Reviews written by registered user
|22 reviews in total|
I wanted to start off by saying this movie was entertaining and worth the price of admission simply for the action. However after i let the whole film sink in and i have become annoyed. This film is like three Spiderman films rolled into one. Despite the film's 2.5 hour runtime, there is no room allotted for character development. Venom receives less time then most other characters and he was supposedly the headline-enemy of the film. What happened? were they pushing the limits of the 250, 000, 000 budget? probably. There were also the scenes involving Parker and MJ that were painful to watch. Watching Toby try to squeeze out those tears look like squeezing a sponge full of water was the nail in the dramatic coffin.The finale whereby the reporter narrates the events is also painstaking. So cliché, so overdone, such unnecessary babbling filler just drives me up the wall. I don't mean to lash out at a sizablen portion of the North American movie going public, but when a high-budget production flashes shiny graphics, extended fight scenes and cheesy acting only rivaled by the Young and the Restless, its enough to be considered a successful movie. Too many people just eat this stuff up. I am no exception at times however i can take the blinders off after the movie and see past the glitz that only shallow viewers will be amazed by. If you want to see multiple movies in one showing, pick-up Grindhouse when it comes to DVD. That's real entertainment that ISN'T ashamed to expose its multiple flaws.
I didn't go into this movie expecting much. The key to the film's enjoyment is that you go in with this attitude by shutting your brain down for about 1.5 hours with a big tub of buttered pop-corn, overpriced pop and enjoy the product in front of you. I won't tell you the plot because the name of the movie says it all. Jackson at first looked stupid for taking his role and insisting on keeping the current name of the film during production; however now he looks like a pop-culture genius by succeeding in a movie that would have little shot for success 5 to 7 years ago. The effects are cheesy but still worth a good view and the characters are diverse with the direction being way above par. The film is a good blend of comedy and horror which is a rare combo these days. The cast made the impossible possible. Snakes on a Plane rocked!
I'll confess, I have not seen the play before the movie. However now i want to see the theatrical production with a passion. This film was so well done, and this is coming from someone who usually stays away from musicals. The film is a rock/pop musical. the songs are catchy and the soundtrack is among the best I've heard. The movie covers many subject areas such as the urban decay in America's major cities, socially dislodged youth, aids, homosexuality and the erosion of typical American ideals. The film goes from comedic to tragic and does not try too hard to be a classic. Usually it takes a certain person to embrace a musical, however "Rent" appeals to pop culture in the present day and the era of the late 1980's whereby the film was set. This movie is superbly directed and deserves the attention of most movie freaks. Thanks to the film i am now what they call a "Rent Head"
This movie has a replay value of 9. I wish i could tell you what exactly makes this movie so great, but i would be going on forever, so i'll just stick to generalization. The atmosphere of the movie is set in Boston, a vastly cultural city with a large crime syndicate. Two Irish brothers become the victim of crime and decide to take justice into their own hands as vigilantes. The Boondock Saints isn't a rip-off of Deathwish, there is allot of back-story and social commentary with in the script to set it apart from other films of its genre. It is very unfortunate that this movie's thunder was taken away by the tragic events at Columbine, because it would have otherwise gained more recongniton then it had. Upon films end, the movie allows for the audience to review there ideals on justice and how the criminal system works. All actors contribute to their roles in supreme fashion including David Del Rocco who adds humor to this already dark comedy-thriller. this movie truly is original and should gain more publicity when its much anticipated sequel is released within the next year.
I had wanted to see Red Eye since the first time I saw it's trailer. I was fortunate enough to view the film on opening night, and I was not disappointed! The film gives off a claustrophobic aura of suspense that keeps the viewer on the edge of his/her seat from the 20 minute mark until the finale. The passenger jet setting and comic relief provided for great set-ups to some of the best suspense scenes since last year's "Collateral". Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams play their roles in superior fashion. Murphy, whom I am personally a big fan of (28 Days Later remains one of my faves of all time) plays a great sociopath with a superficially kind and sinister persona. McAdams plays a great unlikely hero who you really try sympathize with. Their were a number of "she could have, He could have done this or that" moments, however this movie is a thriller not real life. If every thriller had played on real life we would just re-enter the real world from which we were trying to escape upon walking into the theater. This Film is definitely the 11 dollars Ihad payed to see it, which is rare these days. I had paid for a thriller and I got it. It is really sad that this movie is overshadowed by some no brainers which i shall not mention. Red Eye is a great departure from Wes Craven's typical film genre of horror and may revive his recently lagging directing career. See this movie, it will be the launch pad for the career of Murphy and McAdams, you won't regret it.
Hotel Rwanda is one of those few cinematic masterpieces that you can recant over and over in your mind, to your families, friends and educators. The movie depicts the desperate situation of a nation torn by civil war and genocide between two major tribes in 1994. However the main focus of the movie deals with a hotel manager who desperately tries to save his family and refugees from the slaughter occurring beyond the hotel property. Normally I am aggravated when a director goes out of his way to give his film a pg-13 so preteens can see it, thus increasing profit. however this movie's rating is highly justified. Everyone deserves to see and care about what had happened in Rwanda, because the world leaders and media at the time of the atrocity certainly did not. With the recent production of numerous WWII movies, the holocaust has been brought to light while the Rwandan genocide had been swept under the the rug, until now. Done Cheadle did a superb job in his role that made me feel like i was right there with him. He is very under-rated and i feel he can out-act even the best such as Denzel Washington. Nolte plays a Canadian UN field leader who is obviously modeled after the Canadian war hero Romeo Dellaire whom attempts to bring the crisis to the international authorities' attention and in return tragically gets his squad of UN peace keepers reduced. This only adds to the desperation of the situation. The movie touches on the personal lives, politics, religion and culture of Rwanda during this short but dark chapter in human history. Much of those who were able to change the outcome of the situation at the time deserve to be shamed by this movie. So many times has society claimed that genocide will never happen again, but i think what society really means is that it will never happen to "white" people again. Such a statement can draw this review allot of criticism, but I feel it taps into the darkest part of the human soul where self denial and racism are clearly present. Hotel Rwanda deserves all the accolades it receives and will be shown in homes and classrooms for years to come. My hat's off to the production team, the cast and the crew to bring such a turbulent, dark, short, yet important era of human history to the forefront of the media world.
I went into this movie not expecting what i was about to receive. Usually Will Smith stars in average to good films but this one blew me away. He did not play a cop, agent or some action hero trying to save a pretty girl from the cltuches of evil. The entire cast fits their roles perfectly. Hitch has some of the best casting I have seen in a while, which is something to be said for the lack of big names. The New York City backdrop and real life clumsiness in the dating world is nicely portrayed. Their are some fairytale moments, however this can be expected seeing as how it is a big production. The role is a nice change for smith and can serve as a confidence booster to those in the dating world, although they should not use some of the fancy dialog used in the film. Not only is the role very well suited for Smith, but it is something he plays to the finest detail. The story is truly original, which is becoming a larger factor in the quality of the movie industry today.
I have not seen this movie until months after it was released on video. It was one of those snowy nights where you just wanted to stay in and see a movie. After a coin toss, the favor fell with Hellboy. Turns out fate was pointing me in the right direction. This movie was a real thriller and served as great entertainment for its entire running time. The cast consists of relatively unknown actors to the average viewer. However this does not hinder the outcome of the film. When it comes right down to it, the budget would probably not allow for such a big name cast anyways because of the CGI and expensive sets. The movie moves at a great pace, and contains large doses of humor, mystery and violence. The last thing the viewer should do is criticize the film for being unrealistic. First off its a movie based on a comic book, second its not meant to tug at any heart strings and win any awards. This reasons compile to suggest that critics bite there tongues before talking crap about the movie.
The Life Aquatic is very overlooked in theaters. I understand why this
is the case. Advertising is not excessive, allot of the actors are not
popular to the younger generation, and the title does not make much
sense. However such elements do not deter "The Life Aquatic" from being
a good movie. Indeed there were shortcomings, such as the length of the
film which could have been a half hour shorter. Also the fact that the
plot was often distorted and left many, including myself, confused at
With the negative aspects out of the way, its time to state the positive. First and foremost the film was unorthodox, numerous CGI and location/setting interjections. This movie is an escape from the rest of the theater world where top notch actors team up to bring in a new trend in moves. This trend would originality... which has been lacking for a few years now. this is one of the few movies not based on a sequel , historical event/character or comic book. The basic plot of the movie involves Murray and his oceanography team setting to see in last ditch attempt to film a successful sea documentary. Just before Murray and his team are about to leave the docks, his son appears (Owen Wilson)who quickly becomes an honorary member of the Zissou ocean crew. Jeff Goldbloom co-stars in great fashion, although i feel he deserved more screen time as he does in all his films. William Defoe is excellent as Murrays loyal sidekick and Angelica Houton is great as his wife who questions her motives for being with him.
The actors fit perfectly into their roles, the film is visually appealing, loaded with dry humor and will make you think for at least 24 hours after you see it. However this film is only for those who prefer movies with such ingredients. If you are one of those people. spend the admission, sit back, relax and enjoy. I know I did.
LOTR has raised the bar in terms of large cinema productions. I truly
believe prior to the first installments release, the movie-going world
did not know what was in store. What they got was the beginning of on
of the greatest journeys ever put on screen. The Series only gets
better as it progresses. I jumped at the opportunity to see "Fellowship
of the Ring" because I greatly enjoyed fantasy tales, despite not
reading the books themselves. So much emphasis was put on the special
effects and scenery that many of the actors were overlooked. Wood as
Frodo hardly got any credit for his role, even Liv Tyler was more
recognized for her part. Ian McKellen does a superb job as one of my
favorite characters; Gandolf. The Movie also saw breakout performances
from Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom.
"Fellowship of the Ring" was more artistic and contained less intense battle sequences then its two successors. Numerous people have stated that they despised this movie because of its length and slow pace. However it is this first installment that sets the pace for the excitement and the following movies. The 1st heavily focuses on character development and plot. This film does not deviate from the book at all from what i am told and is nice to see a movie that does not rely primarily on senseless violence to draw a crowd. My hat's of to Peter Jackson in creating a cinematic masterpiece of epic proportions.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |