Change Your Image
phileeguy9
Reviews
Legend Quest (2011)
I had to chime in with the other reviewers, the show isn't good.
Remember when Syfy was Sci-Fi and had the Saturn logo in the corner and you knew you'd be getting shows geared more towards the supernatural, fantasy, or futuristic/science fiction type? Yeah, I miss those days too.
But with the channel's re-branding and desire for a broader audience it has changed it's programming somewhat and invested in this show, which tries to straddle the lines of the supernatural and historical but hasn't a solid foothold on either side.
I originally thought this series would intrigue me with a fresh look on the lost treasure hunt type of shows that I enjoy, but it just insulted me with poor reasoning and dubious historical evidence. I can deal with the fact that the items aren't found (they never are in these types of shows, as finding them would make headlines worldwide before a filmed show reached editing), but I want to be entertained, not insulted.
(Spoiler ahead) For instance LQ's host, Ashley Cowie, is in one episode searching for King Solomon's ring, which was said to have supernatural powers. He compares it to the Green Lantern's ring as the comic book hero's jewelry too has powers, but says Solomon's ring is actually real. So wait, he's actually admitting that he believes that the ring has powers?
On his search trail for the ring he believes he must go to the ancient city of Megiddo because it was the northernmost point on an imaginary star of David over a map of Israel, wherein Jerusalem is in the center, and 6 important towns mark each point of the star. But why the northernmost point? Oh because when he was searching an old underground passageway in Jerusalem (of which there are plenty) he happens across part of the ancient passageway that had a doorway with 2 blank stone slabs above the door in the shape of a upwards pointing triangle. Yes, he surmised that was a sign, and not just a good structural shape to keep the rocks above from falling on peoples heads.
This type of faulty deduction is present in just about every episode I've seen. (End Spoiler)
The show itself goes to a good length in detailing the various places they travel to, but that positive is overshadowed by the shows many problems.
If you're into sightseeing with a little history, watch the Travel Channel. If you're enjoy history with a little sightseeing watch the History or NatGeo or various similar channels. There's plenty of one/two hour specials on those channels that take this type of show and do it better justice. Legend Quest tried to take that show concept to another level but failed.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
It's as if I've seen this movie before...
...Probably it's because I have. That's why they call these things re-makes, this one being re-made from the 1981 version. Still, I found it a bit sad that the writers didn't come up with many new ideas when they could have. Yes, they had to follow the same plot path in Perseus asking the 3 witches how to defeat the Kraken, taking Medusa's head, and speeding back upon Pegasus to turn the monster to stone. But there are so many minor scenes and plot points that didn't need to be recreated basically identical to the 1981 film.
For example, in this movie Perseus fights giant scorpions that spawn from venomous blood. Yeah, that was in the original. In this movie Perseus is given a sword from Zeus himself and has a mighty shield with a mirror on the inside in which he uses to defeat Medusa. Yeah, that was in the original. This time around Perseus engages in battle with Calibos, and Calibos loses his arm. Yeah, that was in the original. Heck, even the mechanical owl Bubo was here for a scene. (Actually, that was probably just an homage gag that I rather enjoyed seeing) These are just a few examples of many points of re-using the same ideas instead of coming up with something more original. Couldn't the giant scorpions have spawned some way else, and did they have to be giant scorpions? Couldn't Perseus have defeated Medusa in a more original way?
Apart from stealing ideas from the original, this version has characters that are either ham-handed into the story or are altogether superfluous. For example, Calibos - a.k.a. King Acrisius - really wasn't needed other than in the scene where he kills his wife and attempts to kill infant Perseus for his wife sleeping with Zeus. And by the way, if you're going to kill your wife for having an affair why wait 9 months? Why not just kill her immediately? But I digress. In the original movie, Perseus loves Andromeda and you can see why he would risk life and limb to find a way to defeat the Kraken. Andromeda is an afterthought in this movie. And though I can't complain here about the writers' attempts to differ from the original, I think they put the idea of Killing the Kraken to weaken Hades for Perseus to get revenge was a bit of a stretch.
Most of the characters in this movie were also expendable, so there wasn't much character development apart from Perseus himself. As for the actors portraying their respective roles, most were forgettable. Sam Worthington was decent enough as Perseus, Mads Mikkelsen was serviceable as Draco, Ralph Fiennes was underused as Hades, and Liam Neeson's Zeus... well let's just say he was no Sir Laurence Olivier.
As for the special effects, I thought they were good, not mind-blowing great. Light years better than the original's stop-motion technique, for sure. Most scenes were pleasing to the eye. But I will remark that I think the CGI guys here may have taken a few ideas from Lord of the Rings and mish-mashed them into this movie. Here we have mysterious robed people controlling and riding atop giant scorpions of their own from little enclosures that reminded me a lot of the Oliphants. And the Kraken itself reminded me a lot of just a super-sized Cave Troll with tentacles. As for the 3-D effect, I cannot comment positive or negative as I wasn't able to see it in a 3-D showing.
Music was nothing to write home about. In fact I'd say it was also forgettable as I can't for the life of me describe the music as I've already forgotten it not 5 hours from seeing the film. And they used pretty much your basic battle scene smashing and clanking noises. So, not great, but not horrible sound effects.
Okay so that's pretty much my in-depth review for this movie, sorry about the spoilers. But I did click the "contains spoilers" box, so you were warned. If you may be wondering why I rated this 6/10 instead of a lower score after 6 paragraphs of pointing out its flaws or average nature, it's because I still thought it was a somewhat decent movie. Perhaps not one you need to run out to the theaters to see, but it's good enough to rent. I don't know, maybe I'm being too kind because I'm a little nostalgic due to the fact that I rather enjoyed the 1981 version of "Clash of the Titans," campy nature and all. In fact I prefer the original to this, but that's just my opinion. Feel free to watch both and compare for yourself.
The Hangover (2009)
I have to see it again, if only to catch the parts I missed while laughing
This is definitely one of the best comedies I've seen in quite some time. It get's you laughing in one way or another by being crude, surprising, shocking, and just plain weird.
The movie is about four buddies heading off to Vegas to have some fun before the Groom-to-be (played by Justin Bartha of the National Treasure movies most notably) is to be wed. The hi-jinks ensue the morning of the hangover as they are left wondering what happened and how it happened.
Each of our main four actors adds their own brand of humor to the movie, but I thought Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis stood out and made the movie especially funny.
I'd definitely suggest one checks this movie out on video, if not in the theaters. But, this movie earned its R rating, so I wouldn't recommend letting the youngest of children watch it.
Angels & Demons (2009)
Faster paced than Da Vinci Code, but not better
Angels and Demons puts our main character, Robert Langdon, back to work solving historical puzzles and following clues in Rome and Vatican City. But as much as Hanks plays the part well enough and Howard directed quite nicely, I didn't feel that this film was as good as the Da Vinci Code.
The Plot itself is plausible enough, pitting the Illuminati against the Catholic Church, with Langdon being called in for help. Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer portrayed their respective characters admirably, as does the supporting cast.
I would say that the pacing of this movie is my main fault with it. The movie itself is roughly over 2 hours, the time frame the movie is set in is basically double that. And with certain plot points forcing Langdon to race all over Rome, you weren't given many times in the movie where historical events were discussed in a way to more fully explain the present-day findings and happenings in the film. In "Code" it may have been set in a time-span of one night, but we had down times in mansions, planes, museums, churches and such explaining things. This allowed for the audience to digest that information, but in Angels and Demons these down times didn't exist.
As for other departments I would say that the sound and visual effects were well done, but not spectacular. This isn't Star Trek, so no need for being over-the-top there. One department that I thought was lacking was in music. I thought Zimmer did a great job in "Code" but he didn't really match himself here. Then again, most of the music of his I enjoyed in "Code" were during the down times which are lacking in this film.
Sequels, or in this case, prequels don't usually tend to do as well as the originals, and I know Ron Howard and Tom Hanks planned on making this film better than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't think they pulled it off. It's not a bad film, but I would've liked to seen more history and less running from place to place.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Good Bond entry, and a viable plot continuing film.
Quantum of Solace (QOS from here on out) was a good film in my opinion, but not quite as good as its prior entry in the Bond film franchise.
QOS picks up the plot pretty seamlessly from the end of Casino Royale (CR from now on), as Bond fights his way to find who is involved in the criminal organization known as the "Quantum," what they plan on doing and why they would have his love, Vesper Lynd, want to let herself die to spare Bonds' life.
However, that seem begins to fray after the first few action scenes and about 15 minutes into the film as you are thrust into new locales with many new faces, each having their own agendas. This leaves you having to decipher who is important to the story, what are their back-stories, and who are minor players. Usually a film will allow you the time to take the information in, but QOS likes to jump to action scenes more often than CR did, making the plot comprehension a little more difficult, I thought.
Still, by about halfway through the movie you should have a good grasp on who's who, and what's generally going on, which allows you to not needlessly dwell on subject matter, and enjoy the action scenes. At the end I knew the plot could've been advanced further as we know that this story will continue in another Bond sequel, but I also felt satisfied where they left it. Also remember that QOS was only 106 minutes, compared to CR at 144 minutes.
The amount and length of the action scenes in QOS varies a good deal from the action in CR. It felt that - and I would wager - the scenes were somewhat shorter in QOS, but there were many more of them, many being more elaborate and expansive. Whether it be general hand-to-hand combat, chase scenes, or your grand explosion scenes. Also, if you had to distinguish the two in this manner, CR was more the scalpel of the spy action flicks, whereas QOS was the machete.
At the end I give QOS an 8/10, but only because there was no 7.5 rating available to me, and since I enjoy Bond films I rounded up. I have to say I'm liking this turn the Bond franchise has taken. As much as I delighted in James' quips and comebacks, Q and his gadgetry, and the uber-villains and their henchmen of previous Bond films, I won't miss them as long as those involved keep the bar set high for these new films. Hopefully Daniel Craig can do what the other Bonds couldn't accomplish: have his entries continue to get progressively better.
Rambo (2008)
Blood, guts... and more blood.
When you hear of certain movie sequels that are being released, you know what you are getting into if you plan on seeing it. If you see a movie with part of the title being "Star Trek," you probably know it involves science-fiction and the starship Enterprise. This can be said about Rambo films, and this one in particular. You know you're going to see a lot of action, and this one stays true to form.
It also stays true to form in that the writing and acting aren't exactly Oscar-winning efforts. I think it takes away from the movie somewhat, but the action scenes are numerous and they take your mind off of the lackluster writing and line execution at times. The action scenes themselves are quite bloody, with bullets, explosions, shrapnel and debris cutting through limbs and other body parts in a very graphic manner. The sound effects that accompanied these scenes were decent if not loud.
Unfortunately the action scenes were so engrossing and time consuming that to me the movie felt like it flew by. Then again, you may enjoy movies like that.
I won't spoil you with any plot details, but know that it's pretty straight-forward and isn't hard to grasp, just like our boy John Rambo. So if you plan on seeing it, don't expect a psychological thriller installment of this series, because it isn't happening. It's Rambo, you know what you're getting into, so sit back and enjoy the action.
7/10
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
Longer than Lord of the Rings (well not really, but it felt like it)
I went to see this movie because I needed some time to kill, and at over 2 hours in length, this seemed like a decent candidate. Boy, I was wrong.
Like previous reviewers that have posted before me, I would say that this movie was "choppy," in that you never are watching one scene/actor for more than 5 minutes at a time. The back and forth between all the characters makes you feel a bit overwhelmed at first, but after a while when you get to grasp the plot it just becomes annoying. It's like the Director is saying "Okay, now we've got to show you what's going on with these characters right this second," even if what they're cutting to is inconsequential.
The acting itself is underwhelming, as is the script. The script calls for the cast to sound noble or poetic at times, but it just comes off as cheesy. The plot was a bit outlandish, but I cannot complain here as I knew it could be as this was a Fantasy. So you'd think that the special effects would redeem this as it's a big Action/Adventure/Fantasy type? Sorry, the monsters didn't look more than a pile of mud wearing mud colored armor, the battle scenes weren't anything special, and the magic special effects weren't anything we haven't seen before with a few twists.
Pros: Jason Statham finally shows that a Boomerang can be a deadly weapon. Much Better than Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee. Cons: "Choppy," too long, bad acting, bad script, sub-par effects.