Reviews written by registered user
|11 reviews in total|
Alright I hope you all know about the huge twist at the end of season
4. You would think that because of this the tempo would be sustained
from season 4 and the two seasons would be heavily intertwined.
Apparently this was not what the writers had in mind, as this season
looks to resolve the loose ends of the previous season quickly and
become a more or less stand alone season like 1 2 and 3.
That's not to say it was bad. Most of the episode was told from inside Dexter's head about his thoughts on the situation. Which is enjoyable as always as Michael C Hall doesn't seem slowed at all by his cancer. Only time will tell if this season can play off the twist of season 4 effectively to not only bring a good Dexter plot we're all used to, but one that hasn't been done before.
Alright I know this is going to be a fairly hollow review because it is
based on one episode. But the first episode has set a strong tone of
mystery and drama similar to oh, I don't know... LOST? The complete and
total combination of mystery and randomness is a great way to get the
audience interested, but is hard to build on. It puts the audience in
the detectives position; trying to figure out who the inside man is and
how all these people are connected.
The first episode showed brief glimpses of the outside world as it followed a reporter as he pursued the case of one of the abducted people. This is a smart move by the writers, giving the audience some background without resorting desperately to flashbacks.
The reason this show could be terrible is because it can lose its mysterious aspects too quickly or too slowly. If it is lost too slowly and the characters make little progress in escaping, the show grows boring. If they escape to quickly, well, the show is near impossible to continue.
Yes this review is very premature, but at this stage I recommend that you tune into this show live so that the mysterious aspects can be sustained for weeks.
8/10 (for now)
Just going to get this out of the way. Iron Man 2 does not exceed it's
predecessor in any way. The plot is beyond predictable, the acting is
great with solid performances coming from all of the leads, and the
special effects are good.
The plot is simple enough. Jon Favreau clearly played it safe, which at least is better then the disaster that Spider-Man 3 was, but everyone was expecting much more from him this time around. The motivations for almost all the characters don't really make sense (I'm looking at Ivan Yenko and Rhodey here), but it still is enough to move the plot forward at a fairly brisk pace.
Unfortuneatly this movie seemed pretty determined to show off all the new gizmos and gadgets Tony had developed in the slight time period between the two movies. As cool as it may have been, that "oooh ahhh" effect does not carry a movie.
The acting was great, with an absolutely amazing cast giving exceptional performances. Don Cheadle did a great job taking over for Terence Howard, Robert Downey Jr was as amazing as usual and Mickey Rourke was a perfect choice for the antagonist.
Strangely enough, Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L Jackson had absolutely tiny roles in the movie, more serving as part of a prelude to "The Avengers". Why they felt they needed to blow their budget on some big name actors/actresses that they hardly used over a bolder writer I don't know.
The effects were good, but still nothing special. I thought they nailed Whiplash (Thank god they avoided the leather outfit that was seen in the comic books), and some of the better action scenes had some great destruction, which we all love of course.
If you REALLY liked Iron Man 1, you will like this. If you thought the first was okay, then this is probably a renter for you. Overall this was a passive move by marvel entertainment after a few hits (by the way could you please make another hulk movie?).
Oh well, don't come expecting too too much.
Well it may not meet the hype, but it is not terrible. Other critics
are comparing it to Transformers 2, in the way that it is all special
effects with some plot thrown in.
And in some ways, they're right. The effects are probably the best in recent history. The story is very strange; Louis Leterier did his best to keep the original story relatively intact, while adding a whole new antagonist in Hades.
This resulted in many characters being cast without any meaningful roles. All of the gods are in this movie, with only 3 of them featuring lines. Hades and Zeus of course, and Apollo throwing in his bit with one line.
As much as this is much like the original, it is much more noticed by modern standards.
The acting is nothing Oscar worthy, Sam Worthington (Avatar) and Ralph Fiennes (Harry Potter) all giving passable performances. Two big surprises were found in Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) and Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace).
For me, if Louis Leterier had nailed this movie, he would be on my watch list for directors. Considering he had just remade The Incredible Hulk really well, I thought he would be the ideal director for this movie.
I still recommend it even though the plot is messy and the most of the main characters are forgettable. Come seeking action with a touch of romance.
7/10 Nothing Special.
In all honesty, I really didn't want to see this movie. I went with my
family not expecting much out of it but it has undoubtedly exceeded
every other movie this year (so far).
Now what has it exceeded and how? As much as it is unfair to pit the special effects of a full CGI movie against movies like Alice in Wonderland. But the spectacle is amazing, especially in 3D. The flying scenes feel like some ride from Disney world. And the climax at the end raised some goosebumps.
The plot is fairly predictable, but good. All of the actors give great voice performances, truly making you care about the characters.
I have to say, after many cheesy kids movie saying that they are for the whole family, How to Train Your Dragon was a huge relief.
Whether you are coming in as a pessimist or an optimist, you will love this movie.
9/10 Absolutely amazing.
The original book was written to an audience of young teens, so you
would think that the movie would follow suit. WRONG. The plot has been
dumbed down so much that the only similarities to the book are the
I don't know why Hollywood hasn't learned it's lesson yet: If you want to make a movie about a book, follow the book basically word for word! This is the key to success for movies like Lord of the Rings and Watchmen. Several book movies have failed because they essentially took the characters names and wrote their own plot about them (Eragon, Cirque Du Freak).
Another issue for me was the video game content. At one point in the movie you see a character playing the popular online shooter "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2", which also happens to star Kevin McKidd (Poseidon).
From fans perspective, it will look almost as if Chris Columbus had planned to fail. The plot is so off that you could not salvage enough to make a good sequel. So the only logical answer is that Columbus had no intention of making a sequel, so why make the first movie good? I give this movie 3 stars for being a casual kids movie. But as a young teen who loved the series, it was little more then cringe humor from start to end.
Rent it if anything 3/10
If you are even going to consider watching this movie, you will have
already noticed that it only runs 89 minutes. Yes it does feel like a
long 89 minutes, but it really does show a few gaping holes in the
They had a lot of back story to cover, which was only lightly dribbled over and the audience was expected to understand.
This was the movies downfall, and if they had extended it to a full two and a bit hours, it may have been a 7 in my books. I'm not saying the plot they did have needed some rewriting, but they were missing a lot for what they had.
Shane Acker lives up to his reputation he earned from WANTED, with plenty of action, but was clearly restricted by the animation and the slow plot.
I think this movie could have been a high 7 or even and 8, but I will expect the rating to drop below 7 in the near future. Don't expect a sequel to 9.
This movie is terrible, do not go see it.
I am a big action fan, and liked both Crank 1 and Crank 2, but this... this is almost a whole different genre, and I say it in a bad way. The plot was bad on its own, but the lack of deep characters really kills it. A well chosen cast of high B-list actors make the count here, but many of them have little role. It was hard to tell what was going on because of all the back story that needed to be covered, but was not even skimmed over.
The action is good for about the first ten to twenty minutes of the movie, however, after those twenty (awesome) minutes, the movie turns to its plot for the core of the movie, which was clearly a mistake.
I am not sure why this movie is getting a rating above 7, but I'm sure it will drop soon. I hope these directors redeem themselves with a new Crank or a new franchise, but I beg them not to pursue a sequel to gamer 2.
I am not a big harry potter fan, and I would not rate any of the series
more then 7 out of 10. Definitely not good enough to top either The
prisoner of Azkaban or The Goblet of Fire.
Ranking third in the series, I can say I was alright with it. Sadly enough, I was depending on this one to detour a little, to cover some of what was missed in the Order of the phoenix. Guess what? Didn't happen. Missing even more then the 5th one despite the 2 1/2 hour length, this will leave the people who did not read the book scratching their heads.
So now I understand why the deathly hallows is being split into 2 parts; they have to fit both have the 6th book and almost all of the 5th book into it through either flashbacks, very tricky writing, or using the time travel magic again.
Overall the action was weak, only the climax providing some "HOLY CRAP" moments. To answer a question, there is more quidditch, however not measuring up to the quality of the first or second movies.
I was not a Watchmen fan heading into the theater, but I sure as hell
was one leaving. Prior to Watchmen, the recent remake of Casino Royale.
If you enjoyed that one a few years back, this is definitely a more
over the top, yet maturer type of movie.
If you are hoping that this is going to be another huge superhero hit like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight, you are mistaken. Watchmen barely qualifies as a superhero movie. The movie does not revolve around a single antagonist like other superhero movies. In this movie, bad guys get pounded senseless, regardless of their physique.
The plot is very well thought out, but the issue was filming it. Because all of the heroes had to have their origins covered in flashbacks. And this is where Zack Snyder's genius comes in. He followed the graphic novel almost exactly. This could have been done very badly, but somehow he was able to make the flashbacks go nearly unnoticed, record being 4 in one scene.
The sound effects were amazing, with a solid track list featuring "My Chemical Romance." The blood splatters and bone crushing fist fights were heard quite distinctly, adding some flare to the brutal violence.
Overall, I wouldn't say it completely trumped so of my old favorites in every way, but did give a solid thrill, and raised questions about the potential psychological issues of a hypothetically real superhero.
If I have one complaint, its that Watchmen wasn't made to have a sequel.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |