Bryan Davis's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Alien: Covenant
3 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Alien Covenant is a far cry from being in the same realm of Alien or Aliens, but it is no Prometheus either. I actually feel this movie is a mixed bag, like Prometheus was. But it has a lot more punch, more gore, and above all else, the Alien parasite is back...sort of. Its interesting to see where this series is going. It is a premise that sounds cheesy when you discuss it, but with the acting chops of Micheal Fassbender it actually gets pulled off. Most of the characters are not even recognizable at all. We never get to know but 4 or so characters. Everyone is cannon fodder, which really loses out on the horror element. Sure, this film is gory and scary, but without that human connection, the scares are nothing more than a gimmick. Overall, I liked Covenant quite a bit. It is not without its flaws. But it really gets you thinking. This is the middle film in the Alien Prequel trilogy. And I am curious to see where Ridley Scott takes this universe he created back in 1979.

The Hunt
The Hunt (2013)
3 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Amazing. One of the best films of the year.

Godzilla (2014)
3 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

"Godzilla" (2014) follows a similar pattern to the original 1954 "Godzilla" as far as pacing. Godzilla does not show up for about 45 minutes into the film, which is fine. This is not a CGI explosion fest. It takes its time to let the story unfold, setting up everything for the third act. It's also a love letter to Steven Spielberg. A throwback to both classic Kaiju films and 1980's filmmaking that I have not seen in a long, long time (with the lone exception of Super 8). Gareth Edwards' first film, 2010's ultra low budget, but ultra cool "Monsters," was an amazing attempt at the Kaiju Genre, focusing on the human element. An area that is often either ignored or a complete failure. In fact, Gareth did such a crafty job with "Monsters" that we cared for the characters so much, that the Kaiju became background. The opposite happens in "Godzilla", and as a result, the human characters are a little flat and a little under developed. Sadly, Gareth tries the same tricks he did in "Godzilla" that he did with "Monsters" where we follow the aftermath of the Kaiju and not the Kaiju themselves, which means the story focuses more on the human element more than the Kaiju. And since they are the weaker link to the story, "Godzilla" does not have the punch "Monsters" does. Not even during the amazing third act of the film. I do appreciate that Gareth took his time with "Godzilla" and that it was not a brainless, scriptless, pointless Michael Bay explosion fest. But for the 165 million dollar budget "Godzilla" had, I had hoped to see more of the title character, and more of the kaiju battle in the third act. I may be a little harder on "Godzilla" than your average reviewer, since I have been a lifelong fan of this 60 year old icon. My wife liked the film a lot more than I did. Not to say I did not like it, cause I did like it a lot. I just wanted a little more Godzilla in my Godzilla movie.

I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10.

Would I see it again? Yes.

Would I recommend it to a friend? Yes.

Is it worth spending $10 bucks to see it in theaters? Absolutely!

Thor: The Dark World
3 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Thor was one of those comic book adaptations that I was pretty sure wasn't going to translate well to the screen. Think about it. Demi-Gods. Asgard. A man who twirls and throws oversized war hammers while himself flying around...

The original "THOR" was a surprise delight. No, it's not a perfect film, and no, it won't change your life. Taken at face value, it is nothing more than a fun popcorn film, and within those boundaries, "Thor" was a fun film.

Call me a sceptic, but when I found out most of "Thor 2" would take place on Asgard, that the antagonists would be "Evil Elves," the doubts came flooding in again.

Reluctantly, I saw "Thor 2" with very low expectations. Now, is this a perfect film? Will the sequel change your life? No. No it won't. But it is an enjoyable popcorn film, like it's predecessor before it. Is it better than the first "Thor"? Yes. Yes it is. In fact, the only two things I could really find to nit pick over this film was: the foil between Lady Siv and Jane Foster. There was none. The romance between Sif and Thor could have been interesting, and opened the floodgates to a love triangle. Love triangles lead to some great drama...but that entire segment of the story was just an afterthought, which was too bad. The other nit pick I have, is a common one with most films I see today. The development of the main antagonist was completely ignored. Malekith. King of the evil Dark Elves with the pupilless black soulless eyes. He's...boring. One dimensional. We don't really understand what drives him. What he wants. Who he is. Where he comes from. In fact, we know NOTHING about Malekith at all! NOTHING.

I know that underdeveloped villains is a big pet peeve of mine, but for some reason, even despite this flaw, "Thor 2" still manages to entertain and delight. Again, it's no masterpiece. But "Thor 2" is a lot of fun at the movies.

By the way, if anyone understands the 1st of the 2 mini credit clips, the one with Benicio Del Torro, please explain it to me. I just have no idea what it was and I found myself not caring one bit.

Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey
3 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

If you have not checked out this movie yet, do it now. It's AWESOME. Very inspiring. Of course, I'm a bit biased cause I'm a big Journey fan. Regardless, it's a very cool rags to riches story. Arnel Pineda's story is amazing. From a homeless man living on the streets of the Philippines, a chance youtube search lands him the job of Journey's front man.

Great stuff.