hig4s's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Ex Machina
Ex Machina (2015)
21 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Are you kidding me, sure they used a lot of big words, but it was in just a poorly done Hitchcock/horror cliche plot line disguised as science fiction. The plot was as transparent as Ava's torso. And the banality of the totally less than profound ending was such a waste of potential. Two hours time to produce 20 minutes worth of plot line, with an ending that should have been the first third (at most) of a real story. To paraphrase a line from the movie, "Don't be analytic, just tell me how it makes you feel." It made me feel dumber than when I started watching. Critics praised it for being so intelligent. To any one that really gets AI, and the theories and philosophy behind it, it was not at all intelligent. And from a purely sci-fi viewpoint, even some of the most unscientific viewers know of Asimov's three laws of robotics. To totally ignore the concept in a modern movie is unforgivable.

Into the Woods
2 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

I will try to express my views on the movie. To start with I thoroughly enjoyed it. From a purely entertainment view, it has good acting and singing. Sometimes the acting is purposely over the top and campy, sometimes dramatic and touching and often funny. From a writing viewpoint, it has bright and dark moments, a central theme, and a satisfying conclusion. From a philosophical view, it has simile, metaphor, and innuendo in multiple levels and layers that intertwine the individual plot lines into a tapestry of the human experience.

The depth of the underlying philosophical metaphor is profound to the level I am still contemplating it. That being said, it is not necessary to understand any of it to enjoy this movie. Billy Magnussen and Chris Pine were excellent and hilarious as the brother princes of the realm, characters so shallow they are not even giving names in the story, just Cinderella's Prince and Rapunzel's Prince. The special effects were great, but totally unnecessary to tell the story. It makes me wish I could see the live stage version (being extremely careful of what I wish for). Finally, while never on screen or graphic, the implied violence of the original fairy tales, like the evil step mother cutting of the toes of the evil step sister to try to fit into Cinderella's slipper, makes it questionable for young children and makes me wonder how they got a PG rating.

To everyone except for those that just cannot stand musicals, and maybe even to some of those people, I say it is a fun ride that you will most likely enjoy.
I actually see that it is getting no so good reviews, I have to blame this partly on people's expectations as set by a very poor ad campaign. From all the ads I saw on TV, I did not know it was a musical. I am assuming a lot of people thought it was a normal fairytale action movie (Nope, musical) for kids (No so much), and would just be mindless entertainment (it has that too, but really is better with thought). I guess it could be that a lot of people simply don't get it..

As far as the professional reviewers it is 70% like it, Less than I would have expected for a Golden Globe Best Picture nominee, but then many that did not like is say it was not a great adaption of the original play. Movie adaptations are rarely as good as the original source material, that doesn't make the movie bad.

Cloud Atlas
Cloud Atlas (2012)
4 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

very deep compelling and innovative. I can't believe it is not doing better in the box office. I expect it will be like other movies that become classics in time.

Dredd
Dredd (2012)
4 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

While I thought Karl Urban made a good Dredd, I did not find it enjoyable. Just blood, gore and violence, Dredd should have been much more than that. I say with conviction what the writers had Dredd say in jest, "it was just a drug bust"

Looper
Looper (2012)
4 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
½

I don't see why the great reviews. The actors did a good job of making it believable they were the same person at different ages. The plot had character change, but virtually all plots should. Beyond that I was not that impressed. The premiss just made me say why?
Why if time travel was outlawed, did only organized crime have it, certainly the government had also.
Why send people back 30 years, how about 100, 1000, one million?
Why send people back to be killed because it is hard to hide bodies, why not kill them and send them back dead, gets rid of the body and eliminate the need for loopers.
Why send them to the middle of a corn field, why not the middle of the ocean? Dead or alive you wouldn't need loopers.
Why make the lame 70 telekinetic mutant a key part of the plot?
Why at the end didn't the time line loop back to the beginning, like the first time he fell and died?
Why did the older character go back in time with the hood on once?
Why did I waste my time when I know Hollywood can't do a time paradox correctly?
Finally, the logic of the young character's seeing the loop is flawed. If his assumption that his older character killing the mother caused the Rainman to be evil and send all the loopers back around the same time, then not killing the mother would have changed when he was sent back and he never would have been there to kill her to start with. So either the whole movie is like the dream season of Dallas, or the kid would become the rainman either way and the older version of himself was actually correct.