Reviews written by registered user
fosterino

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2: [1] [2]

12 reviews in total

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Man of Steel is a very uneven film, but succeeds immensely as good summer entertainment. My general sense is that Zack Snyder bit off more than he can chew, and while his strengths shine through in the in some places, his weaknesses shine brighter in the writing, pacing and tone of the rest of the film. Still, there is plenty to recommend here, because although the film falls short of its own ambitions, they were so high to begin with that even a mild failure is still pretty good.

While the film is clearly very well made in a technical sense, it falls very short of the mark artistically. This normally wouldn't be a problem in a summer superhero movie except for the fact that Man of Steel takes itself very, very seriously as a piece of motion picture art. The focus here is on Clark's emergence as the Man of Steel; the main dramatic force is his discovery and acceptance of his powers and role in the universe. I thought that for the most part this main arc of the narrative was well executed, at least for the first two acts of the film. Again, what sabotages the artistry is really everything else. The script is really pretty bad, and contains some of the worst dialogue imaginable ("We had a child. A boy child."). Michael Shannon is not a good fit for General Zod, thanks to his whiny, over the top dialogue - in fact, he took me out of the movie with his performance, not reaching anything close to dramatic resonance until nearly his final moments.

Superman movies have always had a heavy dose of Christ allegory and imagery, but this time it's laid on so thick you almost expect an usher to come into the theater with a collection plate halfway through the film. Picture this: a 33 year old man, of "miraculous" birth, with a celestial father who sent him here to save mankind, armed with a message of hope and love for all, and facing off against his father's (God's) former ally who would now rather rule in hell (Earth) than serve in Heaven (Zod as the literary Satan). The movie doesn't let up with this allegory for one second. This sort of heavy-handed presentation of these themes is lazy and undermines the film's artistic ambitions. It's almost like they are literally reading the Bible on screen. If you saw someone do that in real life you wouldn't think of them as an artist, would you? The biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn't know when to quit. The action is, as I said before, pretty well staged, but it just goes on. And on. And on. And on. By the final act I was really just not into it anymore. Superman's final battle with Zod reminded me of Neo's battle with Agent Smith at the end of Matrix Revolutions, and not in a good way. Because Superman is apparently completely invincible to all harm (making him the most boring superhero), and so are Zod and his crew, their fights just go on indefinitely, racking up a civilian body count in the thousands, until the writers include some contrivance to end the fight and move the plot along. A big example is that, throughout the movie, Zod's crew has to wear breather masks so as to not be hamstrung by Earth's atmosphere. They fight for tens and tens of minutes on screen, getting repeatedly punched, shot and rocketed in the face, and their masks don't break... until the script says it's time to move on and they just randomly start to malfunction, causing them to retreat to their ship. The way that the action is integrated into the plot is not exactly top notch.

Especially in the final act, the film enters a whole new level of computer effects overload, partially a sign of Snyder's direction and partially a side effect of the bloated action scenes. The worst example is when, in a climactic scene, Superman needs to fly at and somehow disable a giant terraforming machine. As soon as he approaches, the machine produces a bunch of tentacle-like claws made up of morphing ball bearings that extend to thrash at him in the air (by the way - what an illogical and convoluted defense system!), clouding the screen with animation and completely obscuring the action. When this is happening, for a long time I might add, it's almost impossible to tell what's going on or what Superman's plan for taking this thing out is. The scene went on way too long and served only to showcase the effects, which are not even that impressive in this scene. Parallel to this, Metropolis is being completely destroyed in a cavalcade of building collapses, fighting, and general mayhem. In this scene alone, hundreds of thousands of people must have been killed, which is ironic considering that Superman purports to be fighting on behalf of humanity but causes (and is seemingly indifferent to) untold amounts of human suffering. It just doesn't fit with the character, and it's disappointing when this sort of wholesale destruction occurs and is never mentioned again (In fairness, Star Trek Into Darkness did this too). The final act of this movie left me completely exhausted.

However, despite my complaints, I still liked the movie overall. I thought Henry Cavill was great as Clark Kent, and the supporting cast all did a fine job. Again, Michael Shannon wasn't the best pick for this role but that's not to say that he did a bad job. However, the basic pieces of the movie worked for me, and I really did enjoy myself while watching it. It wasn't a game changing comic book movie in the same way that the Dark Knight was (Christopher Nolan's involvement suggests that that was what they were going for), but it was fun all the same.

The story of how World War Z was made is a lot more harrowing and suspenseful than the film itself. After going way over-budget and enduing a complete revision and reshoot of the final act, WWZ wasn't exactly set up for success. Ultimately the movie is completely forgettable and uneven, but not offensively bad or objectively terrible in any sense. What struck me about it was how much of a wasted opportunity it was, given how interesting and entertaining the source material is.

Having read the book World War Z, I could tell from the trailers for this movie that it wouldn't exactly be a faithful adaptation. I thought that the most interesting aspects of the book were its exploration of how the Zombie plague affected social and political structures across the world. Anything like that is completely ignored in the film, but I can at least understand how the filmmakers thought that those aspects wouldn't work in a single feature length movie. What I can't understand is how the filmmakers seemingly ignored the book's most obviously cinematic content. The book features a lot of setpiece action scenes, and to be fair, many of these involve world cities falling to zombie infestation and the movie does do enough to cover this. However, the book's immense battle scenes - the meat of the titular Zombie War, such as the Battle of Yonkers, nuclear war between Pakistan and Iran, Chinese civil war and massive formation combat against zombies - are completely absent. I was very surprised that they did not cover these, especially the Yonkers scene, because they would obviously fit so well into a film and the script, even as it is now, could easily be tweaked to include or at least mention them. The action that did make it into this film is very unsatisfying and obscure thanks to the restrictions of the PG-13 rating, and the narrative around is not engaging enough to really get me invested in it.

I was also surprised at how cheap this movie looked. This film cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, but it's hard to see where it all went on the screen. Swarms of zombies look very fake and nonthreatening, and in some cases individual zombies are computer animated, which gave me bad flashbacks to I Am Legend's awful CGI overload. Aside from the opening scenes in Philadelphia and the middle act in Jerusalem, there are no big outdoor sets. A South Korean airbase is portrayed as a series of dark rooms; too much of the movie takes place in an airline seat; there is a lot of sitting around inside of the aircraft carrier, etc. The sense of scale is very inconsistent, and this is accentuated in the bizarre final act, which was obviously the focus of the infamous reshoots as it feels like a completely separate movie. I consider myself a patient viewer, but this very long and dull scene started to bring me down after a while, and my less patient viewing audience eventually fell completely out of sync with the film and began to make fun of it at every opportunity - not really a fair criticism of the film, but it's a real issue when it can't hold an audience's attention. The final act does actually have an interesting idea at its heart, albeit one that completely doesn't connect with anything in the book, but I just didn't think it was a well executed concept. The very different style and tone of these scenes makes it feel like a completely different movie.

Again, while there was nothing all that terrible about WWZ, I didn't think it was anything to get excited about. In other words, a perfect 5/10 movie. I wish they were more aware of the source material's potential because without the best and most cinematic aspects of the book, WWZ (the film)and WWZ (the book) only share a title and the central premise of a zombie plague, which is not an original idea in itself.

This weekend I was tasked with taking my 11 year old cousin to see this movie. I tried to suggest something else just to spare me the trouble of sitting through the sequel to a movie that probably lowered my IQ when I was watching it. He REALLY wanted to see this movie, so I went with him.

I'm sure you've heard about how terrible this movie is for a lot of reasons, but I'm going to go much further.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen encapsulates everything that anyone would ever need to know about America and American culture.

1. As long as there's a hot girl to look at then it must automatically be an awesome movie.

2. Cool! Explosions!

3. ROBOTS!!!

4. The US Military has a 2 and a half hour commercial now

5. Other cultures? You mean there are people that live outside the US and have their own way of life? Huh.

6. Homophobic

7. The twin robots are the new Jar Jar Binks, but only about 100 times more offensive

8. Robot balls, robot farting, robot humping. a laugh riot this is not.

9. Why bother writing a movie when there are explosions and Megan Fox?

On this patriotic weekend this comes as a shockingly depressing realization. To think that people have died to defend our rights to make and then to pay to see this heap of dirty laundry is disgusting.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

... but still a good time at the movies.

Being generally very similar to Heat, it follows a similar story arc and theme, so if you know Michael Mann you won't be in for many surprises.

Depp was really good as Dillinger, and Christian Bale shook of the clinging stench of Terminator Salvation and redeemed himself for this summer with his work as Melvin Purvis. Marion Cotilliard was pretty good too, although she was an afterthought for much of the movie and only really figured into things towards the very end.

I really liked the soundtrack because it evoked the proper time and place and attitude, but i felt that the score was sometimes a bit over the top - especially at the end with a totally predictable "cue the waterworks" moment with Marion.

The only major criticism I have about the film in terms of the way that it plays out is in the fact that it is very difficult to identify/distinguish many of the members of Depp's crew. Some of them have maybe one or two lines in the whole movie, and the rest just exist in the background until they are called upon by the script to show up at a certain spot and make a brief appearance. If these were just minor roles then it wouldn't be a very big problem. The problem is that the film asks the viewer to keep track of all these characters that the main players are talking about without really having any idea who they are referring to.

The film appears to have been shot digitally, mostly with hand-held cameras. When it is most obvious, the motion on screen really pops, and it looks much faster than normal but can sometimes look kind of like a TV show. Sometimes the lighting really doesn't make any sense at all (like when Johnny and Marion and sitting on a beach at 4:00 am and there is a blinding white light coming from.. somewhere .. that just seems out of place). When this odd lighting and the very fast frame rate combine it can sometimes look a bit slapdash. This phenomenon also makes it look like the actors are on a stage at a theater, and this may be the intended effect. Sometimes it looks awesome though - there is a chase/battle in the woods at night that is very well done and the lighting and cinematography capture it very well.

Overall it was a good movie. It was sort of like Heat, just redone as a period piece. It doesn't reach the same level of scale and significance as that great film, but I don't think Public Enemies was reaching for that level.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a huge fan of the first 2 terminator movies. I thought the third was pretty lame, especially because the end of terminator 2 makes any sequels impossible, but this takes the cake. I thought this movie was pretty boring actually, and, given my reverence for the originals, kind of off-putting.

The main problem is the plot. To put it plainly, it's not very interesting or exciting. This is probably because the trailers for the movie ruin the big twist that Marcus is actually a robot. Going in, I thought that because they revealed this so casually that it wouldn't have been a major plot event, but in fact it's THE major plot event and it doesn't happen until about two thirds of the way through. While I can normally accept a predictable or weak plot, I will not accept a plot that exists simply as a means to eat up minutes of screen time between action sequences, which is exactly the case here.

A major problem with the movie, in my view, is the way that the action exists within the framework of the movie. There is so much stuff in here that makes absolutely no sense at all. I don't mean this in the way that you might look back at a movie on the drive home - I mean that it obviously doesn't make any immediate sense. I feel like they didn't think things through all the way, and the results undermine the movie's impact. For example, Kyle Reese is apparently number 1 on Skynet's hit list, and when he is herded through a prison line, completely unaware and defenseless, he is identified by a machine and.... put in jail. You would think that ultra-precise evil robots would just kill him, especially because 1 minute before they killed some humans in the same line, but no, he has to be in one location long enough for John Connor to come rescue him. While this adds another half hour in run-time, it sure doesn't case the machines are particularly formidable opponents.

Another sequence that I found particularly amusing/terrible was at the beginning when JC and company need to steal some valuable files from Skynet, so they go down this huge hole in the ground, go through some sewers at the bottom, and find a single computer (because I can really imagine terminators sitting around at a laptop at the bottom of a well, or using a laptop at all), which just HAPPENS to be located directly in front of a prison with human survivors. All of this is unprotected of course, because any self respecting evil computer system that managed to wipe out modern civilization and churns out bad-ass killer robots would OBVIOUSLY do this.

Even beyond these structural/conceptual problems, the action itself is unimaginative. The effects are competent, but not applied creatively and the result is completely forgettable. In Terminator 1 and 2, James Cameron used the technology of the day to create effects that blow me away to this day. In T2, Arnold splits the T-1000's head in half and it instantly reforms in one shot - part of the tension of the movie was that it would keep coming back to hunt them. In this, some humans run from robots and get away, or they shoot them and the robots fall over and the humans get away. Wow! How exciting. There wasn't anything here that impressed me very much, but then again, McG is no James Cameron, that's for sure.

On a side note, there was some fan service in the movie that I recognized and appreciated. However, I have heard "I'll be back," and "Come with me if you want to live" enough times in my life, thank you. I laughed out loud when a terribly animated Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up at the climax of the movie for a few seconds, presumably just because the people involved thought it would be cool and dramatic, as opposed to completely hysterical.

As I'm sure you have surmised by now, feel free to skip Terminator Salvation, unless you really, really, really feel the need to hear Christian Bale's batman voice one more time.

Let me start off by saying that I HAVE read the novel. I'm not one of those people who went to go so see it because 300 was "awesome" and it has super heroes in it.

That said, this is one of those movies that was destined to be somewhat incomplete. There really is no way that any film adaptation could have possibly included all the elements from the novel, like Tales of the Black Freighter and Under the Hood, for example, but there were just too many omissions and glaring inaccuracies for the film to capture any of the novel's genius.

WIthout spoiling anything, I feel like I have to list at least some of the stuff from the novel that I liked the most that was, for whatever reason, not included in the movie. Along with the aforementioned "Tales" and "Under the Hood," there is no back-story of the Minutemen. the previous generation of heroes (which includes Sally Jupiter and the Comedian), none of the converging subplots revolving the newsstand guy, the comic book kid, the detectives, the psychiatrist and his wife, no Laurie back-story, no Ozymandias back-story, etc., etc. I suppose the film works as a direct adaptation of the Watchmen story, as in the events between the Comedian's murder and the cataclysm in New York (which is changed in this version). However, the novel's strength, in my mind, is the way it supplements the story of the costumed heroes of the present events with all the events and characters that surround and preceded them.

Another thing that bothered me but probably won't bother anyone else, is the degree to which the movie is so "popcorn-ified." The novel didn't really have much fighting. There was violence, but not huge brawls. The movie has the same over stylized fighting from 300, sometimes using totally random slow motion that does nothing but look really stupid. There are a number of fights/battles that are either fabricated or embellished to the extreme, with 4 marauding thugs turning into dozens, presumably to satisfy brain-dead moviegoers who expect a high body count. The level of violence for violence's sake at times reaches fetishistic levels. I just didn't enjoy watching it all that much.

For all its faults, though, the most prominent in the film HAS to be the soundtrack. With the exception of the awesome opening credits sequence, this has to be the most bizarre and inappropriate collection of songs in a film I have ever seen/heard. Not only that, but the way the film is edited to the music is really jarring and abrupt, either for effect or because of time considerations. For example, during one of the climactic scenes between Dr. Manhattan and Laurie, probably one of the only scenes to work well in my opinion, the moment lingers for about 1 second before a smash cut to Dan and Rorschach in Antarctica, flying along to Jimi Hendrix. This one moment irked me most, but the same sort of stuff happened through out the whole movie.

I hate to be so negative, but I have to say that the acting was mostly pretty bad, the worst being Malin Ackerman. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is really fantastic though. When you see him without his mask, you see his face, and you see that he twitches and seethes with anger. It's kind of hard to buy BIlly Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, probably because he is computer generated, and I couldn't get over his kind of insubstantial voice. I always imagined Dr. Manhattan as having a deep, booming voice more in line with his ethereal presence. Whatever.

One of the things that I found most puzzling, not necessarily in a negative way, was how the film ignores some of the most obvious and effective visual cues from the novel. I would have to spoil stuff to explain a lot of them, and I don't want to do that, but if you read the novel you would probably also see that some of the most dramatic and iconic images and panels don't make it into the film.

Like I said, there was probably no way any filmmaker could include everything in a movie version of Watchmen and keep it under 5 hours. It probably wasn't as bad as my long list of its perceived problems and inadequacies might suggest, but its not really that great either. I feel like it was made for people who haven't read the book to understand, and that's not me, so I can't support it wholeheartedly.

They were written by the SAME PERSON!!! So, each being similar in subject matter and theme, the two films play out almost identically.

The overall plot structure in Benjamin Button is the same as in Gump. The film opens with a very old woman in the hospital telling her life story to her daughter, in the same way that Forrest sits on the bench and tells his. She has in her possession the journal of Benjamin Button and when the daughter starts reading each section the action cuts back to then, the overall story being one about one humble man experiencing the 20th Century in the United States while he and his heart's desire cross paths over and over again. I guess it works well enough as a framing device, but in terms of entertainment, Button is just not as fun and Forrest Gump. Both films try to add humor with a bunch of non-sequitur stuff, like, for example, an old man describing all the times he was struck by lightning (accompanied by intentionally ghetto film of it, because apparently someone followed him around his whole life and filmed him and just HAPPENED to film him when he was struck), and its just not funny after a while. This film is more intent on moving you with images and movement than Forrest Gump was.

This is a really long movie, and its mostly enjoyable but MAN it drags in certain spots. Also, it spends its greatest moment 5 minutes in, in which a scene from WWI is played backwards (you've probably seen this in the trailers). When i saw that i thought that nothing could possibly be better, and i was right.

The effects and the films look are great though. They did a great job making brad pitt look really old, but also making him look 15 years younger. The same goes for cate blanchett but i think that was just traditional makeup on her, instead of the fancy computer stuff on brad.

Overall, it was OK. I felt really weird being there in the theater because the last hour is a pure brad pitt ogling-fest, but looking back the effects and detail in the movie are really great and make it worth seeing.

To me,the only worthwhile aspect of this film is the visual style and staging. The acting is pretty bad, the story is nothing special, and it's really not well cast at all, but the combination of set/costume design, special effects, and cinematography create mythic, solemn, and occasionally inspiring visuals. There is no one part of the film that really stands out, but one that really sums what I am trying to convey is when, at the Daily Planet, people are looking at photos taken of Superman's latest deeds, and the photos are shown for only a few seconds, but wow, they're great.

I must say, the action is pretty lame. Two and a half hours of Superman just lifting stuff over his head is not consistently entertaining.

Also, the Jesus metaphor and allegory is anything but subtle and comes across as forced.

I suppose it's worth seeing, but don't feel like you absolutely have to.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie plays out like a very strange mash up of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Goonies, and the Star Wars Prequels. This is not necessarily a compliment. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have brought Indy into the 21st century, and I sincerely hope they never make another one ever again. The original films were the products of an age where making good movies required talent, wit, and determination, whereas today most mainstream films are so laden with computer effects and plot contrivances that they get bogged down in their own grandeur. This is one of those films.

When you examine all the talent behind the lens and in front of it, it's astonishing how much of a lost opportunity this film was, especially because some parts of it are really great. A number of chase scenes are very exciting, especially one that takes place across Indy's campus. In addition Spielberg makes great use of the time period (1957) as a source of atmosphere and action, as well as comedy. These scenes work because they are grounded in REALITY and we can relate to them. Watching them gives the impression that they took some skill and imagination to conceive of and execute. We expect nothing less of the Great Spielberg.

Where the film goes wrong, however, is where George Lucas's influences are strongest. Maybe I still have some resentment towards him for ruining Star Wars with CGI overload, bad stories, and terrible dialogue, but he has basically done exactly the same thing here. Most of the film is so ridiculous, so implausible, impossible, laughable, and mind blowingly dim- witted that it's impossible to believe that you are watching a real film, especially one that has such great actors and a title with the words "Indiana Jones' in it. Take, for example, the story, which I will sum up here: The titular crystal skull is the head of an alien. Anyone with half a brain can figure this out in the first 10 minutes of the film, but no one can possibly foresee the ending, in which 13 crystal alien skeletons morph into a single, terribly animated giant alien that disintegrates Cate Blanchett with its mind, conjures a trans-dimensional portal, hops aboard a giant flying saucer and disappears. Just in case the viewer is speechless (for whatever reason), Indy and a homeless looking John Hurt make cringe worthy observations about it, at times sounding as if they are reading their lines at gun point.

This finale is the culmination of about a straight hour of equally ridiculous and only occasionally well animated garbage. None of this stuff is believable by any stretch of the imagination, like when Shia learns to swing from vines Tarzan style from a pack of animated monkeys, or when Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator and being launched a huge distance, only to kick open the door, get up, and strike a heroic pose in front of a mushroom cloud, apparently immune to radiation or sunburn. The next shot shows some poorly animated prairie dogs looking inquisitively at him, making cutesy "????" sounds.

The real tragedy of this film is that it is the polar opposite of its forebearers. The Indy movies of old were smart and gritty, involving sympathetic characters and quests based around things that actually exist (if not physically, then in the collective consciousness.) This film has none of those. which is a shame because Harrison Ford does pretty well. I wish that Cate Blanchett brought more to the role, but its interesting to see them interact in a few scenes. They are dueling archaeologists but get caught up in their mutual excitement and scientific curiosity while scouring maps for the skull's location. It's little things like that that made the other films really special, but not this one. Genuine moments of classic entertainment are few and far between here, and I really hope that Indiana Jones died of radiation poisoning immediately after the end of this film.

I watched this movie on my good friend's recommendation. In hindsight it may have been the best movie recommendation he or anyone else has ever given me. This movie is incredible on so many different levels that other fantasy movies appear superficial and timid by comparison.

The story opens with a tale about Princess Moanna, princess of the Underworld, who ascends to the human world and dies as a result. The tale prophesizes that one day the princess will return, possibly in another time and place....

After this prologue, the real story starts. Set in civil war era Spain, this is a melding of both a political/war drama and a fantastical fable. A bookish young girl named Ofelia is traveling with her sickly pregnant mother to the outpost of the sadistic but utterly enthralling Captain Vidal. From this outpost he hunts down and kills the communist guerrillas in the surrounding hills. As an escape from this unfamiliar and hostile environment, Ofelia escapes into the fantasy world, populated by fairies and fauns, that stems from an enigmatic labyrinth in the nearby woods. The thing is, this world becomes equally dangerous and dark as the real world she wishes to escape, especially after a faun reveals to her that she is Princess Moanna and she must accomplish three tasks to prove it.

This is where the whole duality of the story gets really interesting. We never know for sure if the fairy tale portion of the story is actually real, or is in fact part of Ofelia's imagination. For example, throughout the film these dual plot lines remained separate never interfering with the other, but they seem to influence each other in mysterious ways. At the end, the two plot lines converge; the two worlds come together, and the result is truly magical, lyrical cinema. It still leaves this question unanswered, but each viewer will have his or her own interpretation.

On top of all this, both of the separate stories would work well on their own and be equally good movies. The war drama half very compelling, relying on an extraordinarily commanding performance by Serji Lopez as Captain Vidal. This particular half of the story grounds the action in reality and serves as a point of reference for the fantasy side of the story. The fantasy half is just as dark, though. Ofelia's encounter with an endlessly creepy creature called the Pale Man is genuinely discomforting, and the faun himself seems to channel both good and evil, thereby offering Ofelia the choice between them.

The look and set design of the film are equally impressive. Every set in the film was purpose built, and the result is an original world; there is mysterious monolith that stands in the center of the labyrinth that would inspire awe and wonderment even if there was no story or narrative surrounding it. The cinematography is good too. All of the technical aspects elevate the film to a completely different plane of artistry.

(What you are about to read is NOT a spoiler. The film shows you this in the first minute.) The film ends where it begins. I will say no more, although I encourage you to draw your own conclusions about the specific reality and framing of the story. No matter which way you see it, however, this is one incredible and unforgettable film.

On another note, believe the rating when it tells you about "Graphic Violence." It's being truthful, this is a REALLY violent movie - don't take your kids to see it.

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]