Reviews written by registered user
|18 reviews in total|
I don't review a lot, and all of my reviews mention that I am easily
impressed. I like movies like Last Action Hero or similar that tanked
But this one ... this one I gave up on. I can't explain it, it was just bad to watch. You get thrown into a situation, people form bonds instantly, minors are suddenly super detectives and undercover agents ... this movie gives you so many set variables that you feel like you don't need to see anything evolve. I had no connection to anyone, I could not find any humor in it, despite it throwing it in my face. The whole time I thought "what am I watching here??"
I am patient and I am easily pleased, but this movie made me walk out.
I gave it a 10. It's not the best show I've watched, by far. But I find it very refreshing. Ignoring the uber-patriotic crew and the sometimes cheesy dialog and cookie-cutter bravado, the show starts with an interesting setup and follows it through some obstacles. Despite the moments where you have to roll your eyes and say "yeah, they just had to do that" you will find it enjoyable. Mainly because it is a new take on a topic that is all the rage right now. The current real-life Ebola epidemic makes it all the more contemporary. So give it a go. You'll like it. It engages you, it makes you think of a future where this is happening. You'll find yourself wondering, what it is like to be both trapped and in a safe zone on a ship with the ability to defend yourself against adversaries.
27 years ago, Paul Verhoeven created a movie that would forever be one of my favorite movies ever. I was too young back then but watched it a few years after it came out. The sequels were not satisfying, so I was afraid this would end up in the lower IMDb charts. But man was it fun to watch. You have to distance yourself a little from the original and not expect a scene for scene revamp. I think they captured the essence that is RoboCop. They even managed to sneak in a little of that Verhoeven-esque TV-moderation commentary without falling on their noses like countless others before. Kinnaman (never heard of him) is superb, Keaton is great, and Gary Oldman is ... Gary Oldman. There are numerous nods to the original (I was hoping to hear a squealing ED-209) to make us smile. I'm hoping there will be an R-rated Director's cut. But despite being PG-13, it rocks. Go see it!
Call me cliché, but most films that take place in ex-eastern-block
locations are there on budgetary constraints and this directly reflects
on the quality of the movie itself. Not that you need money to make a
good movie. But when you have a Hollywood Star in cheap locations, you
can guess where the money went.
Die Hard is special. It's always been special and has a certain "regular joe in an unregular situation" vibe to it. 1 and 2 were great, 3 was maybe the best of them all, and even 4 was able to capture my interest. I liked that Justin Long and somehow was able to buy the trailer-and- fighterjet scene.
But this one just goes overboard. Maybe I'm senile, but where does his son come in? There was no lead-up to this one, and you just put Bruce Willis in a foreign country, tell the audience "this is a new guy, he's his son" and GO! Wreak Havoc.
It was unbelievable, it was not authentic, it missed (in my eyes) the Die Hard soul and it was not fun to watch. The whole package was lacking.
Worst Bruce Willis movie I've ever watched.
6.2 Stars? Must be good, right? Unfortunately, the movie is totally
below average. It has bad, cliché acting and the usual "cheap plot in a
foreign country with no English-speaking actor anywhere in sight" feel
We all know Jean-Claude, and we love him and keep going to his movies. I find he aged well and is up to the job, but somebody made a mistake when they suggested he star in this film. At no time do you get into the movie, you never identify with anyone, it's all stereotypical and overdone and basically a waste of your time.
Glad I didn't see it in the movies, but I hope Jean-Claude doesn't go the way of Wesley Snipes and keeps doing these sad attempts at meaningful movies.
Painted and done up to be a thoughtful movie with some kind of a
message, it's just a bad, bad mix of "Call of the wild" and "Alive".
A bunch of people survive a plane crash in Alaska and get eaten by wolves.
First of all, you didn't get to know the characters. Sure, they tried, letting you know of childhood memories and loving wives and oh so much that they did wrong in the past ... but you just didn't care. It was just lame and your brain ignored all this which resulted in you not feeling sorry for any of these folks when they died.
And then there are the wolves. Or should I say Wolv-o-sauruses or whatever mutant/prehistoric idea they had when they told the animators to create these beasts. I don't know if you know this, but dogs are descendants of wolves. THink Husky, Malamut, German Shepherd ... that's what wolves are like, only wilder. They're not giants, they're not super-intelligent and feast on yummy human flesh. These beasts were a joke. I think there was one scene where a wolf was lowering its head to bite into a standing man's shoulder ... they were, on occasion, big as a horse. Once killed and skewered and roasted over a fire they shrink to coyote size.
And then there are the scare-you-sh*tless scenes just to make you jump in your seat. Cheap trick which makes this film look even cheaper.
I have no idea why Liam Neeson took on this role. Or rather, I wonder why he's been in rather bad-to-mediocre films these last few times. This one does him no good, you feel a bit sorry for him for stooping down to such a low level.
I'm usually very easy to please so when I say it's bad, it's really bad!
Mr. Neeson has a fantastic voice, though!
First off: I gave this a 9.
Christian Bale in the role of an American bomber pilot with a German background gets shot down over Laos, gets captures, endures captivity and finally escapes.
This film is front to back amazing. You have the adventure, the excitement, the suspense and the action along with superb actors who were so dedicated to their roles that they lost insane amounts of body weight to get that true long-time POW look.
What really tops this movie off for me is the end. It's not cheezy americathegreatestnationontheplanet "propaganda", but an honest "Welcome Back, Dieter" affair. The way Christian Bale shows his emotions, the way his buddies welcome him back, I dare anyone to keep a dry eye. After watching the movie you can really appreciate what goes on in someone's mind when rescue comes. Heart warming. Must see movie.
There are a lot of negative comments here on IMDb, and I think most
negative comments are unjust. It's a fantasy movie. Deal with it. It is
not supposed to be realistic. It sort of reminds me of Adventure films
of the past that awed us. Now we laugh at giant bees and silly stories
of Jules Verne.
I actually liked it quite a bit. Nice way to tie in Jules Verne and his other books, this is a pleasurable movie for anyone who just wants to be entertained. It's worth your money, it'll entertain you, and you'll flinch a few times too. Some of the acting, the dialogue or storytelling is a bit awkward and overdone. Then again this is what you get from a film of this caliber.
Don't knock it, you'll have fun.
Not sure what I think of this. We have a young girl, fresh out of
school, bound to make it in the world take on a Nanny job. She has
anthropological motives, she narrates, and basically studies a certain
lifestyle that's supposed to be common to New York.
Now, I like the way the movie was made like a diary. I like the way they displayed things like in a museum (I forgot the name of those envirosomethings behind glass) and how Annie approached the entire situation almost scientifically. I like the actors, the acting, even though the kid was not convincing. He was a bit wooden, but he was only 6 or 7 years old so it's no disaster.
What really got me thinking is the reason why someone wanted to make a film like this. Is this really the way it is? Dads in important jobs spend no time at home, wives have no education and no jobs and still need Nannies? How screwed up do these children end up to be? I had the urge to punch every single one of those prissy child-producers (not calling them mothers) in that Parent something group. In a way it was a good film, because the characters really looked the part and you really wanted to beat them.
Anyhow, Scarlett is a fine actress and this is a fine film. Think about it, and try to be a good parent.
Honestly, I got up a number of times to cuddle with my kid ... it's
just tragic to watch.
Here we have a fun kid in a loving family, I guess her grades are fine, too. Along comes a man who chats up this girl and poses as a teen, then as a twen, then meets her and seduces her to have sex with him.
What's so great about this film is how it shows us the mindset kids at that age have. How important small things can be, how much they want to be loved, accepted, looked up to by others. We have a bright young girl who's so keen on what some anonymous person in another city thinks of her it makes you cry. Who gives a rat's ass? But obviously, this is what the whole world of high school kids revolves around and we all went through it and tend to forget.
If anything this film taught me to think back. Think back to when I was young, how much things mattered to me. I hope I'll keep this in mind with my son and not ignore meaningless issues that might mean the world to him.
Kudos to all the actors involved. Young Liana Liberato is a star, and the scene when it finally dawns on her what happened is heart wrenching. I've loved Clive Owen ever since he made Madonna pee herself (BMW films) and here he's not his usual cool but someone you identify with.
This film is a must-see, but you have to be in the right mood to watch it. It's a sensible subject, and if you're not in the mindset, put it away and watch it when you feel like you can tackle a thinker. And feel free to give in to your emotions.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |