Posted on 2/22/12 02:20 PM
This is one of the movies that I would never go back and watch again. I like the actors and the actress, but the trailer itself made me not interested at all, because two men share a woman, a woman cheats to have two men is just wrong. However, my friend convinced me to watch it since we had the advanced screening tickets.
The movie itself was expected, bad storyline, I'm just not quite sure what the movie was about? the ending seems wrong, it passes out a not so good message, and I think film industry is potentially the biggest propaganda. It's just after watching the movie, I felt it was a valentine movie, but I also felt I learned nothing from the movie and I remember nothing interesting from the movie.
Confusion: There was one scene where the actress changed into a purple dress when she slept over with a white top? how did that happen? (I could be wrong)
Pros: There were some laughs and the action scenes were great, definitely sexy and if you enjoy looking at good looking people, this movie has it all. Two girls sat next to me enjoyed it very much and said it was worth watching.
Overall, I do not recommend this movie, especially to young adults. I do recommend to movie lovers and ladies, you'll enjoy the romance, it is perhaps a chick flick.
Posted on 2/22/12 02:16 PM
When I first heard they were making a sequel to the first Ghost Rider film, I have to say that I really had no interest in seeing it at all after the first installment. Then I heard the directors from Crank would be directing the film and it gave me hope that the movie might actually be good. I then saw the first trailer and I suddenly became excited! The special effects looked better, the tone was darker, and the action looked bad-ass! I was all the sudden on board with the film and even if it wasn't that great, I figured there was no way they could make a film as bad as the last one.
Sadly, I was wrong.
Now let me get something clear: While I did enjoy watching this one more, I can't really call it a better film. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance in some ways is actually worse than the first film. But, some things in it are also better.
The action for example, is for the most part better in this installment. There's a lot more of it than the last film and when it is going on, it's pretty bad-ass. However, some of the action (espicaly early on in the film) is actually really slowed paced and frustrating to watch. The trailer also gives away many of the good action shots so there's not a whole lot of cool action in here that you haven't already seen in the trailers. The effects here (espicaly Ghost Rider himself) actually don't look that bad and fit the tone of the film well and the soundtrack sounds incredibly bad-ass! Sadly, thats all the good stuff I can really say about this film. The plot here which involves Johnny trying to save a young boy from the devil is horrible! I didn't mind the cheesy plot at first, but the film invest way too much time into what already is a horrible story when it should've been focusing on action. Going into this, I actually wanted the film to be cheesy, but it gets to the point where the film is no longer cheesy and just plain bad. The acting is awful and Nicolas Cage's performance is so awful that it's unintentionally hilarious although he does have a few good moments where he goes over-the-top. The dialogue is absolutely atrocious and is easily some of the worst i've heard in a long time. I couldn't believe how bad some of the lines in this movie were. The editing and camera-work is also done very poorly here and gives the film a sloppy messy feel to it that it does not need. The film also just stops instead of having a real ending to it similar to the way Transformers 3 ends.
I really tried hard to enjoy this film but I just couldn't. I am rating it a bit higher than I should though because the film did make for a fun time since I spent most of it laughing at how bad it was. But, there were small things in it that I did enjoy. Still, Spirit of Vengeance is only slightly better than the first film and in many ways even worse than it. Those looking for an over-the-top stupid action movie will be let down by the lack of action the film has at some points and the sloppy filmmaking. Not even the Crank boys could save this one.
Posted on 9/25/11 03:08 PM
You know from the get-go that if a movie like this claims to be based on a true story, it is anything but. Loosely based on a book by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Killer Elite is essentially a Jason Statham vehicle that his fans will enjoy.
In 1980, Danny Bryce (Statham) is an assassin who quits after killing a target in front of his young son in Mexico. After a year away from the bloody business, he lives quietly in rural Australia, when his friend Hunter (Robert De Niro) is taken hostage by Sheikh Amr (Rodney Afif), who looks a lot like Osama Bin Laden. In Oman, Danny is given the mission to assassinate and get confessions from three SAS soldiers who killed his sons during the Dhofar Rebellion. If he fails, Hunter dies, but if he succeeds, Hunter will be freed and he will get $6 million. As Danny and his team start hunting down these men, a secret society of ex-SAS soldiers become worried about the death of their former companions and get their enforcer, Spike (Clive Owen), to investigate and stop the assassinations.
Killer Elite is basically The "Bourne" series if it was louder, dumber and bloodier. Most of the action is shot similar to Paul Greengrass efforts using shaky cam, tight close-ups and quick editing. It is similar in tone because of its intelligence espionage setting, but not done as well. Director Gary McKendry shoots in a gritty style, very much like a 1970s thriller or Tony Scott's Man on Fire, but that gritty tone is undermined by silly scenes such as the meeting of the Feathermen club, which uses terrible dialogue to explain their origins. It was really clunky seeing as their men know each other.
This movie has a number of action thriller clichés: a job that goes wrong, an assassin forced to leave the underworld and forced back into it when a loved one is kidnapped, and the timeless killer with a conscience so that innocent people do not get hurt. It is hardly an original action movie, but there are at least some fun shoot-outs and chases.
Because of the period setting, the use of a shadowy organisation and the involvement of a real person, Killer Elite reminded me a lot of another Statham movie, The Bank Job. Its style and look makes Killer Elite "The Bank Job 2" in all but name. Fans of The Bank Job will get a kick out of this movie.
De Niro is in this movie for the paycheck. He gives a phoned-in performance and it shows with his little screen time. Statham is his typical gruff self, but that is what he is good at and he is always impressive in a fight scene. Owen is the best performer in a movie filled with average performances.
Overall, Killer Elite is a loud, typical action thriller that is not going to set the world alight, but it is still entertaining for Statham fans.
Posted on 9/10/11 07:36 PM
Swardson's film have become a sandwich recipe - regular ingredients like opening solo song, two heroines, flashback and villains from Hollywood spread properly between the slices of bread.
The story is so very clichéd and predictable only this time it deals with the factions. As a leader of faction, Swardson is portrayed as a modern day pornstar who is ready to sacrifice anything for the welfare of the people. The writer has taken far too much leniency thinking that they are penning for 70's/ 80's audience.
For some strange reason every Swardson movie has heroines drooling over him. Why? The hero becoming a porn star just because hhis parents were artist - is simple bad digestion.
Comedy track could have been improvised. Sandler is over-exposing himself. And Tom Brady is already over-exposed.
Sandler makes a good cameo appearance.
Christina Ricci is pretty and coy. Miriam Flynn must have found acting easy as she was imitating Naghma in Gharana Mogudu. And apart from these two you have Meredith Giangrande (okay), Darrin Lackey and Raza Murad from Bollywood.
As from any Swardson movies, editings are good.
I presume that the fans of Bucky Lawson always order old wine in new bottle every time and that is precisely what is served here, yet again.
Posted on 9/10/11 07:35 PM
had the pleasure of seeing Warrior at 2011 CinemaCon, walking in not knowing a thing about the movie, other than it was a movie about 'fighting.' And though a MMA movie (Mixed Martial Arts), not boxing, per se, for the genre, fighting, Warrior delivers a much better story than The Fighter, and is on par with Clint Eastwood's Oscar winner, Million Dollar Baby.
Expect a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nod in 2012 for Nick Nolte. And superstar status for Tom Hardy.
Warrior, though a work of fiction, plays out like a true story; two brothers at odds with each other and their father, in the town of Pittsburgh, who resort to prize fighting, one for the money, the other to prove himself a man.
Posted on 9/10/11 07:34 PM
flu. Thankfully like SARS a few years earlier, the outbreaks were rather small thanks to a wealth of precautionary information and measures. In the new film "Contagion" director Steven Soderbergh paints a frighteningly realistic look at a worldwide pandemic that spread without warning, and its devastating aftermath.
When businesswoman Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what appears to be a simple case of the flu, her husband Mitch (Matt Damon), figures it's nothing to be overly concerned about. When Beth all of a sudden begins to convulse and later dies unexpectedly, doctors are at a loss to explain what happened.
Over the next few days, more and more people become sick and die including Mitch's young stepson, which gets the national and international disease control organizations working overtime to try to trace, identify and treat this mysterious ailment that sweeping the globe. Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) leads the investigation in the United States and calls in Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet), to track who may have come into contact with Beth upon her return to the Minneapolis. The World Health Organization sends Dr. Leonora Orantes (Marion Cotillard) to Hong Kong trace possible origins.
As the first week passes more and more people become sick worldwide, cities start fighting a losing battle against frenzy and panic. In time the virus is identified but due to its unique nature, finding a vaccine and producing it can take several months with thousands of lives lost with each passing day. With chaos breaking loose and the bodies piling up, the authorities find themselves unable to deal with the threat they are facing and go to extreme measures such as closing the state borders to try to contain the spread of the virus.
Adding to the confusion is a freelance blogger named Alan (Jude Law), who has amassed a large audience with his conspiracy claims that there are indeed cures available for the mysterious virus. He contends the government elite and the pharmaceutical companies are exploiting the situation in order to milk maximum profit from the inevitable release of a vaccine.
The film deftly moves around the world showing the victims, scientists and investigators and how the crisis is affecting them. It also shows how quickly society can break down as scene after shocking scene of chaos and devastation are introduced juxtaposed with the number of days since the outbreak of the virus.
Soderbergh keeps you on the edge of your seat and doesn't give you a moment's rest. Characters are introduced and given just enough of a back story so that you understand their place in the film. Most heartbreaking is Matt Damon's role as a father who was watching over his only remaining child, going to great measures to keep her safe while also dealing with the death of his wife and the unfolding secret of the last days of her life.
There is truly an impressive array of stars in the film, some of whom play brief but significant parts in the overall story. However, the movie's strength is also its weakness in that with so many primary characters, there were some diverging story lines with that did not get fully fleshed out.
While "Contagion" is not the first film to deal with viral outbreak, it is perhaps the most realistic as it doesn't resort to any Hollywood standards such as car chases, explosions, starcrossed lovers and so on to tell its story. Instead it focuses on stark, somber scenarios and the struggles of each character is very easy to relate to.
Kudos has to be given to many of the stars of the film for their understated but pitch perfect work in very unglamorous roles. Their subtle & poignant acting underscore the dire situations that their characters find themselves in. It was refreshing to see leading men and women looking quite ordinary and letting the story carry the picture rather than focusing on one individual to save the day.
All throughout the film I found myself captivated and never once did I lose interest in the scenarios or characters nor did I find anything in the film impossible to believe. The film doesn't go overboard on pointing fingers instead it gives an honest and unflinching look at a scenario that we can only hope will never happen. But as the film points out, viral outbreaks have occurred all throughout history. Hardly an encouraging message, but thanks to the stellar cast and gripping subject matter "Contagion" is a film you will not want to miss.
Posted on 9/10/11 07:33 PM
About this time last year, I saw a movie called "Piranha." It was a loose remake of a 1978 cult favorite produced by Roger Corman; the sort of cheesy B-movie that was so laughably bad that it ascended to being good fun. That was, of course, the original film, not the remake, which made it onto my list of the worst movies of 2010. Now, exactly one year later, my hopes for seeing a good creature-feature on the silver screen have once again been crushed by what was, essentially, the exact same picture I saw last fall. The only difference is, now the obnoxious, hard-to-endure stick-figure characters are being munched on by big fake CGI sharks instead of big fake CGI piranhas.
But it's really the same scenario. Some brainless young adults are frolicking about on a big, freshwater lake when all of a sudden, people are being tossed about and pulled under by unseen attackers. About thirty minutes in, it's revealed (as if we didn't already know) that the lake has been infested by sharks. And not just great whites, either. No, there are hammerheads, tiger sharks, bulls, and even cookie-cutters. How are all of these oceanic species ending up in a freshwater lake? Well, the movie gives an explanation, but it's one of the most outrageously bad plot twists in recent years. And remember, I'm an aficionado on the junk monster movies that pop up on the SyFy Channel every weekend. Now, I do not go to a monster movie looking for great character study or plot logistics. I go there looking for good old-fashioned, escapist fun. Only when a B-movie becomes so incredibly empty and devoid of joy do I start nitpicking on things I might otherwise overlook until after the credits have rolled. But the writing and directing of "Shark Night" (which by the way, mostly takes place under a bright sunny sky) is so bland, so unenthusiastic, so absent-minded that it left me looking at my watch after about twenty minutes. After the first attack sequence, which starts with a predictable twist and then becomes a practical shot-for-shot knock-off from the all-more-effective opening scene in "Jaws," the only thing that ran through my mind was wondering how long it would be before Steven Spielberg and Universal decided to pitch out a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
The whole movie looks and feels very much like it was made directly for a television release, giving it a sort of schizophrenic, out-of-place feeling. The fact that the performances are beneath comment does not help any, since they are on screen far more often than the cartoony, computer-generated sharks who can twist their necks as flexibly as a human arm and snarl like lions. In addition, there is the other big problem that I also had with "Piranha": dopey exploitation. The movie's far more interested in ogling at the hindquarters and torsos of partially-naked models-turned-'actors' than it is in developing plausible attack scenarios or engaging the audience in the way only a good B-movie can.
Well, at least there weren't any underwater lesbian scenes this time. No chewed up, sex organs either. Thank heaven.
If the writers had realized that they were making a movie for the big screen and not for television, "Shark Night" might have proved to be a solid, lighthearted matinée. Instead, it fails to recognize what it ought to have been and pretends to be a grade-A exploitation flick, falling flat from the beginning. In regards to its 3D: it's thoroughly unimpressive. Granted, I am not the biggest fan of 3D; I think it's a cheap, unengaging gimmick. But half the time, you wouldn't know this were a 3D movie if it weren't for the bulky glasses sitting on your nose. It's still murky and nothing jumps out from the screen except for a few pieces from a motorboat and some seaweeds. Not scary, not entertaining, not even remotely interesting, "Shark Night" was one of the more unhappy times I've had at the movies.
It seems like the only folks who can still produce good monster flicks are the Japanese. Their contemporary rubber monsters smashing miniature Tokyos and Osakas are far more interesting than any monster mayhem I've seen on the big screen in a long while.
Posted on 9/10/11 07:31 PM
This movies goes pretty much where you'd expect it to go. Kind of an Alien meets Blair Witch. There hasn't been a sci-fi adaptation of that 'found footage' genre, so I guess this is the attempt.
Technical details: The dialog is weak and crew actions questionable. The cinematography is pretty good. Good integration of the old and new, so kudos for that. Acting was hampered by the poor dialog, but was serviceable.
They added some speculation about the Russians I thought was cool and hoped they would explore that further.
If you're a sci-fi fan you'll be disappointed. I am and was.
Posted on 8/31/11 08:58 PM
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is exactly the kind of horror movie you want to hate. It's a remake, it involves a child in peril, and it contains some (and I say "some") very nasty violence. Just watch--you'll have trouble hating it.
Guillermo del Toro's new collaborative effort with first-time director Troy Nixey is, simply put, horror done right. There's a lot here that can be found in any horror movie that comes out now, but this one succeeds for relying on tone and setting rather than blood and guts. The acting from all three leads is surprisingly good, and Nixey shines as well behind the camera.
However, at the heart of the film is a ballsy story co-written by del Toro that really keeps the film stable. Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is originally based on a 1973 British TV movie that has been hailed as one of the scariest movies ever made. The remake features a new main character: Sally, a child, played by Bailee Madison. Sally moves into a new Gothic mansion with her father (Guy Pearce) and a new stepmother (Katie Holmes). There, she discovers a ventilation system where she hears breathy voices calling to play with her. At first, the voices are friendly. Then, they're vicious and violent.
The violence of the movie is one of the reasons why this movie succeeds so nicely. The first scene is grisly and is, without a doubt, the reason why Don't Be Afraid of the Dark earned its R-rating rather than its intended PG-13. There isn't constant violence. In fact, there isn't even that much of it. Most of it is bloodless, but all of it is enough to make us squeamish and afraid.
Another area in which the movie excels in that respect is its design. The mansion that Nixey and del Toro chose is gorgeous. The intense lighting, which Nixey noted as "inspired by Rembrandt" in the Q&A following the film, is moody and adds to the heavy tone of the movie. The house is just creepy on its own, but it becomes creepier thanks to the creature design. Unlike what the trailer tells you, the creatures are pretty tiny. What creeped me out about them was the loud, shrill screeches they let out. It'll give you chills. Keep a keen ear and listen for del Toro, as he voices a few of the creatures.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is a very fun and very creepy horror movie experience. Though not without its flaws, it has a strong story stabilized by good characters and a surprisingly dark ending, and it's got some good acting too. It's hard not to be absorbed in the mesmerizing light pools of the mansion, and it's even harder not to be entertained. As usual in del Toro films, darkness and unseen monsters reign, and as usual, it's pretty damn unnerving.
Credit to alexart-1
Posted on 8/14/11 06:27 PM
Allow me to preface this review by saying that as you may have guessed from the trailer, this film is absolutely no different from the previous 4. So if you're going to this movie expecting a bit of a shake-up, you may want to skip it. But if you're going to this movie for how it should be viewed: good old gory and stupid fun, I'd say go right ahead.
I was a little bit disenchanted with the series after I saw the fourth movie. Maybe it was because I was getting tired of the series at the time, but I just wasn't drinking the kool-aid anymore. Furthermore I was dumbfounded when they were making a 5th movie, wondering how they could after the fourth movie was called "The Final Destination". However, the trailer looked fun, and some 3D gore fare will be some bang for my buck.
I'm glad to report that this was a big Improvement. In fact, dare I say it, this has been a good year for fives. While I'm not a fan of the Fast And Furious movies, I enjoyed Fast Five in IMAX. And so I figured maybe the fifth FD movie could be good and I was surprised at how much I liked it.
The deaths are probably the most gory and brutal in the series. I kid you not, the filmmakers really do go for broke, the deaths in your face like a lunatic. In other words, death is ticked the frack off in this. One particular death pretty much sums up why I will never do gymnastics, in the same way that FD3 confirmed why I won't ever step foot into a Tanning salon, nor will I go on a roller coaster. Oh, and David Koechner is in this too, which I will say is a nice surprise.
There is a lot of humour too. And thankfully so, because the previous installments took themselves too seriously. The spa scene had me laughing to the point of tears. Also, the deaths are beautifully campy, and I must say I found myself laughing at pretty much all the gore.
In addition the 3D is a nice campy touch. There's stuff flying out at you, like the Ships mast near the beginning, as well as the opening credits with the wooden logs, the burnt bodies and the broken glass and what not. In fact, I'd say go for the 3D alone.
However, I can't give this a higher rating because it is exactly the same as the first four. I mean really, things happen the exact same way They did in the previous movies. I mean, as with the other movies, there's little to no surprise, so if you're expecting something fresh, do skip this.
Overall, this movie is good for some light fun and campy, gory entertainment. If you liked the previous four, you'll like this one. If not... Well, you get the idea.
Pros: Final Destination 5 is good, campy gory entertainment for those wanting just a bit of brainless (no pun intended) fun.
Cons: The film is exactly the same as the first four. Plus, it would have sucked out loud in 2D, but 3D was good fun.