Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Slow at getting to the point, but a satisfying closure
"The Dark Knight Rises" truly does rise higher than Nolan's previous two Batman film, "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight".
"Batman Begins" was a simple start, with a straight forward yet shallow story.
"The Dark Knight" pushed intensity too far, creating something too dark and depressing, despite an even better story.
And now, "The Dark Knight Rises" comes, which seems to bring both two previous films together as well as a whole new realm on improvement. Never at one point did I loose interest. The film's story was much for thought-out than the two previous films, and, unlike "The Dark Knight", there is justified retaliation which makes you cheer for Batman.
What the film is really about is the last seven minutes, which seems to tie the entire trilogy together and bring it to an end. Although everything before those seven minutes don't necessarily connect with how the story ends, they still tell an interesting tale and should be viewed prior to the ending.
The film starts out rather peaceful, but then begins to take a tremendous drop down into the depths of hopelessness. At one small point you will feel that all is lost, but the ending truly does bring it all right back up and sets everything back to normal.
The performances are fantastic in this one. Tom Hardy as Bane, the new villain, becomes rather memorable, but does not haunt you like The Joker did in "The Dark Knight". Ann Hathaway as Catwomen was certainly the best performance in the film, with Michael Cane showing us even more of Alfred than the previous two films.
I give the film a 7/10. The film lost 3 points as the film really did start to go on for too long without really accomplishing anything. There wasn't really anything too spectacular, but it was, for the most part, entertaining.
The Dark Knight (2008)
What is the point of a Dark movie
"The Dark Knight" is a film that I'd say lives up to it's title... but just a little too much. It is beautiful crafted and directed - in this realm of filmmaking it is nearly flawless. The story makes sense and plays off seeming very real, which in this case, may not be a good thing.
Most superhero movies have nearly the same structure to them: The hero fights crime, a mighty villain rises, the hero becomes emotionally conflicted, the villain kidnaps the girl, the hero overcomes his conflicts, he saves the girl, defeats the villain and gets the girl in the end, resulting in an always acceptable happy ending.
Now, here's how "The Dark Knight" goes - (spoilers): The hero fights crime, a mighty villain rises, the hero becomes emotionally conflicted, the villain kidnaps the girl, the hero never overcomes his conflicts, the girl dies, the hero weakly has the villain arrested but the villain's last words leave him haunted, the hero gets no girl in the end because she died, and the hero must now act in a story - that he is responsible for the killings made by an honorary member of the city so that the city can be left to believe that they had a "true hero". In the end, our hero makes a run for it, being chased by the police.
(end of spoilers)
Not your usual superhero film, correct? Now, I am not judging this movie based on how accurately it's structure follows that of a regular superhero film. In fact, I like this film's take on a superhero film. But the film is very comfortless, negative and dark, and the level of how realistic it is can make the viewing experience painful.
Now, we wonder why such a dark and real film can be so enjoyable. The sole purpose of movies when they first came into our world in the early 1900's was to entertain. People during The Great Depression would run to the theater any chance they got and experience an hour of pure enjoyment, savoring the experience for as long as they can. Now, imagine this film, "The Dark Knight" being showed at one of those theaters way back then. Despite it's amazing quality and craft, the film would be found unacceptable. It would leave people wondering why the film was even made if it completely missed the goal of making people happy.
Now, turn the clocks back to present day, where we consider all the unnecessary junk that makes a movie rated R enjoyable. With that the case, we'd certainly just adore "The Dark Knight", right?
Believe it or not, movies give us the slightest amount of permission to do things. If we see lawbreakers in a movie breaking into banks and stealing things, our mind sees and analyzes this, and, although we cannot tell, it interprets this as being 'normal', just because you are casually watching it happen on a screen. However, when "the good guy" comes and takes these bad boys away for a true, worthy punishment, our brain can now think differently, having had the experience of 'good' winning at the end. "The Dark Knight" is a phycological film. We see the Joker, and we all think "I'd never be like him", yet you must admit, after seeing the film, you start thinking just a little bit crazy. Now, why is this film so powerful in regards to making us think like "The Joker"? There are three reasons. 1: The Joker is played out as a very real person. He's no comic book, cartoony villain who you know is going to loose at the end. He's something that seems to be really there. And this is going to really make your mind have trouble figuring out what's real and what's not. A real interpretation of a villain is good as long as the prints left by the villain are all successfully erased at the end. This film leaves you with 'The Joker'. 2: Like I said, a good guy needs to come to set things right - including your brain. This never really happens, or at least never happens enough to have an effect. We are left haunted. We may have left feeling the movie was cool, but at least for an hour or so after, we see the world in a very faint shade of darkness. I don't think a movie should do that to us. And finally, 3: Nothing good every really happens. Everything in the movie goes downhill. And it takes us with it. Why we'd want to experience this? I don't know. If you don't believe this film has an effect on our minds, reflect back on the Colorado "Aurora" shooting.
The film's high ratings come from Ledger's performance. I'm sure director and writer Christopher Nolan wanted The Joker to seem very real, but he forgot to make him "go away" at the end. We don't want the bad guy to win in this case. It's too harmful to us as the audience.
It's a miracle we don't do anything about this.
Despite all of these negative comments, the film sets up "The Dark Knight Rises" very well, as the two films seems to tie together flawlessly. However, although the film should end the way it did to allow the next one to finish up the whole story, that doesn't stop this film from being nothing but depressing.
I give the film a 6/10, mainly because it could have been so close to being enjoyable for me. I don't want to see the hero become miserable when everything around him keeps on going wrong and will always stay wrong. I want there to be hope. But unfortunately, there is very little in this film.
Overall, visually impressive but also very dark and depressing.
Any Which Way You Can (1980)
A bit funnier than the first, but has a much weaker story
First off, do not see this movie unless you have already seen "Every Which Way but Loose", as this film is a sequel to that.
Now, the first film was known to have a pretty shallow story. This one has the same problem - in fact, the story seems even weaker than the first. The plot doesn't go anywhere; it sits there and watches as the film's comedy takes the wheel.
The film is definitely intended to bring up laughter, but I'm not sure if it's sole purpose of production was to be a comedy. The laughs are good, but too rare to make the movie's lack of a story acceptable. The humor is very similar to that of the first film, only, like this film's story, never jumps to the point of surpassing anything we've already seen.
However, despite these flaws, the film was overall enjoyable. There's not much you'd miss if you skip this one, but if you enjoyed "Every Which Way but Loose", you're probably going to like "Any Which Way You Can" - just probably not as much as you enjoyed the first. Like the first film, the ape "Clyde" is the source of all true amusement, with "Ma" charging up a scene or two of good laughter in this one. Clint Eastwood's performance may feel a bit weaker or equal to his in "Every Which Way but Loose", but it definitely adds to the experience.
Overall, a good film to see if you really enjoyed the first. The two films are very similar, so much so that if you stumbled upon one on television, it may take you awhile to figure out which one you're watching. Many of the scenes take place in the same places: "Clint's house, the bar, etc.", and there are only a few slight additions to the cast. Really nothing too "new" in this film, but a surely entertaining viewing if you enjoyed "Every Which Way but Loose".
I give the film a 6/10. I gave "Every Which Way but Loose" a 7/10, and this one lost a point as although it was a bit funnier than the first, the story wasn't as thought-out as the firsts at all, and I seemed to loose my interest a bit more easily on this one. Nonetheless, incredibly similar to the first film in all sorts of ways, so if the first one left you wanting more, definitely check this one out!
Every Which Way But Loose (1978)
Please note that I am writing this review only minutes after seeing this movie.
I saw this film without any previous knowledge of it, apart from the fact that it starred Clint Eastwood. I didn't know what I was in for, but seeing what ended up happening made it even more enjoyable.
Let me say this: the film's story is shallow and a bit odd - unusual for an Eastwood picture. However, the film is rather funny. It may be because I didn't know what was going to happen and that I was actually expecting a more serious film, but the film's humor made it so much more enjoyable.
Sure, the film isn't a 10/10. No film is a 10/10. In fact, from a broad perspective, the film count rank down to a 4/10 or so. But I liked it. I enjoyed it. And I can't just give a picture that I really had fun watching a 4/10!
The characters and acting are brilliant - the best being Clyde the orangutan.
The film is funny. It's no hilarious movie, but it's funny and will make you smile. Don't start it expecting to be rolling on the floor with laughter.
At times, the actual craft is impressive. From cinematography, to small-scaled car chases throughout the local town, you can tell that effort was put into the making of this film.
The profanity. It doesn't help move the story forward, and mainly brings it down (just like any other movie with profanity).
The weak story. However, for me at least, the humor moved in front of the story and was all I really paid attention to. The film is still enjoyable despite its story.
The ending could be considered weak by some, but again, that's just the story.
Er... oh well, I guess I'll do this... Yes, there is an ape in the film who's teeth aren't the cleanest, but that's OK...
And yes... there is a reference to a previous Eastwood movie here and there...
So, start watching this film with an open mind. Don't expect perfection - try not to really expect anything. Let the movie guide you. It's hard not to root for Eastwood's character.
Overall, I found the film very entertaining. I don't really think that it's intended to be a comedy, but it sure was very amusing. Some movies from the 1970's can be rather slow and sleepy, but never once was I yawning here. I could easily (as well as wanted to) pay attention, which made it all worth while.
Despite the film's lack of a crystal clear story or memorable quotes or stand-offs like some other Clint Eastwood movie, I found this movie to be very enjoyable. I wouldn't mind watching it again. I felt it was something a little different for Eastwood, which turned out to be a great thing. I would definitely recommend this film to a fan of Clint as well as someone looking for a charming film with a crazy and fun ride.
The Campaign (2012)
When you see Will Ferrall in a movie, you know that it's likely to be funny. With Zack Galifanakis, you know that it's going to be hilarious. And when you see that credit telling you that Jay Roach directed this picture, you know that it's going to be nothing short of brilliant.
"The Campaign" is a movie with non-stop laughs - so much that the theater fills to it's brim with a beaming storm of laughter. The jokes are original and, put quite accurately, hysterical.
Chris Henchy's script is filled with unnecessary and pushy vulgarities as well as heavy sexual remarks that continue to bring our society down. However, the actual story is simple. And a simple story is no flaw to a movie. A simple story does not make a movie less entertaining. In this case, the sequence of events come so beautifully and easily that you as the viewer are not left struggling to keep up with what is going on. There is no fighting between the audience and the story in this film. Instead, they work together flawlessly.
Despite the film's premise, you do not need know a single thing about politics to understand the film. The film, although about two candidates struggling to become congressmen, really shows us what characters played by Will Ferrall and Zack Galifanakis will do to win. I'm sure you can only imagine what could happen.
Between every laugh, the understandable story and original characters are able to teach us a lesson or two - perhaps about politics, or even the way we live our lives in general. It is a story about obedience, honestly, and doing what is truly right.
Ferrall, Galifanakis, Sudeikis and McDermott sink beautifully into their roles. Even though the The Oscars rarely seem to take notice of comedies, Zack Galifanakis truly deserves an Oscar for the child-like man he becomes in this film.
Overall, the film is hilarious. There are scenes in this movie that will definitely make you laugh. In some cases, they focus on the stupidity of these characters which gets conveyed so comedically powerfully that you become truly mesmerized. Other times, the level of intelligence at which these jokes are played at is remarkable. They are perfectly timed, both in regards to how they were edited in the movie, as well as at what point in time we are politically at this moment of time in history.
Seeing the "behind the scenes" work of a campaign has just become a whole lot funnier. These opponents want to win, and through advertising, put each other down while doing so. Much of the movie is about retaliation - what the other person does in response to being criticized. And remember, this is Will Ferrall who is reacting to what Zack Galifanakis said about him on TV, so you can only imagine how extreme things can become.
10/10 - SEE THIS MOVIE!
I'm an IMDb user, and I approve this message.
Not The Best, But Still Interesting
This is another episode that focuses on Hurly. It shows us how Hurly used to live in his mental institution with his friend Dave. However, Hurly begins to see Dave on the island, and this makes him suspicious.
The episode unfortunately makes little progress with "Henry Gale", but mainly gives us some back-story on Libby. There is very little action, and the plot is not very suspenseful, but it is still a good episode to watch. The only problem is that you don't learn too much, apart from one major problem with Hurly and something else about Libby. However, It has a very good ending, where you actually may not be sure who's flashback you are seeing...
My rating: 7.6/10
Used Cars (1980)
Not what I Expected
I read the other reviews for "Used Cars", and found each to be positive and supporting this movie. Each user said that it was hilarious.
Well, after I saw the feature, I was greatly disappointed, mainly in Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale for the profane and rather pointless script, and for Speilgerg for actually producing a film like this.
The film was funny at times. A few scenes are a bit memorable
The stunts were outstanding
The dog (Toby, played by "Peanuts") is excellent and is the best member of the
The dog (Toby, played by "Peanuts") is excellent and is the best member of the cast (A dog can do better than Kurt Russell? Watch this film)
EXTREMELY profane movie, with unnecessary nudity and swearing
The film was not edifying in any way
It is an embarrassment to the country of the United States
I actually don't recommend this movie, unless you really want to see it. It is intended to be a comedy, but will really get only a few laughs out of you. There are two or three scenes that are really funny, but that's it. The movie is 1 hr and 54 minutes long (basically 2 hours), and each funny scene lasts only a minute.
Don't let the other reviews fool you, because they already fooled me. The authors of those reviews are most likely great fans who saw the film when it first came out. Well, now, the movie isn't that great. It really is about a 5/10, highest 6.5/10. Not a movie for kids. Not a movie for most people.
This is NOT one-star material.
Ignore anyone who gives this movie a 1/10 rating. That's saying that 'Super babies: Baby Geniuses 2' has a better story/direction than this.
Before seeing 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', I looked at the reviews, and was shocked by the low ratings. Then, I saw the movie. At times, I could see it down to a 4/10 or so, but others just shocked me with 7/10 material. And then... the ending. That's what makes the film memorable. Although it was long, to me it's worth a 8/10 by itself.
STORY: Yes, it was very weak. Things happened for no certain reason. It was confusing. The biggest flaw in this film.
EFFECTS: Wow. Amazing. Better than any of this overused CGI these days. Remember: This movie was made before computers. And I'm glad it was. Nearly every effect you see is mind- blowing.
MUSIC: The alien signal tune is rightfully famous. John Williams did an excellent job with this one.
ACTING: Also very good.
A.I.M (AVOIDABLE INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL): not too bad apart from the swearing. I'm not too sure about the original, but the special edition has a few 'S words' scattered here and there. I don't know why Spielberg decided to add those words in in every new scene he shot for the special edition. How does that make this film any better? Apart from that, nothing bad. Suitable for children 10 and up (some scenes may be frightening).
FUN: Yes, it was boring at times, and it really doesn't grow to be interesting until the end. If you like aliens and science fiction, you will like it.
MAIN PROBLEMS: 1: The fact that one of the main characters is french and must speak with a translator the whole film is unnecessary. There will be a long scene where the french man speaks with an English man, and the translator must translate each word from the English man to the French man and back. Wouldn't it be easier to just make the french man English? It would save about 3 minutes of film. (However, the fact that he is french actually does play a significant part in the end, if you think about it...) 2: There will commonly be radios or other items playing voices in the background, and they are as loud as the character's speaking. It is hard to hear. 3: The story, as mentioned above.
WHY TO SEE THIS FILM: 1: It's a classic. People will talk about it later in life, and you want to be able to know what they are saying. Also, it is one of the first U.F.O films. 2: It is not over the top. The film is very believable. It may open your mind up to questions about our universe.
I Don't mind if they make number five!
This movie greatly exceeded my expectations.
Direction: First of all, this movie (at least after the first 20 minutes) certainly feels like an Indiana Jones movie, and for some certain scenes, I wouldn't be surprised if one confused them for another one of the Indiana Jones movies. You can tell that it's Steven Spielberg.
Story: The story was one of the problems. Yes, it was creative at times, but Indiana Jones was rarely saving the day. Either it would be an accident that kills the villains, or simply someone else. In my opinion, he does nothing. I also think this movie would have done better with a different story as opposed to the one they picked.
Music: I think John Williams was a little uninspired in this film. There were no new interesting themes or anything like that. It all seemed like recycled material from previous Indiana Jones movies.
Meaning: The movie did have some meaning. It wasn't too random.
Visuals: Let me just say, this is what CGI does to good directors: it makes them go crazy. They want any chance they find to use CGI, which ruins the story. Why, the film starts with complete CGI. Yes, it looked good, but there was blatantly too much of it.
Ending: This movie had a suitable ending for the Indiana Jones trilogy.
Last words: Really, this is like a true Indiana Jones movie apart from the overused CGI and the weak story. That's it.
I'd include this one as a true and official part of the trilogy.
------ OK, I have to make an important statement about how people are rating movies these days. This statement may be repeated in my other reviews-----------
First off, you can not rate a movie a 10. There is no such thing. A 10/10 rating means the movie is ABSOLUTELY perfect. Only one or two movies out there are probably entitled to receive such a rating. I repeat, there is no such thing as a 10/10 movie.
Second, NO MOVIE IS A 1/10 RATING!!!!! A 1/10 movie is one where you stare at a red dot that moves around the whole movie, with no meaning, music, or action, for an hour and a half. What would you rather watch, that 1/10 movie or this? Which is better? The work put into these movies is not 1/10, the story is absolutely not as low as a 1/10, and the direction... you try to do better. Only the few movies in the bottom 100 list are 1/10 movies. Besides those, anyone who gives a decent movie a 1/10 is crazy. For now on, rate the movie what it really is.
Not the average episode (in a good way)
STORY: 7.6/10 VISUALS: 8.1/10 PACE: 8/10 ENTERTAINMENT: 8.9/10
Look, it's Captain Scarlet, not 'Inception', or 'The Godfather', or anything else like that. So a 7 is the highest that I can really give it. But truly, for a fan of Captain Scarlet, this episode is going to be nearly as good as 'Independence Day'. For someone else... no.
Tony Barwick wrote this one (he writes most Captain Scarlet Episodes), and I must say, it is not your average Captain Scarlet! in ever episode, nearly the same thing happens: Mysterons kill someone and make a double of them, and Captain Scarlet heroically stops them.
Well, in this one, Symphony Angel is shot down and crashes in the desert. Meanwhile, the mysterons come down to earth in flying saucers and begin to attack cloudbase. One by one, members of Spectrum are killed (should have been the last episode) as they attempt to take down the mysterons. And let me tell you, it doesn't end the way you think it does.
Derek Meddings did an amazing job with this one. The beginning crash of Symphony's angle is superb. And then, later when the Mysterons are destroying Cloudbase, there are constant explosions throughout.
A must see episode of Captain Scarlet.
In case you wanted to just skip to the good episodes of Captain Scarlet, I've made a list of the best ones, (The best first):
1. "The Mysterons"
2. "Attack on Cloudbase"
3. "Flight to Atlantica"
5. "White as Snow"
6. "Spectrum Strikes Back"
7. "Big Ben Strikes Again"
8. "Crater 101"
9. "Dangerous Rendezvous"
Bottom five episodes (from best to worst):
1. "Flight 104"
4. "The Inquisition"
5. "Noose of Ice"