Reviews written by registered user
|24 reviews in total|
Come on, I'm all for a fun movie with a beautiful girl and a macho bloke doing amazing stunts, and I can suspend belief up to a point, but the trite dialogue, the impossible plot and too much makeup made it laughable. Gemma was miscast in my view, it needed someone who could play posh totty, not somebody who sounded as though they had just stepped off the bus from Essex. (and Gemma is fine in things such as 'Hansel and Gretel; witch hunters')but perhaps Keira Knightley would have been much better as the Royal Princess who could be tough when required. Where all the money was spent I don't know but much was wasted. Jake Gyllenhaal was great in the part but Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina and others obviously decided they were in a pantomime and just had fun then collected the money.
I have read and enjoyed most of Lee Childs 'Reacher' books. Like most people, I had a mental picture of Jack in my mind's eye, Tom Cruise is not it! As Tom produced it, I assume he can put whoever he likes in the part, was it just an ego trip that made him decide he was perfect for the part? the money? what? And we can only assume that Mr. Childs gave the go ahead, again, was it the money? Whatever the reasons a pretty boy actor, no matter how good, at 5' 7'' can't play a huge man of 6'5''. On top of that, the screenplay was a million miles away from the book, a cracker of a read, if you have not read it, forget the movie and read the book. If the movie had been made years ago, someone like Lee Marvin would have made a great Reacher, rugged, not too good looking and looks the part. Someone has suggested Ray Stevenson, an actor who also looks the part, good choice I think. The movie itself should be watched as an entertaining action movie, it's not at all bad, but it's not Jack Reacher. Will there be a franchise? I hope not!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This seems to be a popular film with most who have written about it. I found it grubby and distasteful on various levels. The way Alice is stripped and treated was a little graphic I thought. Okay Gemma naked is ticking a lot of boxes but what's happened to allowing the viewer to use a little imagination? The urination scene was not needed. Why not choose a bolt hole with a bathroom or at least another room even if it only contained a bucket. I get the idea of showing how the victim is dehumanised and it's all part of the plan to demonstrate how easy it is to make someone fearful. Then the relationship between the blokes. Chaps sticking their tongues down each others throats is not something I want to see. Again we don't need to be shown every detail, we can imagine. Once Alice gets the gun, why didn't she just shoot the bloke in the kneecap, take the keys and get out of there? The phone has been mentioned by others, leave it turned on and it will be traced. Not a film I want to see again, once was enough.
I tried to like this strange movie. Looking more like a pantomime set rather than a film set, plus the T.Dream music that for me did not help but was intrusive and at times grated. There was a better movie in there somewhere, Maybe M.Mann's original cut? Sir Ian's accent was anything but Eastern European, more American than anything. I notice on his own site he says the director asked him to drop the Rumanian accent for a Chicago one, if true it sounds strange to say the least. The only actor who seemed believable to me was Jurgen Prochnow, Gabriel Byrne doing pretty much as every other actor doing the sadistic Nazi act does with the exception of the brilliant Christoph Waltz in Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' I thought the monster quite good until 'it' opened it's mouth, it spoke with a better accent than Ian Mckellen. In my view this 'mish mash' was a missed opportunity.
Dear me this is a western in name only. With all the star names I expected a lot more. Hugh O'Brian totally wasted with hardly any lines. None of the sons would have put up with the bullying overbearing prick of a father! Maybe the movie was aimed at women as it had so many male stars but this bloke thought it a disappointing watch to say the least. Perhaps I am one of the few people who think Spencer Tracy, whilst an excellent actor in some of his films, perhaps westerns are not his forte. I don't even like 'Bad day at Black Rock' which I found rather silly. If 'Broken Lance' was remade today, we would have an entirely different movie with perhaps a more realistic storyline.
Dear God this was/is dreadful! It's difficult to find a single positive thing to say about it, Okay, Jane Asher is lovely to look at, I agree with the chap called Ionizing, it needs more than that. John M.Brown behaves less like a fifteen year old youth and more like a simpering twelve year old girl. The 'acting' reminded me of a bunch of school children having been told to improvise the dialogue, it was that stilted. Take a look at the scene where the youth is being interviewed for the job by the manager of the baths. The chap looked like seedy escapee from the local lock up, and acted as though he had found himself in the office by accident. The schoolteacher character, he'd have been arrested for his behaviour in no time. The baths themselves appeared to be run as a second class brothel for all the local weirdos. I was persuaded to purchase this mess because of glowing write-ups from people who I assume had a share in the profits. I'd like my money back please! Avoid this like the plague!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Contains spoilers. Emily Browning has courage to allow herself to be so exposed and I applaud her for that, but- as someone else has pointed out, she has a very immature body, looks like a little girl. Eva Greene in The Dreamers is naked a great deal and she looks and behaves like a mature sexy woman. I am assuming that the old men are looking for a last 'thrill' with a girl. There is a no penetration rule, yet if you are going to die, would you not ignore that, if capable? Anything could happen to the girl if that scenario is the case, or have I got that wrong? (The brute with the cigarette for example) I hope that Ms. Browning's career doesn't take a nose dive after this movie and she doesn't just get offers of film parts where she has to strip as others have done after making films such as this. I was disappointed with the lack of character development, the cold impersonal mood of the whole thing, and couldn't generate much interest in the outcome.
Well! I am surprised at the amount of vitriol poured onto this in some comments. Fed up with all the 'boys with their toys' type movies and the 'Isn't it a shame for me?' programs that infest the TV these days, this movie pressed all the right buttons for me. It's a fun, frothy comedy which has the feel good factor. Scarlett looked terrific and cute in her glasses, Woody seemed to be having fun as a rather inept magician, and Jackman must be every females choice of hunk. Yes, there are occasions when it's a little cheesy, but lighten up everybody, and just enjoy it for what it is, a little light relief! (That's all I have to say, but as the site insists on ten lines....)
Oh dear was this dreary! Slow, ponderous and plodding, the minutes ticked away whilst we waited for SOMETHING TO HAPPEN! Okay, it made heaps of money, teenage girls may find it romantic and let's face it..it is a soap, a chick flick, call it what you will but don't tell me it's entertaining! Compare it to so many others of this ilk, even as far back as 'The Lost Boys' when there was nothing like the effects of today, they managed to inject some style and action. Look at 'True Blood' sex, gore, excitement, action, all the things this didn't have. I realise they didn't want a rating that meant young girls couldn't see it but give it some erotic content, isn't this what vamps are supposed to be about? Glamour! For me the actor playing Edward Cullen wasn't even particularly good looking for all the fuss made about him. (Okay, yes I'm a bloke.) A disappointing waste of time in my view.
Others have written some excellent reviews with which I agree so I don't feel the need to go on at length. When I started watching the movie, I was a little bored with it's meandering, talky style, but gradually got sucked into the story. Partly due to some excellent acting, (and may I mention young Barney Clark as the 12 year old Tony, perhaps slightly overshadowed by Eddie Redmayne, but who I thought brought a lot to the role.) As the tale unfolded, I enjoyed the scenery, the gentle pace and it struck me how unique it was and so refreshing after all the special effects, noise and mayhem of much from America. There was a lot missing from the plot, much left to one's imagination but despite that, I am glad I had the chance to see a flawed but enjoyable movie.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |