25 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Pffft. Characters you care about as much as video game characters.
30 July 2011
This movie mirrors how much you care about the characters in a video game: Zilch.

I watched tired old movie clichés play themselves out, and waited to see what new twist there might be. There was time to go to the restroom, and wonder what to make for dinner.

There's no character depth. So we don't care about any of them, as there was nothing to buy into. There's a lot of blank stares on actors faces. Maybe it was supposed to represent their emotions & reflective personalities. Is that what those camera shots were for? It looks terrible, and the actors should have passed on this job to some no-names. Blame the directors, the editors, the script writers and whoever made you go to this movie with them.

The opening credits have: Universal, Spielberg's company, and Ron Howard's company listed. All I can say is: It looks like they were trying to pay homage to George Lucas. Because Lucas did it better 35 years ago, with the shooting technology of that era.

While it's true this movie uses the latest technologies, maybe another kaboom will make your jaw drop. It just doesn't make up for a low grade script, and how they wasted the talents of so many actors.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hawaii Five-0 (2010– )
I enjoyed the pilot episode, it's got some heart to it
21 September 2010
Actors: Main 3 are cookie cutter, nearly identical birth years. I like that they're in their 30's and not all 90210 on viewers. Storyline: Definitely an action show, and it's done adequately. Script: Solid. Some cheesy stuff, some wow stuff, some well acted scenes. A few roll your eyes moments, but that keeps in part with the way the original was.

Pros: The script writing. The acting. The actors aren't Hollywood good-looking. But they are a good match with the scripts. Subtle little moments of humour, that you have to see visually and/or hear. Something ha ha will be thrown in there when you least expect it. The building of the characters. You find out little bits here and there and already starting to get a better understanding of how a character is the way he or she is.

Cons: The filming of a fight sequence, taking on the bad guys was terrible. That's not a spoiler. You'd fully expect to see one, seeing as it was in a huge amount of TV commercials. It sucks because you can see the distance between them, when they are at blows with each other. The editing is a shambles, it's so crappy in the action sequences. Could be much better. Hire more qualified people, it's worth it.

The believability of some legal situations are a bit dodgy. That detracts, and makes it a little hard to buy into it. But then again it is not a documentary. It's a TV show that's there to entertain you. Watch yourself a reality show like Cops if you're going to harp on it.

Summarily. My take: I like it because it's fresh. The camaraderie reminds me (a little) of: some Starsky and Hutch, a dash of 21 Jump Street, and yes the feel of the original Hawaii Five-O is there. It's on location on beautiful Oahu, with little studio time in it. Outdoors: That's just how they roll on that island.
63 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz. No wow factor.
1 August 2009
If you look at your watch every ten minutes, does it mean you're worried about getting the last bus home? No. But what if others in the theatre start turning their cell phones on? Are they too, worried about the time? No. The movie is terrible in that it takes you absolutely nowhere. It doesn't suspend reality and let you buy into anything for even one scene. As far as shooting the movie goes, it was like stepping into the way back machine after buying a pet rock. There wasn't any good reason to have done it, and now you're clutching a rock that cost you your allowance.

For all the ridiculous amount of time it took to film this, you just sit there and think: Is that really what you asked the actors to do? How many weeks did you spend, getting actors to deliver poignant(?) slash significant lines? Wasting it all as overacted or underacted?

This movie needed a different director big time. The special effects were uninspired, and reminded me of the following: technicolour, Charlie Chaplin-esquire (for the stupid flicker with the lighting), Moses in the ten commandments, and your grandma messing with the Sepia setting on a digital camera.

No. Wow. Factor.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Twilight (I) (2008)
Through Blue Hues, Another Vampire Movie
28 March 2009
We watched this on Blu Ray in high def. Only one person in the room has read the book(s?). I'm not sure why this was tagged a black and white film, and I'm not colour blind. Why do the books have a dedicated following? Unknown. Guys in the room decided early on that it must be a chick flick. A woman in the room disagreed. The storyline was kind of sluggish and it took awhile to be drawn into it. The actors are also basically no names to me, even though they're getting regular media coverage here in B.C. while filming the next installment. I don't think they're the next big thing, but I do think they'll be around for the long haul as character actors in movies to come. Overall, the movie was okay, not a waste of rental money, and we all ended up agreeing that yeah, it was okay. Was the acting good? I'm kind of up in the air about that. Followers of the book(s) seem to think they did a good job. As the rest of us still don't know much about the books, it was agreed that we didn't really have to read up on it to get what was going on. I can't say I've seen a lot of vampire movies. I do know the ones I have seen are fairly generic, and interchangeable. Save for the Anne Rice movie, Vampire Chronicles. I get the feeling that vampire movies are Supposed to be generic. There is always a main foible involved in haunting-style movies, and it's predictable as pigeon turd. But this movie like I said, is alright. There are few turns on vampires vs ordinary human story lines, though this movie has some interesting angles to offer. I liked that the time line was not jumping all over the place like most vampire movies. It's worth renting, but you have to be in the right mode to be watching it. Maybe if I had read the books, I would give it a different rating. As it stands, this is what I give it for just watching it for what it appears to be - without the books to tell me what I should think.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst 3D - Infinitely. Can you spell G-R-E-E-D-Y ?
19 March 2009
This 75 min show was really, REALLY bad.

Two young relatives appeared to enjoy it, as they haven't been to a concert yet. The anticipation and expectations were high. Even they didn't seem as enthused as when they first entered the theatre. They've seen some 3D shows before, and the drive back was, well - quiet.

The biggest concern a niece beside me was: that a pair of adults stood, and variably sat behind us. As they let three kids run around, they recorded the Jonas 3D movie on their cameras. After letting an attendant know, we saw them talked to, and then they stayed to the end, to finish taking their photos and whatnot.

There really isn't any need for "Spoiler Alerts." Seriously. It's that bad. If you were to think about all your definitions of a bad movie theatre experience, it'd be an alternate description of this movie.

These are not spoilers, to say: the shots were heavily edited to the point of blandness. The scenarios were boring, it did not resemble anything interesting at all. It was a montage of uninspired ROTE that went nowhere. Besides, there are so many internet reviews that people have read already, there is nothing left to say. As for the promotion of the movie being a chance for the poor kid fans to see more of the band, nah. It's not worth the charge above what you pay for your internet connection to the same thing.

Disney did quite possibly, the worst investment of monies in current 3D technology that is available to date. The 3D shots weren't that great. They were sparse in my opinion, and repetitive as far as having no imagination in this product. There was no premise. Anything this movie claimed to be is not true. The Directing was terrible, and the Editing was all that, Times Infinity.

Greed. Greedy, greedy, greedy. The Disney money train is being re-directed to the next big thing they contract some teens to do. Next year's ten year olds may now join the lineup.
18 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No heroics to fix it this. It flat lines.
23 November 2008
This movie was lackluster in presentation. The previews make it look like an action movie, and it's any but.

The cinematography: The look is dark. Presumably, it's supposed to portray emotions. It does not do that. It's no where near the way Dark Knight pulled it off earlier this year. The view is mainly of darkness, but the actors are not believable in portraying their characters with just 'a look.'

Dialogue: Save for once or twice, there is no witty dialogue. Nor is there anything that makes you think: Hey, that character is really intelligent or whatnot. There's not enough background info given for a viewer to say: Oh, that's where he/she is coming from. Without that, a viewer has no empathy, understanding, or baseline to go with.

Lead Actor: I didn't go to watch it in a theatre. No intent to, as Daniel Craig was a name I never recognized. He looked sort of familiar though, and looking at his credits I knew why. I've seen Golden Compass. He was incredibly memorable in the Power Of One. Yet, I don't think he pulled off being the main character this time around. His performance did not exude what you expect in a James Bond actor. He is not conventionally good-looking, nor does he resemble a ladies man. The classy, debonair part is missing. 'Bond's' air of confidence comes off as total arrogance in this movie.

Casino Royale was a really good movie all around. Some people I know went to the movie theatre more than twice to see it. The difference this time seems to be the director. Both writers credited for this film were credited for the last Bond. So. What it comes down to is, I wouldn't pay to see a movie with that director again. Not when tickets are $11 each, geez.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cardboard cutouts with lips.
26 May 2008
Considering that a movie ticket is $11 a person here, the movies not worth it. It's also not worth renting. It should never have been been released, filmed or have been a first lunch to talk over the script. There's nothing remotely original in the movie. There is the clichéd best friend, clichéd stupid friend, and clichéd melodrama that's supposed to be funny. All of the characters were one dimensional. Cardboard cutouts with lips. Kutcher was supposed to be a lead character, but he did not lead. He was miscast in this film. It made a bad movie worse.

Kutcher's lack of acting skills, are what brings this movie down to it's core flatness. He couldn't even do a romantic kiss that was believable.

Cameos by Queen Latifah and Dennis Miller were not funny or memorable. The lines were so bad, it can't even be said they delivered them terribly.

Casting directors should look elsewhere and pass by any of the people who were the That 70's Show kids. That was such a really good show, but none of them can carry anything by themselves.

None of us that went were Kutcher fans, but there are no comedies to go to right now. We figured, well Cameron Diaz will be funny. She's the only one that did a respectable job of a lousy script. There were no expectations of this movie, and the original intent was to just go out to a movie and kill a few hours.

All this movie did was make me look at my watch every five minutes, from the first hour on. Yawn. I wanted to twitch, pace, go to the washroom, and make a few calls. It wasn't just killing a few hours anymore. It was beating two hours with a stick. Much the way this review does, by having to repeat mundane boring recaps.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Like a Kennedy movie if they had less money
28 October 2007
I thought this movie was okay. A big okay, for being a movie that has characters that can express themselves with minimal swearing. Okay in that the characters were defined in a way that you know where they're at. One daughter is in elementary school. As much as a parent would like to think the child is naive, they tend to come out with some introspective stuff. Another is a drama queen (typical of junior high school), and another just wants a credo for being independent. Everyone seeks something simple, yet everything seem so unattainable. The plot centres around Steve Carrell's character of course. The previews in theatres made it clear that he is Dan, single parent guy. Poor (not financially), hapless, single parent Dan. He does the best he can. There are some fresh twists on hapless Dan's circumstances. Not original, but yeah. Refreshing and retaining some realness to it. The rest of his extended family is there, but in the background. They worry, they fuss, they want to help. They are human and will do things that large families do. What wasn't so smooth, was the fact that they are living on a large piece of real estate with no real explanation as to why they are there. From there, it's a bit of: Parenthood, Brothers McMullen (?), and any movie you see with family gatherings on the east coast. They all live at the ocean, wear sweaters and play tag football. It's not a movie where you regret paying the $11 see it. It's just a little bit hard to relate to the lifestyle. Even if you've visited the east coast. Overall, you leave the theatre thinking: I know someone in my family like that. Without knowing which character you would be in a movie like that. Or not willing to admit which family member you would be.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's a Bi-Polar: Ha-Ha-Ha! ZZZZzzzzzzz Ha-Ha-Ha !
20 October 2006
I was happy going into the theatre, hey it's Robin Williams. Added bonus that Christopher Walken was in it! There's something about Walken that rivets my attention to him on the screen. Not just his voice. Well, his voice combined with movements and that unusual hairdo that reminds me of The Joker hairstyle! I don't know how to explain that, it's fun to watch him on screen and he makes me smile just by showing up. I'd suggest this is not a comedy as shown in previews, as much as it is lighthearted smiles. Sure, Williams tossed some good lines out there that were funny. The question is what was Williams trying to portray as far as genres go? There was too much flipping back and forth between humorous and dramatic acting. The characters were no where near 3-dimensional, thus no known reasons behind their actions. I also feel the deliveries of lines could've been slowed down a bit. It was a bit hard to follow rapid fire chatter in scenes that didn't require it. The movie reminded me of older movies. Where logic wasn't as important as just: sitting, watching and enjoying it for what it is: A 'silly' movie where you don't have to think. Just watch. There are no offensive scenes that I can recall. In fact, I think they covered a lot of subjects in a multi-cultural world with tact, dignity and sensitivity. Anything said for humour was middle-of-the-road stuff that have been said so many times it's become a given that comedians tell such jokes. Such a quiet aspect of the movie, it's likely not many have mentioned it yet.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wow! Never an ADHD moment. I'm cured!
16 May 2006
Ah! The opening sequence of this movie rocked! Going to this movie was a last minute decision while driving past the theatre. A drive through the parking lot, and a Nah. Followed by another drive into the parking lot to park. What the heck. This place only charges $6, even though I heard it sucks.

No, it doesn't suck. I haven't seen any of the previous Mission Impossible movies in this series. You don't have to. I do recall the theme of the TV show being cheezy. In the "Get Smart" era. Maybe.

When the lead character receives his assigment after stopping for ice, I was hooked. Yeah! I'm a wanna-be geek, and I knew what they were doing.

The remainder of the movie? Action/suspense that is: non-stop, eye opening, jaw slacking, glazed eye, mesmerizing... Cool. The plot was unpredictable, and full of: twists, turns, cranks and spins. Then it all tied together. Save for one scene: what happened to some agents returning to HQ? It was a pretty unusual scene to leave as is.

Billy Crudup & Phillip Seymour Hoffman from "Almost Famous," re-join as powerhouse actors in this movie. As typical of this genre, there are good guys vs the "bad guys." Hoffman WAS the bad guy. Real bad, hope I never see that kinda bad, bad. I spent a good portion of the movie wondering who the biologist was. There was a really cheezy line that he had to deliver. 'Benjy' was an all-knowing philosophical twit. He compared bad guys to bad entities. I wanted to scream: Yeahh! That's what other people call TERRORISM, ya dork! That's the only part that irked me. But who is that actor? I've IMDb'd it, & it was Simon Pegg - star of Shaun Of The Dead. Oh! Now I remember! This is a powerhouse cast of actors. Not a bad seed in the lot. Ving Rhames and Laurence Fishburne have longer lists of credits than Cruise! Maggie Q as 'Zen' was notable, she held her own in a testosterone filled cast lineup. Hope to see her in more movies.

Don't know what all the fuss is about Tom Cruise, and this being a sinking ship year for him. Last year's offering, "The War Of The Worlds," was a terrible movie. Terrible script. Terrible everything. Don't base your opinion of this Cruise movie from his last one. Mission Impossible III is very, very good. Cruise does an excellent job as lead actor in it.

My only critique of him, is his trademark way of showing intense emotion. By whispering. A. La. William. Shatner. But he does that in every movie.

This movie isn't a dud. I was surprised that it was so good. Go see this movie! The theatre I saw it in had all age demographics sitting there to watch it. There wasn't the usual rude people in there. You know. The ones that gather to: yak about knitting, gossip, answer their business cell phones, or giggle because THAT boy (or girl) was over there. Nor were there any seat kickers. I'm sure the gross ones were there. Their shoes experience: sidewalk spit, dog pooh or gardening manure every week. The same ones that hang them over the seats in front of them. But there was so much action on screen, they didn't keep them up for long. The sign of a good movie.

For the record, I do have adhd. I wasn't cured, but have better days than others. Some things are capable of holding my attention. This movie is one of them. It's action packed, did I mention that?! Don't compare this movie to War Of The Worlds. Nor the idiotic media that have nothing better to do than be legal or illegal Peeping (on) Toms. Remember, those celebrity magazines are made up crap to make money. For the grocery store, distributors and magazine owners. Mission Impossible is a movie worth seeing. Suspend the reality of real life hucksters.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.