Reviews

41 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tomb Raider (2018)
Above expectations
16 March 2018
Went in to see this without a real feeling of anticipation or excitement, and being honest if I didn't have an unlimited card I probably wouldn't have bothered to go to the cinema to see it.... However.... I have to say his was a really enjoyable 2 hours, yes it's a paint by numbers action/adventure movie, but with a lot of the same beats and general feelings of classic 80's popcorn adventure movies.

Alicia Vikander is a really good Lara Croft, I believed in her character and motivations, even though I had to suspend my disbelieve at times regarding some of the outcomes of her 'near misses' I didn't roll my eyes at any point though (as we probably all do when watching Transformers movies for example)

Loved the adventure element of the movie, and it flies along at a good pace once we get to the mysterious island. Having said that the characters motivation and development is handled well within the first 20mins or so. This creates the right amount of stakes throughout the film.

Overall a decent movie, that is definitely worth a watch, I hope it does well enough to green light a sequel, as I want to see more of Alicia's Lara.

8/10 - For the popcorn fun alone
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Utter utter p**h....
25 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Well I have to say this has to have been one of the most enduring and annoying cinematic experiences I have ever had the mis-pleasure of sitting through. Where to start...

Well the film seems to have been written by some teenager who appears to have been continuously turned on by the posters of glamour models and US Military equipment on his bedroom wall as he wrote. Dialogue is terrible, story doesn't have any coherence or even make any kind of sense when comparing it to the mythology to the two previous movies.

Acting, well appalling, the 'new' Megan Fox is horrendous, and can't act for toffee. Shia is a decent actor but his character Sam has now become extremely annoying by this stage in the franchise. All the other parts are simply either, cardboard cutout's and have very little screen time to develop in anyway, or are just beyond stupid and pointless.

Direction is the same old Michael Bay lets blow everything up in the sunshine with slow motion. Its been done to death Michael, lets try and evolve as a film-maker and focus more on pacing, character and story development. 60 minute final battle scene? Eh? No one except 7 year old kids want to watch that. Far too long, and once you've seen one battle between two gigantic robots you've seen them all.

So many WTF moments. Too many to go through. I can't remember the amount of times I just wanted to put my head on my hands in despair.

I don't get this movie, a lot of people say 'What do you expect form a movie about robots that was based on a kids toy line.' True but M Bay didn't make this for kids or he would have had much more subtlety with the amount of sexual connotations instead of ramming it down our throats. There also seems to be an air of Rasicm, Jingoism, and sexual discrimination similarly to the previous efforts and those underlying themes shouldn't be involved in a kids movie.

An extremely poor effort of film-making, excluding the visual and special effects. Unfortunately 2.5hrs of visual effects doesn't constitute a movie to me. Michael Bay seems to be a sheltered and overly patriotic teenager who has just discovered the excitement of sexual arousal trapped in a mans body. This can only explain his style, content and the view on the world he wants to project in his movies. Someone needs to grow up fast and open his eyes a little wider before making another movie IMO.

1/10 Awful in every way.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bounty Hunter (I) (2010)
2 hours I will never get back...Aaaargh!
22 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Went to see this with pretty low expectations, thanks to some mainly negative reviews. However, Gerard Butler's performances are usually quite fun to watch, and although not her biggest fan I still quite like Jennifer Anniston as a comedy performer. The trailers looked OK, so all in all not the worst foundations for a potential enjoyable flick ( if you ignore the reviews anyway ).

Oh how wrong I am, like so many Hollywood "Comedies" these days, the trailers draw you in as they have ALL the funny parts of the movie. Unfortunately this means we have to endure the rest of the movie minus 2 minutes of amusement.

The script writers should hold there heads in shame. Its like a 10 year old wrote this. No quirkiness, no wit, no flair, even a usually charismatic Mr Butler came across as a twit thanks to this poor script. Why do films like these ever see the light of day.

Not enough laughs to be a comedy, not enough romance to be romantic, a severe lack of tension to be a thriller, not enough action to be a action flick. I'm not sure what it was trying to be. I don't think the film-makers did either to be honest.

Another thing, there were loads of "surely this can't be this bad" moments. Gerards dancing then kissing a colleague, talking about the horse incident, pretend torture scenes, Jennifers colleague and every scene he is in. I could go on and on.

Avoid this movie at all costs, its not even a worthy DVD rental.

1/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Valentine's Day (I) (2010)
A very mediocre Valentines Day.
14 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Went to see this last night, a very popular choice giving the title and time of the year. Quite a good way to secure barrel loads of cash.

The movie itself was a big let down, and you could pick up on the tone within the cinema after the lights came on that many others in the audience agreed with me. So many BIG stars and so many characters, far too many to be fair, you can't possibly give each one the correct amount of screen time to provide a character arc in a 2 hour movie. I couldn't really get emotionally involved in any of the many scenario's we were served up. I found the majority of characters completely unlikable actually.

There were a couple of adequate performances, I thought Julia, Bradley and Jennifer were OK, Anne and Jessica Biel provided some comic relief as did Taylor in an ott goofy kind of way. Other than these performances everybody else was either bland, bad, or their part so small it wasn't significant enough to even give opinion.

Ashton (better than normal though) and Jessica Alba however once again provide outstanding evidence that they can't act for toffee. Easy on the eyes still seem to be their strongest quality.

As a romantic comedy there was also a massive lack of "comedy", a couple of half hearted laugh out loud moments is the best this could manage.

This film will make money down to the niche market aspect (like mediocre Xmas movies always make money during the festive period), along with the A-list cast. It's casting however is a false dawn, as none of the "big" stars really had enough screen time to justify seeing them as a relevant fan.

Its an American version of Love Actually, with the UK version being the much better movie in my opinion. There was something genuinely likable about Love Actually.

Not the worst movie I have watched, however can't really recommend it even for Valentines Day.

4/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
Entertainment set at maximum....
22 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Went to see the movie last Saturday at the local I.M.A.X. This is the first chance I have had to write the review, even though the movie and its impact on me has been in the back of my mind since the experience.

Experience is the word, this movie is epic, beautiful, engaging, exhilarating and quite simply fantastical.

The slight extra cost to view the film (IMAX 3D) was worth every penny and a load more.

Visuals are simply stunning from the off. The 3D is extremely impressive from the start and instantly you are emerged in the movie/experience.

Yes the story is the same story we have read/seen many times, however the way its presented and told is very well done. Good pacing, great direction and an brilliant score help the 3hrs pass in a flash.

So is the movie the groundbreaking event its hyped to be? Well you will have NEVER seen anything quite like this before, so in that respect it is. The effects are almost perfect excluding a couple of frames here and there.

James Cameron just knows how to entertain, arguably better than any modern day director/movie maker? Avatar is yet another strong tick in his resume. Personally this could be my favourite Cameron movie in fact.

There is nothing I didn't like or enjoy about Avatar. All the cast were fantastic, even though some where only CGI character they still did a great job. Nobody in the production of this movie let the side down.

10/10 An epic of the modern day. Quite simply puts a lot of "event movies" to shame. Watch this then watch Transformers 2. Night and day.

The King of the World is BACK.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2012 (I) (2009)
2012 a total disaster
19 November 2009
Well I'm just back from watching this movie at my local multi-plex. So what did I think? oh dear where to start.

This had to be one of the most enduring movies experiences of my life. 2HRS 30 MINS, are you kidding me? I have to be honest the only reason I went to see this movie was to see the quality of the CGI on the big screen. I didn't go to see it because I wanted or thought I would see, intense character development, an intriguing story with an intelligent script, fantastic direction with a epic world class score. Thank goodness I didn't because none of these things are on show.

So why did I hate this SO MUCH?

No logic to the build up of the chaos.

Cardboard cut out character with ZERO likability or progression. Were they all based on cartoon characters.

OTT close shaves........CONSTANTLY.....

FAR to many clichés, everyone possible for a disaster was thrown in there. Some originality please.

Did I mention 2 AND A HALF HOURS.

Poor script wrote I assume by a 5 year old?

Forgettable score

Ridiculous over sentimental moments of intimacy between cardboard characters. Sorry but I don't care about them because of the poor story telling.

Last 30 Min's dragged and was extremely dull, oh and how long can some of these characters hold their breath?

I could go on.....but won't.

What did I like.

Not much, however there are a couple of AWESOME CGI scenes of destruction.

Unfortunately thats not enough, not even close enough to make this an enjoyable experience, EVEN if your brain is in neutral.

1/10 For the CGI and only for the CGI.
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transformers-Robots of Disguste
24 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
ONE out of TEN....(minimum available)

I came to the conclusion that I was watching a steaming pile of s%*t about 10 minutes into this debacle, and without sounding dramatic If I hadn't paid good money to see it I would happily have walked out of the cinema at that point.

I feel I have a duty to play my part to get the overall score of this movie as low as possible (at time of this review 7.2 out of 10, WAY to high).

Why such hostility towards the movie? I will explain what I hated so much about it.

1. First two minutes, 17,000 BC. Please.....

2. The whole Witwicky family, especially that annoying (now turned comedian) Mother. The college scene where she makes a complete twit of herself?? WTF....

3. Every supermodel/porn-star shot of Mikaela, cringe, cringe and lets all cringe again. Megan Fox can't act for toffee. The conversation at the start on the phone to Sam, the music during it. WTF....

4. In an age of technology (That Michael Bay is constantly making us aware of) How the hell do these Robots stay a secret. Causing carnage in Shanghai, anyone got a camera phone handy? Obviously not as Prime and his buddies still remain top secret after their mission, and what a confusing blend of CGI that mission was....

5. Characters that are annoying to the EXTREME or none existing in their development. The twins?? and who are all these other Transformers?? WTF....

6. Is this a kids movie? The first certainly catered for all ages but not this one. However I'm also confused as the level of pornographic/adult humour was intense, it wasn't even cleverly ambiguous or subtle, just totally in your face. So much so I'm pretty sure even the kids knew what was going on with some of the comments....

7. Shia having his mental breakdown stage. WTF....and ANNOYING....

8. Michaels constant (wet dream on film) love for the US Military. ENOUGH we know you're a boy scout, Superman isn't as bad as this idiot. Why, Michael do ALL your movies look and play out the same? (Explosions, slow-mo, golden sun, explosion, USA military rules, more slow-mo etc etc etc....) Give it up or at least try to evolve as a film maker....

9. The amount of running, goodness sake Sam had to run and run and run. Use Bumblebee? Also how BAD are the decepticons at killing people?

10. TOO many comic reliefs, Sam room-mate, the parents, the twins, Sector 6 guy, please too many STOP....

11. Plot/script....totally useless and almost non-existent.

12. Acting from EVERYONE (With the exception of a couple of voice actors).

13 Last but not least, the direction. Utterly disastrous.

I could keep going but will leave it at 13. I enjoyed the first movie, so was cautiously looking forward to the sequel, hoping it could grow the Transformers universe and build on the good foundations of the first. How wrong I was, this was appalling. MIND NUMBINGLY APPALLING....

Oh and as for the "What do you expect from a movie about giant robots" attitude to criticism of this movie. Well I expect EVEN a popcorn summer blockbuster to have some level of plot and depth. Certainly beyond the 5 year old humour, US Military recruitment video's and CGI warriors CONSTANTLY fighting each other we have on display here. I can switch off my brain and still follow at least some kind of coherent plot.

The spectacle of the CGI effects has ran its course,its no longer "WOW that amazing, look at Optimus transform!" You need to have more than that up your sleeve Mr Bay. Star Trek this summer indicates you can have crazy CGI, appropriate humour with some depth, and STILL have a popcorn summer blockbuster.

AVOID.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bride Wars (2009)
Bride Wars (2009)
9 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Bride Wars (2009), I potentially thought this movie could turn out to be one of those quirky, funny, well thought out and acted comedies that occasionally come out of Hollywood. To be honest that is the only reason I agreed to accompany my Girlfriend to the movies to see it.

However my enthusiasm was quickly suppressed, and I realised early on that the movie might actually turn out to be like so many other, forgettable, overly sentimental and almost pointless comedies that Hollywood are also famous for producing.

What didn't I like.

Well its not very funny, there is pretty much ZERO laugh out loud moments in the entire movie. From start to end.

The men the two lead (and talented) actresses are marrying are cardboard cutouts with ZERO character development and thanks to that are totally unlikable. How can we care about their individual engagement's and marriage's if there is no bridge built between us and them.

The "War",or more like the "playground type spats" are also extremely disappointing. No originality or real fun attached to anything they do to each other.

The "I could see it coming from 10 minutes in" ending, the whole Brother/potential failed marriage issue, once again completely unoriginal.

I also couldn't quite get it round my head that two life-long friends that plainly love each other could actually be so cruel to each other.

The WTF moment....the dance off scene, what were they thinking?? Cringe cringe and lets all cringe again.

I do however agree that both Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway (particularly) are fine actresses, and are both very pleasing to the eye. The scene in which they "make-up" is actually quite touching and well acted. Shame about the rest of course.

Overall a pretty poor effort at a romantic comedy. The fact there is no romance and no comedy probably explains why.

Its not a complete car crash, but its a very empty film which I'm sure I will quickly forget I actually seen. Then one day I will spot it in the TV listings and have a vague memory of watching it.

Hopefully this is only a one time bad blip on Anne Hathaway's otherwise impressive career to date. As for Kate, well lets just think about a new agent, bad movies are becoming part of the course for her career as late.

3/10 Watchable....but only just. In my opinion not for shelling out cinema prices to experience. Leave this one for viewing via TV, rental or bargain basement DVD prices.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Day the Cinema Experience Never Ended....(Bad thing)
14 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is without doubt the second WORST movie experience of my life.....

Second only to....The Happening......

Howard the Duck was better than this $*%t.

Why did I hate it so much...?

1. The terrible start- no tension, no explanation, no sense of awe, poor character introduction, just BAD.

2. Special effects- total rubbish. Gort was so badly rendered it made me laugh out loud when he was introduced to the viewer.

3. Ridiculous human reactions, character development and acting- Secretary of Defence...wtf...? Out of the blue the alien gets shot. Every actor was below par, particularly Jennifer Connelly who was extremely poor and totally unlikable, as was the brat. Keanu Reeve's once again proved he can't act for toffee. I didn't care about anyone in the movie.

4. Stupid circumstances and situations- People just standing in the park with their own 5 metre circumference watching a giant globe fly towards them. Everything the military did EVERYTHING( are they all retarded )The Reaper scene...wtf...! The Capture of Gort...wtf...! Why oh why was Klatuu allowed to be interrogated by one guy and only with that one guy present? Why oh why was Jennifer Connelly's character allowed to easily swap water solution rather than the top secret solution. The Chinese DUDE...wtf...! I could go on and on, but that would get very boring.

5. Concept and premise- I'm truly FED UP with the constant green issues.....booooring.

6. Tone, pacing and writing- Nobody had a good line of dialogue, it had an unlikable look and tone and was eyeing shut-tingly boring.

This was based on a re-make of a B-MOVIE.....enough said. A movie of cult status only at its best, and they managed to make it FAR WORSE...

How and why studio executives green lit this final cut is beyond me. I experienced the movie in the I.M.A.X and even that didn't help my overall enjoyment.

AVOID AVOID and AVOID again.......when this (immenently after release) goes to bargain basement DVD prices I advise you still AVOID.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Happening (2008)
Oh dear Mr M. Night Shyamalan.....
19 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What can I say about this movie..........well whatever it is going to be its unfortunately going to be extremely negative.

First 5 minutes caught my attention, there after....well lets just say I'm very surprised that I continued to the end.

Direction.......appalling.

Script and dialogue.......appalling.

Acting.......appalling.

Premise.......appalling.

M. Night Shyamalan career presently.......appalling.

Nothing, and I can't remember saying this before about a movie, but there is NOTHING even slightly good about this film.

Plot-holes bigger than the average black-hole, why, oh why did any executive or Mr M. Night Shyamalan himself not review the final cut and come to the conclusion " Man, this is a piece of s**t "and do the honourable thing and flush it away.

After "Lady in the Water" and "The Village"....and lets be perfectly honest "Signs"....oh wait my point is becoming pointless. I was going to go on to ask "what the hell has happened to M. Night Shyamalan career", but if we are honest he has only had one real hit ( The Sixth Sense ), and one other very good movie ( Unbreakable ). Other than that its been extremely average.

I HATED this movie, from 5 minutes in till the end. WTF was the old lady about...???? Can't give ZERO so one will do. AVOID...........
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertainment perfection.
14 August 2008
Well I'm just back from my second viewing of The Dark Knight, and all I can say is that its one of those unique movies where its actually better the second time. Granted my most recent cinematic experience of the Caped Crusader was on the extremely impressive I.M.A.X. cinema screen.

I went to see the film the first time on day of release, and came away from it thinking that I had experienced quite a spectacle. Yes the reviews where all brightly glowing, but even still it was above expectations.

Everybody in the movie played their part extremely well, from the leads to the support. The plot was clever and complex enough that it got the old grey matter working. The direction, score and script were top drawer, the overall feel of quality throughout was second to none.

I have to say experiencing the film on the giant I.M.A.X screen enhanced the viewing pleasure even further. The scene's they filmed with the I.M.A.X. camera's looked quite simply EPIC.

10/10 no flaws in my opinion. As entertainment, I have not experienced anything that got my juices flowing so much in all my movie watching life. Well done Mr Nolan and the team, can't wait till the third instalment.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hancock (2008)
Great potential wasted.....
2 July 2008
OK I'm just back from seeing the latest Will Smith summer event movie "Hancock". Expectation was quite high having seen the trailers.

The premise behind the film certainly had enough promise and potential. It had a "something new" and fresh appeal to it. We also had arguable the biggest box office star going attached to the films title character, so it surely going to be an awesome spectacle and the hit of the summer.

Well I can't quite comment wither or not the film will be the box office smash of the year, but I certainly can state in my opinion that it AIN'T the "awesome spectacle" I initially thought it could be. So what went wrong?

The film has no soul, from the very start to the ending credits the film feels empty. No emotion attached to the project, no feeling of awe. Can't quite put my finger on the spot but something major was lacking in the movie experience for the viewer regarding the overall feel of the flick.

No character arc's worth mentioning, I know we are supposed to not be that keen on the Hancock character, but there must be something in the character that we will grow to love. There ain't, Hancock has an effect flat-line arc. This is exactly the same with the other major players in the movie. Nobody gets developed fully or even slightly throughout the rather short 90 minutes or so running time.

The score was also terrible, from start to end.

The Superhero back story again was extremely weak.

Villains were so weak, we didn't really need anybody with super-powers to deal with them.

The first half or so of the movie was at least enjoyable popcorn fun, but the latter half was particularly weak. When the film became "serious" when the drama kicked off the film just became severely lost. It lost structure, it didn't know what genre it wanted to be, action, drama, continued comedy or suspense. Unfortunately for the viewer it was none of them so just became pointless and irritating. They really should have padded out the idea of the first 45 minutes with some more evolved ideas from the part of the story and we might well have had a good movie. Unfortunately they didn't and they padded the film out with a tangent story-line that made no coherence or sense.

There are positives, Will Smith for what he had to play with was as usual entertaining to watch. The Jason Bateman character was likable and also enjoyable to watch, well up until the third act when he frittered away to a cardboard cutout. Special effects were more than adequate, and at times quite spectacular. There was also a few laugh out loud moments, particularly the Youtube scenes.

Overall this film had so much potential, this movie could have and should have been great, but unfortunately it was very poorly handled and executed. The blame must fall down to the direction, and script.

Half marks, 5/10 Worth going to see.......just.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lucas and Spielberg.....pleeeeese retire.......
23 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well first of all, what a disappointment, I waited eagerly for this one, a WHOLE 19 years in fact, and this is what they came up with....? The whole experience felt flat, uneventful and as stated extremely disappointing. Lucas and Spielberg are really beginning to cheese me off. Lucas managed to kill Star Wars after an equally long break, and now Spielberg with a little help from fellow beardy has managed to kill off Indiana Jones. Such a shame since they collectively gave birth to these two great franchise's and made them so good originally.

Quite honestly going with the last few films from Steven Spielberg ( anything circa 1989 onwards actually ) I didn't really think IJ4 had much chance of being anything other than a disappointment if I'm being honest with myself.

What made this such a car crash......? (in no particular order of guilt)

1. Plot.........ALIENS and flying saucers....WTF!!!!!

2.Waterfall scene....WTF!!!!!

3. One word.......TARZAN....WTF!!!!!

4.Atom bomb scene.....WHY????

5. Did I mention Aliens......yes ALIENS....?!

6. Quick sand scene and the pointless re-introduction of the snake fear......STUPID not funny and WHY????

7. John Hurts character......give me strength......!

8. The absolutely anti-climatic ending, no threat, suspense or danger.....is this an Indy flick.....?

Going to stop now, could go on, but will not......

Anyway very few positives that I can think of, Harrison Ford was watchable as always. Shia was slightly annoying but OK I suppose, the rest of the cast were pointless cardboard cut outs.

19 years to come up with this plot, give me a break. I just can't get my head round why the people that made the first three Indy flick so GOOD (even the dodgy 2nd instalment), managed to make the 4th so BAD. Oh wait I said exactly the same after the Star Wars prequels, so stupid me I should have expected it.

Spielberg and Lucas pleeeeeese retire, I can't take anymore over-hyped rubbish from you guy's anymore.

2/10, one star for the theme tune, one star for Harrison, but thats it......!
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Am Legend (2007)
I am certainly not a Legend....
2 May 2008
Pretty much below par movie. I didn't see this at the cinema, and I'm now very glad I never.

Will Smith is always a good watch, and in this case he is no different. An assured and solid performance considering he had very little to work with. The pace is slow to start, but unfortunately for the viewer never really picks up.

The most disappointing part for me was the poor development of anything. Characters, back story and explanations of whats going on is non-existent,there is no story arc. The special effects are terrible. The Darkstalkers are all generic and poorly rendered. Nothing about them is believable or intimidating. Eventhe animals that roam the deserted New York island look 100% fake.Poor, poor effects that are unforgivable considering the budget of this movie.

The only thing I did have any feelings for in this whole movie, was for the dog.

I just think that this film had so much potential, and also has one of the biggest names in the business as its lead star. So why it went so wrong I don't really know. The whole film is unlikable and forgettable.

4/10, not good at all, and only just worth a watch......
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Iron Man (2008)
Iron Man Begins........
2 May 2008
I'm just back from the theatre, and have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There is nothing out-standing about it, and I don't really have the urge to go back and view it for a second time, I would however recommend everyone to go at least once and see it on the big screen.

The Positives- Robert Downey Jnr is a rather dashing, and likable Tony Stark. His performance is assured and pretty much spot on.

Special Effects are very much up to scratch, Iron Man looks awesome throughout his evolution on screen.

Humour and tone. Lots of laugh out loud moments thanks to some sharp writing and some RDJ dead pan deliveries.

The Plausibiltity factor, it almost feels (similiarly to Batman Begins) as if something like this is feasible (In the not too distant future). Yes its still fantasy but tangible fantasy.

The Negatives- Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrace Howard and Mr Bridges all under-used, some terribly under-used.

The action sequences could have been better. Not enough super hero at work scenes (They will be in part 2 I'm sure). The final battle I though was slightly weaker than it could and should have been considering the build up.

Overall the positives out-weight the negatives, an enjoyable way to spend two hours. Not a patch on Batman Begins, but no other comic book movie has in my opinion, but its still way above average for a movie of this genre.

7/10
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cloverfield (2008)
Goodizzilla, but not Greatzilla.....
4 February 2008
First of all, I feel for the hype, at times I was like the quintessential 16 year old internet geek looking up all the new updates about what the film actually was about.

So with that it mind I visited my local theatre on the day of release just to see what all the fuss was about and wither or not this film lived up to the hype?! Well it didn't, this is far from being a bad movie don't get me wrong, its certainly unique, you won't have seen anything like this before. In many ways its very cleverly done, and I take my hat off to the people behind it.

Things that I didn't like about it- Character build up at the start was weak, nobody came across particularly likable, so when they one by one started to be popped off I didn't really care that much.

Far too much camera shake, I fully appreciate the concept of the movie, but my stomach and eye's would have liked a more effective steady-cam facility on the camcorder.

The ending was very weak, not to spoil it for anyone, but not a great ending.

Things that I liked about it- The menacing factor, it was effectively frightening at times.

The p.o.v of the film, as I said it was certainly very much a unique perspective to watch a monster movie from.

The effects and the monster, both considering the budget constraints where both satisfyingly good.

Overall I'm giving this movie a 6 out of 10, not a great movie but certainly a good movie. The running time of it is very short for this day and age of movie making, but probably long enough thanks to the nauseating style of filming.

Definitely one to go and see and then make your own mind up about.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bourne Superb.............
17 August 2007
Well yet another exceptional Bourne movie to add to the list.......

This movie has everything that a film of this genre needs, high speed action, edge of your seat tension, a great action star, a brilliant enemy and loads of crashes and explosions. Although unlike many other films in this niche, this one has fantastic direction and scripting to add to the list.

Matt Damon as the title character shines brightly once again, the guy can do no wrong in this role. His supporting cast also hit the mark, Joan Allen, David Strathairn, Julia Stiles and even though smaller parts Albert Finney and Scott Glenn all give credible and believable performances.

The Direction is superb, Paul Greengrass certainly has ability in the buckets full. The tension never really drops, the action never really drops and the quality he gets out the cast, from the big guns to the bit players never really drops either.

The script like the previous two movies is first class, nobody in the movie has any uninteresting lines of dialogue or any over the top scenario's.

I have to mention the action in more detail. Whats exceptional about it is it feels real and plausible. Its no CGI monster this one, the visual effects and stunt coordinators earned their money with some out-standing set pieces. The hand to hand combat in my opinion is second to none, and the car chases leave you with white knuckles.

Overall this is a masterclass of action movie film-making, everybody performed well and everybody deserves credit, this falls into the "must see" bracket.....

********* out of **********
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
I Rushed, out of the cinema.....
11 August 2007
So the first two in the series were actually not that bad......

In fact I own the first two movies on DVD, and have watched both more than once.

So why the low rating for this one...? The problem with the 3rd of the series is that in every way it feels very forced, it also feels like they agreed to make the film so they could all work together again.

Nothing in the movie feels fresh, or exciting, and nothing in the movie helps enhance the first two instalments.

The Good.....

Not much actually, Jackie Chan can still do some quite cool, quite difficult choreographed fight scenes, even though we have all seem much better now (Casino Royale anyone?) I actually can't think of anything else positive I will take away from this movie....

The Bad.....

Without contradiction, the fight scenes. they look very tired. Yes its impressive what Jackie can still do, but its no longer out-standing.

The supporting cast, really was just the Jackie/Chris show.

The Ugly....

Where to start? The script......utterly appalling, some of the lines/jokes that Chris Tucker has to deliver are painful to say the least.

The Direction, not good, no tension is built, it doesn't look good, just poorly directed.

CHRIS TUCKER.......As a comeback movie this is a BAD choice, he comes across as an irritating, unfunny Eddie Murphy, and its debatable if Eddie Murphy post 1990 has ever been funny. Yes its the same character from the first two movies, but he just doesn't have the script to come across anything other than unfunny and irritating.

last and certainly most "ugly", and quite honestly I could have rattled through I few more moderate "ugly" moments- The French Taxi driver???? WHAT is that about, who in their right mind would write the rubbish that poor actor had to be involved in???? beats me! I found this movie 90 minutes of cringe.....bad, bad, BAD....avoid unless your a die hard Chris, Jackie or Rush Hour fan, but even then it might be an effort to get to the end?! ** out of **********
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transformers (2007)
Certainly "More than meets the eye"
25 July 2007
OK I'm rating this movie on the basis of what it is- A sci-fi movie about big robots that can transform into mechanical objects on earth.

This is an event movie, a summer blockbuster, a no brains action/comedy film. I will not give this the critical eye of which I might give when reviewing something like the "English Patient" or the "Constant Gardener". This film is not trying to be anything other than what I described above.

So is it any good?! Well yes it is, many elements of the film are extremely well conceived and pulled off.

The Cast- Well that was OK, Shia LeBeouf plays the character of Sam Witwicky with charisma, style and competence. I great find for mainstream cinema. The rest of the cast don't have much to do or input into the story. Megan Fox certainly looks stunning, but it stops there, Josh Duhamel provides some slight acting gravitas, but is under-used. Sam's parents played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White both give fantastically likable performances. Overall the casting and performance of the cast was pretty good if not spectacular.

The Effects- Well hats of to them, this film is quite the spectacle thanks to those extraordinary CGI robots. All of them good and bad look absolutely amazing. This movie has a Jurrasic park feel to it regarding CGI, you feel that you are witnessing the next step of effects.

The Story/Script- OK lets pass on this one, its a let down, not much to it and very weak. I think they certainly could have put a little more effort into this than they obviously did.

Direction- Typical Michael Bay, loads of explosions, loads of jumpy camera movements, loads of slow-motion, loads of sunlight, etc etc...... Overall I was satisfied with what he did.

Overall- 2 hours of class no brain entertainment, its funny, charming at times, and exceptionally well made. As I'm from the generation that played with the original toys and watched the G1 cartoons I wasn't that disappointed about the changes. So go along, pay your money then sit back and enjoy a fantastic spectacle.

******** out of **********

Points lost for poor character arc's and a pretty weak plot and script. As a comedy action event movie its pretty good, and in my opinion is a much more entertaining than all the other sequel event movies so far this year.....Spider-man and Captian Jack better watch their backs, as there are new boys in town......
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Die Hard 6.0 (out of 10.0)
17 July 2007
OK I was thoroughly looking forward to this one, all three predecessors were all entertaining and enjoyable movies, ranging from extremely good to above average.

So the new one, any good?! Well I think its another "above average", but certainly NOT another "extremely good". Acting was pretty good, Bruce Willis is always enjoyable even in below par movies. Timothy Olyphant made a pretty good bad guy, his character arc was OK, and he had some good lines, a subdued subtle menace type approach which I liked. Justin Long is the only other member of the cast worth mentioning, he had again like Timothy some excellent lines and dialogue and thanks to that came across well in the movie. Good performances from all three main characters.

Direction was OK, unfortunately it came across like an episode of "24" that had been injected with some steroids. Didn't have much flair or style to it. Script was OK considering the genre but nothing out-standing. As I said earlier all were certainly above average, but nothing exceptional. The special effects however were, I thought some of the scenarios and action sequences they pulled off were fantastic.

I did however tire of the OTT circumstances the John McClane character was surviving, it seems since his last outing 12 or so years ago the only thing that might send John six feet under will be Kryptonite....? Overall a worthwhile watch if nothing special, the original is always the best, but this one never really even challenged the first one at any point bar special effects as expected. Hopefully we don't see a Die Hard 5.0 as I hope John McClane gets a much needed pen pusher position within the NYPD......

****** out of **********
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Same old, same old.......
17 July 2007
Went to see this only because my girlfriend is a MASSIVE Harry Potter fan, and thats the only reason that I would go and see this to be honest.

I find the whole Harry Potter franchise a mystery, there is nothing about it thats stands-out to me as anything special. The films always are very well made, but lack something that I can never quite put my finger on.

This one is EXACTLY the same as the four previous movies and I suspect it will be very similar to the next two instalments. to summarise-

Harry Potter is tormented with darkness. How much more darkness and torment..... Well probably 2 more movies worth.

Harry Potter will at the end meet his destiny in the form of the vordamorry evil guy, but will always survive that, but never defeat the guy.

Its getting very old already in my opinion, to the film credit though, its extremely well made. The direction is pretty good, the script has OK dialogue and the majority of the actors (which there are many) perform well. I find Daniel Ratcliffe rather wooden though, but his other two buddy's (Emma Watson and Rupert Grint )are always played well and are very entertaining to watch.

Overall I thing this movie is pretty poor. Every movie in the franchise always is full of very inventive idea's, its just a shame the main structure of the film are pretty much always the same.

**** out of **********
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another Buddy Movie.....
1 July 2007
Well after the disaster that was "Ocean's 12" I wasn't actually going to give this movie a chance, but after reading some positive reviews I decided to pay my money and take my chance. I wish I hadn't bothered. So many thing annoyed me about this movie-

1. George Clooney and Brad Pitt (Especially Brad Pitt!) Far far far too smug!!!

2. No Story, and I mean NO STORY, pointless almost, well except for the heist that is.

3. Al Pacino wasted, a very subdued performance from a great actor. Poor character development.

4. Too long.

5. Too smart a**ed, they had an OTT answer for EVERYTHING, and it started getting irritating after 10 min's of the movie.

6. SMUG............AGAIN..............!!!!

7. Actually will stop now,as listing the faults is boring me. Could go on and list most of the actors performances as "bad points" but won't bother.

The Good things about this movie-

1. Matt Damon, under used but really quite good when on screen.

2. Ellen Barkin, funny and a great character.

3.........No lets just stop at 2, can't think of anymore.

Overall I hated this movie, will give it 2 stars for the two "good" points.

Keep your money in your pocket and avoid this self obsessed, over indulgent mess.

** out of **********
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fantastic(ish) 6 (stars out of 10)
22 June 2007
I was looking forward to this one only because of the Silver Surfer/Galactus potential. The first F4 movie was a bit of a let down, but not that big a let down as my expectations were not that high to begin with. The first movie was entertaining enough to warrant a trip to the cinema and to part with some of my hard earned cash (but only just!).

The second one is similar to the first, the movie has "Fantastic" potential, but doesn't quite manage to capture that potential on screen. Although similarly to the first movie I didn't have high expectations regarding the film. I did however hope the whole Galactus/Silver Surfer story-line would at least help enhance the franchise, and in many ways it did. This movie is certainly more entertaining, more fun, better thought-out and grander than its rather damp squib predecessor but not near as much as I was hoping for. The Silver Surfer character had sufficient screen time but wasn't developed enough or convincing as the herald of an "all conquering force". As for Galactus well what can I say, poorly executed, yes I agree trying to portray the guy on the big screen would be very difficult, but the cloud just didn't do it for me. I however do appreciate the attempt to make Galactus a credible force on screen. The original cast all return and all do an adequate job, although Chris Evan's is once again the stand-out performer and pretty much steals the show again with some very funny scenes and lines. Direction was OK, script was pretty poor considering the material they had, dialogue was very poor, special effects ran hot one minute to very cold the next, but overall were impressive enough. I just need to keep remembering that this is a COMICBOOK movie....! Overall, its worth the admittance fee, and its an enjoyable 90 odd minutes of entertainment, but once again is a bit of a let down!!! 6/10 ******
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Braveheart (1995)
Emotional epic.....
8 May 2007
This movie will always feature in my Top Ten of All Time. The film is extremely well made, with out-standing Direction, a very strong script (if inaccurate in regards to the subject matter), the acting is top notch as is the score (in fact its exceptional) and all these elements make this an amazingly passionate and emotionally charged epic. As a Scot I find myself being slightly bias about the film of course. The historic inaccuracy's are rather large and the film-makers do make the English out to be rather like cartoon bad guy's at times. The final scenes are very powerful and the battles are fierce and believable.

I have watched the film many times, and every time I find it as emotional as the first time. So credit to all of the people involved in this one, it will turn out to be an timeless classic I'm pretty sure.

10/10, Oozes Quality from all departments..............
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Spider-man 3 (x's) villains..............!
6 May 2007
Went to see this last night, initial thought exiting the theatre was- That was an exciting, entertaining and impressive 2 hour cinematic experience.

Yes, there were flaws, some of which are slightly annoying, but overall I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and thought it was a fitting 3rd movie to end the Trilogy(?)

The Negatives-

1/ The movie was FAR too busy, too many villains to deal with (especially since we are getting the bad guy's back story's). Along with the villains we have the "dark" side of Spider-man and the MJ, Gwen, Harry and Peter love triangle/square and the rise and fall of Brock all to deal with.

2/ Far too many coincidences for my liking, the meteor falling that close to MJ and Peter, Sandman falling into some particle accelerator, Gwen's floor being demolished by the crane etc etc.........(its a comic-book movie though I suppose)

3/ Too many fight scenes.

4/ The Gwen character, not a required element that the movie needed.

5/ Sandman turning out to be Uncle Ben's killer, another story strand that was not required and just made the movie even harder to come together.

The Positives-

1/ The effects are OUT-STANDING.

2/ The fight scenes are spectacular. (too many though).

3/ Acting, considering this is a comic-book/event movie the acting was top-drawer, especially from Tobey.

4/ The fun factor, Bruce Campbell and J. K. Simmons are FANTASTICALLY funny. As is the "dark" Peter Parker.

5/ The MJ/Peter love story, I genuinely felt sorry for the both of them and willed them to sort everything out. Kirsten performance was subdued but still impressive.

6/ The Excitement factor, from the starting credits to the end credits this was none stop,yes the film was far too busy, but at least thanks to that the movie is extremely exciting throughout.

7/ The "dark" Spider-man and Peter Parker. I believe the Sam (Raimi) could have dropped the whole Sandman character from this episode and introduced the black entity/"tormented" Spider-man earlier which in turn would have given Venon/Brock some much needed extra screen time. But the "dark" suited Spider-man was an impressive part of the movie.

Overall the movie was excellent, yes as I stated the film was far from immune to serious flaws, but I can genuinely say that I came out the theatre satisfied I had seen a GREAT Spider-man movie! 9/10- A great effort, and a high quality event/comic-book movie. Fingers crossed we get a 4th movie with the same cast involved, unlikely(?). Time will soon tell. This is very much worth the entry cost, just for the spectacle of it all!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed