Reviews written by registered user
|29 reviews in total|
I reside in USA and have seen the commercial for this film and it is
utterly contemptible. The entire premise for this movie is that
morality should be suspended by the viewer to indulge in gross
misbehaviour. As a Muslim, I entreat other Muslims to shun this movie
and reproach it with your brethren for the egregious conduct it
promotes the audience to imagine.
In any civilised society this film would be banned. It would not even be allowed to be made. Clearly any link we have with USA is severed when the latter promotes this level of vulgarity. To be void of all sacrosanctness and normalcy is the goal of American culture now.
This nonsense is not Sherlock Holmes. It's a disgrace to past Sherlock
Holmes' movies to have this junk bear the title of the greatest
detective in the world. The main problem with this film is the same
that affects the newest Batman movies and the newest Star Trek movie.
In all 3, the plot is being "cut out", literally. Watching these movies
it feels like the main point is the action scenes and the explosions.
The plot is there merely in name and if not that, then certainly only
as a second characteristic of the film. The primary reason for the film
is to show aggression, with men getting into close proximity of other
men's faces such as might happen on a military base. The rest of the
movie is devoted to showing quick spurts of action scenes that are very
fast. Just as the plot is "cut out" and hence made to go faster, all
the action is made to develop very quickly so that the audience doesn't
get bored watching it come up. Once it does appear, the action occurs
at blitz-speed and is shown from a gamut of angles to keep the viewer
stimulated. It's highly abnormal and almost meant to induce a euphoric
effect on the viewer, similar to what a drug might do.
Terrible film. Do not watch it!
Asalaam aaleikum, nil udan val nud eehe, safa nu han lai tere hei.
Allah U Akhbar!
America is a sick nation the last 10 years. As a Muslim I can only say that this is a very perverse movie! The woman is shown as overbearing and very unfeminine and the men are only interested in doing the wrong thing. It is disturbing and luckily, I cannot watch it due to our pure religion and also urge people of all religions not to see this nonsense. There is too much cursing as well. Lastly, any nation which constantly shows men as more effeminate than its women, even for laughs, is obviously dysfunctional. How films like this are getting past the censors is only possible if the culture has become skewed to the point that this passes for normalcy in most people's minds. I exhort all Muslims and normal people in USA to stay away from these barbaric films if you wish to save your families, your women, your culture and your souls!
I cannot believe that a movie is allowed to have such an obscene title,
let alone be shown in theatres! In fact the title is the worst thing
about this movie because everyone must be offended by it regardless of
whether he sees the movie or not. I'm not quite sure what the makers of
this movie intended to achieve with this movie, except to exploit se*
for its own sake by appealing to 20 year olds who have all but lost the
concept of normal marriages and commonsense relations between man and
Most people are going to say that when children ask what this movie is about when seeing its trailer play or seeing the title in public, they can be told by their parents that its not for their age range. Thus according to them, the matter can be conveniently and efficiently closed and children can be guarded from obscene matter, while the adults can watch these and garner delight in light-hearted comedies.
But this is not about the children really. What of the adults? Should they be watching such movies to begin with? Light-hearted comedies have existed since time immemorial, from skits and parodies to satires and jocular plays in theatres. This film however, goes too far. It takes and uses a sacred act and treats it in a profligate, frivolous way, both desecrating and desensitizing the audience to it. This singular, sacred act which is the basis of this movie for eliciting laughter from the audience is too great to be trifled with, too great to be used in so cavalier a manner.
What follows is both a plea and is not hyperbole when I say the United States and Canada are culturally nothing but hedonistic dens, filled with masses that carry out the behavior of brothels, consuming themselves in a vat of carnal debauchery for the last 15 years. Save yourselves. Save your children. I urge all governments to ban this film immediately!!!
I cannot begin to convey the depth of chagrin one feels when reading
the reviews about this movie. The film is being hailed as a masterpiece
and the next great painting that hangs in The Louvre. America is a sick
nation. Mentally. Spiritually. Culturally. And it's getting more ill as
time goes by. The deterioration has been rapid. Due to the now rapid
dissemination of information, the problem is that the rest of the world
I exhort, nay, I beseech all normal people and especially parents around the world to resist this malady that is seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent. I make this plea to you because the internet now allows export of this malady to all corners of the globe effortlessly. The malady is in the form of acculturation to deaden our senses to violence, feminism, devaluation of parents and debauchery, and this malady is what currently governs American thinking.
Resist in your minds the temptation to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Resist in your hearts the impulse of accepting these deleterious, inane movies, as real films, simply because they are being touted as being made by the United States.
This film is one thing only: Evil incarnate. I say it again, unequivocally and without hesitation. This movie is evil. And I urge all governments to ban it forthwith! "There is nothing truly good or bad, only that we make it so." - A liar made this statement long ago when the world was still able to distinguish right and wrong. Perhaps that is why he never gave his name to this quote.
As Hollywood movies got infested with and are now replete with shallow
plots, feminism and lewd dialogue, I was hoping that the Star Trek
series would escape from the same demise. Star Trek: Nemesis was
actually the foreboding film that this last bastion protecting normal
television was being reconnoitered for a full-scale assault by greedy
executives. Nemesis was an experiment for this movie. Hollywood
believed that if Nemesis got a good reception it would pave the way for
a new Star Trek. Nemesis didn't get a good reception from anyone liking
the original Star Trek but it got great reviews from 15 year olds who
like seeing big explosions on the screen.
"Star Trek (2009)" is not Star Trek. It is a passable action movie and that is all. In fact, most of the battle scenes are overdone and make the viewer think he's watching a crate of fireworks that has gone off. This alone means the movie cannot co-exist in a man's mind juxtaposed with the idea of Star Trek. Nor can it be considered a new type of Star Trek because that would require radically altering the original's definition.
Like "The Dark Knight", this movie seeks to replace vital elements which were present in every title before it. "The Dark Knight" was a misrepresentation of Batman and this movie is no different. Commonalities which are inherent to Star Trek and which are expected by the viewer so he can concentrate on the plot, are gone. The most conspicuous of these changes is in the characters.
James T. Kirk, a great strategist, is shown as an undisciplined law-breaking stuntman with nary a thought to his tactical skills being honed. There is one hackneyed scene with him looking at a mountain as if that is enough to make him into a great captain. 27 year old Spock is shown as a warrior Vulcan and far more aggressive than someone who would really understand logic, as expected to by his age. The others don't fare much better. Chekov acts a bumbling fool whose sole purpose is to provide comic relief for the tension between Kirk and Spock. Scotty and Ahura seem immature for their ages. Again, it must be emphasised that if these weren't supposed to be established Star Trek characters there would be no issues, other than the big one of sending a very bad message to schoolchildren.
There are two other major problems: The special effects and fights. Within the first 5 minutes there is a doomsday encounter between a starship and a Romulan warbird. The special effects for this sequence make the viewer feel as if he's watching a video game. The ships look drawn by hand and then water-colourised. Perhaps to portend this, "Bad Robot", the team responsible for much the computer imagery, had a distinctly shabby logo in the opening credits. The battle itself resembles the birthday party of an inebriated mob of psychotics. It's as if the director wanted to maximise the amount of action shown with little regard to plot. Here was a veritable fest of badly-lit destruction, the first of many. Phasers fire everywhere without seeming to acquire targets. Panels from the starship are blown off repeatedly by enemy fire. The ship is also shown very close up while all this is happening. It leads to the viewer feeling nauseous and numb. Rather than enriching the movie as carefully crafted battle scenes do, like in Star Trek II and Star Trek III, it makes a normal audience sensitised to further violence.
I shan't countenance the ruin of a great franchise. This film suffers from serious defects and it is a disgrace to have the Star Trek name associated with it.
Company is a film about a youngster Chandu who is a small time crook
but has a lot of potential. The fellow he starts working for, Malik
Bhai, runs a very powerful crime syndicate called Company in the Mumbai
underworld. Malik recruits Chandu to help run a majority of his
operations but a misunderstanding happens between them that erupts into
an all out war. The result of this war is the destruction of their
'Company' organisation. Principal strengths of characters, rated on
physical power, intelligence and influence:
Malik Bhai: 5 physical power, 9 intelligence, 9 influence. Chandu: 9 physical power, 8 intelligence, 6 influence.
You can see that both are quite evenly matched overall. This is why Company is such a good film! The music is very good and the only bad part is sometimes the sequences will suddenly cut to a different sequence that is supposed to come on a few seconds later. It's an editing style which makes one giddy. Company is an excellent movie overall!
Sad to see Glen A. Larson producing shows like this. The main issue is, what is with the Laura Roslin character? She seems like a man in a woman's body and viewers find this appealing? Also the entire show seems to be about interrogations and more interrogations. The plot seems banal and always week after week the same things are shown. Some conspiracy abounds and this is supposed to be the new great twist every episode. There is hardly any action and the drama is based entirely on having some sort of stale friction between the characters. I highly recommend watching Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: The Original series if one wants good science fiction episodes. This show isn't science fiction. It's junk.
I was expecting to see at least a semi-good movie but this film is not
even up to par. This film gets a 1 rating from me because it tries to
depict Batman and fails miserably at it. Even for an action movie if
Batman hadn't been in it, it's not good. The plot is horrid and morbid,
the amount of gore unhealthy and the fight sequences are badly done.
A. What is this rock theme music that's constant in the movie? It comes whenever a suspense scene starts and sounds like an annoying electric guitar. What is this doing in a Batman film? Also, the plot seems to be totally disconnected in between scenes. The entire movie is like one big mishmash of 10 different stories that occur in succession. It is also unrealistic many times. In the beginning The Joker simply takes his schoolbus into the convoy to escape. And the way he avoids police in broad daylight and blows up the hospital is unbelievable.
B. The Joker in this film is someone with a predilection for violence and violence alone. Traditionally, The Joker has been a nefarious, insane character. He does things that are out of kilter with normalcy. He then laughs at what he does and takes unexpected delight in it. This Joker is not like so. He's simply a disturbed psychopath who likes to blow up things and harm others. There's no depth to the character.
C. Harvey Dent has been traditionally Black the last 2 decades. That and the way he's made into Two-Face in this movie is totally wrong. Two-Face traditionally goes on to become a crime boss but in this movie, he simply dies soon after coming into being. He also isn't a good Two-Face, overusing his coin flip to make decisions. For example, in the limousine scene he flips the coin again and kills the driver in order to eliminate a crime boss. The real Two-Face wouldn't have cheated like this once the coin makes a decision for him.
D. Batman himself doesn't appear much in the movie. We are shown glimpses of him and the fight scenes are very darkly lit so it's hard to see who and how he's fighting. His over-reliance on technology is also not good because Batman usually uses wits as well as brawn. The voice of Batman is guttural sounding and Bruce Wayne himself doesn't seem to have any emotions. Micheal Keaton's portrayal of Batman in Batman (made in 1989) is by far the best in all movies.
The Dark Knight is not just not a good Batman film. It's a poor film in any genre. I recommend watching Batman (1989) if one wants to see an excellent Batman film. Here's a small sample from this great movie that's better than the entire The Dark Knight:
Star Trek Nemesis was directed by the fellow who directed U.S. Marshals. U.S. Marshals was some action movie in the mid-90s. I don't know what Star Trek writers thought when bringing this director in. The man hardly knew a thing about Star Trek and kept referring to Geordi LaForge as LaVern during the making of the movie. Picard and Data have good roles but again, the lighting of the sets is mostly dark and the special effects are not good. Why is it that Star Trek 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have good special effects but Insurrection and Nemesis don't? The reliance on CGI (Computer generated images) is apparent in both these movies. Star Trek isn't fun without good special effects. The plot in Insurrection was okay but the movie is basically an action-thriller sort. Star Trek doesn't do well with this kind of genre as its primary vehicle. The series and movies does good if the action is there to complement it, but it cannot be the impetus for the movie. B4 the android is annoying as the devil and the parts of Troi being "raped" are awkward. The Reman warship Scimitar is about 100 times better than the Enterprise on paper but somehow Picard and 2 Romulan vessels manage to hold it off forever. There also isn't a lot of character interaction between the crew and this is a major drawback. This wasn't a good Star Trek movie. Probably only a return to the style of the first 8 will save Star Trek.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |