Posted on 8/26/10 10:51 PM
.....Brilliant!!!.....from the author who gave us Mystic River. I used to hate Leonardo Diblahblahblah cuz I though he wa sjust a pretty face. Gangs of New York changed that (yes, I'm old and behind the times). This is a great film that YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION to throughout. I read the book about 3 months ago and was really watching to see how they "kept it together." Well...they did, although the book and movie end a little different. Great stuff!!
Posted on 8/26/10 07:50 AM
Pretty good flick. The set-up for the story/world/atmosphere is pretty cool, although somewhat straigh-forward; and actually helps you stay on course while watching. The action and CGI is also well done. As for acting; faily believable for the 2nd rate, maybe 3rd, cast (not judging, just saying). I must admit I had the whole hidden plot-line pegged about 45 minutes into the movie, but a tleast they did a good job of keeping you occuppied while it ran itself dry. Watch it if you really like sci-fi.
Posted on 7/28/10 09:21 PM
This is a pretty damn good movie (for what it is). Actually, it isn't much to go nuts over, but it has some great thought behind it and some really good moments where you think something is gonna happen, but....oh, there it is.
When I first saw the trailer I was excited to check it out cuz it looked original (hmmm) and interesting. And although the trailer is better than the film, it is still worth watching; good idea, good suspense, and no holding back on the 'they actually did that' stuff.
A 70% might be high for some watchers but it is enjoyable enough to watch again, and that's a 70 in my book.
Posted on 11/29/09 07:04 AM
For my first review in over 2 months, I have to start with Star Trek. It was perfectly executed as an action film with good drama, storyline, characterization, and some funny stuff (weeee).
Here's the thing that hit me the hardest; I grew up having to watch Star Trek on TV because my older brother loved it (obsessively); I did not. I thought it was cheesy, yet the Star Trek characters were somehow ingrained on any individuals memory if they watched TV and/or movies.
What I found in this movie was a brilliant relationship between all the main characters with fantastic honor to the original characters of the franchise. McCoy, the doctor, was brilliant, as was Checkhov (spelling?), and the dude from 'Shawn of the Dead.'
The story was decent enough to introduce the new cast and break ground, and again, the relationships between the characters was established in a fun, dramatic way.
All I can say is great job, well done, and make another one!! YeeeHawwww!!
Posted on 9/05/09 10:08 PM
I will admit that, as many RT's have quoted, the 3rd installment of the Harry Potter movie series' is better than the first two.
It has some humor that I didn't expect that actually made me chuckle (not laugh), some good stories behind the overall plot, and the whole bad-family, Slitheren bull-shit that dragged the first two into obvious story-lines was absent. The critical map of the school, griffin-like thing, and time movement were excellent pieces that didn't seem too silly or forced.
At least the book, sorry, movie, moved on into new territory without the regular intro, set-up, body of work, and conclusion that the first two films had.
There is a lot of good filmwork that finally gives the viewer a real view of the school's surroundings; adding to the depth of the film. The camera work and CG was also improved from the first two films.
Nice movie with some interesting dark elements as Potter ages.
Posted on 9/05/09 05:19 PM
I like this deranged and crazy movie because Keitel is absolutely brilliant in portraying a completely out-of-control cop addicted to every vice imaginable.
His demise covers a span of a week during the Los Angeles Dodgers/New York Mets playoff series.
What takes place to Keitel mentally and empotionally during this time is gut wrenching, and as bad a lieutenant as he is, you still feel for the guy.
Gripping drama that never slows down with very difficult subject matter.
Posted on 9/05/09 04:34 PM
It's not often you find a film in which every character is completely flawed and disturbing (see where I'm going with this?).
London to Brighton sports some good acting, reasonable suspense, a nice overall set-up plot, and a lot of characters you shouldn't like or feel sorry for.
Let's run it down without spoiling the movie: the pimp, the whore, the pedofile, the pedofile's murdering son, the runaway, the druggies...you get the picture.
What's intriguing about this film is the concept of lives lost and the total isolation of the characters in the film. Truly, the director focuses only on the central characters and really doesn't bring any non-essential individual into the camera lens; check it out (saved some dough I bet).
Overall, a bit creepy because of the content, a bit suspenseful because you don't want certain things to happen to certain people, and a decent watch.
Please don;t try and compare it to "Lock, stock.., Snatch," or other British films as such (although the press has) because it's not even close in content or meaning.
Posted on 9/05/09 01:53 AM
A really good film that takes you on a ride through one man's paranoid mind. Gene Hackman is wonderful as the main character, effectively portraying an extremely obsessed man dealing with paranoia, guilt, and his own religious fanaticism while working in a business that goes against all his ethics.
Harrison Ford and Robert Duvall put in small performances as well.
The story really builds to a cresendo although it does take some patience to make the full ride.
For real movie and suspense lovers.
Posted on 9/03/09 08:47 PM
OK, so I've been accused of being 'too harsh' on the first Harry Potter movie. Well, I found the second installment, The Chamber of Secrets, a little more intriguing but came away with the same sense of disappointment.
The Chamber film is set up better (which isn't saying much since there really wasnt a set up for the 1st; anyway), is a little more inventive with characters (and insects), and has a much stronger if not evil force behind it. The special effects are high-class-money spent; good.
Again, however, I am disappointed in the very methodical way these movies are made; (re)introduce main characters, (re)introduce evil family, have tow or three CG scenes that make the adrenaline pump slightly, throw in some clue finding stuff, and finish it up nice and tidy in the last 5 minutes of the film.
Nothing in this movie surprised me; at all. Is the favorite girl really going to stay petrified? Is the Malfoy family not going to be behind it somehow when the father is introduced early on? C'mon.
The thing that gets me is this; if these films are true to the books, then the author has made millions by putting an extremely simple plot-line together.
And, honestly, I'm not being hard on these movies; I hope they get better because I was realy expecting something more intriguing (Sorry Potter fans).
Posted on 8/29/09 03:35 AM
My feeling is to consider this film in the same category as Defiance; a historical film that was created for Hollywood by being quick of story so the tension is elevated throughout. Now don't get me wrong, Valkyrie is a good movie for what Cruise and others wanted it to do; be a 2 hour movie about a subject that would most effectively been done by HBO or Showtime in 5 or 6 nights and 10 hours (a la Band of Brothers, etc). There is so much to this story that we don't see during one of the most significant periods in human history.
Anyway, as a simple movie, it is shot well, has some great character actors (dude from Underworld is great), and flows throughout. I actually believe I have never seen a smarter way of turning the German language into English as this movie does at the beginning; really very brilliant move, although I'm not sure wht Cruise is the only actor who doesn't try any kind of accent (hmmm).
So, in all, a very watchable movie that could be so much more.