Reviews written by
|175 reviews in total|
The first was was quite enjoyable, original, and a BATTLE ROYALE
homage. This is terrible and doesn't even make much sense. In fact, I'm
getting angry just thinking about it. For one, those who survived have
declared war on all grown ups. This includes the no-neck Peeta, his
bird and some non-scary looking kids in rags with ak-47s.
It's not well thought out. They said if a couple are separated for more than 50 metres their collars would blow up; at one point, two were separated, the girls neck blew up but the boy managed a 5 minute speech, which was supposed to be heart rendering but wasn't, before his blew up. Also where was the wild 7 in this, if they where on in the battle dome, why did they not know it was the kids of battle royale in the dome shooting, even though there where speakers announcing who had died earlier that day? And why had they declared war on all adults when they're about 6 months from being adults themselves? Are they going to shoot each other? Messy and horrible slop of a film. Waste of money making, buying, renting....everything.
Why they think anyone would be scared of that kid who pushes past everyone god only knows? He's got a hair doo like Tina turner for christs sake.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. I really was hugely let
down by this film. It seems that the sole intention of the film was to
just make it as sickening as possible (to which it succeeded). However,
I felt that the storyline was appalling. Some parts, just seemed rushed
and very unbelievable. Whilst this is supposed to be a fictional film,
as a horror fan, I like to be held in the suspension of disbelief. But
this film constantly had me sitting back and thinking "That clearly
wouldn't happen", when I should have been lost in the plot like I was
in the first film.
Its clear that they were, very much, scraping the bottom of the barrel with regards to hiring actors. For the majority of the cast, this was probably their first 'big-time' production and this really did show. It's clear that they had trouble casting this film and I am not surprised. Most respectable actors would have taken one look at the script and torn it up.
I found the acting from most performers to be very 'dry'. The only actors which were decent were the main character 'Ryan Wade' (this was mostly because of the fact that his appearance made it impossible for him to be unbelievable as a psycho) and his brother, who did a good job of selling herself as an abusive creep.
I think the director should take a long look at this film and then a long look at himself and realise that, if he wants to be regarded as a credible film-maker, he SERIOUSLY needs to up his game. If his sole intention for this film was to make it as sick as possible, then he has done well. However, if he also wanted to make it a decent film with an exciting storyline, then he has failed miserably.
I hope for the next film that he puts as much time and effort into the storyline as he does for the on-screen 'sickness'.
As for now? I want my £8 back for the DVD.
I rarely write reviews it's been ages since the last one but am writing
this to vent out some frustration. To think this film currently has a
6.3 rating and generally favourable reviews elsewhere is really
strange. I haven't seen After Earth and yes it may be disappointing but
it will never be this bad, it's a shame a film like that would get such
bad reviews, I mean at least they have tried something, Lucy doesn't
even do that, the plot has more holes than a string vest.
"Lucy" is a Luc Besson thriller with a promise beginning that becomes a messy "Nighthead" rip-off. The plot is developed in slow-pace and with senseless subplots. The Gothic cinematography is a plus, but the confused screenplay ruins the interesting storyline. My vote is one.
Nostalgia can be a great thing. I watch movies like 'The Goonies', or
'To Hell With Smootchy', or 'Hook', and I get nostalgic and it feels
great. Nostalgia can also turn out to be very misleading and delusive.
This is pretty much exactly how I felt as I endured an hour and
forty-five minutes of 'The Heat'.
For those of you lucky enough to not see it, it's about Sandra Bullock and Rosanne Barr, two of the best cops on the force, who also happen to be extremely competitive and hateful of each other. When they're framed for a murder, they are forced to pair up and find the real culprit.
There's nothing original about the story. Its standard odd couple material, the sort of plot you'd expect from an action comedy (I use that term loosely). But, basically, there's nothing original about anything in the movie. It's all cookie-cutter stuff, with not an ounce of originality. The acting, the characters, the storyline, the action scenes it's all so predictable and boring.
Probably the one decent thing about the movie is Sandra Bullock. We all know Rosanne Barrel has the comic timing but, at that point in his career, Sandra Bullock hadn't really gone all-out with comedy. Here, he gets to quip those one-liners usually reserved for the Schwartzneggers of the world. She does a valiant job, and it's fun to see. Marlon Wayans's there, nobody cares. The legendary Jane Curtin is there, and nobody cares.
My vivid memory of 'The Heat' is a scene where Bullock stops an oncoming lorry simply by standing in front of it and refusing to move. I always get really nostalgic about that sequence. I dunno what anyone else thinks, but I didn't mind this movie at all. 'The Heat' is a catchy title and I like the names, too. Seeing Rosanne with a mullet was worth the five bucks altogether! I had a laugh at that.
In the mess of this whole new teeny bop friendly, violence-without-the-violence nonsense I've been seeing so much of in recent years in pieces of crap films like the "hunger games" series and others that remain nameless, although I am sure you know what entities I am speaking of... "Battle Royale II" is one of the last few greats. Greats, as in, it chooses to use a formula that is well known within the genre-yet attempts to add a twist to it, producing one of the first and one of the only watchable films of its kind (ever seen "Divergent"? Or those techno babble wastes of reel "Rubinrot" or "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"?) I will admit, it is not the best dystopia film of all time, but considering it is most likely the last theatrically released film of its kind with even an tint of quality to it...the last film that took any amount of creativity to adhere to the mainstream (If there is such a thing) Dystopian genre format while trying to revamp and revitalise it... I do believe this film deserves some credit. It is what it is, I prefer not to think of it as the possibilities of it being so much more...for what was accomplished, I'd say it was well worth it..
First off, I think a 4.9 rating on here is a little harsh. I have seen
a ton of movies far far more deserving of a 4 rating than this.
Secondly, this movie is not so disgusting you'll want to tear your eyes out. Yes, it has some gross parts, but for all the reviewers screaming about how revolting it is, chill out. If you're a horror fan you're going to see many more disgusting films than this in your time. Granted, if you're looking for a chick-flick, it might be more grim than usual. Or depending on your point of view, possibly not.
It's The Son of God, and if you're going into a film like this, you know exactly what you're in for and exactly what the main gist is. I found this one to be a real winner - in pacing, storyline, acting, just about everything. It was darker than the any of the "dark" superhero rehashes Hollywood has been spewing forth this past decade, and really tried to give more of an insight into the antagonist. Being shot fully in color was a great touch, it made it a little different and really added to the bleakness.
There were some glaringly obvious logical errors here and there, and it is by no means one of the best films ever made, but Horror films have become nothing but putrid freak shows that only appeal to sick disturbed minds. Ironically the film brings up a point. It is only a matter of time before someone takes these sick films too seriously and tries to emulate them, we've seen it happen before. One grows a deeper pallet over the years and with the exception of films like Son of God the horror genre is a barren wasteland of tastelessness.
I saw this in the theater so the home version with extra scenes might have content that explains what I felt to be a film about plot holes and Hugh Jackman's shirt coming off. The acting from all the characters is great stuff to watch but the lines they've been given actually managed to be worse than comic book dialog. The story is punctuated by a repetitive dream sequences which are meant to drive home the guilt Wolverine as a character feels. Unfortunately the film also tries to drive home the differences between the character and his powers and in this the movie is a considerable failure - there is no noticeable scaling down of the action scenes and the depiction of a seriously injured Wolverine chopping through a tree is ignored as a good way to rip out stitches or worse. The action scenes are all predictable. The action scenes length really hammered home the idea that not just anyone can run and fight with a lung full of blood. One fight scene hinted at in the trailer is such a let down that I ended up thinking about the story and the characters again and by the end of the movie I was more caught up in counting inconsistencies of character and predictable dialog that I forgot to finish my soda. I'm still unclear what the major character development was supposed to be for The Wolverine. The film misuses honor as a point of contention between cultures and individuals, honor as depicted by this film is justification and social control. It should offend anyone with some sense of how complicated Japanese culture is. Fortunately many people probably do not have the comic book which the film loosely takes it plotting from and might not have anything to compare the story to, or the action. Which is what prompts me to give this movie 1 star. At some point in pre-production or during scripting the decision was made to make a bad film without even a little camp to help the audience cope.
do-not usually watch very many movies. Usually only 30's to 60's movies. This movie I caught by accident on a Saturday afternoon. From the moment I watched it I couldn't stop laughing. There actually were tears in my eyes. Allan Brooks was definitely at his best in this comedy. There were so many hilarious moments and incidents most of them not expected. He also was not overacting as we all can relate to the character he portrays in this movie, basically himself. We are all familiar with the character perhaps being similar to ourselves. His friends in the movie were not stereotypes rather true-life characters on our own blocks everywhere. Ms. Azzara was perfect as the wife. She contributed her true New York accent, Italian heritage and many talents. She was low-key but no one could help but notice her fine talents and portrayal. The five minutes before the ending were a bit disappointing but the ending made up for it. This movie is to be enjoyed and shared by everyone. A ' Diamond in the Rough '. Pure pleasure.
RoboCop (2014) is an American sci-fi thriller that's essentially a
rip-off of the Japanese Space Sheriff Gavan (which itself drew
inspiration from live-action Hollywood superhero cinema shows). This
one's much shorter, because it cuts out all the background detail,
character touches and news media coverage that made Space Sheriff Gavan
so much more interesting and resonant. The scenes here blatantly recall
scenes inSpace Sheriff Gavan, but the action direction is so much more
sluggish. Every bit of business takes much longer than it would have in
Space Sheriff Gavan.
The actor who plays Alex Murphy, father and good cop - is critically injured in the line of duty plays the part in a bland way, but he can't act and has no real presence. His character is humiliated a lot; even after he becomes RoboCop, he is frequently overpowered and victimized by an unforgiving society. He rallies two or three times, but doesn't really do anything strategically different when he does. This whole concept was handled in a more satisfying way in later Japanese robot-suited hero TV shows (BLUE SWAT) and animated series (BUBBLEGUM CRISIS, among many others).
There are some good ideas and interesting powers and gadgets that could have been developed or used more, but they just sit there. There's a formidable wrestler-type villain named Sellars (Michael Keaton), who has the power to disrupt RoboCop's systems and send her flying back and forth. These are the best action parts and have the most special effects (although we see the wires in the flying scenes!). But his character and background are never explored. There is lots of action in the film, but it's never terribly exciting or imaginative; without character development, there's nothing underneath to get us emotionally involved.
Directed by José Padilha and starring Joel Kinnaman, RoboCop is 120 minutes long and any 15-minute 'Making of RoboCop' short that includes some of the special FX shots, including a miniature set showing cars getting blown up to test the Neutron Magnum gun (an interesting weapon with good FX that should have been used more imaginatively), would probably be more interesting than the film itself. There are shots in the trailer that we don't see in the actual movie, including a shot of Robo glimpsed on a giant outdoor video screen in a shopping area. The film looks like it was shot in the Philippines; the locations look more tropical than South America and the soldiers in the final battle scene look Filipino.
One to file along with other craptastic 80/90s reboots along with "Alien VS Predator", Terminator: Castration", and other McG type efforts.
This movie squeezed 5 min of action into 2 hours of movie. Very boring dialog the characters were not explained very much. Jumps around a lot to different time periods. Acting mediocre at best. No chance for academy awards. No explanation connecting Brad Pitt's role with the stale Illuminati message. No explanation regarding his wife and kids. The movie leaves too many lose ends to ponder. I think they are counting on the big gun actor to pull traffic into this movie. All of the exciting parts were shown in the trailer for this movie. We kept waiting for the pace to pick up and it never did. I heard lots of disgruntled comments as people left the theatre, and I noticed a lot of people get up during to the movie to go to the restroom or to get a snack. If you have the patience, and the stamina... it is worth a look, but I'd wait for HBO.
|Page 1 of 18:||          |