Reviews written by registered user
|49 reviews in total|
What a nice surprise. Michael Jai White did excellent work. He managed
to refrain from unnecessary Hollywood-overkill and instead just told a
story that flows nicely and rewards the viewer with some spectacular
fight scenes. It's actually a bit understated. A rare thing to find
these days. I'll give you an example. During the finale of Hard Target
2 all I could think of was: My God, does the shooting never stop? What
could have just been a gritty survivalist martial arts movie, had to be
made into an over-the-top action vehicle. But it didn't look like the
production crew had the money or experience to pull their ideas off. It
just ends up looking disappointing. Thankfully, Michael Jai White had
no illusions about his project.
Not everything about this movie was top notch. But it just seemed to work for me. I got exactly what I needed. And maybe you will too. I hope MJW will be involved in many more good projects like this one.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I was a fan of the first movie, so naturally, I was worried. A lot of
people gave devastating reviews, which made me lower my expectations.
I needn't have worried, because the movie was actually pretty good. And I say this as an action movie veteran. Having read some Jack Reacher novels, I thought the movie captured the instinct for trouble that pulls Reacher into these situations pretty well.
The fight scenes were intense. Especially the final fight had a harshness to it, that one does not often see in movies. The two last guys standing are really trying to end each other. Handcuffs are not an option.
I also liked how they did not make Colbie Smulders the beautiful bystander. She was just as tough as Reacher. A great role for a woman in an action movie! So don't expect a bullet-proof plot. There are some elements that are a bit convenient, but I can forgive it. Let yourself be entertained!
Antoine Fuqua is always a safe bet. So it's no surprise that this movie
didn't disappoint. I give it 8 stars for a straightforward plot and
storytelling. Fuqua does not add unnecessary complications or romance,
but focuses on action and flow. (I am forever grateful I didn't have to
see Haley Bennet's character unrealistically fall for one of the 7) The
only flaw, if you will, is that it doesn't have any iconic scenes that
will stick to one's memory foerver. It's very good, but clearly no
masterpiece. Even the soundtrack was nice while watching, but
forgettable. And the showdown between the hero and the villain was
almost a letdown. I expected it to be, erm, harsher, maybe? Or cooler?
Go watch it, you'll be entertained.
After reading all those bad reviews, me and my girlfriend almost wished we hadn't bought tickets for this movie. We decided we would simply watch it and not expect too much. And I'm happy to say that it was pretty good. Was it as good as Ghostbusters 2 (the best of the series)? Hell no! I mean that movie had more charm and a surperior way of telling the story. But hey, EVERYBODY knew it would be like this. Most originals are just immortal classics that can never be matched. (e.g. the Terminator series or indiana Jones) I doubt even the old cast could have re-created that same old feeling old feeling. But the girls tried their best and all in all it was good entertainment. It's all you could hope for. Those among you who can't let go of the original? Then simply avoid this movie.
X-Men Apocalypse left me with the same feeling I got after Batman vs. Superman. I'm getting tired of those franchises putting it on too thick. You know why Deadpool was so fantastic? It was fresh and fast paced. I am getting sick of re-watching origin stories (Magneto turning evil, then back to good for the third (?) time) of every X-Men character, while having to content myself with villains that get NO character development. I mean, true, the Deadpool-villains were one-dimensional too, but that was about the movie's only flaw. This time? Psylocke is just a pretty face and body with a cool weapon. Angel is just an angry wing man.The other two were forgettable as well. Worst of all the chief villain. Jeez! I just can't care about the action, when the characters are that bland. (Like in Batman vs Superman, when a totally underdeveloped Wonder Woman joins the finale. Nobody cares, right?) In the good old days of X-Men (1), these characters had some flavor to them. The studio was having fun with them. That kid Pyro, for example? Remember him? The only fun character left now is Quicksilver. Rebecca Romjin, now SHE was a fun Mystique. I think I'm ready to let go of the X-Men franchise now. Too bad.
My all-time favorite Bond remains Casino Royale (followed by Golden Eye). Why? Because they had great villains and memorable scenes! I was delighted to hear that Christoph Waltz would play the villain in Spectre. He seemed perfect for the job. But I was disappointed to see that the villains don't actually matter in this movie. We see Christoph for about 10 minutes. Which is incredible, with a runtime of over two hours! Dave Bautista? He's in it for about 5 minutes. And we remain 100% indifferent to his character. You could edit him out and NOTHING would be missing. At least that's what it feels like... What happened to the iconic supervillains? After having watched Spectre I'm having a hard time visualizing the highlights of the film. After a really great movie there are these scenes that everybody remembers. With Skyfall and Spectre Sam Mendez managed to create two Bond movies that are almost as forgettable like Die Hard 5. It's not bad, but it's nothing special either.
If I were twelve, then I could have ignored all the nonsense and just
enjoyed all the action! You have to expect a certain amount of
over-the-top action that says goodbye to common sense and the laws of
physics. In Furious Five I cringed while watching the scene where they
destroy half a city by tugging a (huge). Furious Six took the cake when
they survive a hundred meter drop into water and at the end when they
drive THROUGH a cargo plane's nose on a 130 kilometer runway. Furious 7
is overloaded with BS scenes like that: Jumping (twice!) from one
building to another in Dubai? Driving through forest for a couple of
minutes? Hobbs lifting heavy stuff after breaking several bones? The
parking garage scene? Impossible coincidences that conveniently save
people? Shaw parading as the bad guy in Dubai without being shot by
hotel security? And many more... When you're 12 you think: "This is
awesome!" When you're 33 you think: "Do you think I'm ***** stupid?"
Actually I am, cause I paid for the movie when I KNEW it was going to be like that.
Apart from all that nonsense? It's a pretty good movie. But it deserves a six for all the horse**** that's happening.
Sin City is among the very few truly original movies. One of these
movies, that are something new and different from the rest(The Matrix,
Kick Ass, Lord of War, etc). Sin City 1's strong points were the
visuals, the strange tale it told, and the awesome cast (all actors
delivering their best)
Now they made a sequel. I've been waiting a long time for it! The visuals are still great and original. Well done!! The actors are good (I'm not picky).
What was missing? Suspense and an engaging story. That's it. There was no thrill in that movie. Remember last time when Miho chopped off arms? That was something. Now it was just slice and dice and over! Benicio del Toro? Wow did he have epic screen time. The speech with his throat open? So funny and intense at the same time. Years later I still wanna imitate his hoarse voice from when he said: "Whatcha gonna do when you run outta gas, call triple A?" :-)
Sin City 2 lacked these scenes completely. Powers Booth was great, but it didn't help!
So you see my disappointment? I gave it six stars. It should be seven, but it cost one star to re-introduce characters into the story that were (supposed to be) dead. Marv? Did he survive the electrocution? Come on! And is he superman? In Sin City one he got wounded'n stuff. He got shot at multiple times, but they didn't even bother showing any sign of damage. (I'm nitpicking now) And for wasting characters like Joseph Gordon's. Such a build-up so he can go back and let himself be shot in the head? Argh!!
I'm done. Mr Rodriguez, I love your work, but both your most recent movies lacked the same elements (Machete had the same problems. (And with Mel Gibson as the villain that's almost impossible.)
Plase try to re-introduce suspense into your work! It will be worth it!
I'll start with this: This movie is for teenagers only! Why? Because we
(30up) remember all too well the 3 Raimi films. They were good. No,
they were more than good. So here we are now. It's 2014 and we find
ourselves watching part two of this pretty unnecessary re-boot*. Why
unnecessary you ask? Well... Spider-Man 1 was a wonderful film. In two
hours Sam Raimi introduced us to the beautifully crafted world of Peter
Parker: - Peter turning into Spider-Man (entertaining) - His job as a
photographer and his awful boss (good comedy) - Mary Jane Watson (fit
the part nicely) - Aunt May (could she have been any sweater?) - His
friend Harry O. (good fit) - Norman Osborne/ Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe
was the perfect choice)
Sam found time to fit all of this into the first movie and it fit perfectly. That was some beautiful storytelling! The flow, the action, the cast... Awesome. And he pulled off the same with part 2!!
But those days are gone. With The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (and one), we get similar elements put together in a different way, but not in the same quality. It feels like one of those dance-floor remixes of classic songs. They are new and shiny and (by some people considered) cool, but really you just wish they would play the original.
My summary? The Amazing Spider-Man is not a bad movie... it's just inferior to the original in every way possible. That's it.
*Don't think that I'm against all re-boots on principle. Total Recall didn't bother me at all. It's just that a re-boot should not be done with franchises that are 5-10 years old. That's way too early. (Hear that 'Fantastic Four'??)
Almost Human is just the way I like it: - Good production values -
Well-crafted characters (even if some of them are walking clichés) -
Interesting and not overly complicated stories - Every now and then
something I haven't seen or heard before
A.H. provides fun, action and coolness. Not an awful lot of it all, but just enough.
There 's just one small issue. (And this happens way too often in Hollywood!) Very much like in The Mentalist, the eye candy (Amanda Righetti) is just that; eye candy. In Almost Human the eye candy is impersonated by Minka Kelly. And she has no real function besides that. (Well, she is the love interest of Karl Urban, but that really falls under the same category, doesn't it) Will her clothes ever get dirty? No. Will her hair ever not be perfect? No. Will she ever express rage or fury? Or sadness? Probably no. See where I'm going with this?
So dear producers/directors and make-up artists: Would you please give her something useful to do? She is not a cop, but a model who happens to work at a police station. Maybe make her only 70% pretty and 30% a real cop? Please. Change. That!
|Page 1 of 5:||    |