Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Reviews
Posted on 1/04/11 06:04 AM
Not bad, not bad at all.... I started watching this film not thinking much (mixed reviews, and the fact that I avoid comics/graphic novels in general), but as the final credits started rolling I was pretty pleased.
I found the whole thing a bit muddled and at times non-sensical, probably because I haven't even touched the original comic, but it was a great watch nonetheless. Not your ordinary superhero film! The characters were great, action scenes amazing (don't get me started on how graphic it was!) and a great story that just makes you forget about you and your surroundings.
The plot is basically a now-disbanded group of vigilantes in an alternate 1980's America (with president Nixon in charge, in at least his 5th term), the death of one member starting a series of events that concers everyone else. Not a great description, but it's the best I can do without being too specific.
This movie's like nothing else in my opinion and its no-sillyness and gernerally "darkness" of it all really impressed me. I recommend that you ignore anything that everyone says and go and watch (er,) Watchmen. If only I saw when it was in the cinemas...
Points of criticism? May confuse non-Watchmen readers (like me), and a tidbit too long (but I suppose that meant Watchmen wasn't rushed, the characters were actually given some breathing space, in contrast to many other- mainly superhero- films).
Posted on 12/05/10 12:05 PM
(Written due to a request- if you ask me to write a review on a film you want to know about, I will definitely do it, given that I have the time.)
The fact that A: it was a direct-to-DVD release, and B: has the supposed main star's (of the Goal! series- Santi himself) name reduced to small writing on the bottom-right corner of the cover kinda tells you what sort of sludgy crap the producers have unleashed upon the unsuspecting viewer.
The main focal point of anger would be how Goal 3 completely- and I mean that- disregards the previous two films. Goal! (first one) was a brilliant (if not slightly cliched and predictable) tale of a young man rise from his troubled life into a footballing superstar, simple as. Goal 2 was good as well, I felt it wasn't as good but, story-wise, a satisfactory addition, though I can see why it wasn't that successful (thats for me to write on another potential review).
The first two shows us a boy become a man, and his family troubles, even leaving a cliffhanger at the end of 2, then BAM! out comes number 3, with: hardly any Santi; *nothing* about Santi, or his family, or what becomes of them; 2 supposedly established footballers (fictional characters) pop out of nowhere; seriously-bad, uncanny and simply ridiculous situations; and god knows what else....
Goal 3 is just about some 2 random guys in the World Cup, with *nothing* (i.e. characters, underlying storylines) at all from the first 2 in it (aside from 10 mins at-the-most of Santi), all mashed together in a cheap, horribly fake excuse to make money- it may have well been called something else... in fact doing that wouldve probably got the film better reviews (if any critics bothered)
I knew it would be bad, but I still wanted to see the "conclusion" of Goal, and I don't regret watching this, however much of a half-baked turkey it is.
If you wish to keep your view on the Goal! series pure, don't watch this. if you want to know what becomes of Santiago Nunez, feel free to watch, but you have been warned: he doesn't play football in this film. Hmmm.
Additional: When these 2 now-main characters play on the pitch, its very much obvious that theyre in front of a green-screen with stock football imaging behind them. maybe they couldn't get enough footage, 'cause in one scene they got a guy to be "Beckham" (or someone else in the England squad at the time), despite the very-much visible wig on the guy.
Posted on 11/19/10 11:04 AM
Was it as bad as many say it is? Short answer is, no.
I wouldn't hesitate to say that it was one of the weaker films in the franchise, but it sure does reward loyal viewers, or anyone who stuck to the main underlying story (YES, there is a plot!).
Everything was answered, it even resolved issues from the very first!
The bad things were: the hastiness in some parts, they really could have worked on some bits; the 3-D gimmick... would it have been so hard just to call it Saw 7 at the very least?; misuse of several characters, they had the actors from previous films, people like the characters they play, USE THEM!; and a couple of scenes were just pure pointlessness (if that's a proper word).
However this (sadly enough, I am hoping it is the) final instalment of the series ties up all the loose ends, and most of you viewers would agree that the ending was pretty darn "rad".
Posted on 10/27/10 03:50 AM
I'm gonna be honest... I only heard of it because Talladega Nights mentioned it.
It was on TV one day, so I thought "why not?" and recorded it for later viewing.
I didn't expect too much, but it was slightly disappointing for a supposed 'cult' movie- from a poorly-dressed hispanic-egyptian scot widower in the form of Sean Connery to dodgy villain-hair, it just failed to win me over. I thought the idea was great, a lone soldier having to struggle through the ages with everyone apart from his enemies dying around him, but to be perfectly honest there was room for improvement. Maybe I have to watch it again, seeing that I can be harsh to films after one viewing, but as it stands it's in my 'worst half' of films in my opinion.
There seems to be several sequels, why? I mean, *SPOILERS* the whole thing the story was based on was 100% completed, there's nothing you could add to it *SPOILERS END*
Heard they're making a remake though, a Highlander with nice clean graphics and *fingers crossed* better execution would make it a winner.
Posted on 10/27/10 02:56 AM
To be honest, this film was a nice surprise. After seeing all the negative ratings, comments and whatnot, I decided to watch Predator 2 to see if it really was that bad (anyway, this was not long after I saw the awesome Predator-the Arnie one- so I was in a predator-y mood).
My verdict? It wasn't.
Predator 2 did something new, and still did a decent job (even with a completely different cast, a constant weak point for sequels, or at least most of the time). Sure it wasn't THAT good (hence my 60% rating), but it's much better than most of the stuff out there! It doesn't muck up the first film's idea (i.e. if they were to say at the end that the Predator was just a hallucination), continuity was fine and it's not as if they're terrible actors either.
I'm not saying that you'll be that pleased, but this film is definitely not as bad as many say it is!
I'm yet to see AVP or Predators, but I heard AVP was pure crap (but who trust critics, eh?) and from the look of it Predators is just Predator with a few things added on (but good nonetheless). Anyone seen these films?