Reviews written by registered user
|66 reviews in total|
I had been in withdrawal since LOTR ended so many years back. I do miss
the characters and the settings it transported some of us into.
This time round, the story is that of one that should be more cheerful and it did accomplished that without being what the original book's intended target audience was, children. And quite fairly, I would have walked out at the first hint of this being made for children only.
I shall not comment on the story in case it spoils it for everyone.
In my opinion, as I've watched the high frame rate 3D version, it should have been done in higher frame rate at all. It made it looked like a very good HD cam movie made for TV.
The effects, though are better, should not have been more realistic in the rendering of the backgrounds. It is so obvious most of the scenes looked like they were made in some colored screens.
But overall, this is a good holiday movie to entertain both adults and children of a suitable age.
I don't and won't usually give 10 to any one movie. There are always
flaws. but the last of the Dark Knight trilogy is as close to it as one
Flow: The movie started slow, like a rolling stone gathering moss. It picks up speed and story almost every second you are watching it. You probably won't realize it until you have finished the entire film. What's relatively unusual is the fact that there is a good and smooth ending, where most movies rushed to end (like The Avengers, Iron Man, etc.).
Plot: As expected, Nolan and writers have given much thought to entirety of the trilogy, rather than the single movie itself. You can link the stories together, although the movie can be watched on its own. The screenplay is well written and directions and editing well done. The plot is easy to follow, but doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of sex-starved teenagers (... like Avengers)
Characters: Actors did a great job in giving an otherwise 2 dimensional comic personalities characters. Unlike what some are complaining about, I actually found the characters better than they were in the comics. One can relate to the characters in the movies, unlike Marvel movie-adaptations.
All in all, if you are going to be comparing this movie to The Avengers, it is safe to say that you are not very objective. Marvel has always aimed at the younger audience. The Dark Knight trilogy has always been for the adults and young adults.
Here I just want to thank Christopher Nolan for bringing this version of Batman to being, what the Dark Knight should always have been. during its time, the original Tim Burton version was great, but this is the best Batman yet.
I wouldn't pay to watch this one again.
1. Frieda Pinto is pretty and all, but she is NOT European, Middle-Eastern or even African. Her striking Indian features make her stand out in the movie, and not in a good way.
2. Couldn't they have made some scenes with actual backgrounds? It was fake from the first second onwards. The film crew could have helped the Greek economy a little.
3. Immortal battle scenes could have been so much better, but all there is in the movie was a bunch of (boring) Matrix moments.
4. Who wrote this story? You suck.
5. Helios is a Titan, not a Greek Olympian god. That should have been Apollo.
6. Where are the rest of the Greek gods? Was Ares even there? And where is Hades, the other elder god beside Poseidon and Zeus? 7. Mickey Rourke is the only one in the movie with a credible acting ability.
Thor has always been one of my personal favorite among mythology. A
warrior with a heart of gold, forever tormented by Loki the trickster
and magician. Thus, Thor became one of the very first comics I've ever
continually subscribed to, for an extended period of time. However, the
stories in the series became kind of stale in the 90s, and so I stopped
after much disappointment.
The recent revival was great but I'm already over my addiction.
This movie is very well made with plenty of strengths and little weaknesses found in so many comic adaptations. I watched the 2D version as I still can't stand 3D for all that hype about nothing.
1. The cast is a strong one with strong character-actors, even among those with less important roles.
2. CGI is realistic and not over the top. I just wish they would have made the Frost Giants' world less of a twilight zone.
3. Loki was a great character. Instead of portraying him as the standard evil villain, he was made into a sad and jealous antagonist.
4. Costumes and equipments were very well made, especially the armors and weapons. Will there be a life-size replica of Mjolnir? Why do they call it a hammer, when it is obviously a mallet? 5. Wasn't Sif supposed to have long golden locks?.....
Well, considering the length of the original series, the movie
producers have done well cramming it all into a 2-hour long film.
There are a few flaws in the movie I thought needed a bit more work on.
1. There is little feelings of romance between Kodai Susumu and Mori Yuki. It just felt flat. This, I attributed, to the target audience of the original animated series.
2. The melodrama at the end, on the bridge, was very Japanese..... in the 1970s. It should have been shorter and more modernized. I guess one has to be a die-hard fan not to find that scene particularly long-winded.
3. There wasn't enough battle footage of the Yamato and her enemies. This I was seriously looking forward to, but was left disappointed.
4. I wish Mr Kimura would shed a few tears, that would have made his performance more believable.
That said, there were quite a few good points about the movie, 1. Realistic space-fighter maneuvers. The big turnarounds of spaceships and fighters in American sci-fi is just plain BS. The only other sci-fi that got it right was Babylon 5.
2. Up until the bridge scene right at the very end, I was actually not aware of the time passing.
3. This movie have some of the better Japanese actors in recent years. Overall, their performances are well delivered and their friendships believable.
4. Swearing and vulgarities are non-existent in the entirety of the movie (or none that I am aware of). This is a rarity these days, especially with all the filth coming out of American and European films.
5. The graphics and SFX are quite good. They are quite realistic. I have no problem with much of it except for those SFX sounds the lasers and beams made.... sound very arcade-like and very 70s.
This movie is worth the ticket you paid for.
Frankly, very few remakes are worth the time. I was expecting a
disaster of a movie when I started watching, but was pleasantly
Seth Rogen is his usual self/character. He needs to learn more than one trick. I found his acting flat and his voice monotonous. So kudos to the screen and script writers for making it interesting enough that Mr Rogen's shortcomings are overcame.
Cameron Diaz.... Of the hundreds of actresses in the movie industry, why her? Is her character written in, in the last minute? Or is there some kind of compulsory need to add a female lead, so that the 2 male leads are not seen as homosexuals? She was refreshing a decade ago, now she is just.... boring and highly predictable.
Jay Chou. Being an Asian-Asian, I personally never like or dislike him. He has a zero-expression face, no matter what movie he is in. Putting him in the shoes of Bruce Lee is a tough order. Of all the characters in the movie, his is the most significant one. Ones with big expectations to fill, and I think he did alright. Do remember this is his first Hollywood movie. Other than that, I still say he can't really act.
Story/plot. The movie is fast pace enough that even the slow moments get by really fast. After a first 15 minutes or so, there is very little dull moments. One of the few things I disliked about this movie is the elevated level of gory deaths. Is it really necessary? As I said before the screen and script writers did a fantastic job in this adaptation.
For pure action entertainment, I'll give it 8 or 9 out of 10. However, overall it should only garner a 7, in my opinion.
Sigh.... Is it me or Megan Fox can't seem to get any better movie than
Transformers? It seems to me her movies are getting progressively worse
as the count goes on.
Here's a short and simple conclusion: She cannot act even if her life depended on it. She'll probably be better off as a playboy girlfriend or playmate.
The story feels so linear and yet there are portions of it I felt were missing a whole chunk. Is it just me? Or have they chopped this one right up, so that it fits into the 100 minute mark? The effects were nothing fantastic. At some point towards the end of the movie, it wasn't even realistic.
Could have spend the money making better movies. Definitely not worth the ticket price.
I would say that this is one of those movies that young hot-blooded
males bring their girlfriends to, and they enjoy it.
Whoever said this film was non-formulaic Hollywood production, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The story was laid out from the very beginning. The ending was practically served to you from the very start. If you did not see it, you need to watch more movies.
Tom Cruise is acting like an insane spy believed to have gone rogue. He is performing as expected and not much else. Of course this character is like a variant of his Mission Impossible character (was it Ethan?). Nothing refreshing about it.
Cameron Diaz is looking distinctively older than her peers, but still acting in parts written for ladies 10 years younger than she is. But then again, she has her collection of fan-boys and girls. I think it is time for her to up her acting skills another level.
Story. Pretty standard, popcorn entertainment. No new stunts. No new idea. Pretty straight forward from the onset.
Is it worth the price of a movie ticket? Not unless you have a girl whom you can make out with in dark of the cinema.
Maggie Q does not pass off well as an average Asian. She's got a very
unique mix of her heritage. The character Mai should have been given to
Francoise Yip, even though she is showing her age. Maggie Q simply does
not fit the profile of Mai.
In fact that Japanese lady in DOA is more suitable, although immediately her acting ability comes into question.
The CGI movie effects are nominal but still unnaturally added into the film. The electricity effects at the start of the movie looks like the effects in the late 90s movies. Is it really that difficult? Incredibly, I find myself unable to write more on this movie. I shall conclude that the movie spend making it is better use else where.
Maggie Quibbley does not fit Asian roles! Not at all. she's unique, cast her that way.
Seriously, this would have been a average 6 if I had missed the dances
at the end credits. It was a corny chick flick before the end credits,
but it turned into a silly teen chick flick when the dances began.
Story is average. Do not expect something new, or unique. The locales could have easily been forged in a sound stage in Hollywood. The acting was average at best, even for the great Danny DeVito and Angelica Houston.
Overall, it should have taken more time developing the story. I have become so sick of Hollywood pushing insta-love to the new generations of women and men. How often in real life does instant love end well?
|Page 1 of 7:||      |