Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
+1 BD, +3 DVD not found on IMDB: A. http://bit.ly/N7X4Zu -- The Yenisey River Expedition -- C. Angue, T. Cope, B. Kozel, R. Quinter -- DVD B. http://bit.ly/NRBZoz -- Beyond the Horizon -- Colin Angus and Julie Wafei -- DVD C. http://bit.ly/R1OSQh -- Kataklysm - Live In Deutschland - The Devastation Begins -- Manuel Roy, Maxime Herbert -- DVD D. http://bit.ly/MWAb0f -- Atmospheres: Earth Air & Water -- Mathew "Matt" Ramsey -- BD
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
Different, but not better
To start off, Star Trek is a Space Opera, not an action movie; some episodes were action packed and had continuity (between episodes) but not as long as I watched so far and certainly not more than 2 from the start. The traditional Star Trek Space Opera format is to have 2 stories at the same time, usually 1 more emotional involving the starfleet crew and 1 more stimulating, whether action or a conflict (including interpersonal) or fun (ie: holodeck entertainment), sometimes involving starfleet sometimes not (ie: Klingons episodes (Worf is there but I don't see him as an ambassador for the federation)). This is a--serious--departure from the other Star Trek series, even ones which I didn't like that much to start off with.
This series has very nice visuals, especially the protagonists at the beginning of this series, but that doesn't make up from the difference which I brought forth (in the previous paragraph) and I'm assuming it would be significantly less impressive in subsequent series viewing. The beginning of this series would be a nice action (mini-)serie (the mini if it changes later on) but I'm not looking for that, I'm looking for a Space Opera, the wagon train to the stars, not an 8-horse war wagon to the stars.
The Twilight Zone: The Jungle (1961)
Worse episode so far
I've been watching the episodes consecutively and so far, it's the worse episode I've seen. I found myself changing channel (which get me out of on demand TV, so I can get back where I left off) at least twice. I wanted to rate this 5/10 or less but I realized the actors gave a good performance and the rest (cinematography, sound, etc.) is up to par.
The story isn't so bad. I blame this major disappointment on the direction or bad script (which is under the direction IIRC). I found myself wondering if at the time there was some strike, which affected the quality. Or perhaps this episode was a filler.
Did you--need--to put in the dialogue the point of the movie?
After the movie goes on for a long time, Murphy says he want to make a movie about love & sex and its intensity when both are combined. Later one I thought to myself that the movie does exactly that, but had it not being pointed out to me directly, I would have thought of the movie a lot more. Also at a few points during the movie when I thought the sex scene was long, I looked around and like the photography; have I not pieced together that the protagonist is self-serving, I would have taken it a lot more in consideration of my appreciation.
Also what was the point of showing the swinger/orgy place? Is it to show they reconciled each other for their cheating and now are open? Was it necessary to take so long to make that point? I like seeing real sex in a movie. They took it to a new level, although not from afar as Shortbus was pretty filled with sex. I think I just figured out why the orgy place chapter...
I like a lot the tension between the 2 lovers, but writing this I'm realizing the protagonist is missing her so much but he haven't been this way all along, it's only because he got news of her.
Knock Knock (2015)
Bad acting, bad directing
The first thing that struck me negatively in this movie was the bad acting. Before I noticed that, the story failed here & there but one never knows if it's for later plot-twist or maybe just my mood. However one shouldn't put so much blame for bad acting on the actors as ultimately, the responsible of a movie is the director; I don't care if his casting failed and by the time he realized the actors were not he expected the movie already started or worse, he neglected to direct them, the responsibility remains.
The story wasn't the best in this setting but with afterthought, with a few modifications to it, but serious direction changes, the movie could have been respectable IMHO.
Keanu Reeves is known for his intense roles, which he stay faithful to. I don't know why he chose to play in this mediocre movie and the mediocre one about samurais. If he spits on elitism to cater to one's career at the detriment of one's craft, I'm all for it (not doing something one love just to increase one market value must suck). If he's desperate and the vast majority of the movie he's going to appear in is mediocre, I better catch on and start avoiding what he's in.
Compared to other ST, it's cheap & recycled
Compared to other series, it's good. Although I assume the majority of the audience are fans of another Star Trek series, on that assumption I think that a good portion will share my opinions the stories are cheap & recycled. Beside the fact that this is a prequel (so Starfleet is less equipped than ST:TOS and there's no human-alien hybrid), has long story-lines & better graphics, nothing stands out.
On the subject of long story-lines, it's boring by moments; ST:VOY had a little Borg stretches but those were spread out (so some episodes without Borg in between), I know Voyager season 4 was supposed to be a long story-line about the season 3 finale but AFAIK there wasn't even a 3nd episode about it. Even ST:DS9 long story-line about the Founders was stretched. I liked ST:TOS dual-stories enclosed (no continue) majority-encapsulated (no reference later on) style, basically the only elements of continuity was enhancements to the ship and character personality changes; you didn't have to worry about missing out of something because you didn't remember the last few stories.
About recycling, there's so much of it and it seems the writers doesn't even bother to make a twist to the duplicated stories. I won't go on much about this. Any ST fan will know that plenty stories are recycled but most contain a good twist to it. I understand after a few times it get hard to recycle something giving it a twist (a difference that wasn't given in one of the previous version) but I'd think reaching that stage recycling should only be done with--many--stories in between. If your writers are getting lazy and the series suffer because of it, punish them; replace them by temps from time to time (instead of suspensions, because they're contracted) and at a point replace them completely (instead of being fired, because they're contracted).
I know this post is already marked as containing spoilers but I don't want to give too much of it. Not only does the majority of the series contain the problems previously mentioned but the finale of the series is horrible. Seriously, even if for some reason you really liked this series, say you completely fell in love with T'Pol or capt Archers, I can't see any way you will even like the finale, it's pathetic. I hope people at ST convention harass those involve in making that finale every chance they get. I'd try to come near the stage and sneak in dunce hats on them; as I'm writing this I'm vividly seeing myself coming from behind putting it on them then pulling the retainer elastic below their chin then getting to the mic and say "Those are for Enterprise finale".
Even after those complaints I'm giving the series 7/10. I'm not sure if it's ST series I like the least, I'm struggling between it (ST:Ent) and ST:TAS. The main problem with ST:TAS is that it has so little footage.
Boardwalk Empire: Devil You Know (2014)
He should've chosen murder-suicide
The way Chalky White dies is awful, it truly sucks! Did he really think he would stay alive after Valentin Narcisse offered him a deal after Chalky trapped Valentin silently threatening to kill him? I saw only 2 options for Chalky after he handed his gun then Valentin got in: 1) He would be assigned a mission assuredly killing him. 2) Exactly what happened: Be killed right then.
Yes Chalky was awestruck when he realized the child Daughter Maitland had with her was his. But what about the death of his other daughter which he attributed to Narcisse? What about the assassination attempt by the police officers (corrupt of course) surely ordered by Valentin? What about the same extent of assassination, that went to his refuge to his mentor Oscar Boneau, which he seem so found of?
Chalky knew before handing his handgun that death was inevitable due to Valentin, and also knew all the wrong he received from the latter, yet he chose simple death (by Valentin henchman) over murder-suicide.
This is ridiculous. Have I known this, I would have though of Chalky White all along as borderline mentally challenged.
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Is this related to the game? If so it must have been a side-quest.
I played Silent Hill on the Playstation, the 1st one part of fifth-generation consoles, and I thought the game was--intense--. I didn't know what was coming up next and it kept me on edge. I thought the world was immersing and I wanted the character to make it through. The reason is I didn't know if there was a possibility to get back to safety (and freedom, being safe in a cage isn't much of a life).
In this movie, the protagonist gets really lucky real quick, which give the impression of invincibility. I don't want to have to mark this as a spoiler so I won't put any but sceptic people will find early on that she has too much going on for her to be in real danger. What's the point of watching a scary movie or thriller if you know everything will end up fine? Why would I play Mario bros if the worse that could happen was jump-men shrunk back down loosing the ability to throw fireballs? Or play Zelda if there was many link-like heroes pretty much insuring Zelda would be saved? I watched the beginning hoping that it would eventually get to the mysterious place and become as scary, or almost as scary, as the 2006 movie leading up to this one. Eventually, after 3/4 an hour, it got to that unnatural land but the scary-factor was dropped considerably. After 15 minutes of really trying to enjoy the mystical environment, I gave up and watched another movie.
What a disappointment!
A nice buildup to a disappointing ending
This movie feels like it's trying to pick on the wave created by The Hunger Games. I dislike the latter as it's a *major* ripoff of Battle Royale, and don't label me as a hater before seeing the older Japanese movie, but at least there was a reason why the young duo toyed with their lives at the end. One might have figured the important duo of this movie was reckless, but for unnecessary reason.
The protagonist put her life highly at risk to regain the consciousness (the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you) of her mentor & love interest. There was no need for it, she had a gun and was trained. Seeing her father die in front of her for the cause and earlier her ability to kill an acquaintance (not just in VR), she should have been much more aggressive.
I liked the premise, although it was cheesy, the special effects, the protagonist coming into adulthood & her trials, but the bit about her 1 second pointing her gun at the immediate threat, as she was pinned on the floor after her hallucinating/brainwashed mentor/lover just beat her up, to the next second putting the barrel end on her forehead is absolutely insane. The movie would have been good if one of the 2 died while the crazed men held the handgun stuck to the protagonist forehead. One just had to go...
Another matter: As soon as I saw the humongous wall far away from cities, it--immediately--came to mind the movie was appealing to Game of Thrones watchers/readers.
The Company You Keep (2012)
The director act like the protagonist
The main character had to ask favours in order to flee, I suspect the person playing the character but acting as a director had to do the same with the known actors of this movie: He took a less-than-average script then stamped it with celebrities in order to get to direct it. I wonder if the term star came from taking something bland then put star stickers on it, to make it look pretty.
What a boring script! Taking a dime-a-dozen story of conspiracy, covering it with an interesting piece of history. I mean it, if you take out the reference to the Weather Underground, the appeal would drop considerably. The reference to anti-war home terrorist organization would have been quite appropriate if the story had something more to do than a shootout in a bank robbery by political criminal, and more about the group motivation, their methods or more of their doings ; but as it is, it's evident that the reference wasn't to delve into the home terrorists, but to add flavor to the basics of the story which is: Parents who love their child that had to give up in order to not get caught, whom are part of criminal group that one of their decided to give oneself up and a smart reporter picked the story up, of course working more efficiently than authorities.
Shia LaBeouf yet again prove he's just average, he was suppose to play a smart charming reporter, about the charm how else could you get a date from a smart good-looking women after talking to her ~2 minutes, but ended up playing a neurotic insistent reporter. I kept wondering what connection Shia LaBeouf had with the movie production, a studio family member? The boyfriend of the family of an executive producer? I know the known actors are past their prime and that was likely a direct-to-DVD movie but do they deserve to take part of something in which one of the main character is so average?
Sugar coated hard-to-swallow script, average co-star, old known actors. *blows a raspberry*
300: Rise of an Empire (2014)
Did it have to refer to the original in the title?
Emphasizing so much on the original with a direct reference in the title give expectation. The reference is a failure, this movie lacks much quality of the original. It lacks the reference to a graphic novel. Yes they made an effort showing unrealistic props, backdrops and--partly--visual effects but its not close to the original. The challenge of the battle at hand is nothing like the original ; the sense of impending doom is gone. The leaders clearly lack the charm of the original and the pleas to the soldiers fall short on the audience.
Here's better-suited titles: * Greece fuelling revenge * How Sparta came to trust * Half-kneeling after all * Spartans rescuing Greece
Nothing about 300 in those titles. I watched the original 4 times &+. It will be some time before I watch this movie a 2nd time (if ever).
3 Days to Kill (2014)
The premise doesn't cut it
I wanted to give 6/10 to this movie but the premise doesn't cut it: You're so valuable because dying people have nothing to loose. What was so special? A killer takes on 5 people at-a-time then refuse to kill one, he then beat 2 people, mildly torture a pudgy Arab then scares a weak-looking Italian then--choose--to get into a trap that he easily got himself out.
Any killer could have done it, nothing was so difficult that a dying killer had to be used. Taking dying Mr/Ms average would have been a challenge, so the premise would have made sense. It's not lame as that Ice Cube & Kevin Hart cop movie, but a bit better writing would have made it an adequate movie, instead of mediocre.
Ender's Game (2013)
Don't expect much out of this flick
NO SPOILER PAST 1ST PARAGRAPH
The only thing I could think of after this movie was the ending was interesting, the little morality twist: Pretending the battle was actually the last simulation, the decisive test if the leader was apt to take command of the whole human fleet.
* * * no more spoiler
We had a short talk about the movie once we finished watching it and the previous small exercise of principle was the best I could come up with, nothing else came at the time. As I was about to write this, I though of something else: it was better than a full animation ; more entertaining than if it was all CGI or an anime.
Another spectator told me it was a good thing a star like Harrison Ford was part of it or few people would watch it. I replied: When was the last good film this on-the-edge-of-being-an-elder actor did? As there was a long delay I followed-up: In show-business, you're as good as your--last--project ; I meant he wasn't a star anymore.
Replay value: You better wait 5 years before getting any enjoyment out of a rerun of this movie.
Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (2007)
I was willing to go past the bad direction
Seeing the trailer, it's obvious that the direction is lacking but other elements could be entertaining. Even as the film is ongoing the special effects isn't up to mainstream features but still enjoyable if you consider that most people couldn't do any better. The acting was good but the bad direction had a toll on it. I thought it deserved 7 by then.
What drew the line is the story: It's bad at best and confusing most of the time. One shouldn't have to connect the dots through any other thing than than the current story. If there's references to anther story, there should be a hint or flashback to it. But most importantly, the story should be a journey for the viewer either in emotions or knowledge (albeit some is only useful in fandom). In this production, it seem various short stories were put together ; some relating to the film progress while others are filling time and would need reference to be more than the most basic of entertainment.
Overall the non-cohesive story blew it. I thought the film deserved 5, maybe 4, but I felt sympathy toward their attempt at the great Star Trek franchise.
Reign Over Me (2007)
Sandler is outstanding
Beside the scenario being very good and touching, the aspect that touched me the most was Adam Sandler performance and beside his big nose and funny voice, it could've been a whole other person. I really digged his character from the start ; which isn't always the case with other stereotyped actors which can do other types but will leave you with a an odd moment during the transition, which for me is being cocky saying to myself "let's see how you're going to pull this off !". Sandler's character was credible and his acting was incredible, I haven't studied theater so sadly can't give much more detail than that.
The direction was good but had a few moments which aren't much enjoyable during replay, it could've been like something else Don Cheadle was in : Crash.
One complaint about the scenario is the unrealistic precarious situation Sandler character is placed in at some point because he did some trouble. It might be nice and romantic but a turn-off for realists.
Overall, a must-see ! Too bad I didn't have a lady in my life at that time to see that in cinema.
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
This is an awesome movie, I just saw it for the first time a few minutes ago, I rate it 9/10. The intensity and action just doesn't stop except for a few minutes as when Cowboy is struggling with Animal for a cease-fire ... The feature is visually stunning, nice scenery, a few "gooks" up-close and lots of weapons and war-torn buildings. There's a wide range of emotions except for romance, hurray for realism ! You can see tree facets of the war going from training and it's hardship to comfy position finished by smelling blood. It's odd that they chose Joker, a war correspondant (journalist), for a main character ; I guess they wanted to show the hardening of a pretty normal guy instead of just jumping in the action with a testosterone/adrenaline junkie lusting for a kill seen in countless movies, it's more human that way.