done as a drama. It's a good thing that it keeps things light and humble, since this definitely improved the movie its entertainment and rewatchability value.

As you would expect, the movie gets mostly carried by its actors. And it really has a fine cast in it, with people such as Harvey Keitel, William Hurt and Forest Whitaker all involved. It's always great to see fine actors act, so that alone already makes this movie worthwhile.

It's definitely worth watching if this movie sounds like your kind of thing!


Nightwatch (1997)
Good enough in its own way., 25 September 2012

Well, lets just start of by saying this movie is no way near as good as the original movie "Nattevagten", of which this movie is a remake but it's still being a pretty good and fun whodunit to have a good time with.

Kind of weird to notice how different this movie is in atmosphere and approach, since it actually got directed by the same director who made the original, 3 years prior to this American remake. And it's not just different but also most definitely less effective. There is not as much tension and mystery in this one, also due to some pacing issues (it's too fast paced at times) and a poor buildup to things.

And all while this movie in essence is still being just like the original. Not much had been changed in its story really and I was therefore also quite surprised to find out Steven Soderbergh was involved with the writing. Guess it was an easy paycheck for him, since really not all that much had been changed or added to the movie, when compared to the original movie.

While the original was being a whole lot of different things, this movie is just being a more simple and more straightforward thriller, or rather said whodunit. So really, don't expect this movie to provide you with any horror but as a mystery/thriller, I can still see this movie entertaining a whole bunch of people out there, of course especially those who aren't familiar with the original movie already.

And really, the movie on its own is really being quite good and entertaining for what it is. It really doesn't handle everything well, mainly stuff concerning the earlier mentioned pacing and buildup to things but as a whole it's still being a better movie than just the average genre attempt. There are plenty of thrills and surprises in it, that help to keep you invested in the movie.

It also has a cast to die for. Really an all-star cast, of which some actors are better known now days as back then. Ewan McGregor plays the main lead, while the movie further more stars Patricia Arquette, Nick Nolte, a still very young looking Josh Brolin, Brad Dourif and John C. Reilly. Not that this movie features any of their best or most interesting and challenging performances but still, it's always good to see so many talented people together on screen.

A definitely good enough movie as a straightforward thriller.


Butter (2011)
2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A lacking concept but not a terrible movie., 25 September 2012

This is not a movie that shall win any big awards and its a movie that most people most likely will never get to watch but that doesn't mean it's being a terrible movie though. It just happens to be one that is lacking in certain departments and never makes a big or lasting impact with anything but is still being good enough one to watch.

The foremost problem with the movie is that it's being one that solely relies on its concept and not necessarily its comedy writing. It thinks that having a funny and absurd concept equals a funny comedy but it of course really doesn't work like that. It means that the movie is somewhat lacking in its writing and most definitely with its comedy as well. The characters for instance never come quite across, as fun, quirky or likable enough ones, while this was obviously the approach the film-makers were aiming for.

It tried to be like a fun, cute, heartfelt, warm, independent comedy, with a young kid in it, playing an important role but the movie really is lacking the right required warmth and depth to ever work out as a cute and involving one. Again, you should blame the writing, that besides focuses on far too many different characters.

You also feel that the movie really could had used a good and well known comedy actor in it, playing one of the lead roles. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of great and well known actors in this movie but what it is missing is a charismatic comedy actor who can handle its comedy and timing better and turn some average comedy scenes into something truly hilarious.

There are plenty of well known actors in this (Jennifer Garner, Alicia Silverstone, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Ty Burrell, etcetera) but none of them truly makes a lasting impression. Besides, some of them only appear in small roles, such as Hugh Jackman. And while Olivia Wilde is fine, in more than one way, her character sort of goes to waste in this movie. I could see the movie its intentions with her but as it turned out, her character is actually being one the movie could had easily done without. It's also partly due to it that the movie lets her do some very random stuff at times, that have nothing to do with the movie its main story.

The movie also shows some hints of a social satire in it but it just isn't being quite witty enough to let it all truly work out. Again, it's a sign of the movie its aspirations and intentions but due to it writing, it just never takes off.

It's still an harmless and fun enough little movie to watch but at the same time it also is really being a movie you could real easily do without.


3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A poorly handled genre movie., 25 September 2012

What an incredibly silly and formulaic genre flick!

I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that I was mostly bored while watching this movie. It takes the longest time for something good or interesting to ever happen and the movie does a real poor job at handling its concept.

This is being one of those horror flicks that picks a more realistic approach to things. The one that focuses more on the drama and storytelling, as opposed to any gore or scares. And nothing wrong with such an approach but the problem with this movie is that the story is lacking the right required amount of depth to make and keep things interesting and the story itself is being pretty predictable from start to finish, especially for those who are really into the genre.

Surely they could had come up with some more original stuff. I mean, another horror movie involving an Ouija board and characters with a troubled past? Seriously, why even bother doing a movie when this is all you could come up with. The movie is a completely redundant one within its genre and there really is no good reason why you should ever watch this movie.

Even though the movie focuses on a lot of other things, it foremost is still being a horror of course. But really not an effective one, in any way or form. All it basically has in it are a bunch of false scares, which is not only a very clichéd thing for a genre movie to feature but it also gets repeated far too often in this movie to ever let it work out as anything effective.

Thing with the story was that it also never could interest me. Because of that I started to loose interest in the movie as a whole and after a short while I already had no idea what was going on in the movie any more, simply because I couldn't care about it. None of the events or characters in this movie could ever grab me and the ending really didn't changed much about this.

The only reason why I still give it a somewhat 'high' rating is because the movie never truly angered or annoyed me. It's not a totally horrible movie but it has far too little going for it and besides is being too formulaic- and handles its concept far from effective enough to consider this a good enough and watchable little genre flick.


2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Star Trek and the search for God., 24 September 2012

William Shatner must have thought; What Leonard Nimoy can do, I can do better! So, next to starring in this movie, Shatner wrote and directed the movie, just as Nimoy did for the previous Star Trek entry; "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", which he only directed. But as it turned out, Shatner's writing and directing skills were not up to par with Nimoy's!

This movie does plenty wrong and many thought that the series should had ended here. Star Trek had outlived its course and they had obvious difficulties coming up with new stuff to do and keep things up to date with the standards of filmmaking and science-fiction. It perhaps also was no coincidence that the television series "Star Trek: The Next Generation", with an all new cast, got launched in 1987, 2 years prior to this movie and 1 year after the previous Star Trek movie entry. You know Star Trek is in trouble when it is starting to take on Star Wars sound effects and tries to mimic Star Wars like sequences. Isn't that like crossing the streams?

Thing they came up with for this movie; a search for God. Really doesn't sound like the most spectacular thing and it also really isn't. But what's perhaps even more disappointing is that the movie never goes deep. You would expect for a movie with a subject like that to bring up 2 or 3 interesting and provoking questions about life and religion but the movie really never does. It instead seemed like it was more focused on its comedy!

And it's really not the funny sort of comedy but more of the awkward kind. It's very random, silly and often just completely out of place and tone with the rest of the movie. Because of this, there also is never really any sense of danger throughout the movie, which is taking away pretty much all of the excitement and entertainment out of it.

Not that the movie is boring. I mean, in all honesty, it's just as good/bad to watch as any other random science-fiction flick, that involves traveling through space and visiting alien planets. I can still see why this movie is disliked by many, of which most are hardened Star Trek fans. This is pretty much the Star Trek movie in which stuff got made fun of and things turned silly. It also made it obvious how outdated the franchise was getting and how old the cast suddenly turned.

All of the cast members were really starting to look too old for their roles. Nothing wrong with having 2 or 3 wrinkly characters walking around but when it's being a whole starship, that is just being a bit too much. And really, this is of course something they easily could had prevented by introducing new characters and letting them slowly and subtly take over the main parts but somehow I think Shatner opposed to this idea and maybe is also a reason why he demanded full control and directed this movie himself.

It's also true that this movie really could had used a good main villain. Sybok really isn't an evil character at heart and certainly does nothing horrible and while there are some Klingons walking around in this movie, their roles are being pretty limited unfortunately.

In all honesty, it's far from a terrible movie and I certainly still consider it to be a watchable one but it just isn't the most interesting, original, entertaining or clever of Star Trek movies out there.


Near Dark (1987)
A different type of vampire movie., 24 September 2012

This is a different type of vampire movie, that's not all focused on the monster or horror aspects but more on its storytelling, characters and dramatic aspects, without becoming a melodrama or anything like that.

It's a pretty subtle and more quiet type of movie, so to speak. That's also being really the foremost thing that I didn't like all that much about it; it isn't really following a clear main story. Its more the type of movie that follows its characters around and shows things as they happen, without building up to anything. There also isn't a classic type of hero or main villain in the movie, which is of course something that not every movie needs to have in it but in this case, I think I would had most definitely preferred it if this movie had those type of characters in it and followed a more usual main story, with a more typical beginning, middle and end in it.

Other than that, I can't say that the movie is a bad one but it indeed is one that never hits a home-run, metaphorically speaking. It's nice that the movie tries out plenty of new and unusual stuff and it's definitely being an original movie in the vampire genre but not one that's an absolute must-see for anyone. It's just not quite interesting or entertaining enough for that.

Also don't expect this movie to be filled with action or bloodsucking. But that's not a complaint from my part. I liked it that the movie only had a handful of typical vampire moments in it and just about only one big action set piece, that worked out great for the movie and really was all that this movie needed. It set the atmospheric tone and established the 'rules' for this movie, so that the rest of the movie could focus on doing completely other things, which you perhaps normally wouldn't expect being in a vampire flick.

The movie also features Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen in it, among many others. And remember, this is an 80's movie, so that means that it has still awesome Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen in it! No doubt it helped that director Kathryn Bigelow still was with James Cameron at the time, since he's a director who worked a lot with Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen around that same time. Same goes for Jenette Goldstein by the way but she is somewhat of a lesser known actress.

The main characters are still played by some big unknowns (Adrian Pasdar & Jenny Wright), which is perhaps also being something that somewhat keeps the movie down. A more charismatic main lead for instance could had most likely spiced up things a little bit more and would had gotten you more involved with the movie its story and main character.

All in all its being a quite good and different little vampire flick but it's nothing to get all too excited about. Very watchable but not a must-see by any means, not even for the most hardened vampire lovers out there.


Nightwatch (1994)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Simply a great genre movie., 24 September 2012

Even though this is not a perfect movie, it still does nothing really wrong either and this movie is basically being a great example of how to do a great and effective, more classic type, of thriller.

The movie combines many different genre elements and it keeps throwing you around. Is it going to be a horror? Is it going to be psychological thriller? Is it going to be a thriller involving a serial killer? Every time you think you have the movie all figured out it does something new and surprising. So really, it's best to simply watch this movie, without knowing what it truly is going to be all about.

And the good news about the movie as well is that it handles all of its many different themes effectively. When the movie is supposed to be horror like it's being really horror like with its atmosphere and buildup and when the movie is supposed to be more thriller like it's really being suspenseful and mysterious. What I also liked was that the movie was having some clear Giallo genre movie elements in it but then again, every modern horror/thriller involving a killer is being in one way or another derivative of the classic Italian Giallo genre.

It really was foremost the atmosphere of the whole movie that kept it going and suspenseful and interesting. The story itself, when you really start to dissect it is being quite standard for its genre. Yet the movie still manages to surprise you, due to the way it handles certain scenes and its typical genre ingredients, such as the look and feeling it has to it.

The movie also truly benefits from it that it has some good and likable characters in it. No cocky kids, or persons who think they know best and are afraid of nothing but instead some real people, with real fears and emotions. Yes, it might be true that the characters feel that way simply just because this is a Danish production, which of course has a different approach and feeling to it than a more standardized and stylized Hollywood production. Or perhaps it's just all due to some great casting and performances by its actors. This actually was being one of Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's very first movie roles and he now days has a pretty decent acting career, with already also movies such as "Black Hawk Down", "Kingdom of Heaven" and the television series "Game of Thrones" behind his name.

Guess there is still plenty of stuff you could complain about, such as the lack of blood and gore, while there was plenty of opportunity for it, or that the killer gets revealed far before the finale and end of the movie but that doesn't take away anything from the fact that this is simply being a very effective genre movie, that's perfectly watchable, even on repeated viewings.


Page 1 of 316:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]