Reviews

266 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Batman (1989)
8/10
A stylistically great comic book film
23 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The criminals of Gotham City are running scared due to sightings of a 6 foot bat creature that has been stalking the city for the past month. The police don't believe the sightings to be legitimate. Little do they know that billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne spends his evenings as Batman, a vigilante that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. Meanwhile, Gotham's District Attourney Harvey Dent and the police force are working to bring down crime boss Carl Grissom, and Grissom's right hand man Jack Napier is given the job of covering up criminal activity in a chemical processing plant. During a confrontation with Batman, Napier falls into a vat of chemicals and emerges as a psychotic villain known as The Joker. When the Joker begins poisoning Gotham's citizens with tampered hygiene products, Batman must come out of the shadows and try to stop the Joker once and for all.

Batman is an example of a comic book movie done right. Tim Burton is able to balance his style with the style of the Batman comic books in order to create a unique and entertaining film. Burton creates a dark and Gothic world for Batman to operate in, and as a result makes the character darker, as he should be. Everything Tim Burton has done with this film fits so well. The way Gotham City looks is genius. The buildings are warped and decaying, and the weather is almost always gloomy, as if the city is reflecting the criminal element within. Bruce Wayne is a brooding and serious man, though he does show glimmers of a lighter side. Michael Keaton, though not really looking the part, plays the part very well, creating a menacing, gravelly voice for the Batman persona that would come to be used by most actors to play Batman in the future. Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker is a fine piece of acting. He plays the character as a mix between the sadistic and murderous Joker of the 70s and 80s and the goofy prankster of the 50s and 60s. Danny Elfman's score is perfect for the tone of the film and gives the movie an epic quality. I really enjoyed some of the story elements such as starting the film a month into Batman's crime fighting career, before anyone knows he really exists. It's really interesting to hear the criminals and police force of Gotham talking about Batman as a supernatural urban myth.

Despite all the great qualities this film has, it does leave some things to be desired. When it comes to the character of the Joker, there were things I felt could have been done better. I felt that even though Jack Nicholson gave a great performance, there was too much of Jack Nicholson in the Joker. He didn't really change himself all that much. The Joker in the comics has no name, no identity, and can't remember who he was before he was the Joker. In this film he is just a mobster with a disfigurement, and he knows exactly who he is, and he doesn't really change from before his origin to after. I felt that the flashback showing the Joker as the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents was an unnecessary change from the comics that was just thrown in to make the final fight more personal. I felt that the relationship between Batman and Commissioner Gordon could have been explored more. Commissioner Gordon barely had anything to do in this film, and he's supposed to be a big part of the Batman mythology.

Overall, this is a vastly entertaining comic book film, and is a great movie in itself as well.

8/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great performances, but nothing to work with.
23 November 2008
Righteous Kill tells the story of two veteran New York City homicide detectives who have been partners for 30 years. When one of them oversteps the bounds of the law, the other covers it up. Now they are on the trail of a serial killer who is killing known criminals, and when they figure out that the killer knows things that only a cop would know, tensions begin to rise as the two detectives deal with the fact that the killer may be much closer to them than they think.

Obviously one of the greatest acting partnerships ever put on screen would have to be the combination of Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. This is the third time the pair have been in a movie together. Unfortunately in The Godfather Part II they were in two separate stories and never shared screen time. In Michael Mann's crime masterpiece Heat, they finally appeared together, but many including myself feel that the coffee shop meeting was very anti-climatic. Now here they are together, finally on screen together through the majority of the film. Their on screen chemistry is great, and their performances are good. As a matter of fact, all the performances in this movie are good save for the mediocre acting of Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson. The best part of this movie are watching these two acting legends work together. There's a good line of dialogue here and there, and the twist at the end of the film, though predictable, is well executed.

The bad news is that this film as a whole is incredibly weak. It offers nothing new, nothing noteworthy to give it praise for. I think DeNiro and Pacino could have picked something much better to appear in. As a cop movie, I had seen it all before. The movie isn't exciting in the slightest. It has a very basic plot, like a direct to video film or an episode of a crime TV show. I didn't believe the relationship between DeNiro and Carla Guigino's characters. DeNiro is in his mid-sixties, he shouldn't be having relationships with women in their thirties. I was able to partially enjoy the film due to the acting and the few good lines that were sprinkled throughout, but the script was written very badly for the most part, and the movie left my mind half an hour after leaving the theatre. This had the potential to be so much more.

5/10
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
W. (I) (2008)
7/10
A surprisingly fair Oliver Stone film
23 November 2008
W. tells the story of how George W. Bush started off as a wild party animal in college who couldn't hold down a job and was considered the black sheep of his family and eventually went on to become the leader of the most powerful country in the world. The movie cuts back and forth between scenes of President Bush and his administration planning the Iraq war to scenes of young Bush trying to impress his father but failing all the time.

When I first heard that this film was being made, I had an idea what it would be like. I figured since Oliver Stone was directing it, it would be a scathing character attack on George W. Bush that would make him out to be the most idiotic man ever to walk the planet. I figured it would portray ridiculous conspiracy theories as fact, such as claiming Bush planned 9/11. However, what I got when I watched the film was a surprisingly fair look at George W. Bush's life. In fact, Stone even managed to make him look a little less of an idiot than some people think he is. The film shows that Bush's only problem is that he can't really throw a sentence together properly. It also shows that in planning the Iraq war, he was simply acting on the advice of his administration who told him that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that controlling the oil in Iraq would be beneficial for the USA. There's a scene I loved where Bush actually gets angry that they're not finding any weapons and demands to know who's in charge of the operation, but nobody seems to know anything. I really enjoyed how the film didn't run in order, it jumped back and forth between showing Bush as the president to showing Bush as a reckless college student and starting out as a struggling politician. I found the film very interesting to watch. Every performance in the film was top notch. Josh Brolin did a very good job with Bush by actually acting the role and not just impersonating. Every other performance was just as fun to watch though.

The only problem I had with this film is that it seemed very low key compared to other Stone films such as JFK or Nixon. That could be because he kept it fair and kept the conspiracy theories and personal opinion out of it. I just don't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I don't think it's going to be a movie that's remembered through the years. It's a movie that's kind of just there, I watched it, I enjoyed it, now I'll move on. It was interesting and definitely worth one viewing, but it has no staying power with me.

7/10
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the best James Bond adventures.
23 November 2008
After the death of Dr. No at the hands of James Bond, the evil SPECTRE organization devises a plan for revenge by baiting the British secret service with a decoding device called the Lektor that they've wanted to get their hands on for a long time. Knowing full well that they're being lead into a trap, they send James Bond to meet up with a defecting Russian agent named Tania Romanova. As James Bond searches for the Lektor he must fight off SPECTRE agents who are trying to kill him at every turn.

Once again, just like Dr. No, this is a James Bond film that shows how James Bond should be. Once again the film focuses more on plot than action, and keeps the one liners and over the top comedic scenes to a minimum. Connery once again plays Bond to perfection, portraying him as a ruthless secret agent with nothing on his mind but getting the job done. The plot to this film is much more exciting than Dr. No, and offers a few more exciting action sequences, so the movie doesn't drag as much. In this film we are introduced to Q branch, and James Bond receives his first real gadget. A briefcase that shoots bullets, contains a collapsible sniper rifle, and sprays tear gas if opened by anyone except Bond. We are also introduced to Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the head of the evil SPECTRE organization, though we don't see his face. This film also includes one of the most exciting hand-to-hand combat sequences in a Bond movie when James Bond fights SPECTRE agent Red Grant, played menacingly by Robert Shaw, on board a train.

Even though this film drags less than Dr. No, some parts do drag slightly, but not enough to turn you off of the film. One thing this film lacks is a discernible villain. Bond only fights two SPECTRE agents while Blofeld sits on the sidelines through all of the film. This doesn't hurt the movie, but it leaves it quite open ended. Overall, a very good sequel and one of the best entries into the James Bond franchise.

8/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dr. No (1962)
8/10
A great start to an amazing franchise.
22 November 2008
Dr. No is the first film in the long running James Bond 007 franchise. In this film we are introduced to James Bond, a British secret agent with a license to kill. When an agent named John Strangways and his secretary are killed while stationed in Jamaica, Bond is sent there to investigate. He meets up with a CIA agent named Felix Leiter who helps him in his investigation, which leads them to a small island owned by a mysterious man named Dr. No. Bond suspects that Dr. No's activities on the island are criminal and may have something to do with the Strangways' disappearance. He and a local fisherman named Quarrel take a boat to Dr. No's island where they come across a local girl named Honey Ryder. They are captured and taken to Dr. No's lair, where Dr. No reveals he is working for SPECTRE, an organization bent on world domination. Now it's up to Bond to stop Dr. No in his tracks.

When you watch this film, it seems so simple compared to what the series turned into down the line. This movie, while not my favourite Bond film, is a prime example of what a James Bond film should be. Bond doesn't use any gadgets in this film at all. He relies on his skill and his intelligence to get the mission done. Sean Connery plays the role perfectly, giving us a James Bond that has a sense of humour, but not too over the top with ridiculous one liners, and at the same time completely ruthless and deadly serious about his job. The film plays more on the espionage side of Bond's work rather than taking up too much time with ridiculous action sequences, and when the fight scenes and the climatic final action sequence do happen, they're exciting and not too over the top. One of my favourite moments in this film is when James Bond is sitting in a chair and he shoots a would be assassin twice, without any expression on his face. To me this says everything about who James Bond is and how he does his job.

Now, I have to admit that even though I praise this film for being more about the espionage and less about the action, I do feel there could be more of a balance. If you're not in the mood this film can drag a little bit. I got 40 minutes into the movie and felt like it had to be halfway through, even though I was enjoying it. Also, Dr. No isn't the best Bond villain. He may have robotic hands capable of crushing a bronze statuette, but his first appearance isn't as menacing as it could be, his plan isn't really explained that well and his motives are weak, and his end is a little anti-climatic. All in all this is a good start to a franchise that would have its ups and downs over the years.

8/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Max Payne (2008)
7/10
Ignore the game, enjoy the movie.
21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Max Payne tells the story of a former New York City homicide detective whose wife and baby daughter were killed by a gang of drug addicts. He now works a desk job in the cold case department, hoping to uncover a lead that might lead him to catch his family's killers. Without the knowledge of his superiors, he goes out every night tracking leads and interrogating suspects. His investigation leads him to an underground drug circle that is using a new drug called Valkyr that gives its users frightening hallucinations, sometimes driving them to suicide. He discovers the drug may have something to do with his family's death and he begins tracing it to the source, uncovering a conspiracy in a corporation his wife used to work for.

If you played the Max Payne video game and thought the story and action sequences were amazing, and you now want to see this movie in hopes of getting a similar story, you're going to be disappointed, that's a fact. The way I was able to enjoy this film was by not comparing it to the game, and just viewing it as a fun cop movie staring Mark Whalberg. I know that can be hard because there's certain things from the game you want to see translated, and when they're missing you get a little annoyed. I just reminded myself, "This isn't the game. This is a movie." I felt there was enough of the game in this film to keep me from being turned off. The tone of the game was well portrayed in the tone of the film. The darkness, both figuratively and literally, the constant blizzard, a lot of the characters. The settings in the film were almost dead on, which was impressive. A few bullet time sequences were even put in, one being the very cool scene shown in the trailer where Max Payne fires a shotgun while diving backwards. I was also glad that the trailer mislead us into thinking the Valkyries in the film were real and then surprised us by revealing them to be hallucination.

I mostly enjoyed this film as a fun action film that I could enjoy on a Friday night. The performances in the film are good, and so are the visuals. The dialogue and the story aren't as good as they could have been, and that was slightly disappointing, so that keeps this from being a great film noir cop movie. However, in an age where video game movies can't even get the basics right, and are basically God awful, this can claim to be one of the better video game adaptations. This film is flawed, but if you don't try to compare it to the game it can be an enjoyable watch.

7/10
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A few things missing, but overall a good entry to the series.
21 November 2008
In this direct follow up to Casino Royale, British secret agent James Bond embarks on a mission to take down the mysterious organization that Le Chiffre was working for, and also blackmailed Vesper Lynd into betraying Bond. Bond's new target is Dominic Greene, a proclaimed environmentalist with a crooked plan to buy up Bolivia's water supply before staging a coup d'etat. Bond maintains that he is simply fulfilling his duty, but M knows that he is acting purely out of vengeance for Vesper's death. Quantum of Solace is an action packed film, and definitely an enjoyable watch. It succeeds in taking James Bond in an entirely new direction, however there are certain things missing that could have made it that much better.

Despite what some movie critics and classic Bond purists will tell you, this is a very good James Bond film. Casino Royale was a reboot, and in rebooting the franchise, the makers of these films are trying to take the series in a new and more refreshing direction. Daniel Craig's James Bond is the coldest, most ruthless killing machine on the British secret service, just as he is described in Ian Fleming's novels. However, despite seeming almost robotic when he's doing what he needs to do, Daniel Craig is able to play Bond's more human side as well. Action scenes aren't so easy for Bond to get through anymore. He can miss his mark when he's making a jump, he can slip and fall, he can get hurt. What makes it better is that when he gets up and keeps going, you can see that he's in pain but he's fighting past it. He's also more human on an emotional level. There is a scene where he's sitting at a bar, drunk out of his mind, and staring at a picture of Vesper with a look of absolute heartbreak on his face. I think this is the most distraught I've seen Bond over a woman's death since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I enjoyed how Bond made his way through this entire film without having to use any sort of special gadget. While Bond's gadgets are a trademark, I think this new take on the series is trying more for a sense of realism. I also think it makes James Bond seem much more capable when he's using his own strength and intelligence to get out of situations. I also enjoyed Dominic Greene, the main villain of this film. He was unlike any main villain I've seen in a James Bond film before. He was a small, meek looking man that only had his power to wield as a weapon, unlike most of the villains who appear menacing due to some trait like being mountainous in size, having a vicious scar or a bleeding eye. When he finally has to fight Bond, he is actually terrified out of his wits, blindly swinging an axe praying that he will hit Bond before Bond hits him, because he knows if that happens he'll be done for.

Now, as I said, this is in no way a bad James Bond film. It's taking the series in a great new direction. However, as a fan of the series overall, there are some things that I missed that I think should make a return. First of all, missing characters. While I don't feel it's completely necessary to bring Q back just yet, I think the famous M's secretary Miss Moneypenny should make a return soon. The scenes between Moneypenny and Bond are always a small highlight to the films, just to see how many smooth and flattering ways Bond can reject this poor woman. Secondly, while I do think that James Bond should be a more serious character than he has been in the past, I don't think it's necessary for his humour to disappear completely. I think the odd pun or one liner should be allowed to pop up here and there, and Quantum was completely devoid. The third problem I had with the film was that it seemed far too rushed, and the story wasn't all that fleshed out. I felt like this film was serving as filler material until the next film in the series when Bond will undoubtedly take the evil organization down. Also, I want the series to return to the format where each movie is disconnected from the last. And finally just a few nitpicks. The gun barrel sequence needs to be at the beginning of the movie. I felt like it was put at the end only to be different. Also, though the opening credits sequence was classic James Bond, the song could have been much better.

7/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween (2007)
6/10
Completely unnecessary remake.
2 September 2007
Rob Zombie's Halloween is a remake of the 1978 John Carpenter classic. The latest in a slew of horror remakes, and the first remake that has ever really angered me before I even saw it, simply because Halloween was not a movie that needed to be remade. This version delves deeper into the background of Michael Myers, taking away any mystery or intrigue behind the character. We are immediately thrust into his abusive home life with his stripper mother, her white trash boyfriend, and his rude sister. In fact, the only one Michael seems to love is his baby sister Laurie. After a scene filled with some pretty colourful curse words, we see Michael at school where he's bullied. On Halloween night, Michael brutally slaughters everyone in the house and is sent to a mental hospital. He's there 17 years when he breaks out and heads back home to hunt down his little sister, while his psychiatrist, Dr. Loomis, is hot on his trail. Unfortunately, too much time was spent on Michael as a child to get any real story in as an adult.

I'll start with the bad. Rob Zombie made some bad mistakes in the concept of this film. He took everything that was creepy and mysterious about the first film and made it clichéd and boring in his version. What made Michael so frightening in the original was that he was more of an entity than a man. He was evil incarnate. He had no reason and no motive for doing what he did. In this film, Rob Zombie gives him the typical serial killer childhood. He lived in a white trash family and was abused a lot. But Zombie lays it on thick, and it goes way over the top and ends up becoming ridiculous. Another problem is that far too much time is spent on Michael as a child, so when Michael becomes an adult and begins going after Laurie Strode, there is barely any time left for character development, suspense, build-up, or anything important like that. Sheriff Brackett's role is shrunken down due to this and this leaves very little time for Loomis and Brackett to hunt for Michael. Basically as soon as Loomis contacts Brackett, they're on their way to take Michael down. Loomis doesn't seem as sure in this movie that Michael is pure evil. In this movie he seems to think that Michael is just a normal psychopath on the loose that needs to be taken back into custody, which is actually what Michael is. He's not a supernatural force in this film. He's just a man. The reason he can do all the things he did in the original is because in this film he's 6'8 with muscles on top of muscles. The death scenes are far more brutal in this film and for the most part unnecessary. People died in this movie that didn't need to die, and shouldn't have. Also, I didn't like how Michael was a vicious killing machine through the whole film that killed people that didn't need to die or deserve to, yet when he reaches Laurie, all he wants from her is some sisterly love. What is that? She should be his main target, but no, Rob Zombie thought it would be better if Michael only wanted to reunite with her. And let's talk about plot holes. How does a 10 year old kid being fed hospital food for 17 years and doing nothing but make papier mache masks in his room grow into a 6'8 mass of muscle? How did he hide the mask and knife as a 10 year old, considering he had to punch through floor boards to retrieve them as an adult? And the dialogue! The dialogue between the three girls is sad. It was obvious this script was written by someone who has no idea how the minds of 17 year old girls work.

Now onto the good. Once Michael gets the mask on, it becomes more faithful to the original. If only Rob Zombie had kept the same formula as the original (having Michael as a kid for 5 minutes and then having suspense and build up for the rest of the movie), while still putting his own spin on it, it would have been a much better film. Quite a few scenes made me happy that Zombie included them, such as Laurie seeing Michael watching her from the school as well as on the street, Michael tilting his head after he's pinned Bob to the wall, Laurie asking if Michael was, in fact, the bogeyman. And there's a few more. Keeping John Carpenter's original score was a smart move, as it made certain scenes more reminiscent of the original.

As for acting, Malcolm MacDowell does a fairly good job as the new Dr. Loomis though he couldn't hope to top Donald Pleasence. Scout Taylor-Compton actually did a really good job as Laurie Strode. She filled Jamie Lee Curtis' shoes nicely. Tyler Mane made a good Michael Myers, though I guess it's not the hardest role to play. To the other leads in the film, sorry. Better luck next time.

Overall, the movie destroys the feel of the original, makes a mockery out of Michael Myers, and feels too rushed, however...It does become entertaining and a little more faithful once Laurie enters the story, and that saves the film.

5.5/10
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Die Hard 2 (1990)
7/10
Good entry into the franchise.
1 August 2007
Die Hard 2 picks up two years after the first film. John McClane is back with his wife after moving to Los Angeles and transferring to the LAPD, and now they're in Washington visiting her parents during Christmas. McClane is at the airport to meet his wife's plane when a group of American terrorists take control and refuse to let any planes land, including the one carrying his wife. Once again out of his jurisdiction and facing an incompetent airport police captain, John McClane finds he's the only one willing to do anything about the situation, and he sets out to save his wife along with hundreds of other people. Die Hard 2 is a good follow-up to the first film.

Die Hard 2 takes much of the same awesome action sequences and plot devices and moves it from an office building to an airport, adding some new twists and turns along the way. John McClane continues to be an everyman type of hero that's easy to like. He's fast talking, funny, and he gets the job done. The supporting characters in this movie prove to be awesome allies to McClane or huge pains in the ass, which is fun to watch. The humour in this movie is just as hilarious as the first film, keeping you laughing between all of the explosions. The only problems that I really have for Die Hard 2, though minor, are that some of the action scenes are a little more unbelievable this time around, and the main villain in this film, though really rotten, isn't as exciting as Hans Gruber from the first film. These two minor problems don't really effect the enjoyment of the movie though.

The acting is still great. Bruce Willis does just as well in this film as John McClane. Dennis Franz is good as the headstrong airport police captain who doesn't think he needs McClane's help. William Sadler is good as the American soldier turned terrorist that McClane must stop.

Overall, Die Hard 2 is an awesome sequel to an equally awesome film.

7.5/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Die Hard (1988)
8/10
The ultimate action film.
28 June 2007
Die Hard tells the story of a New York City detective named John McClane who is separated from his wife. She invites him to a Christmas party at her office building in Los Angeles, and he decides to go to work things out. Once there, a group of German terrorists come in and take hostages with the intent of stealing millions of dollars in bonds. McClane manages to escape and begins to fight the terrorists one by one to save the people in the building.

Die Hard is a classic film because it completely revolutionized action films. The 80s were a time of unrealistic action sequences, predictable characters, and rudimentary plots. Die Hard changed all that. Die Hard takes place in a real world setting, or at least about as real as you can get with an action movie, so the action sequences, while insane, are slightly believable. The plot of the movie is simple, yet it's so brilliant at the same time. And the characters in this movie are engaging and a lot of fun to watch. John McClane is a really likable everyman kind of guy, we can all relate to him. Hans Gruber is an awesome villain, both cold and ruthless, yet very human. The supporting characters on the outside of the building are all great as well. Another great thing about Die Hard is that even though it's a hardcore action movie, it manages to be extremely funny at some parts, almost to a point of being able to call it a comedy. This makes the movie really easy to watch over and over again. There's really nothing wrong with this movie whatsoever in any department.

The acting is great. Bruce Willis is hilarious and hardcore as John McClane, and he portrays the adrenaline and the frustration of the situation very well. Alan Rickman is awesome in one of his earlier roles as the main villain Hans Gruber. Reginald VelJohnson is enjoyable as McClane's outside contact Officer Al Powell, and Paul Gleason is funny as a hardheaded and incompetent deputy chief of police.

Overall, Die Hard is the ultimate action film because it's fast, funny, and hardcore. It also gave us one of the most famous action movie one liners of all time...You know the one.

8/10
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
7/10
An amazing end to the trilogy.
7 May 2007
When Spider-Man 3 begins, everything is going great for Peter Parker. New York finally loves and supports Spider-Man, he's doing great in school, and his relationship with Mary Jane couldn't be better. In fact, he's going to pop the question. Unfortunately, things start happening that get in the way of Peter's plans. Harry Osborn returns as the New Goblin and tries to kill him, he finds out that a new villain called the Sandman is his uncle's actual killer, and a strange alien creature takes the form of a black costume and tries to possess him. The alien begins to make Peter more aggressive as his new found fame goes to his head, making him cocky. Finally, Peter realizes that something is wrong, and he gets rid of the strange substance. Unfortunately, the creature attaches itself to Eddie Brock, a man who has lost everything to Peter Parker, and a new villain is formed. Quite possibly the most evil and deadliest villain Spider-Man has ever faced. Though this movie isn't as good as the first two in the series, it's still amazing and a lot of fun.

What I liked about the first two movies was that they had a formula to them that allowed for plenty of personal drama for the characters as well as plenty of action. In this movie, Sam Raimi tries to squeeze in tons of personal drama between Peter and Mary Jane as well as Peter and Harry, and Peter and Eddie Brock, and Sandman and his daughter, and the list goes on, while also having action scenes featuring New Goblin, Sandman, a malfunctioning crane, and eventually Venom. This made certain scenes seem rushed and pointless. I liked that they kept the movie both funny and serious, because the humour in this series has always been a high point for me. The twenty or so minutes where Peter becomes evil were so enjoyable and humorous to me that I just couldn't stop smiling. The plot isn't that bad because it covers all the points that needed to be covered, and by the end of the movie it ties everything up nicely, leaving no need for a 4th film though I'm sure that it will happen. The action scenes in this movie are fantastic. The crane sequence was done really well and featured some of the best special effects yet. Also, the ways Spider-Man maneuvered in that scene were amazing. Both of Peter's fights with Harry were incredibly awesome. They were the most violent and intense fights in the whole series, and I loved them. As with the first two films there were a few lines of dialogue that made me cringe. Sam Lee's cameo in this film was his worst cameo to date. Now, what I really didn't like about this film was the characters of Sandman and Venom. The movie needed New Goblin because it was a continuation, but either Sandman or Venom should have been cut out. My reason is that Sandman was pretty much pointless to the rest of the story, and if he was gone, Venom could have had more screen time and development. If Venom was taken out, his character wouldn't have been destroyed the way it was. Venom had so little screen time that it literally annoyed me. And half the time he was on screen, he retracted his mask so it was just Eddie Brock with a black suit on. I really didn't like what Raimi did with the character, though I am happy I saw him in live action at all. I also didn't like that Mary Jane was whining about Peter being Spider-Man through the whole movie, and that by the time the movie ended, Peter still hadn't proposed.

The acting in this movie is just as good as the other two. Tobey Maguire did a good job playing both the good and the evil Peter Parker. Kirsten Dunst played Mary Jane well once again, though I didn't really like her character in this. James Franco did an amazing job as Harry in this movie, especially when he was insane. He gave his best performance in this movie. Thomas Haden Church was pretty good as Sandman, he looked the part, but he didn't really get to do a whole lot with his talent. Topher Grace was funny as Eddie Brock, and he was surprisingly good when he became Venom. He's no longer Eric Foreman to me.

Overall, the first two films are better, but Spider-Man 3 is an amazing ending to this trilogy, and if they decide to make a 4, 5, and 6, I hope they can be as epic and as interesting as these films were.

7.5/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shooter (I) (2007)
5/10
Just another generic, clichéd action movie.
15 April 2007
Shooter is the story of an expert military sniper named Bob Lee Swagger who becomes a recluse after his partner is killed in battle. Some government officials track him down and tell him that an assassin is planning to shoot the President from a mile away. They want Swagger to use his expertise to tell them where the assassin might be shooting from. Swagger agrees, but when he is framed with the shooting himself, he sets out on a journey to find out who set him up and why. There's nothing particularly bad about this movie per se, it just doesn't stand out among the countless other films like it.

The movie is written rather well and the plot isn't too bad. In fact, this is probably one of the most realistic films about a sniper that's out there. I actually learned in this movie just how much comes into play when you're planning to pick someone off, and it's not as easy as other movies make it seem at all. For instance, even the spin of the Earth itself comes into play when you're firing a sniper rifle. Scenes like that were done well. My main problem was the rest of the movie, though filled with some decent gun fights, fist fights, and explosions, is just so bland. It's the same action movie I've seen dozens of times. A guy gets framed and starts a one man war in order to prove his innocence. I can't think of any other way to describe this movie other than meh, or perhaps blah. It's just one of those movies that's just there. It's not advertised a whole lot, it isn't a failure at the box office but it isn't much of a success either.

The acting was okay. Mark Whalberg gave the only good performance. After Saw, and now this, I am quickly losing all confidence in Danny Glover. Everyone else in the movie is just alright. No outstanding performances.

Overall, the movie wasn't terrible, but I'm not going to watch it again.

5/10
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disturbia (2007)
8/10
Best thriller I've seen in a while.
15 April 2007
Disturbia tells the story of a teenage boy named Kale who is sentenced to three months house arrest after punching a teacher in the face for making a comment about his recently deceased father. When his mother takes away his TV and his computer, he resorts to spying on the houses surrounding him. Things begin to get frightening when he begins to suspect one of his neighbours is a serial killer. He gets his friends involved with his impromptu investigation, and soon the neighbour realizes he's being watched...And he's not too happy about it. Disturbia is loosely based off the 1954 Alfred Hitchcock classic Rear Window, but it is still a film all in itself, and it is the best thriller I've seen in a while.

What makes this movie better than most horror movies that are released today is that is doesn't rely on excessive gore and gross out tactics to frighten you. It relies on mood and suspense, and that works so much better. As the film went on, the tension got so high that I was literally on the edge of my seat rubbing my hands together because I was so anxious to see what was going to happen next. I actually felt the adrenaline rush that the characters in the film must have been feeling when they were snooping around in the neighbour's garage. The movie has a realistic feel of how creepy it would be to have a serial killer living across the street from you and you had no way to prove it. Everything in this movie is done well. The writing, the directing, the way it all pans out. I was actually shocked when I left the theatre over how good this movie really was.

The acting was very good from everybody involved. Shia LaBeouf has come a long way from Even Stevens. Something tells me that he has a nice career ahead of him. David Morse is perfectly sinister as the neighbour. He's just one of those actors that you might not know who he is to hear his name, but he pops up here and there and you always say, "Cool, it's that guy." Overall, this was an amazing thriller, and I'm glad I went to see it because I really wasn't expecting that much. It leads me to wonder why Hollywood continues to pump out absolute garbage like the Saw trilogy, Hostel, and Dead Silence when they could be making movies like this instead.

8/10
288 out of 428 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Number 23 (2007)
7/10
Not bad, but it could have been better.
26 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Number 23 tells the story of a man who starts to read a book called The Number 23, about a detective who begins to go crazy connecting the number 23 to everything, eventually ending with the detective committing murder. This scares the man because he finds a large amount of points in the book that mirror his own life. He himself begins to go crazy with the number, and as he reads on, he finds that there is more mystery involved with the book's origins than he could ever imagine. This is a well made, entertaining film, but it fell flat towards the end.

First off, this movie is made very well. The visual style of it is very dark and Gothic which was kind of cool. The scenes depicting what was happening in the book were awesome. They had a kind of surrealistic tone to them which was cool. It looked kind of like film noir which made it look really good. The movie was a pretty good mystery once the main character begins looking for a killer that's on the loose. Unfortunately, the movie just isn't that creepy. Some of the things said about 23 are a little chilling, but it just seems pushed and overused in some parts. This movie, like most of its kind, has a twist ending. Though I won't say what the big twist is, I suppose I can say without giving anything away for sure that it's a highly overused and clichéd twist ending that I was unable to find surprising due to the fact that I've seen it done so many times. In my opinion, the movie was pretty good right up until the last, oh let's say, 23 minutes.

Jim Carrey's performance was surprisingly good. I usually don't like it when he plays a serious role, but because there was a few humorous points, this role seemed to suit him. His performance as the detective in the novel was actually really cool. Everybody else's performances were just okay.

Overall, this was a cool, well made movie that kind of fell apart in the end. There was definitely room for improvement.

6.5/10
38 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Rider (2007)
7/10
Entertaining, and that's all I wanted it to be.
19 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Ghost Rider tells the story of stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze who sold his soul to the Devil as a teenager to save his dying father. When he's an adult the Devil returns to cash in on the deal, telling Johnny that he will become the Ghost Rider, a spirit of vengeance sent to capture anybody who's escaped from hell. His target: Blackheart, the Devil's son, and three elemental demons, Earth, Wind, and Water, who intend to create hell on Earth. As Blaze struggles to gain control of his powers, his childhood sweetheart Roxanne returns, and he's forced to protect her from the evil forces around him. Though not the best comic book movie ever made, this movie was entertaining just like I wanted it to be.

First off, Ghost Rider was never really a top notch Marvel character to begin with. He has a smaller group of fans than someone like Spider-Man or the Hulk, but it's an interesting story and this movie definitely had the potential to be better than a lot of comic book movies. Unfortunately, it ended up just being a fun action film to watch when you've got nothing to do. The story wasn't bad, and the action was a lot of fun. All the Ghost Rider scenes were cool. The best part was his ride up a skyscraper where he lassos a helicopter and tells the pilot that he's pissing him off. What was good about the film was the action, most of the special effects and some of the comedic moments such as Ghost Rider giving the finger to the cops as he escapes them. Now onto the bad. The villains were weak. Mephisto was alright, but he was off to the side most of the time. Blackheart was an underdeveloped villain that didn't really do much. His three demonic henchmen were even worse. Ghost Rider destroyed all three of them within seconds when there could have been a massive battle there. The climax could have been a tad more action packed too, though it was sufficient. The dialogue at times, was brutal. There was no wit or thought put into any of the one liners. For instance, Ghost Rider says to Blackheart "You're going down!" and Blackheart hastily replies with an age old classic..."I don't think so."

The acting was okay. Nicolas Cage did a pretty good job as Ghost Rider, and Peter Fonda wasn't too bad as the Devil. Sam Elliot was average as the Caretaker. The worst acting in the film came from Wes Bentley and especially Eva Mendes. He acts with one tone of voice and one facial expression, she acts like she's in a high school play and it's her first time.

Overall, I wasn't expecting a Spider-Man 3 or a Batman Begins, but I was expecting a fun movie to see on a Saturday night, and I got it. For entertainment purposes, Ghost Rider delivers.

6.5/10
24 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not bad.
14 February 2007
The Man With the Golden Gun is the ninth entry into the James Bond series. In this film, a hit-man named Fransisco Scaramanga has put his sights on Bond, and Bond aims to find out why. With the help of his partner, Agent Mary Goodnight, Bond tracks down Scaramanga to find out what other things he's involved with. As the mission goes on, a deadly game of cat and mouse ensues between Scaramanga and Bond. This is an entertaining Bond film, but you can see that the series is beginning to turn more toward comedy and campiness.

James Bond's mission in this film is pretty cool, and it leads to some awesome action scenes, but the film makers are starting to move more toward campiness in some cases, and that kind of wrecks some scenes. The James Bond movies started off as serious spy films, but now they're turning into your average action hero film. The gadgets are getting more and more far fetched as well. One scene shows Scaramanga escaping in a car that transforms into a plane. The cat and mouse scenes between Scaramanga and Bond are kind of cool, and Scaramanga makes for one of the more sinister villains Bond has faced. The writing is kind of weak in some scenes, and Moore's one liners seem way too over the top.

This is only Roger Moore's second outing as Bond, and already he's starting to seem not right for the role. He's too wooden, and his acting is far too cheesy. Christopher Lee delivers a good performance as Scaramanga, but you can't expect anything less from Christopher Lee.

Overall, this is an entertaining Bond film, but it's just not up there with the originals.

6.5/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No, it's not that bad...
13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Hannibal Rising tells the story of Hannibal Lecter from age 8 to his early 20s. After his parents are killed during World War II, only he and his sister are left alive in their family lodge. A group of Nazi soldiers stumble upon the lodge and take shelter, but as they begin to starve they decide to use Hannibal's sister for food. Hannibal ends up escaping and ends up in an orphanage where he has gone mute due to his traumatic experience. He escapes the orphanage and goes to live with his late uncle's widow. When he finds the names of all those responsible for his sister's death, he goes on a murderous revenge spree, and he begins to cannibalize his victims. Not even he can see the monster that he is becoming. The fifth entry into the Hannibal Lecter series is entertaining, but could have been better.

Lets start off with what's good about this movie. As a revenge story, it's very good and very entertaining. It's about a young boy that watched the person he loved most brutally murdered and used for food. As soon as he's old enough, he makes a promise to his sister to do something about it, and he does. This movie would have been even better if it was a standalone film, but instead it's an origin story of the greatest movie villain ever. As a Hannibal Lecter movie, there are a few problems. They show some of the more important aspects of Hannibal Lecter beginning to shine through, such as his interest in medicine, and his loathing for rudeness. It even shows him beginning to taunt people who are interviewing him ("Now tell me inspector, did you choose war crimes?"). Hannibal Lecter shows more emotion in this movie than all the others combined, but that makes sense since he's not a monster quite yet. The only thing I really had a problem with was that they way the script was written, it seems that Hannibal would get his revenge and then stop. The movie doesn't really explain why Lecter would turn into a serial killer.

The acting is pretty good. Not one big name American actor appears in this film, which is kind of cool because we're not distracted by any big names, which leaves more focus on the characters. Gaspard Ulliel does a really good job as Lecter. Taking over for Anthony Hopkins isn't the easiest thing to do. He does the Lecter tone of voice pretty good. I didn't really feel like Dominic West was as involved with the plot as he could have been.

Overall, this is an entertaining movie, and it's nice for Hannibal fans to see him in a movie again, but they missed some opportunities to make connections to the other movies.

7/10
47 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty good.
2 February 2007
Roger Moore takes over the role of James Bond in the 8th installment to the series. In this film, James Bond goes to New York to investigate the mysterious deaths of some British agents. He feels there is a connection between a big time Harlem gangster named Mr. Big and Kananga, the mysterious owner of a small island who is trying to sell self produced heroin. As he gets deeper into the case, he discovers that Kananga and Big might be more closely connected than he originally thought. This is a pretty good installment to the Bond series.

After Diamonds are Forever, the James Bond series needed a serious boost so it could be a serious spy series again. Though this movie isn't as good as the early Connery films, it's certainly better than the last two in the series. For the most part it sticks close to the Ian Fleming novel, though there are a few differences, mostly in the beginning and the end. The last film was more like a dumbed down action movie than a James Bond movie, and I was glad to see that they fixed that with this film by putting James Bond on a serious case. One thing that bothered me though was the dialogue. The writers kind of overloaded on the jokes and one liners, which made almost every line out of Bond's mouth corny.

The acting isn't bad. Roger Moore gives his best performance as James Bond in this movie, and though he's nowhere near Connery, he's miles above Lazenby. David Hedison plays an average Felix Leiter. Jane Seymour was an alright Bond girl, and Yaphat Kotto wasn't too bad of a villain.

Overall, this movie had room for improvement, but it wasn't bad for the most part.

7/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Face/Off (1997)
8/10
Awesome action film.
1 February 2007
Face/Off tells the story of an FBI agent named Sean Archer who is in charge of taking down a dangerous terrorist named Castor Troy. Troy is also responsible for the death of Archer's son 6 years earlier. When Archer puts Troy into a coma, he discovers that there is a bomb ticking somewhere, and only Troy's brother knows where it is. Archer decides to undergo a new surgery that transforms him into Castor Troy by taking Troy's face and putting it on his head so he can find out the location of the bomb. Unfortunately, Castor wakes from his coma and forces the doctors to turn him into Sean Archer. Now Castor Troy is living with Archer's family while Archer sits in jail. He must now figure out a way to escape and convince everybody that his is who he says he is, as well as take Castor Troy down once and for all. This is an amazing action movie that's loads of fun to watch.

First off, the plot of this movie is pretty cool. Originally it was meant to be set in the future, but I think the story would have been way to generic if it was. Thankfully they set it in the present day, and I think it really does the movie justice. Apart from having a really cool original story, the movie features some really awesome action sequences that for the most part are pretty believable, and for me, believable action sequences make an action movie so much better. I think there was a really good balance between actual story and the action, which is good.

The acting is very good in this film. This is a perfect film to show acting range. When it starts out John Travolta is the good cop and Nicholas Cage is the sadistic maniac, and then they suddenly switch roles, and it goes off perfectly. John Travolta plays Nicholas Cage playing a psycho really well, and Nicholas Cage does a good job of playing John Travolta playing a good cop. Truthfully, I liked Nicholas Cage better in the role of Sean Archer than John Travolta, and I'm happy that was the way it was through the majority of the movie rather than vice versa.

Overall, this is a great piece of work from John Woo, a really fun and entertaining action film, actually a good film all around.

8/10
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Kind of goofy
30 January 2007
Sean Connery returns in the 7th installment to the super spy series. This film begins with James Bond killing Blofeld in revenge for the death of his wife in the last film. After that is accomplished, Bond is put on a diamond smuggling case where he meets the beautiful Tiffany Case, a woman involved with the operation. As the mission goes on, James Bond discovers that he killed a Blofeld double, and the leader of SPECTRE is planning to use the diamonds to power a weapon that can incinerate military equipment from space. Now Bond is determined to stop Blofeld once and for all. It's nice to see Sean Connery return, but he doesn't seem that into any more.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the first bad Bond movie in my opinion, and part of why that movie was bad was George Lazenby's weak performance. You'd think that with Sean Connery returning to the role, this movie would be better. Unfortunately, since his last go as Bond in 1967, he has visibly aged. He's got graying hair, crow's feet, and he's a bit chubbier. This Bond film takes a turn away from serious espionage and tries to add more slapstick comedy and fun action scenes. One example is a terrible scene where Bond gets away from the bad guys in a moon rover, or during the climax when he uses an escape pod containing Blofeld as a wrecking ball. The terrible characters of Wint and Kidd are in here, and their annoying conversations make one want to hit the Fast Forward button. Blofeld is terrible in this movie. When he first appeared in From Russia With Love when he first appeared, he was sinister, certainly a force to be reckoned with. He lost a lot of his evil in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and in this movie he actually dresses up in drag to trap Tiffany Case, something the original Blofeld would never do. The dialogue is cornier than any other Bond film so far, and so are the action scenes.

The acting isn't very good. Charles Gray is a terrible Blofeld, and Jill St. John doesn't make a very good Bond girl. Sean Connery is okay I guess, but it seems like his heart's not in the role anymore.

Overall, this is a dumbly entertaining action film, but as a Bond film, it's not that great.

5.5/10
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hitcher (2007)
7/10
Decent remake.
21 January 2007
The Hitcher tells the story of a young couple who are on their way to see some friends over spring break. As they are driving, they nearly hit a hitchhiker. They keep driving, only to see him again at a gas station later. He politely asks for a ride to a motel, and the couple accept. Almost immediately after they get on the road, the hitcher admits that he's dangerous. The couple manage to shove him out of the car, and they think they're okay. However, the hitcher begins to stalk them and commit murders around them, which lead the police to mistakenly implicate the couple as the murderers. On the run from the cops, the couple now must figure out a way to both stop the hitcher and prove their innocence. The Hitcher is a pretty good remake of an 80s cult classic, and though it has its flaws, it's pretty enjoyable.

I'm usually indifferent towards horror movie remakes because it doesn't really matter to me, but after seeing the brutally bad Black Christmas remake, I thought I'd never like a remake again. Fortunately I went to see this movie, which is actually a decently made remake that follows the original however is different just enough to be a new experience. The movie could have been longer, but it didn't really feel that short because there was a lot of action. One thing that bothered me about the original was that it switched genres from horror to thriller to action. This one firmly establishes that it's an action/thriller, and it stays that way throughout. I thought that the way they ended up giving the hitcher a ride was more realistic in this day and age than simply picking him up. The action scenes were pretty fun to watch, especially a scene where the hitcher pulls up and blows a bunch of cops right off the road as they're chasing the young couple. Another thing I liked was that it's left up to us to discover what his motives are for torturing this young couple. I'm finding more and more that the less you know of the killer's origins and motives, the creepier it is. If the victims don't know his motives and you do, it helps you to understand the killer which makes him less creepy. If you are just as in the dark as his victims, you relate to them, and the killer becomes scarier. The only real problem I had with the movie was the use of music in some scenes seemed kind of strange. I don't really like when directors insert rock or pop songs into the soundtrack for no reason, when they could have a creepy instrumental score playing. Also, during some moments it seemed like your average 21st century slasher movie, but there's only a few of these moments.

The acting wasn't bad for the most part. Sean Bean was the best of the bunch playing the hitcher, but he still didn't capture the raw creepiness that Rutger Hauer had in the original. I believe that Zachary Knighton, given some really good material, could become a really fine actor some day. Sofia Bush wasn't that amazing at all. She seems better suited for TV shows.

Overall, The Hitcher is a good thriller, and a good remake, and if you like action, the original movie, or Sean Bean, you should check this movie out.

7/10
4 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The first bad Bond...
13 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Sean Connery is gone in this 6th installment to the James Bond series, and he's replaced by a nobody named George Lazenby. In this movie, Bond chases Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the leader of SPECTRE, to the Swiss alps, where he has taken the identity of a count. At his Swiss hideout, he is brainwashing a group of women to do his bidding. Also, Bond finally meets a girl that he falls in love with, and the couple end up married, but as it turns out, the marriage ends in tragedy...This movie might have been a little better with Connery, but it's still not that great.

First off, every James Bond film in the series up to this point was able to balance action and plot perfectly, making some really good movies. This movie ruins that. Right from the extremely awkward and strange (not to mention corny) opening sequence, the movie does not seem like a Bond film. The new James Bond even makes a corny comment about Connery by saying "This never happened to the other fellow." Thankfully, the characters of Moneypenny, Q, and M are all there to keep the movie looking like a Bond film. The plot to this movie is extremely boring, and it gets ridiculous at times, like Blofeld, a "criminal genius", is using air headed women to do his dirty work for him. The film makers either made a big continuity mistake or decided to ignore the previous Bond film. First of all, in You Only Live Twice, Blofeld was pale skinned, had a huge scar on his face, and he was Russian. In this movie he has dark skin, a perfect face, and is American. An even worse mistake is that Bond has met Blofeld, and knows what he looks like, yet in this film they don't even know each other. The end action scene is goofy instead of exciting, like the earlier Bond films. The only good thing about this Bond film is that it's interesting to see Bond finally fall in love. I liked the emotional ending where Bond gets married and Moneypenny is shown standing off to the side, heartbroken, and Bond throws her his hat. The very end where his wife is murdered is rather sad, but the emotion would have been even better if it was Sean Connery playing Bond.

All the actors from earlier films returning are as good as they ever were. Unfortunately, George Lazenby isn't that good as Bond. His suave British accent is adequate, but his mannerisms are goofy and awkward. He can't deliver the jokes as good as Connery. Telly Savalas' performance of Blofeld isn't even close to being sinister. He's just there, like he's not even important.

Overall, this is the first Bond film in the series that wasn't that great, and it marks the very beginning of the downward slope the series went on through the 70s.

5/10
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Entertaining Bond film.
12 January 2007
This is the 5th entry to the James Bond series. Russian and American space shuttles are being stolen from outer space, and the two countries are blaming each other. World War III seems imminent, and James Bond is sent to Japan to find out where the shuttle stealing space ship is coming from. Bond finds out that SPECTRE is behind the theft, and towards the end of the movie, the face of the mysterious leader of the SPECTRE of the organization is finally revealed, as well as his name...Ernst Stavro Blofeld. This Bond movie is really good, and after three SPECTRE involved movies, it's nice to finally see the face of Bond's arch-nemesis.

Mainly the reason why this is such a good Bond film to me is because the style of the story is a lot like Goldfinger, though not quite as good. What I mean is that the story gives action and plot a perfect balance. James Bond is as cool as ever, killing armed guards in one moment and bedding a beautiful woman in the next. His mission in this movie is pretty cool. I think that this is the first time I've ever seen James Bond really go undercover, as in by changing his appearance as well as his name. Blofeld makes for a pretty cool villain, especially when you consider that Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies is based off him, or at least this movie's representation of him. The opening song by Nancy Sinatra is one of the best Bond songs there are.

Sean Connery plays James Bond as well as he ever has in this movie. It's actually awesome to see that through five movies Sean Connery hasn't changed his portrayal in any way. Donald Pleasance is awesome as Blofeld, in fact out of all the people to play him, he's the best.

You Only Live Twice is a great entry into the James Bond series. Actually, it's the last great Bond film before the movies started to go downhill.

8/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thunderball (1965)
7/10
Pretty good but kind of boring.
10 January 2007
In this 4th entry to the James Bond series, SPECTRE's #2 agent Emilio Largo steals two nuclear missiles with the intention of using them to hold NATO for ransom. James Bond is sent to investigate, and as he gets deeper into the mystery, he ends up falling in love with Largo's mistress, Domino. Bond ends up fighting on land and under water to defeat Largo, and if he doesn't, the world could be in trouble. This is the most boring of the Sean Connery Bond films, but it's still okay.

The first three James Bond films have an adequate amount of action and thrills in them while still keeping a good story with mystery and suspense. This James Bond movie does the same, but the story for the movie seems to drag on and on, and when it finally gets around to the action, the action drags on a bit too. The underwater fight is kind of cool at first, because you've never seen it happen before, but when it goes past the 10 minute mark, it starts to get old. I will say that this Bond movie features the best kill line out of all of them. "Can my friend sit this one out? She's just dead." The scenery in this movie is pretty good, at least I think so because I love water movies, but James Bond spending all his time underwater didn't translate as well for me. This is a well made James Bond film, that's for sure, but it just seems to drag on more than others.

According to Connery, this movie features his favourite performance as James Bond. I thought he was as perfect as ever in the role. Adolfo Celi makes for a pretty good bad guy, and Claudine Auger is a great Bond girl.

Overall, this Bond movie is as good as the first three. The only problem is that it drags on a little.

7/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Goldfinger (1964)
8/10
The definitive Bond film.
9 January 2007
In this 3rd entry to the James Bond series, Bond starts off by investigating a man named Auric Goldfinger, to see if he's cheating at a card game. When Bond straightens Goldfinger out, Goldfinger quickly strikes back, killing Bond's latest fling. Bond wants to find out more about Goldfinger, so he goes on a mission to find out what he's up to. Bond finds out that Goldfinger is attempting to have a nuclear bomb go off inside Fort Knox so that nobody can touch the gold for years, and the price of his personal gold supply will go up. Now with the help of his CIA friend Felix Leiter, Bond will attempt to stop Goldfinger once and for all. This entry into the series is and always will be the best.

The reason why everyone and their brother loves this movie so much is that it features all the classic James Bond elements. You have the famous scene where Goldfinger attempts to cut Bond in half with a laser. You have the famous 1964 Aston Martin DB5 complete with machine guns, an ejector seat, and oil slick. This is the first James Bond movie to feature a title song over the opening credits, brilliantly done by Shirley Bassey. This movie features not one, not two, but three Bond girls. Jill Masterson is definitely in the top five hottest Bond girls. I actually feel that her role and Honor Blackman's role should have been reversed, because Honor Blackman isn't the most attractive Bond girl there is. Every scene in this movie is great. It has more action than the first two films and yet it still has a great story. Auric Goldfinger makes a great adversary for James Bond and Oddjob is the greatest henchmen James Bond has ever had to face.

Everyone in this movie gave knockout performances. In my opinion, this is Connery's best performance as Bond. Gert Frobe is excellent as Goldfinger, and Honor Blackman is good as the main Bond girl of the film, though she isn't the most attractive Bond girl ever.

Goldfinger is the best film in the series and Bond fans should always go back and watch it after seeing crap like Moonraker or Die Another Day.

8.5/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed