Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
20 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

The flashbacks were why this rated so low., 18 January 2016

This is a good movie. Yet why does it get around an average of a 5 rating? Well, I know why.

It wasn't actually the story, it wasn't the actors, it wasn't the direction, it was Atom Yeghoyan's editing.

This guy must be a big fan of Pulp Fiction. For reasons beyond my understanding he did the first 30 minutes with flashbacks, worse, there was no real indication of flashbacks are happening. You spent the first 2 to 3 minutes trying to work out what the frack was going on in a scene and then you realised it is a flashback. AND it didn't help that though it was 8 years apart, none of the actors looked any different ie hairstyles, clothing etc. Speedman owned and wore the same Jacket for 8 years?

So you spend the first 30 minutes confused and instead of, I think, Yeghoyan's intention of making his audience focused on the plot, they merely become frustrated. Only after you get past the 30 minute mark does he stop this silly narrative. If he had shown it chronologically with a screen note like the Hanks Movie, Castaway, stating, "8 years later", he may have got a gasp from his audience and some sympathy for his main characters and lifted the emotions of his audience. Yet his editing only confused and alienated the viewers. My wife wanted to change the channel, but I convinced her to persevere.

I would imagine a lot of viewers would have found the whole experience just confusing. The flashbacks were why this rated so low. Atom, just tell the story. Stay away from the trendy narratives. If he had done that, the movie would have made a 7 or even an 8.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Pretty film but average, 12 July 2015

It is hard to pinpoint exactly why this movie at the end feels _ _ _ .

The movie is visually beautiful. The back story is very deep and as some others have written very topical. Big uncaring corporations against the message, people matter. The cast adequate, the main story was by the numbers.

Girl in danger, hero to protect her, bad guy never gets the upper hand, girl and hero fall in love, happy ever after.

Well its Sleeping Beauty, the Disney Version not the atrocious Maleficent.

If you check out the score of movies high on effects, Transformers, GI Joe etc, they actually score the same. Yet this actually was better than those by the numbers actioners.

So what is wrong? Well I watch the extra's on the Bluray and one of the reasons maybe that Lana Wachowski was too close to the subject matter. She was so in love with the project she failed to see they were making an average film, it may have been better to have the movie edited by someone else.

Another reason, I think was the selection of 2 of the cast.

Mila Kunis? Really they need someone with more of a screen presence and dare I say it, real experience with comic delivery. The character needed to be world wise, gutsy and funny. Mila / Jupiter just accepted the situation. The character would have been better if the audience actually liked her.

Eddie Redmayne??? What the frack was up with that. Did he know he was up for an Oscar so on set he had the power to do his character HIS way or was he pushed into the silly performance. It was only at the end did his character have any balls, the rest of the time he was this effeminate soft spoken boy. Soft spoken? A couple of times I was waiting for his minions to ask him to speak up. There was no violence in his delivery as supposed feared royal.

Finally it needed comic relief, maybe a few wisecracks would have helped. They tried it when Jupiter was trying to register as a royal, but the whole thing fell flat. I saw Terminator Gensys on the same weekend, the humour lifted that to be a good movie.

They needed to pass the script to Joss Whedon for a humour tune up before filming.

In the end it was a pretty film but average.

35 out of 72 people found the following review useful:
Sony give Spiderman back to Marvel., 19 April 2014

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a classic case for why Sony should return the rights to Spider-Man back to Marvel.

When Marvel do a movie with their list of characters they do it with a reverence to their comic based history. Marvel do so with a respect to the product, they care. Happily this reverence for them has made money.

Sony, well they are in it for the money. Spider-Man 2 is the movie for the Suits. If Marvel had allowed the Hollywood Executives (the Suits) control to their library you would get the super hero genre dead after 2 movies.

You can compare Captain America Winter Soldier with The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

CAWS, was an intelligently written high intense super hero action movie.

TASM2, was a romantic, lets talk about our feelings super hero action movie.

I can imagine the Suits all sitting around at the Spider-Man 2 pitch. "Marvel is doing so well, our answer is the super hero movie with the emotionally challenged lead character with some kick ass action!" The suits would look at the movie Pitcher and say "WHAT?"

"It's Spider-Man meets the Twilight Saga, that is sure to make money Yeah"

Give me a break. These are the guys that ruin things. Do not get me started on J.J. Abrams and what they did to Star Trek and what they are going to do to Star Wars.

Sony give Spider-Man back to Marvel, they can and do a lot better than your clichéd attempts.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
This movie is what it is "an Actioner" and I enjoyed it., 1 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is what it is "an Actioner" and I enjoyed it. It tried no pretense to be more than what it was. Just some old fashion blow them all up, wave the flag, the good guys were the good guys and the bad guys were _ _ well bad.

When old Gerard starting killing the evil doers you were happy cause they deserved it. Just to make sure they were bad, the bad guys killed a lot of civilians at the start and tortured defenseless women in the middle.

My only complaint, the Cerberus plot. Oh come on don't these script writers think it through? The Cerberus system was a failsafe to prevent nuclear war at the last minute, be it from rogue presidents or any other situation. Yet to initiate the system you need 3 codes from the 3 government executives including the president?? But not. the Vice-President or the Speaker of the House , the next 2 in line. Because as the Speaker of the House states "only 3 people in the government have the access. The Cerberus system is only useful for Terrorists who take the President and those particular officials hostage.

Oh Wait that's what happen. Stupid plot device.

Oblivion (2013/I)
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
At last, a thinking mans science fiction., 28 April 2013

I was going to wait for this movie to go to DVD (That is what I did for Looper). But my father who is 78 went to see it and called me and said I should see it straight away. My Dad has 2 movies he marks all Sci-Fi against, Alien and Blade Runner. To my surprise he said that he now has 3, Oblivon. I was in shock, my father is a very harsh critic and he is not a Tom Cruise fan at all. He doesn't like Super Hero movies and he thought Joss Whedon's Serenity was OK and Star Wars, he thinks is silly.

So off I went with the wife to see Oblivion and he was right. Now, I don't mind Tom Cruise, but really in a lot of movies he plays the same type of character and in Oblivion, his Jack could have been Nathan Algren (Last Samurai) or John Anderton(Minority Report) etc. But in reality that is who Jack was. The questioning main character who doesn't just accept things as they are, he questions.

Joseph Kosinski, the director was impressive, the actors especially Andrea Riseborough, were near perfect and the script? Get the Sci-Fi channel writers to watch this to see how it is done right. No cookie cutter plot here. A real science fiction plot, not sci-fi but science fiction, up there with Forbidden Planet and 2001.

Why some people give the movie a low rating is beyond me. But after reading the Hated It section I believe that there is no pleasing some people.

What more can I say other than see it fast before the office buffoon or some TV critic gives away the great plot.

Iron Man 3 (2013)
11 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
Three, I was hoping., 24 April 2013

OK, Number three? Well One was great, Two not so much, Three, I was hoping.

And I had hope, lets face it, its still got Robert Downey Jr.and importantly its now got Shane Black, one of the most under appreciated writer directors around. In my view his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang also with Downey Jr. is one of the best films of the 00's.

So with a hope and prayer I sat down in the cinema AND!!!

Man was I impressed. Somebody grab all the studio executives and hack directors show them this movie and say "This is how you make a Sequel". And boy they need to be shown. I hope J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman see this movie.

Usually by THREE they get lazy and it's the safe same old same old and usually with a less budget. But not Ironman Three. Three is the key word here, I always say there are 3 pillars a movie stands on, the actors, the director and the script and here they get all 3 spot on.

The actors, whoo, Ben Kingsley and of course RDJ, the director, impressive and the script? My God, the director and writers who actually think the audience is intelligent! Yes Michael Bray, look shocked with this radical concept, the general public want more than "look she go boom!"

Plot Holes? There ain't none. Yes Orci, it can be done. At last a story that is original, humor in the right places and real plot surprises. See it soon and enjoy a movie that respects its audience and does not think we are all 12 year olds. Yes I am talking to you JJ.

Total Recall (2012/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Grown up on mediocre television., 22 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have always wondered how studios can spend so much money on a film yet come up with average. I have pondered this for a while and I think it all relates back to the script writers and the studio executives who have grown up on mediocre television, devoid of a artistic soul and who never read a book in their lives.

OK, Total Recall is an Actioner. I understand that its not meant to be Shakespeare. The cast was good, the director great, the special effects top notch, the script?? The script was paint by the numbers. I bet you, the script writers watched the Arnie movie and didn't bother to read the short story by Philip K Dick. In fact,considering the level of sophistication of the movie, they probably looked at the cover and giggled at the authors name and that was it.

If they had read the original story, the whole premise is that Quaid is unsure what is reality and what is not. AND in fact the Movie's poster infers this is the central issue. "IS IT REAL IS IT RECALL" Well straight of the bat, the dream at the start blows that idea out of the water. The only time Quaid questions reality is when his friend Harry turns up at the standoff and he pretty much decides which was which. At the end he glances at the REKALL sign, but again shakes it off.

Look I enjoyed it for shallow actioner it was. But it could have been another INCEPTION, where at the end the audience has to decide "IS IT REAL IS IT RECALL" . It would have lifted the movie from mediocrity to interesting. Maybe the studios are really aiming to the lowest common denominator and have no faith in the sophistication of their audience.

The Grey (2011)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Dumb script by lazy writer, 5 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If not for Neeson, this movie would be "absolute rubbish, but with his being in the movie it moved it up to "rubbish". The problem? The script!! The script writer, Joe Carnahan is also the director, so its all his fault. This guy must be some studio hack, who writes a script without any research into his subject.

The actors were great, they tried to bring some seriousness to this boys own adventure but the problem is you sit there screaming at the screen "You dumb sh#ts don't do that".

As others have stated Neeson's character as a survival expert was woeful, he did and advised others everything that would kill them. The ex-con in the group had the right idea about Ottways(Neeson's) skills and that was, they were stupid.

God help anyone who uses this movie as a reference for survival training. Its what not to do in the snow. Anyone with exception of the script writer will tell you the most important thing in snow country is shelter. They had the plane for shelter, they had stuff to burn, they had metal to make weapons.

Food? Well good luck to the wolves that would try and attack a fortified shelter or the survivors could have trapped them using the dead bodies as bait for guess what, FOOD. Wolf meat you can eat and after the wolves lost a few of the pack I guarantee they would start to stay away.

Finally the survivors were a 1000 miles from nowhere, you cannot walk out, better to stay with the plane, make a signal fire and wait for rescue. You could last for months and not die in days following some suicidal fool hunter who has no idea. Next time Joe, study the subject don't insult us.

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Hey I love this show., 25 April 2012

Yes it is a Zombie soap opera and yes there are often more talk than zombies, but lets face it, they are trying to avoid the walking dead. I enjoy the tension within the group that makes the show, the zombies are imitator of the drama, not the protagonists. If they made the show with zombies as the central point it would not last the 1st season. I have noted most reviewers who hate this show are die hard zombie freaks.

But they miss the point, its not about the dead, its about the living and what you must do to survive while holding onto your humanity and civilization. My only complaint is that the writers DO make the characters make a lot irrational decisions to create tension.

So here is my hints to the writers to improve the series and help their characters survive.

1. When going into a unknown building, room or area , have your character yell out loudly "You there Zom!", before they walk in. That way no walking dead will come out from behind the door they always forget to look behind.

2. Big tip, we know the character can only see what is in front of them, but get them to look left and right AND especially behind a lot more. The walking dead ALWAYS come from behind apparently.

3. When you drive into a new town and you are not sure where the walkers are. Sound your damn car horn. Don't park a long way down the street, making no noise, walk into a house make some noise and then realize "OH the town is full of walkers!!?" 4. Fortify your living area. This is not happy holidays. Set up trip alarms, create barriers to slow walkers down. When you are staying in a house with porches all around, don't just board up the windows, put up a fence further out, that way the walkers can be eliminated easily.

5. And finally, when one of your characters comments that the ammo is low, its time to scavenge for some more and not go and just get baby formula.

Like I said I love the show and feel the tension, but please writers save my couch from a beating when I hit the arm rest when a character makes another dangerous stupid decision. It would get a 9 out 10 instead of 7 from me except for this flaw.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
It wasn't that bad, I liked it, 4 April 2012

I saw this on cable the other night. C'mon give the movie a break, it wasn't that bad. This is not Shakespeare; it's a Vampire movie, for Pete's sake. It's not after the Oscar, its entertainment. Sometimes a lot of the User commentators lose sight of what some movies are about.

An example of this is a review of Santa Clause 2, where one guy wrote 'The North Pole was a very distracting, annoying place to be. It seemed so far from reality'. Well I don't want to spoil his Xmas but Santa isn't reality. It was a MOVIE! Dracula 2000 was a lot better than the old Hammer movies or in fact a lot better than a lot of other Vampire moves. If you could ever do an original story on Vampires, this was close. I mean, what is in a Vampire script. Spooky guy/girl gets out of coffin, kills people (usually girls with great bodies) another guy/girl tries to kill them before they kill again. Oh and I forgot the part about the heroine is a reincarnation of the Vamps long lost love. (See Blacula, Fright Night, Dracula 1992 etc etc) Dracula 2000 was more original. At least he had a real reason for wanting the Heroine (his blood, her blood) and his origin was an interesting concept, better than Coppola's, which I still find confusing. This was never going to be An Interview with a Vampire, but it was a hell of a lot better than Queen of the Damned. If you like Vampire movies this should be on your viewing list.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]