Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
this movie was better when it was called the matrix
obviously many of these ideas are ripped off from other screenplays/IPs. this movie is 50% the matrix trilogy, and 50% insert random dystopian flick.
i have a real hard time taking anything tom cruise does seriously, given his association with scientology.
his performance - IMHO - detracts from the highlights of the script and supporting cast. would've been better with someone else having the lead.
if you liked the matrix, i'd suggest not watching this, because this is a poorly re-written variation of that.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
very over-hyped, doesn't deserve the accolades
other reviews i have read have stated that argo was better. it is.
the acting, particularly that of the lead, in this steaming pile that has been nominated for so many awards is terrible at best.
i tried to pay attention to the details while watching this, taking into account all of the press coverage that the film received - you know, all that crap about torture and blah blah blah. i really didn't find anything about this film to be "great". not the acting, not the writing, not the cinematography, not the cast, not the soundtrack. nothing.
it's pretty obvious that typical Hollywood types want to latch onto this and shower it with praise, when there are better films that deserve the attention.
frankly speaking, i've taken dumps that were more enjoyable.
i can only hope that this ends up on DVD sooner than later, so as none of you have to suffer the 14$ admittance fee to lose the 2.5 hours of your life this movie just cost me.
save your time and your $, and wait until you can get it at a red box or something.
indeed, argo was much better.
if harvey keitel were dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave. do what you do with most things that come out of an ass, and flush this cinematic suppository down the crapper where it belongs.
werner herzog can kindly reimburse me for the hours of life i just lost watching this godless piece of trash. any kudos sent his direction should actually be forwarded to the creators of the REAL bad lieutenant, and not this pathetic cash grab by this studio.
save yourself from hell, and don't suffer through crappy nicholas cage retreads of actual good movies. watch good movies instead. here's a hint, this isn't one.
average at best
i'm old enough to have seen all of the bond movies - minus the first few - as they've been released. i would say that at least up until casino royale that they'd followed a similar path in their setup/plot/etc, however this film is basically a step in the other direction for the franchise.
i didn't find it particularly good. when you compare it to other bond films of the last 15 years, it's definitely one of the 'poorer' films.
daniel craig is good as usual, but the storyline itself is just meh. the only instance of cool bond gadgets is like a 10 second cut of the car doing it's thing near the end, and it's just parked there - no fancy chase scene or anything to lure you in.
overall, i'm pretty disappointed by this movie. save your twelve bucks and wait for it to come out on DVD. IMHO.
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
should have named this film 'resident evil: money grab'
i gave it two stars for the following reason: milla jovovich. she's literally the only thing that carries this blatantly obvious cash grab by the producers.
it's nice the studio felt it was important enough to bring back the original cast and all that, except that there was literally ZERO writing involved with this cinematic suppository. i've worked longer and harder at taking dumps than these tool bags did with this particular "script".
if Hollywood spent as much time in writing screenplays worth the paper they are printed on, and less time on bullshit 3D gimmicks, movies today might actually be . . . entertaining? save your $, and the 1.5 hours of your life you'll never get back, and don't go to this piece of 'excrement' (cuz IMDb is apparently PR sensitive to using big boy words).
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
cinematic equivalent of toilet paper
this 'movie' is terrible. the story is congested - as if trying to cram aspects of the previous 3 spider-man films into 1, newer and incredibly mediocre retooling. peter parker is suddenly a super smart über nerd with math skills that rival professional geneticists? and a tough guy skateboarding hipster? really? well, i have a bridge i'd like to sell you...
there went 2 hours of my life i desperately want back.
this cinematic suppository is not worth your money, at least certainly not in theaters. personally, i'd rather watch paint dry.
if you really want to watch this steaming pile of garbage, wait for the DVD release. something tells me it won't be in theaters for long.
decent flick, better than 300 imo
i admit i am biased as a fan of mickey rourke, but that doesn't affect my rating of the film.
the concept is sound, the acting is respectable, the script is decent, but the cinematography and the special effects are really the selling points of this piece. i'm a little tired of the LOUD NOISES soundtracks with all the doom and gloom, however. that is one aspect i think which could have been done better.
regardless that there are few "big names" on the billing, the acting itself is actually pretty sound overall. nothing sensational, but i think that has more to do with the screenplay than the actors. with all of the focus on the fighting and the visuals, the dialogue itself leaves a bit to be desired.
the ending leaves the story more or less wrapped up neatly, with potential for a sequel. i suppose it was designed with the notion in mind that if the film does/did well enough to warrant such a venture.
i'm not a fan of the whole 3D phenomenon sweeping the land. call me a purist if you will, but this is definitely worth seeing in a theater, though i'd personally prefer 2d > 3d.
no offense, but this movie is garbage.
the plot is just atrocious. the ending is ridiculous. the acting is terrible. the special effects are far from special. the theme is unoriginal. about the only enjoyable aspect of this "film" - i'd not call it that, but rather a "cinematic suppository" - would be the soundtrack. save yourself. save your money. save 2 hours of your life that you will never get back if you were to suffer through this travesty.
the saddest part about this movie is the fact that it will make more money than most of us make in our entire lifetimes.
oh and just to add perhaps some weight to my statements, i graduated film school. i spent months studying screenplays and the screen writing process. i went through years of work to attain my degree. you can take my opinion, or you can see for yourself.
i hope for the former. i'd rather you be spared the suffering that is this filth.