Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Enjoyable, despite its flaws.
11 June 2012
David (Xavier Samuel) and Mia (Laura Brent) meet on a tropical island during their vacations and fall in love with each other. It may seem like the usual holiday romance, but they know there's more to it, so on their last evening, David proposes to Mia and gets a yes. But here's a problem: He is from London and she is from Australia. So David packs up his best buddies (who are not fond of the idea of losing David) and best men to be, Tom (Kris Marshall), Graham (Kevin Bishop) and Luke (Tim Draxl), to fly to Australia and wed Mia on her parent's mansion. Of course his friends want to make his stag night, as well as the wedding, a most memorable experience David. Mia's father, Senator Jim Ramsey (Jonathan Biggins), on the other hand, wants a perfect wedding to impress his political friends.

Obviously, this wedding sets sails for chaos. Said chaos is mostly predictable, but then again, well picked and executed for the major part. And while there are a few typical gross moments, it's not so bad that you get the urge to puke. What I'm missing a bit is that you feel indifferent towards the characters. You don't really like or dislike them, they're just there. I didn't notice even a hint of feeling sorry for this crashed wedding. While this could also be accounted to the predictability of the movie, another reason would simply be that the characters are swallow. Not that I expect that in a comedy, but it would've helped. Then again, this also means, they're sparing the audience some overused and cheesy romance, since it's not about the wedding, but the best men on a wedding. The most important part of a comedy is of course the humour. This mix of British and Australian humour does work well together, making this film enjoyable despite its flaws. Then again, this is nothing you need to see on the big screen, so if you're not totally desperate for a chaos comedy, you might consider another flick.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Safe (I) (2012)
7/10
Fast paced action, wrapped into a decent story.
11 June 2012
Mei (Catherine Chan) is a little genius when it comes to numbers. She can remember everything and calculate anything in her mind. That's why she's very valuable for the Chinese Triads, who use her as a computer that can't be hacked or traced. One day, she's asked to memorize a long number and drive to another place to learn a different one. But the Russian mob steps in and assaults her ride, killing almost everyone. Mei can escape and this is when she meets Luke Wright (Jason Statham). Former elite cop, former small time MMA fighter, on the run from the Russian mob who lost a bunch of money for betting against him in a match and killed his wife in revenge. The will to protect this little girl gives him a new will to live, a drive to go on. And so they run away; away from the Triads, the mob and the corrupt NYPD, trying to figure out why everyone wants either those numbers or her death.

It's a bit of Mercury Puzzle and 16 Blocks. And despite my usual fears, the story did not turn cheesy due to the kid. But the girl didn't turn into an unrealistic bad ass as well. Also they did not develop a forced deep relationship between Luke and Mei, which would be unrealistic, considering that the story doesn't go that long. The film is featuring fast paced action, wrapped into a decent (though not great) story and is supported by good acting. Well, at least good acting from the leading characters, but the supporting ones weren't that bad as well, so you don't have to suffer from it. So overall, a quite enjoyable movie, which I would recommend to fans of story driven action movies and especially to all Statham fans.

Just for fun, let's check the Statham clichés. Shirtless? Yep, first time you see him in the movie. Car-chase? Of course. And when Mei was a bit concerned about his driving style, I was just waiting for a comeback from him that was like "Don't worry kid, I've been doing this for several movies now."
44 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Act of Valor (2012)
6/10
If you don't watch it for story and good acting, it's a good movie.
30 May 2012
A team of Navy SEALs is being dispatched to rescue a kidnapped CIA agent from a jungle camp in Costa Rica. While being successful, this is only the start into a series of missions that will lead the elite team to targets all over the world to uncover a terrorist network.

A short synopsis, but there isn't that much story to start with, so I could easily spoil the whole movie with a few sentences. I also can't mention the actors, because the SEALs were played by actual SEALs, meaning that (beside staying anonymous) the acting is mostly poor, the characters are swallow (one of them having a pregnant wife is as deep as it gets) and hard to distinguish (wearing uniforms doesn't make that easier). So does this movie suck? Well, if you expect story and acting, yes and you can stop reading here. But if you can overlook that, maybe you will enjoy this movie. The photography is really, really nice. Well placed views and angles, making it almost eye-candy, if it wasn't about shooting people. And of course the action is great and if you love action, you will love this flick. From that point of view, it was a great idea to let SEALs play the SEALs, because it feels natural to them, making the action believable (something you often miss). That also makes it more realistic, since they don't have to figure out how they would behave in a real life situation, since this is something they do for a living. But of course, there is the obvious downer of it being an very patriotic movie. Not that I hate patriotism, but if it turns into a 110 minute commercial for the armed forces, you can get annoyed a bit. And somehow I do believe this is one of the reasons, why the movie is so successful in the US, beside being a mindless action movie with great pictures. Oh and of course, Tom Clancy had his fingers in this.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Sitter (2011)
4/10
Not a complete waste of time, but hardly worth it.
15 May 2012
Noah Griffith (Jonah Hill) is a college dropout, who doesn't do sh*t and lives with his mother. She wants to go on a date, but a problem occurs; her double date partners don't have a baby sitter. A problem that can be solved with the reluctant Noah. Arriving at the scene, he's confronted with the timid, but handsome Slater (Max Records), the wannabe it-girl Blithe (Landry Bender) and Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), an adoptee with a fell streak. The kids haven't even started to ruin Noah's evening, when he gets a call from his "girlfriend", who's at a party and needs some coke. Baited with the chance for intercourse, he loads the kids into the family minivan to meet up with Karl (Sam Rockwell), an artistic individual in the narcotics industry.

Mediocre at best. Not a complete waste of time, but still hardly worth it. Let's have a look at some details, though. My first thought of the movie was: Jonah Hill is getting too old for these roles. Not that those deadbeat character comedies rely on credibility or have an age limit, but still, it's getting hard to believe. The kids are okay, well they're kids. And each of them has a small little problem, which gets solved during the course of the movie, to give them reason to be there, aside being part of the main story. But that's it, every time a small conversation and it's over. Most of the characters are semi- entertaining, with Sam Rockwell being the one that sticks out the most, even more than Jonah Hill, which is bad for a leading character. Which brings us to the main question of a comedy review: Is it entertaining? Yes, somewhat. You don't find yourself laughing all the time, but it does mostly have a slightly funny feeling. Then again, it's lacking originality and you might just smirk, because you knew what was coming.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lockout (2012)
6/10
Good for what it is, but could've been better.
4 May 2012
Snow (Guy Pearce) is a governmental agent, accused of killing another governmental operative and stealing information from him. He actually tried to save that information and passed them on to his partner Mace (Tim Plester). Each one tries to get away on their own, but soon they both are arrested. After futile attempts to squeeze the information from Snow, he's convicted to 30 years in stasis on MS: One, a maximum security prison in Earth's lower orbit. Meanwhile, Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), the daughter of the president of the United States of America, is paying a visit to MS One. She's concerned that the stasis is causing mental illness to the prisoners. But the interview with Hydell (Joseph Gilgun), a rapist and murder, goes horribly wrong, leading to a prison-wide breakout. Among the fugitives is Alex (Vincent Regan), who takes on the lead and starts to blackmail the government, threatening to kill the hostages, not knowing who Emilie is. The government on the other hand, knows. That rules out military action, leaving only one plan: To send one man in, to try to rescue her. But who is qualified for this, while also being valiant and/or stupid enough? Snow is. And with the promise to find his partner Mace on MS: One, and with him a lead to the lost information, he's even willing to do this.

The movie starts out as a spy thriller, at least looks like it, but soon turns into a mixture of Escape from New York and Die Hard in space. The story is about as deep and predictable, but this ain't the kind of movie you watch for the story. Instead, you watch it for some fun and action. And this is what you get. While the action in the beginning (spy thriller part) is the best of the movie, you can enjoy some shootings and explosions later. The characters on the other hand are very swallow; especially the main protagonist is very one-sided. He's making up for his lack of emotion with funny comebacks and one-liners, though. And by that I mean about every single line he had in his script. But it's okay; it's not turning the movie into a comedy, but still adds a good part of fun to it, just gets a bit annoying every once in a while. I should also mention that this is a Luc Besson movie, which means that it's quite good for what it is. But a thing that really bugged me was the pace. Things often go fast from one thing to the next, so you get the feeling things are left out or the movie could've at least been better with a few more minutes spread over the entire flick, just to slow it down a bit here and there. This is also one of the reasons they actually blow the only semi-deep moment that tries to carry a message. Maybe you have to wait for the Directors Cut to get this. Which brings me to the conclusion: If you like to see a good action flick on the big screen, go for it, it's really enjoyable. If you just add flicks like that to your time killer list, wait for the DVD and hope there's a Director's Cut version of it.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nothing new, but good for dates.
25 April 2012
Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl) lost her job half a year ago and can't afford to pay her bills. As her car is collected during family dinner, the idea rises to do some temp work at her cousin's office, who is bail bondsman. Unfortunately that job is already done, but she "convinces" him to let her do some work as a bail enforcement agent (bounty hunter). Without experience and equipment, but with the dire need for some cash (and for a little revenge), she decides to go for his biggest jumper, her ex-lover Joe Morelli (Jason O'Mara). As she digs deeper into his case, she discovers that he might not be as guilty as they say he is.

Well, a crime-comedy with the obvious romance. I'm left with mixed feelings about the main character. Is the role written in-consequent or was Heigl's acting bad? I have to admit, that I've never read the book, but my problem is, that the character is shifting between being anxious and being tough. I mean if Janet Evanovich wrote 18+5 books (so far) about a female bounty hunter, I would expect the heroine to be quite tough or dead by the middle of the second novel (unless she's an anti-heroine, in that case the movie is even worse). I do understand that a character has to get used to new life situations, but all that jumping seems awkward, especially with all the stupidity that sticks to her till the very end. Anyway, aside that, the overall acting was on the same level as it is with most romantic comedies, which is, let's say, not that good. But one can like the characters, leading and supporting, they just play a lot of clichés. The story is nothing new (as in: full of tropes), has a few flaws (as in: full of holes), but is overall enjoyable.

Okay, all that was a bit vague. I'll tell you what I think that movie is good for. It's good for dates. Men and women can watch it, without being appalled, since it's not bad, gives some romance, gives some action and gives some comedy. Since the story is easy to follow, you don't need to pay full attention to it and can focus on something or someone else. And if you don't have high expectations, you can't be disappointed (still talking about the movie, but I'll leave the wider interpretation to you). And maybe you want to watch the movie if you like the books, but that's just a wild guess, since I don't know for sure how off it is compared to them. In any other case, if Heigl's side-boob is not enough reason for you to watch it, go watch something else.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than everything after part 1
25 April 2012
Over a decade has passed, since the kids from East Great Falls graduated from high school. The old gang rarely got to see each other and their lives went on. Some are married, some are living their dream and everyone has their own problems. Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) have a son now, who makes them happy, but on the downside, the bed is only used for sleeping. Oz (Chris Klein) is quite famous for being the host of a sports show and participating in a dance contest, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) a loving husband, Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) is a globetrotter and of course, there's Steve Stifler (Seann William Scott) who hasn't changed a bit. Everyone is glad to be back together and they try to catch up, while also reliving their high school days.

They're back. And yes, they really did get most of the cast back, even the side characters. Unfortunately they didn't really learn to act in all those years, but then again, no one is watching American Pie for the high-quality acting. The characters have developed, but haven't really matured. Some gags are good, some are not that good or a bit stupid, while others are tasteless. For example, I really didn't need to see Jason Biggs' dong, the joke would've even worked without it. And that's one of the things I never liked about the American Pie franchise. They have some quite good and funny parts, but blow it with grossy grade-school and/or fecal humour. But I have to admit, the movie isn't that bad. Well, at least it's way better than everything else that came after the first movie (which isn't that hard, because everyone was worse than the predecessor). And here's the controversy about the tightrope walk they had to do with this movie. They want to get back all the old fans of the movies, which should've grown out of this kind of movies, while also pleasing the new generation of movie goers, who want that kind of humour. So we have all the "old" characters/actors, who are familiar to the old fan base, while targeting the humour of today's teenagers. And I have to admit, they do this actually quite well. So yeah, if you're an old fan, you can get a bit nostalgic and won't be disappointed by American Reunion. And if you're young and new to the franchise, you can have a good time as well. But if haven't seen an American Pie movie before, you should at least watch the first movie, to get to know the characters, since they don't get much of an introduction. And if you don't like American Pie, this movie won't make you love it, since it's basically the same old stuff.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
50/50 (2011)
8/10
Good balance of drama and comedy
24 April 2012
Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is 27 years old, has a loving girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), works as a writer for a local radio station and is a genuine nice guy. Life is good, until he learns that he has a rare case of spinal cancer, leaving him with a 50% chance to survive it. With the help of his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), his overprotective mother (Anjelica Huston) and the young postgraduate therapist Katherine (Anna Kendrick), he tries to tackle chemotherapy. Everyone has their own way to handle Adam and his disease, but is there really a way to help him as the cancer starts to take its tolls?

This movie is inspired by a true story, the story of the writer Will Reiser, and Seth Rogen was really his friend in those hard times in real life. Now, combining drama and comedy is something difficult to do, but the director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser manage to keep it at a good balance, at 50/50 if you like, without melodramatising it or turning it into a laughing stock. The story may pick up slow, but gets really good, revealing the difficulties Adam has to face and the friendship he receives. What I also like about the movie is the lack of romance. Sure, there is this thing going on, but it's really subtle and the movie would be about the same without it. They are not ruining the touching plot with a cheesy love story. On the story downside, there are a few things that seem neglected, like Adam's job or his old greyhound Skeletor. They are not important for the story, but the way they are introduced and sometimes mentioned, you get the feeling that there should be more to it. Levitt's acting is really good and you can feel all the different moods and stages his character goes through. And I'm really surprised, that Rogen cannot only play the funny parts, but the serious ones as well. It's also mainly thanks to his contribution, that the movie avoids drifting into a depressing one and can keep its drama/comedy balance. The characters are likable and generally played well. Overall quite a good movie to recommend. So, unless you prefer mindless action flicks or stupid comedies, go see this one, I enjoyed it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed