Reviews written by registered user
|105 reviews in total|
A lot of people on IMDb like to throw out hyperbole like "worst film
I've ever seen". I've said it before, but if you can point to just one
movie as the worst, you're clearly not watching enough crap. So what
does that mean for The Taking? Well, it's not the worst, but it's
probably in my top 20.
You're no doubt asking yourself "Can it really be that bad?" and surprised that you're concerned what a stranger on the internet thinks. It's not the wooden and unpleasant acting that does it. It's not the painfully bad "special effects". It isn't the complete lack of any comprehensible story. It's not the fact that the movie tries to come off as surreal by using horribly juxtaposed images and grating sound in an attempt to create a tense atmosphere. These things are all certainly true, but it's the way the movie combines these aspects into such a colossal pile of failure that almost has to be seen to be believe. Think I've overstating this? About halfway through the movie I caught myself thinking about what I had to do at work the next day. I was watching a movie, a medium that only exists to take your mind off of your own existence and live vicariously through a character or set of characters, and was thinking about something as mundane as work. I'm not even sure how bad a movie has to be before that takes place because it's never happened to me before.
Seriously, this is garbage.
As of this writing, this film is sitting at a sub-3 star rating.
Seriously? Sure the film's got it's problems, but it's pretty well
written, pretty well acted, and solidly put together. Maybe England is
going through a rash of hooligan films that I'm not aware of and this
was the straw that broke the camel's back? That...or people are just
kind of idiots.
OK, maybe idiots is a harsh term as there's no accounting for taste, but this film actually works pretty well on most levels. It moves along at a good clip, the characters develop well, and the story is though out. My only real gripe is the way the film jumps around between certain scenes. There's a bit of that "three weeks earlier" crap that makes it a bit hard to follow at times. But on the whole I'd say it's at least worth a watch.
I can't help but think back to the Billy Connoly movie "The Man Who
Sued God" based on title alone. But then I realize that his movie was
funny and engaging. This is not. There's something innate about taking
any form of media and making it "Christian" that seems to automatically
make it unpalatable to everyone else. Sure, Christians love it, but
everyone else just sort of laughs or rolls their eyes...often with good
reason. Look no further than Christian rock for examples of this.
But I'm not faulting the movie for that reason. Well, not entirely anyway. The acting is beyond bad and there's nothing worse than having a message crammed down your throat. That is to say I have no problem with movies that contain a message, but make the message subtle...otherwise you just end up with propaganda. Yes yes, I understand the point is to confirm what is already confirmation bias, but do you have to be so blatant about it?
I honestly think this movie fails in 3 ways. First of all, it fails as a source of entertainment that is accessible to a wide variety of people, thereby seriously limiting it's appeal. Second of all it fails as a film promoting a Christian message because all it's doing is pandering to people who already believe, not trying to answer any questions non-believers may have. Third and finally, it just plain fails as a movie. Complain all you want about how everyone giving a bad review is an atheist or "Christian-hater" (whatever the hell that is), but it doesn't change the fact that the movie had a bad script, ridiculous plot, and seriously sub par acting. You do realize that at some point the filmmakers have to take some responsibility for making a bad movie, right?
Man...it's been a long time since I gave something a single star, but
believe me, I'd give this movie less were I given the option. There is
quite literally nothing redeeming about this movie. Let me repeat that:
there is absolutely nothing worthwhile about this movie whatsoever.
I'm not going to complain about the budget. A lot of movies get by on low budgets and do rather well. But this...this movie can't blame the budget. The actors are horribly ill-equipped. The story is garbage. The plot itself jumps around to the point that it becomes laughable.
I try to avoid the hyperbole that so often plagues IMDb reviews. if you can point to one single movie and say "Yep, that's the worst thing I've ever seen", then you clearly haven't seen enough crap. I will say that this would go in my top 5 of crap movies. I was actually mad at myself about halfway through that I was still watching it. Learn from my fail...
As my rating would suggest, I am very nearly in love with this movie.
Horror-comedies can be quite fickle...very often having too many
elements of one and not nearly enough of the other. Sure, you have
movies like Shaun Of The Dead that get it just right, but for every one
of "Shaun" there's about 15 that just don't get it. And now we have
From start to finish you get the impression that someone was trying to get the aforementioned mixture just right. It interweaves 3 different movies (essentially hilarious mockeries of the old grindhouse/midnight drive-in genre) with a story of what takes place in between at the drive-in where they're being shown (think of it as the play within a play from Hamlet). Mocking these types of films is certainly nothing new, but few have gone so over the top while still somehow staying true to the source material. I have to say my favorite segment has to be "The Diary Of Anne Frankenstein" if for no other reason that Joel David Moore's portrayal of Hitler. Watching him make up gibberish that was subtitled as legitimate German had me laughing my ass off.
Gripes? Only minor ones. The movie runs a bit long for this genre. Two solid hours is typically a bit more than you'd expect, but then again it doesn't feel stretched or wasted. I also kind of wished they had put a little more effort into the story of what happens at the drive-in. All in all I would (and already have) recommend it to just about anyone who enjoys a good, albeit sometimes crude, laugh.
I'm really trying to figure out why this movie is currently rated at
7.2. I mean...it's OK. Even as comic book movies go, this is just
silly. I think what floors me the most is that Natalie Portman signed
on to do this. Not that she's above making questionable movies, I
typically see her as a more serious actress. And it's directed by
Kenneth Branagh? Anyone who's seen a Shakespeare movie in the last 20
years has likely seen Branagh's work, so to see him stoop to this level
is pretty disappointing.
While the movie is a bit of fun, I just can't see the point to the whole thing. Yes, I know they have to make it so they can put an Avengers movie together eventually. But the movie just essentially puts Thor on Earth with no powers and...well...that's it. He just sort of hangs out while the main story plays out in Asgard (in what appears to be a giant pipe organ). Worst of all, instead of the movie providing any type of satisfactory ending and giving you the setup for the aforementioned Avengers movie, it sets up a clear sequel. And that to me is just a waste of time since nothing happened here. I don't know...it's a bit of fun in some cases, but overall it's just over the top, silly, and kind of pointless.
While I'm not sure what I expected going into this, I didn't really get
what I was looking for. I think I was hoping for something a bit more
like Hatchet which was a ton of fun and had quite a bit of gore. This
movie feels like it's just a step above a Syfy channel movie. If you've
ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon one of those without
expecting it, you'll know what I mean.
I liked the slight throwback to 80's era movies what with the camping, one-by-one killing, and somewhat gratuitous nudity. Everything else was pretty bland. The creature effects are OK, but not fantastic. The effects in general, really, are just OK. Then there's the suspension of disbelief which is just a bit more than I can handle (aside from the monster stalking the swaps of Louisiana). I won't go into why exactly, but it's just a mess. The movie isn't terrible, but it's certainly not anything that's going on your favorites list.
I full admit I watched this movie for two reasons. First of all, the
last thing I saw Van Damme in was JCVD, and I have to say that I was
more than a bit surprised by the weight and depth of his performance.
Second, I'm a fan of Scott Adkins ever since the last two Undisputed
and Ninja films where he showed that westerners could screen fight just
as well as anyone in martial arts flicks. How does all of that
translate to this movie? Read on.
Assassination Games probably isn't what you expect. It's not a knock down, drag out action movie. In fact the action sequences, while well done, aren't very plentiful. I actually think this may be a good thing. I'm starting to think that if Van Damme would take himself more seriously and stop doing all of the hacky crap he did in the 80s and 90s that he could very well be a well respected actor who just happens to know action movies. While I grew up with movies like Bloodsport and Kickboxer, watching someone mature and actually convey an actual sense of a character is quite rewarding. Here's to hoping that the man can stick with movies that have substance rather than just being some guy who can kick stuff and do the splits.
Man, I hate to parrot what everyone else has said about this movie, but
it's so patently obvious. This film starts so well. It really is very
interesting and holds your attention pretty well. The about two-thirds
of the way in it just totally falls apart. I don't mean the ending is
just kind of weak and gives you the same feeling as when you watched
"Signs"...I mean that it utterly and completely fails to provide any
kind of storyline progress and might as well have just happened in a
Now you may be asking yourself, if you were so inclined, "Can it really be that bad?". You wouldn't think so, but it is. I literally cannot put explain to you how awful this ending ruins the film without giving anything away. A friend of mine actually inquired about the movie, and I gave him my two cents. He decided to watch it anyway, and I got a text later telling me what part of the movie he was at and he had no idea what I was talking about. About 20 minutes later I got another text full of swear words. Yes, it's that bad.
As anyone who's ever tried to make a cake knows, you can have the right
ingredients to make a really awesome cake, but if mixed wrong you can
come out with something a little mediocre. That's kind of how I found
this movie. It has all the right ingredients to make something truly
amazing, but the execution left me wanting more. Don't get me wrong,
it's still a bit of a shot in the arm for some more predictable horror
films. It just also happens that it's hampered with limitations.
The story is very much rooted in the 80's horror mentality: children witness murder of parents, children are sent to orphanage, the one who isn't evil (and is subjected to inexplicable cruel treatment even by his caretakers) is adopted, the evil one tracks down the other later in life while all hell breaks loose. OK, fair enough. You've seen it before, but it's still fun. The kills are fun to watch and the effects are genuinely good for what feels like a movie on a budget. The setting is where I find a lot of fault...it takes place in pretty much one single building. While I often enjoy horror films that employ a sort of claustrophobic setting, in a stalk and slash movie it just seems silly. Basically, you'd just need to leave the damn building for it to end. I was also a bit confused when the movie turned from the aforementioned stalk and slash into sort of a torture movie. The transition kind of makes sense, but I was really hoping to see more of the effects-driven kill scenes.
All in all the movie plays well and keeps up it's pace. But at the end I was left wanting more from it. I imagine if you remove the limitations (many of which I suspect are financial) you'd have a truly great horror movie, not one that's just good. Here's to hoping this movie gets a second chance...or possibly a sequel.
|Page 1 of 11:||          |